Analyzing the interception.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    The teams with top defenses tend to run more.
             
               Defense   Rush Att

    Texans    1st        1st
    Steelers  2nd        16th
    Ravens    3rd        8th
    Jaguars   4th        3rd
    49ers      5th        5th
    Jets        6th        12th
    Bengals   7th        13th
    Chargers  8th        16th
    Browns    9th        19th
    Redskins 10th       28th
    Eagles    11th       9th
    Dolphins  12th       7th
     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]The teams with top defenses tend to run more.                      Defense   Rush Att Texans    1st        1st Steelers  2nd        16th Ravens    3rd        8th Jaguars   4th        3rd 49ers      5th        5th Jets        6th        12th Bengals   7th        13th Chargers  8th        16th Browns    9th        19th Redskins 10th       28th Eagles    11th       9th Dolphins  12th       7th
    Posted by digger0862[/QUOTE]

    Running more does not equal better defense observe ... stats reversed. The best defense = more running is more likely ... because teams with elite defenses have leads they protect in the 4th. In fact, outside of the Texans, the top six rushing teams have a really terrible set of defenses, by the points, all told. Though I would argue running teams like Denver win in spite of their weak running offense, and not because of it, and it hurts their "D" in the long run. 

    Broncos 1st to 22nd
    Texans 2nd to 4th
    Eagles 3rd to 20th
    Vikings 4th to 30th
    Panthers 5th to 29th
    Raiders 6th to 28th 
    49ers 7th to 1st
    Saints 8th to 17th
    Bears 9th to 9th
    Jaguars 10th to 7th
    Bills 11th to 26th
    Dolphins 12th 5th
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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]

    Sorry so late getting back to the party but this pretty much sums things up. I haven't read pats66 or whatever his name is because he is obviously a committed troll or a person who brings little to the table.

    But to the other two, you both are obvious Pats fans(Babe I'm on the fence on) so I can honestly not understand what you are trying to say?

    Are you suggesting that the best QB in NFL history(imo) with the highest winning % EVER, and one of the best post season records of all time, can destroy team after team in the regular season, but when Tom Brady reaches the post season he simply can't execute? Why do you think that is?

    We need to use our offense in all aspects, just like we always did. If it meant throwing 50x one game and only 20x the next, then that is what we did. It really is the Dan Marino curse at this point.

    We have been so enamored by Bradys amazing play at the QB position that we forgot that good teams need coaching,(variety in play calling) balance, complimentary football.

    Our offense has not done NEARLY enough for the last 3 post season games in a row. They constantly put a young defense in bad field position, while putting up 3 pts, 7 pts, and 7 pts in the 1st half of the last 3 playoff games. THAT IS NOT BAD LUCK. Yes it is an execution issue as in The defense executed kicking our tails in again with our predictable throw 2-1 ratio offense!

    We are one dimensional. I hope we figure out how to win that way, but we never have before.



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Running more does not equal better defense observe ... stats reversed. The best defense = more running is more likely ... because teams with elite defenses have leads they protect in the 4th. In fact, outside of the Texans, the top six rushing teams have a really terrible set of defenses, by the points, all told. Though I would argue running teams like Denver win in spite of their weak running offense, and not because of it, and it hurts their "D" in the long run.  Broncos 1st to 22nd Texans 2nd to 4th Eagles 3rd to 20th Vikings 4th to 30th Panthers 5th to 29th Raiders 6th to 28th  49ers 7th to 1st Saints 8th to 17th Bears 9th to 9th Jaguars 10th to 7th Bills 11th to 26th Dolphins 12th 5th
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Wow, the man just showed you where running the football usually coincides with a good defense and you say no, reverse the stats and its the other way around...really?

    Can you please explain further how Denver's #1 rushing offense hurts their defense? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't understand how that could possibly be?

    Bronco's are 22nd in the league in ppg at 23.2 ppg, Oh but since Tim Tebow took over and they focused on a ball control run first offense they have allowed 15.8 ppg for the past 8 weeks.

