Analyzing the interception.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : I bet those six caries were while the Pats were ahead 21-10.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Boy you really don't remember how that game ended do you?  Yeah, see if you run with a lead, the clocks runs out and you win.

    If you continue to pass, the clock stops after each incompletion leaving the opposing team time to come back and win.

    Later I'll teach you about the wheel and how not to play with fire...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Nor is there one for "balance".
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Actually balance resulted in 3 rings
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]Green Bay 2011 rushes: 332 passes: 477 ratio run/pass: 0.69, or two runs for every three passes.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Wow the perfect storm, what you fail to mention is that Green Bay is playing perfectly. They run the ball or pass the ball at will.  We're not Green Bay.  But then San Francisco isn't either, and how does an inferior team beat a superior team? Run the ball, play ball control offense, keep their high flying offense off the field.

    Or don't you remember how the Pats beat "The Greatest Show On Turf?"

    Oh that's right, you can't remember past 2007...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : 60% passing against Oakland is balance.
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Yeah there's a world of difference between handing off to Woodhead in a spread formation as opposed to lining it up in I formation and pounding the rock with Law Firm or Ridely.  Only you can't tell the difference...
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Sounds like you think just like Bill Obrien. Imagine running the ball on 3rd and 5 OMG the horror. Well don't worry because it won't happen in N.E. You know it, I know it, They know it. And they certainly knew it. Also look at the plays that got them into 3rd and 22 or 3rd and longs, either sacks or incompletions. We had I think 1 run for negative yardage? I guess you think our offense was just fine and after putting on a dominate display against the same team a few weeks earlier our players were what? Nervous? Did we just have bad luck? In your mind what changed in the 2 games? BTW We had 24 runs by RBs (17 by Benny) to 29 pass atts. A lot of Bennys production came in the 1st half when he had some big runs and opened up the passing game.(To discount your run the clock out theory). Check the play by play, I can't make this stuff up.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    The Pats, in that game, ran the ball nine times to three passes on the final two drives, with a lead. 

    Perfect game to illustrate the point. 

    Pats 45 Jets 3
    The 3 quarter pas-run ratio was 
    29-26

    The final two drives: 3-9 (five runs for BJGE)
    26-17

    Now lets subtract the Brady keeper, subtract Tate reverse -2 runs, because that is how you want it. (although I dispute the numbers I'll accept them for this argument only).

    Regular Season
    26-15 for 63% passing = ahead after three quarters

    Playoff Game
    25-19 for 56% passing = behind after three quarters. 

    NE actually ran the ball MORE by YOUR OWN CRITERIA against the Jets in the playoffs before their final two drives than they did in that game before the final two drives. 

    Oh and before you say it ... shotgun to non-shotgun plays:

    22 plays in shotgun. 50% shotgun.
    20 plays in shotgun. 49% shotgun. 

    Identical number of plays in shotgun too. Hmmmm. Sounds like the same kind of game plan does it not?

    Oh, and BJGE before the final two drives:
    BJGE playoff: 9-43
    BJGE RS: 13-51

    Essentially identical stat lines before the final two drives where NE is clocking it. Now, I KNOW you aren't going to tell me that 4 runs for 11 yards is the difference between 45 points scored and 21 points scored? Are you?

    Oh and here is the Pats on 3rd down/end of drive in that game too...

    3rd and 10 pass incomplete PUNT
    3rd and 22 pass 19 yards 
    --> 4th and 3 pass TD 25 yards
    3rd and 1 RUN BJGE no gain PUNT
    3rd and 20 Pass incomplete PUNT
    3rd and 7 pass incomplete PUNT

    All passes, all failures, as if the Jets knew something about what was coming?

    You are wrong ... you can make this stuff up, because you are making this stuff up. Because you intentionally exclude things ....

    Ask questions of your own theory dude. 

    It cannot answer them. 

    All of football is not predicated on how often you hand to BJGE. I'm showing you evidence up above that it is not. It is about exection. NOT RUNNING BJGE, AVOIDING THE SHOTGUN, etc, etc, etc. If it were ... someone between Tom Brady, Bill Belichik, Ernie Adams, Dante Scarnecchia, O'Brien , Ivan Fears, Chad O'Shea, Brian Ferentz, and George Godsey would have figured it out. 


