Analyzing the interception.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : 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.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    What don't you understand about that the run game is over? It's an anachronism. It is the keep them honest factor and not much more these days. Live with it dood. Haunting a football board with incessant cries for more running when we run at a very typical number compared to the rest of the league is a pointless exercise. BB isn't going to run more because you have a nostalgia kick about it going on.

    Let this sink in. We score a ton of more points in recent years than we ever did in the SB years. It's the DEFENSE that is the problem. D E F E N S E.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  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. : Because they went what worked... they didn't listen to moron fans that said a shotgun run isn't a run, or that they should be  balanced. Did you complain  when they beat Indy  in 2004 and Dillon's first carry wasn't until the second  quarter?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    Was that the game where he had 23 carries for 144 yards?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    How did NE beat the Jets 37-16 this season?

    Before the last two drives, on their way to a 30-16 lead:

    31 passes, 17 runs. BJGE 8 runs for 8 yards. Man they gave up on him. 

    23 plays in shotgun ... too many right?

    Woodhead/Faulk: 12 carries for a 3.8 YPC. 

    How did NE win that game too?

    Again even MORE passes, less runs for BJGE, less yards for BJGE.

    Somehow NE literally stomped the Jets out there? How?


    There is no formula.
     
  5. 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. : What don't you understand about that the run game is over? It's an anachronism. 
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Tell that to San Francisco and Denver...
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. 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. : 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.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    I played offensive and defensive line for seven years. Seven. 

    I coached defensive line for another three. 

    You know what we hated on defense?

    The hurry up offense where the QB passed a lot. No huddle wastes a defensive line.

    You know how often OL complain about passing. Not very. 

    It's anecdotal, and doesn't affect the numbers I'm posting. 
     
  9. 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. : 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.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Of course. He will likely end up with less INTs, more TDs, less sacks, less QB hits about a TD per game higher offensive score. 

    It makes me miss Weiss. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Tell that to San Francisco and Denver...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    They run because that's all they can do. You go with your strength. Which means you don't give the ball to BJGE and take it from Brady and Gronk.
     
  11. 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. : Two one and done teams?
    Posted by Patsfansince1966[/QUOTE]

    You're ability to see into the future and to see alternate universes where New England ran the ball more against the Giants in 07' would come in really helpful in F-ing fantasy land.  

    Let me know how the weather is there and if I can ask you about some upcoming horse races as well?
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : I played offensive and defensive line for seven years. Seven.  I coached defensive line for another three.  You know what we hated on defense? The hurry up offense where the QB passed a lot. No huddle wastes a defensive line. You know how often OL complain about passing. Not very.  It's anecdotal, and doesn't affect the numbers I'm posting. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]


    Still interesting even if anecdotal. How are the knees?
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. 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. : Still interesting even if anecdotal. How are the knees?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    The left one gets balky when it rains. The left hip too. It was injured my sophomore year in one-on-ones by a guy named Trevor.

    My back is the most crucially messed up. I have a pair of discs that are pinched. 

    It is anecdotal. But it's the truth from my perspective.

    A 3 minute drive with 12 plays is a sprint for the QB all the time. 

    A 7 minute drive with 12 plays is a lot of time waiting for the next play to start, and catching your breath. 


     
  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]HOW MANY HORSES HAVE BEEN FLOGGED TO BUILD THIS THREAD.
    Posted by Mybologna[/QUOTE]

    A gaggle. 

    I'm out of here. 

    Have a nice night fellas ... there is no way I'm going to convince anyone of the select group. 

    And I'm going out anyway!

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    Well the three of you continue playing with each other here, I'm afraid I've got to step away from the cpu for now.

    Again with the three of you ganging up on me, while I'm gone, maybe you can figure out how..

    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..

    ..doesn't equal balance?  Also maybe you cockknuckles can explain where you got all your screwy stats that are supposed to convince my eyes that what I saw back then wasn't a power running team that thrived off play action, screens and efficient clock management.  Or that somehow our trending away from this balance is in no way the root cause for embarrassing playoff loss after playoff loss?  Good luck!
     
  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]Well the three of you continue playing with each other here, I'm afraid I've got to step away from the cpu for now. Again with the three of you ganging up on me, while I'm gone, maybe you can figure out how.. 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.. ..doesn't equal balance?  Also maybe you cockknuckles can explain where you got all your screwy stats that are supposed to convince my eyes that what I saw back then wasn't a power running team that thrived off play action, screens and efficient clock management.  Or that somehow our trending away from this balance is in no way the root cause for embarrassing playoff loss after playoff loss?  Good luck!
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    And those offenses won playoff games with scores of 13, 10, 20 and 17.

    Which one of those scores would have been enough to beat the Giants, Ravens or Jets in 2007, 2009, or 2010?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]HOW MANY HORSES HAVE BEEN FLOGGED TO BUILD THIS THREAD.
    Posted by Mybologna[/QUOTE]

    It's better than more talk about Tebow.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  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]Well the three of you continue playing with each other here, I'm afraid I've got to step away from the cpu for now. Again with the three of you ganging up on me, while I'm gone, maybe you can figure out how.. 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.. ..doesn't equal balance?  Also maybe you cockknuckles can explain where you got all your screwy stats that are supposed to convince my eyes that what I saw back then wasn't a power running team that thrived off play action, screens and efficient clock management.  Or that somehow our trending away from this balance is in no way the root cause for embarrassing playoff loss after playoff loss?  Good luck!
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    The flaw in your logic is that balance had anything to do with the superior results from those years. WE SCORE MORE ON O NOW. So the balance on offense cannot be the cause of lesser results. THE D SVCKS. There's your problem.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share