    Kind of cut and dry no? Or maybe the defense suddenly just started playing better because Tebow is a mile closer to God then Kyle Orton was. :0

    You played football and coached and your honestly telling me that having an effective run game will not help the defense?


     
  6. 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. : Wow, the man just showed you where running the football usually coincides with a good defense and you say no, reverse the stats and its the other way around...really? Can you please explain further how Denver's #1 rushing offense hurts their defense? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't understand how that could possibly be? Bronco's are 22nd in the league in ppg at 23.2 ppg, Oh but since Tim Tebow took over and they focused on a ball control run first offense they have allowed 15.8 ppg for the past 8 weeks. Kind of cut and dry no? Or maybe the defense suddenly just started playing better because Tebow is a mile closer to God then Kyle Orton was. :0 You played football and coached and your honestly telling me that having an effective run game will not help the defense?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Here's a clue. Running the football doesn't have one f'n thing to do with good defense. Even a child knows that, since, you know, running the ball is offense.

    It is amazing the lengths you run freaks will go to try to prove your erroneous notion.

    So, tell me, is BB just a dumb fvk that doesn't get what you're trying to spin?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Wow, the man just showed you where running the football usually coincides with a good defense and you say no, reverse the stats and its the other way around...really? Can you please explain further how Denver's #1 rushing offense hurts their defense? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't understand how that could possibly be? Bronco's are 22nd in the league in ppg at 23.2 ppg, Oh but since Tim Tebow took over and they focused on a ball control run first offense they have allowed 15.8 ppg for the past 8 weeks. Kind of cut and dry no? Or maybe the defense suddenly just started playing better because Tebow is a mile closer to God then Kyle Orton was. :0 You played football and coached and your honestly telling me that having an effective run game will not help the defense?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    It is not about running the ball. It is about not turning it over. With Orton at QB they turned the ball over 12 times in 5 games (2.4 per game). With Tebow they have cut that down to 9 in 8 games (1.1 per game). He doesn't throw picks. His 1.0 INT% is historically low (I believe there have been only four seasons better than that in the history of the NFL).

    Of course, having a good run game helps your defense. So does having a good passing game and having good special teams. 

     
  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]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. :  You played football and coached and your honestly telling me that having an effective run game will not help the defense?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    You can't argue with people who concede nothing, they don't argue with facts, they merely ignore logic and statistics you present and say "no it's not" in large caps like a petulant child. In essence they try to yell you down because they can't kill your argument with pure, simple, quiet logic.

    They are presented stats about running the ball being beneficial to a defense because the D doesn't spend the entire game on the field since their offense is constantly going 3 and out.  But they don't offer any rhyme or reason they just say "no the opposite is true" then try warp some twisted logic as to why.

    I provide them with the simplest most concise stat available to prove my point, the number of runs vs passes that the Pats used in all three of their Super Bowl seasons which obviously shows a balance that is not there now.  Instead of trying to explain this they attack the messenger, give convoluted arbitrary stats and cherry pick individual games hoping to make a point that I just shot down using a simple diagram of all three Super Bowl winning seasons.

    Trying to present reasonable logic to these people is like trying to turn Scientologists away from the cult, they're in so deep now there's no going back. They're comparable to creationists...
      
    God forbid they admit they are wrong, that will never happen.  And they still can't explain the San Francisco phenomenon and why they are also winning with low scores just like the Pats in 2001, or why Tebow is winning beyond just holy forces at work... truly, they are brainwashed with their own bile and arguing with them is like peeing into the wind.

     
  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. : It is not about running the ball. It is about not turning it over. With Orton at QB they turned the ball over 12 times in 5 games (2.4 per game). With Tebow they have cut that down to 9 in 8 games (1.1 per game). He doesn't throw picks. His 1.0 INT% is historically low (I believe there have been only four seasons better than that in the history of the NFL). Of course, having a good run game helps your defense. So does having a good passing game and having good special teams. 
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    Yeah I'm afraid Denver has nothing like a "good" passing game, it's easy to say Tebow doesn't throw picks because he doesn't throw but ten passes a game. What Denver proves is that much like the current 49ers or the Raiders from last season, with one of the best running attacks in the league and the will to use it even a terrible QB can win regular season games in the NFL.  