    My theory is correct. Teams that are ahead run more because they are ahead. This is amply proven by the evidence you yourself have brought.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. :  And what do you do when the D takes the run away?  Still run?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    See if they take away the run that means they've dedicated enough men to the line of scrimmage so Tom Brady can shred them with the pass.  And vice versa, if they drop back everybody then your runningbacks can tee off... thus the term balance.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : See if they take away the run that means they've dedicated enough men to the line of scrimmage so Tom Brady can shred them with the pass.  And vice versa, if they drop back everybody then your runningbacks can tee off... thus the term balance.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    But balance has nothing to do with the loss.

    A MORE unbalanced game plan yeilded a 45-3 victory weeks prior. 

    It makes bad football talk. No one wants to get into the nitty gritty of where NE didn't play perfect ... but it's real. 

    It's about EXECUTION. Not obscure run/pass, BJGE/Woodhead, Shotgun/Non-shotgun ratios that essentially are the EXACT same through the first 45-50 minutes of football win/lose/or draw.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    2001 Patriots passed the ball 482 times / ran it 473 times
    2003 Patriots passed the ball 537 times / ran it 473 times
    2004 Patriots passed the ball 485 times / ran it 524 times

    I don't know where you are getting your stats from but there they are and you're way wrong.

    Some times they passed a little more, sometimes they ran a little more, I'm sure due to whom they were playing or other circumstances (2003 Smith was their only healthy 1-A back maybe like I suggested?) , but either way these three seasons resulted in a Super Bowl victory.  Fact!
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]2001 Patriots passed the ball 482 times / ran it 473 times 2003 Patriots passed the ball 537 times / ran it 473 times 2004 Patriots passed the ball 485 times / ran it 524 times I don't know where you are getting your stats from but there they are and you're way wrong. Some times they passed a little more, sometimes they ran a little more, I'm sure due to whom they were playing or other circumstances (2003 Smith was their only healthy 1-A back maybe like I suggested?) , but either way these three seasons resulted in a Super Bowl victory.  Fact!
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    And the defense they had  .... that had nothing to do with it? Or the special teams? 

    Those offenses ran flat in the playoffs, but NE still won games scoring 13-10-20-and 17 points. The defense was LIGHT YEARS better, heck, they scored MORE points than the offense against Pittsburgh.

    Not one of those scores would have been enough to pull off a victory against the Jets last season ... a mediocre offense that scored 28 points. 

    If those NE Patriots had THIS Patriots defense, they would not have even made the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game, much less win the Superbowl. 
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : But balance has nothing to do with the loss. A MORE unbalanced game plan yeilded a 45-3 victory weeks prior.  It makes bad football talk. No one wants to get into the nitty gritty of where NE didn't play perfect ... but it's real.  It's about EXECUTION. Not obscure run/pass, BJGE/Woodhead, Shotgun/Non-shotgun ratios that essentially are the EXACT same through the first 45-50 minutes of football win/lose/or draw.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Lack of balance has everything to do with a loss, Weis was an expert on protecting a lead, slow methodical drives and a run game that was as varied as the pass game.

    The execution of the exchange between a runningback and a QB is a lot less problematic than hurling the ball 30 yards through the air.  Moreover if you can't see the philosophical difference between a physically dominating run play where O linemen run downhill and attack a defense as opposed to a pass play where they are falling back on their heels and are receiving the brunt of an attack then I can't help you.  You've obviously never played along an offensive line or asked them what they prefer.

    It's better to be the attacker than the victim, I can't help any of you if you can't tell the difference.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]See I can do it too... rapid fire responses, hidden insults, LARGE CAPS I doesn't mean I'm right, just enthusiastic. You guys sure say a lot without actually saying anything.  The difference between my logic and yours is that mine is backed by 3 Super Bowl rings whereas yours is marked with failed playoff attempts and Tom Brady getting the snot kicked out of him by sack happy teams... Do you remember a time when Weis was coach and Tom never actually got touched?  Probably not, you guys weren't watching yet I suppose...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Do you just make things up? Brady's sack% is lower this season than any of the SB years.

    Your logic isn't backed up by anything. We had a good defense in the SB years. It has nothing to do with running.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. :    If those NE Patriots had THIS Patriots defense, they would not have even made the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game, much less win the Superbowl. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    It's funny how none of you can address the major difference between last years 49ers and this years.  Don't worry I'll point out the obvious for you...  

    Last season they were ranked 25th in rushing attempts, this year they are 5th. You said it yourself, we played close games in 01', 03', and 04' and we won. Yet all of you completely ignore this when I bring up the similarities between the 2001 Pats and 2011 49ers... it's rich.

    You're so intent on being right you can't hear past your own yelling to rationally explain what is happening in San Francisco with essentially the same team as last year.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share