    I agree completely about the turnovers, but the Broncos should have considered protecting Orton they way they have Tebow by running more than anyone else in the NFL and maybe they would have gotten out to a much stronger start and their defense, which has glaring holes in the secondary much like ours, would have looked all world from the jump as well. Orton's no prize either...

    We have an amazing passing game, we have a good running game, we don't employ it nearly enough to the detriment of the defense, special teams and team as a whole, even the passing game would be more efficient with a balanced running attack.

    All three phases work in harmony, we play best when we're balanced.  Anyone arguing against versatility as a weapon is daft.

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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Yeah I'm afraid Denver has nothing like a "good" passing game, it's easy to say Tebow doesn't throw picks because he doesn't throw but ten passes a game. What Denver proves is that much like the current 49ers or the Raiders from last season, with one of the best running attacks in the league and the will to use it even a terrible QB can win regular season games in the NFL.   I agree completely about the turnovers, but the Broncos should have considered protecting Orton they way they have Tebow by running more than anyone else in the NFL and maybe they would have gotten out to a much stronger start and their defense, which has glaring holes in the secondary much like ours, would have looked all world from the jump as well. Orton's no prize either... We have an amazing passing game, we have a good running game, we don't employ it nearly enough to the detriment of the defense, special teams and team as a whole, even the passing game would be more efficient with a balanced running attack. All three phases work in harmony, we play best when we're balanced.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    First of all that is not a contradiction. I never said that the Broncos have a good passing game. I said that a good passing game makes a defense better. 

    I do not think that the Broncos could have "protected" Orton. First of all, I do not think Orton is capable of running the option. Second, he throw interceptions at a much higher rate than Tebow. Orton threw 7 picks in 155 attempts while Tebow has thrown just 2 in 198 attempts. He may not be accurate, but he makes good decisions with the ball. He is definitely not "terrible". By the way, the Broncos threw more than the ran against the Bears (and moved the ball much better they more they threw the ball).

    I am not sure what makes you think we have a good running game. The Patriots average 4.0 yards per carry (good for 20th in the NFL). The NFL average YPC is 4.2 so by definition they are below average when they run the ball. 

    BJGE is down to 3.8 yards per carry and his numbers have gotten worse over the course of the season. Ridley has the only three runs over 20 yards by the Patriots this year (and those came back in week 4 - he has 83 yards on 30 carries since). Just for comparison Tebow has four 20+ yard runs - more than the entire Patriots team.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    If running the ball more will make the Pats better than 10-3 and better in the playoffs, please explain why BB hasn't had them run more?  Is BB just an idiot?  Ultimately, all these threads demanding better balance in play calling amount to a big question about Bill Belichick's competence as a coach.  Are people arguing that BB just isn't a very good coach?  

    My take on this is that BB hasn't done a great job acquiring and developing talent. Part of the problem may be that BB has been trying too hard to find people who fit his schemes rather than adjusting his schemes to the talent available.  Maybe he should have switched to a 4-3 type defense sooner when the difficulty of getting a decent OLB to fit his style of 3-4 was becoming obvious. Maybe in general the defense needs to become more aggressive and less read-and-react given the quality of the passing games of the best teams in the NFL and the need to apply more pressure on QBs and defend better man-to-man in the secondary.  Maybe the offense does need to stress the run more or rely more on receivers who can get deep rather than relying so much on a short passing game that utilizes TEs, slots, and third-down backs.  All of this, I could agree to . . . 

    . . . But--given the talent this team has now, I'm not sure it can do any better than it is doing.  We have an offense that in the so-called skill positions has just four players who are truly top talent: Brady, Welker, Gronk, and (maybe) Hernandez.  The rest of the skill players are at best average (Branch, BJGE, Woodhead)--and many of them are well below average.  The O-line is decent, but has its issues at Center and even Guard (where we've had to bring in an old veteran) and Tackle (where we're in transition).   The defense is a mess--on the line, a collection of old guys and 3-4 spare parts playing a 4-3 style defense; at LB, one good guy and bunch of practice squad types; in the secondary, no one worth mentioning now that Chung is hurt and McCourty struggling.  That BB has brought this ragtag collection of spare parts (led by a great QB, TE, and slot receiver on offense, and a great Nose Tackle on defense) to 10-3 is an amazing coaching performance in my mind.  This is a team that should be 3-10, not 10-3.  As far as coaching goes, I can't criticize BB.  

    But the talent and broader offensive and defensive philosophies?  That's something BB needs to work on.  Of course, I'm sure he knows that and already has a plan in place to address it. This guy is way too smart about football not to know the problems better than all of us . . . 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]If running the ball more will make the Pats better than 10-3 and better in the playoffs, please explain why BB hasn't had them run more?  Is BB just an idiot?  Ultimately, all these threads demanding better balance in play calling amount to a big question about Bill Belichick's competence as a coach.  Are people arguing that BB just isn't a very good coach?   My take on this is that BB hasn't done a great job acquiring and developing talent. Part of the problem may be that BB has been trying too hard to find people who fit his schemes rather than adjusting his schemes to the talent available.  Maybe he should have switched to a 4-3 type defense sooner when the difficulty of getting a decent OLB to fit his style of 3-4 was becoming obvious. Maybe in general the defense needs to become more aggressive and less read-and-react given the quality of the passing games of the best teams in the NFL and the need to apply more pressure on QBs and defend better man-to-man in the secondary.  Maybe the offense does need to stress the run more or rely more on receivers who can get deep rather than relying so much on a short passing game that utilizes TEs, slots, and third-down backs.  All of this, I could agree to . . .  . . . But--given the talent this team has now, I'm not sure it can do any better than it is doing.  We have an offense that in the so-called skill positions has just four players who are truly top talent: Brady, Welker, Gronk, and (maybe) Hernandez.  The rest of the skill players are at best average (Branch, BJGE, Woodhead)--and many of them are well below average.  The O-line is decent, but has its issues at Center and even Guard (where we've had to bring in an old veteran) and Tackle (where we're in transition).   The defense is a mess--on the line, a collection of old guys and 3-4 spare parts playing a 4-3 style defense; at LB, one good guy and bunch of practice squad types; in the secondary, no one worth mentioning now that Chung is hurt and McCourty struggling.  That BB has brought this ragtag collection of spare parts (led by a great QB, TE, and slot receiver on offense, and a great Nose Tackle on defense) to 10-3 is an amazing coaching performance in my mind.  This is a team that should be 3-10, not 10-3.  As far as coaching goes, I can't criticize BB.   But the talent and broader offensive and defensive philosophies?  That's something BB needs to work on.  Of course, I'm sure he knows that and already has a plan in place to address it. This guy is way too smart about football not to know the problems better than all of us . . . 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    This is what I've been saying about this all year. It goes in one ear and out the other with these guys.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : This is what I've been saying about this all year. It goes in one ear and out the other with these guys.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    What's funny to me is I agree that the Pats should have gone to the run earlier in the Jets playoff game last year than they did . . .  and I even agree with Rusty that at times they rely too heavily on spread/shotgun formations that telegraph the fact that they're going to pass. But it seems like a criticism that makes sense in ocasional instances is now being applied as a general principle . . . that they should always be running more and always using the shotgun much less.  That seems to completely ignore the actual make-up of the team.  They don't have the talent to do anything other than what they are doing most of the time. Welker and Woodhead, in particular, are guys who can thrive only in spread offenses.  The strength of both those players is their ability to see openings in a spread-out defense and make quick cuts to get to the open areas. Tighten up the formations and those guys aren't going to be nearly as effective as they are now in my opinion.  If they're going to go to tight formations on a regular basis, they need a running back with both power and speed--someone who can blast up the middle and also take the ball outside (BJGE is not that back, sorry).  They'd also need some bigger, faster receivers who can pull safeties away from the box or challenge LBs and safeties in tight spaces over the middle of the field.  Do they have these guys?  Gronk, of course, would do great mixing it up in close with big bodies, but anyone else?  And who has the speed to pull corners and safeties away from the tackle box?  I guess I just don't see how the Pats switch consistently to tight formation game like Champ and Rusty and Wozzy seem to want.  Sure -- I like that kind of smash mouth game -- but you need the right talent to play it and I don't see that talent on this team.


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

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]At this point Underwood is about to launch himself airborne horizontally to get the pass. He can clearly see the defender in good position in front of him and should know the ball is up for grabs. Rather than launching he could have moved to the defender to contest the ball at this point and even taken a penalty thus insuring a FG try. Underwood is airborne at this point and therefore can't do anything other than what he is committed to. The defender is about to launch into his play on the ball. Having committed Underwood and the defender are both airborne and the ball is up for grabs. Here the defender is taking the ball and despite Underwood having his arm inside the defenders he is going to take it away without any fight from Underwood. A blowup of the last shot shows Underwood having his arm right in there and well positioned to break the interception up. But he did nothing. It was an ill-advised pass. No argument there. But poor decisions by the receiver allowed it to be a pick. Underwood could have prevented the pick and preserved the FG possibility with better decisions from the start and a better effort to fight for the ball in the end. This is likely all Tom was telling him when O'Brian melted down on him. If it were me you or any reasonable person we would have told Underwood, "Hey man, you saw the ball might be picked off, you got to take the defender out of that or fight for the ball there." Brady made a bad decision to throw that. Underwood completely failed to adjust to the situation. Brady had every right to get on him for it and O'Brian had no business whatsoever butting in to it and getting on Brady. Tom is a long time veteran and  a star player in the league. If O'Brien wanted to criticize his decision that can be taken care of on reviewing film. Complete disrespect of a legendary veteran player by O'Brien.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    The game was on Sunday and over by 1600. This was posted Wednesday. They already won. Brady took responsibility. What are you fighting against? Let it go, man. Let it go.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from darwk. Show darwk's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    Might as well join the fray. Just about every regular poster has had a say on this one. Yep, I know it's Friday, and this topic about last Sunday's game like many on the board this season- has devolved into no win arguements and gone off the rails a few times. Some posters just like to see thier own thoughts in print over and over an over again.
    Back to the topic- I'm in Babe's camp. Appreciate the time taken to isolate the play action through the photos with commentary. Though none of us were on the sidelines for the audiables with the blow up- I do think OB lost his mind- in a way that added the fuel to TB's own outburst. TB has been "on" his recievers all season, including Gronk. Underwood should of/could have handled the play in a way that may have prevented the INT.  TB took responsibility for his part as he has during his entire professional carreer with the Pats. All has been said here.

    TB leadership on and off the field is crtical to the Pats ongoing sucess, and current record. I like that TB still has the fire in the belly . He is very hard on himself, and his ability to recover, read the field, and march down the field in the no huddle offense is simply incrediable.  The man is a legend.

    Go PATS!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Can you please explain further how Denver's #1 rushing offense hurts their defense? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't understand how that could possibly be? Bronco's are 22nd in the league in ppg at 23.2 ppg, Oh but since Tim Tebow took over and they focused on a ball control run first offense they have allowed 15.8 ppg for the past 8 weeks. Kind of cut and dry no?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Since Tebow took over this season the Broncos have the worst 3rd down conversion % in the NFL.  They have scored less than 20 points 6 times in 8 games.  Despite their rush heavy attack they have actually lost the time of possession battle so it's not like their defense isn't on the field a lot.  They don't even swing field position very well because their 3rd down conversion rate is so poor and they go 3 and out a lot.  So running more does not improve the defense automatically and in Denver's case it puts extra pressure on them because their offense cannot score while simultaneously not controlling the clock or field position.  It is not cut and dried.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]If running the ball more will make the Pats better than 10-3 and better in the playoffs, please explain why BB hasn't had them run more?  Is BB just an idiot?  Ultimately, all these threads demanding better balance in play calling amount to a big question about Bill Belichick's competence as a coach.  Are people arguing that BB just isn't a very good coach?   My take on this is that BB hasn't done a great job acquiring and developing talent. Part of the problem may be that BB has been trying too hard to find people who fit his schemes rather than adjusting his schemes to the talent available.  Maybe he should have switched to a 4-3 type defense sooner when the difficulty of getting a decent OLB to fit his style of 3-4 was becoming obvious. Maybe in general the defense needs to become more aggressive and less read-and-react given the quality of the passing games of the best teams in the NFL and the need to apply more pressure on QBs and defend better man-to-man in the secondary.  Maybe the offense does need to stress the run more or rely more on receivers who can get deep rather than relying so much on a short passing game that utilizes TEs, slots, and third-down backs.  All of this, I could agree to . . .  . . . But--given the talent this team has now, I'm not sure it can do any better than it is doing.  We have an offense that in the so-called skill positions has just four players who are truly top talent: Brady, Welker, Gronk, and (maybe) Hernandez.  The rest of the skill players are at best average (Branch, BJGE, Woodhead)--and many of them are well below average.  The O-line is decent, but has its issues at Center and even Guard (where we've had to bring in an old veteran) and Tackle (where we're in transition).   The defense is a mess--on the line, a collection of old guys and 3-4 spare parts playing a 4-3 style defense; at LB, one good guy and bunch of practice squad types; in the secondary, no one worth mentioning now that Chung is hurt and McCourty struggling.  That BB has brought this ragtag collection of spare parts (led by a great QB, TE, and slot receiver on offense, and a great Nose Tackle on defense) to 10-3 is an amazing coaching performance in my mind.  This is a team that should be 3-10, not 10-3.  As far as coaching goes, I can't criticize BB.   But the talent and broader offensive and defensive philosophies?  That's something BB needs to work on.  Of course, I'm sure he knows that and already has a plan in place to address it. This guy is way too smart about football not to know the problems better than all of us . . . 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    So Prolate to be clear, you chastise me for questioning BB/OB play calling suggesting that I am questioning his competence as a coach, then immediately go on to question BB's competence as a coach by saying he doesn't do enough to adjust his scheme to his talent?

    I think as fans of this team we can question anything we want. BB is one of the best coaches ever, but his passion has always been for the defensive side of the ball. You can't argue with that. I think as an organization we are enamored with Brady's ability to pick a defense apart, and in the long run it hurts us by making us one dimensional. Probably the reason BB was coaching the defense in SB 42 while Mcdaniels and company were literally throwing the game away.


    Now we force our pass heavy offense down any defense's throats, it usually works because Brady is so good at what he does, but ultimately against good defense's who focus on limiting Brady's receiving options we can be contained.

    I was bored last night and started to watch the Pats Eagles game a few weeks ago, we were down 10 -0 and went on a smash mouth run 1st drive. The one play I really like seeing was 4 rec set with benny as rb. Brady pump faked a screen pass to WW and handed it to benny for a draw that gained 7 yards. I couldn't remember seeing a play like that before and haven't seen much of it since.

    We run out of stale formations and throw out of almost exactly the same formations all game. It is a bit ignorant on our parts imo.


    I am not screaming for us to be a run first offense, I still want Brady to throw more then run, but what would be the harm in smashing 30 carries and 20 passes down a teams throats when they are committing 7 defenders to the secondary? To me that is called adjusting to what the other team is doing, something we don't really care to do very often.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Since Tebow took over this season the Broncos have the worst 3rd down conversion % in the NFL.  They have scored less than 20 points 6 times in 8 games.  Despite their rush heavy attack they have actually lost the time of possession battle so it's not like their defense isn't on the field a lot.  They don't even swing field position very well because their 3rd down conversion rate is so poor and they go 3 and out a lot.  So running more does not improve the defense automatically and in Denver's case it puts extra pressure on them because their offense cannot score while simultaneously not controlling the clock or field position.  It is not cut and dried.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]

    I watch a lot of Broncos games. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Broncos offense suddenly becomes very difficult to stop in the 4rth qtr, and unless you think Tebow really has a direct connection with a higher power then you would have to admit that the other teams defense is tired of committing to stopping the run and repeatedly breaks down after 45 minutes of pounding.

    No I am not saying I want us to run like the Bronco's, but I think it would be absolutely beneficial to us to incorporate the run game more. I think it would open up our offense and help us to score even more then we do now, while also helping the battle for field position and TOP.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : So Prolate to be clear, you chastise me for questioning BB/OB play calling suggesting that I am questioning his competence as a coach, then immediately go on to question BB's competence as a coach by saying he doesn't do enough to adjust his scheme to his talent? I think as fans of this team we can question anything we want. BB is one of the best coaches ever, but his passion has always been for the defensive side of the ball. You can't argue with that. I think as an organization we are enamored with Brady's ability to pick a defense apart, and in the long run it hurts us by making us one dimensional. Probably the reason BB was coaching the defense in SB 42 while Mcdaniels and company were literally throwing the game away. Now we force our pass heavy offense down any defense's throats, it usually works because Brady is so good at what he does, but ultimately against good defense's who focus on limiting Brady's receiving options we can be contained. I was bored last night and started to watch the Pats Eagles game a few weeks ago, we were down 10 -0 and went on a smash mouth run 1st drive. The one play I really like seeing was 4 rec set with benny as rb. Brady pump faked a screen pass to WW and handed it to benny for a draw that gained 7 yards. I couldn't remember seeing a play like that before and haven't seen much of it since. We run out of stale formations and throw out of almost exactly the same formations all game. It is a bit ignorant on our parts imo. I am not screaming for us to be a run first offense, I still want Brady to throw more then run, but what would be the harm in smashing 30 carries and 20 passes down a teams throats when they are committing 7 defenders to the secondary? To me that is called adjusting to what the other team is doing, something we don't really care to do very often.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    That's a fair interpretation Champ.  I think if running more (more balance, more tight formations) were what was needed, BB is competent enough to have figured that out.  I do think BB can be criticized for building a team around a particular set of schemes and not changing quickly enough when he couldn't get all the talent he needed to run those schemes.  To be clear, though, given the way the talent acquisition process works in the NFL making major changes to scheme is a multi-year proposition.  It's not that BB can't figure out how to use the players he has (he's very good at that actually)--it's just that he probably was drafting over the past few years thinking he was going to be running a 3-4, read-and-react defense.  Then, after three or four years not finding suitable OLBs for his scheme, recognized that he had to change his defensive scheme really fast . . . and that's left him having to build a defense from used parts and rejects this year.  If he had recognized the need to make a transition two or three years ago, he could have drafted differently on defense and we might be in a better position today.  

    Anyway . . I like you as a poster on this site and I didn't mean to chastise you in any way personnally . . . I think you have good arguments.  And a I partially agree with you since I think more balance would be nice.  Where we disagree is in believing that this team is capable of being more balanced and successful given the talent they have right now.  I think they're one-dimensional on offense purely because the talent they have on offense right now is not very flexible.  They are a team that really can only run spread offenses.  Yeah, I know, every once in a while they have some success pounding the ball.  But I think that's because sometimes they face a team that either isn't prepared for them to do that or isn't very good at defending the run.  If they tried to run in more games, teams would prepare for the run and they'd end up being much less successful at it.  I just don't think Benny is all that potent a running back.  He just doesn't have the outside speed  . . .and he's only moderately powerful.  I see this team pull off a traditional running game periodically, but not consistently.  Once they start to show run too much, their running game tends to stall.  Defenses adjust.  Besides . . . with a defense as weak as their current defense, this offense needs to be a 30 point per game offense and you just don't see offenses that score that many points running the ball.  BB knows all this and is just making smart coaching decisions given the team he has.  I really don't think he's so clueless about football or devoted to Brady to ignore the running game if the running game could really help the team.  BB may make mistakes in some of his longer term planning for the team, but I don't think he makes such basic coaching mistakes. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    Good Post Prolate, yeah I think that is where we disagree, and I concede that BB must agree with you. He very much obviously thinks this offense gives them the best chance to win, and given Brady's track record in the regular season I don't completely disagree. i just think that very same offense which helps us get to the playoffs is ultimately what destroys us in said playoffs.

    You think we use it by necessity and you may be right, I would just like to see us at the very least TRY to utilize our rb core, Ridley,Vareen are obviously athletic players with their own skill sets, If Benny struggles then role with a young guy. how about give Ridley 16 carries and see if he does have the ability to break a 40-50 yarder that benny does not possess.

    You have to admit that we run the exact same offense with almost no variety to the play calling? It is crazy to me.

    if our offense is too difficult to understand for the young guys then it leaves us with little to no depth as you say, so wouldn't it be advantageous to us to dumb it down a bit. This way we can work in Chad as a 3rd rec(who has looked pretty good to me) and the young backs. Perhaps if Kid n Play had more experience he would have fought off that INT? Or perhaps if that was Chad O in there it would have been a td?

    So in the end I think we have the personnel we just are not committed to using them, which is another part of the reason our offense struggles in the post season.

    I think despite the long passionate posts by all of us, we all actually agree more then it sounds. I love watching Brady put up the best numbers in the league, I just worry that is our only offense when I personally don't think it needs to be.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : I watch a lot of Broncos games. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Broncos offense suddenly becomes very difficult to stop in the 4rth qtr, and unless you think Tebow really has a direct connection with a higher power then you would have to admit that the other teams defense is tired of committing to stopping the run and repeatedly breaks down after 45 minutes of pounding. No I am not saying I want us to run like the Bronco's, but I think it would be absolutely beneficial to us to incorporate the run game more. I think it would open up our offense and help us to score even more then we do now, while also helping the battle for field position and TOP.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    An interesting premise, but in some sense a non-sequitur.  My post was in response to the premise that Denver's run game is helping their defense.  You seemed to think it is cut and dried based on the D's improvement since Tebow took over.  Given the reasons I listed previously I don't see the mechanism for how that works since the stats don't support the traditional way that a run-centered offensive attack helps out a D.  I don't think anyone here wants to see NE run like Denver, but I don't think Denver is a good piece of evidence to use when arguing that more emphasis on the run game would help NE's D.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Analyzing the interception.

    In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : An interesting premise, but in some sense a non-sequitur.  My post was in response to the premise that Denver's run game is helping their defense.  You seemed to think it is cut and dried based on the D's improvement since Tebow took over.  Given the reasons I listed above I don't see the mechanism for how that works since the stats don't support the traditional way that a run-centered offensive attack helps out a D.  I don't think anyone here wants to see NE run like Denver, but I don't think Denver is a good piece of evidence to use when arguing that more emphasis on the run game would help NE's D.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]



    You don't think that using a heavy run game, which has been proven to wear down opposing defense's as the game goes(thus helping your offense to stay on the field longer as said game goes) and is also proven to limit turnovers helps the defense?

    I am willing to bet that the Broncos T.O.P is substantially higher in the 4rth qtr then it is in the 1st few.

    they struggle throughout the game on offense but at the same time they are the number 1 running team in the NFL. This means that they are at least moving the ball and keeping the defense fresh. All of that running doesn't just happen in the 4rth qtr. It might not lead to a score every time but it does the job in the end. You can't be the number one rushing team in the league and be a horrible offense at the same time. It doesn't add up.




     

Share