Re: Analyzing the interception.
posted at 12/15/2011 5:33 PM EST
In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Analyzing the interception. : Did I ever say run it 50% of the time? I've said repeatedly run balance doesn't mean 50% of the time it can even be 3:2 run to pass and it can still be effective even if they only average 3ypc. What doesn't help is a 2:1 pass to run ratio which tends to happen in most of our loses. Actually to closer to 50% run to pass the higher the win % of the Pats. Matter a fact Brady's only lost once in his career when the Pats have run />50% of the time. That's doesn't mean you have to run it 50% of the time but you do perform better when you mix in the run and disguise it in a balanced O. On the flip side you don't need a back to get 5+ypc average even a back that gets 3ypc can be affective. Z has numbers that point that out. But, for the majority of posters who fight against balance point to BJGE's ypc average as a sign of ineffective running which simply isn't true. BJGE is a very effective runner in the Pats system when given 15+ carries a game yet he is dismissed instantly because people point out his ypc and lack of homerun threat capability. What else would you say about those people?
Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but those are nonsense stats, the ones about Brady not losing when they run 50% of the time that is. It's tautological. Like the stat that NE is 30-1 when a RB rushes for 100.
Winning teams run more on their final drive or so, while the team that is behind tends to pass almost exclusively. Saying that NE wins when the rushy 50% of the time, is like saying they win because they are winning.
Also, run a check of the teams they have gained 100 yards from a single runner on in the Brady era ... only two of them were playoff teams that season, and only four even had winning records.
Again, tautological. It's sort of well known that bad teams a.) can't defend the run, and that the b.) team with a lead tends to run the clock. So the only thing that stat says is what we already know. NE beats the tar out of non-playoff teams, and that when they do that, they like to finish games by running clock.
What I said was that you cannot abandon the run completely. That's a fact. Though I don't, for the life of me, buy the humbug that a.) running Woodhead doesn't count as a run (???), or that b.) running the ball 28 times to 32 passes in 55 minutes of football, before a couple last ditch drives that only featured passes somehow means NE abandoned the run.
In the last three seasons NE is 8-1 when they run for 113 yards or have 28 carries, like in that last playoff game ... that last playoff game is the only one they lost with those numbers.
If NE were ahead in that Jets game in the end, they probably would have run it another 8-10 times, while passing it only a few. The end result would have been a clean 50-50 ratio, and people would have been saying .... see! 50% rushing = win.
At any rate, the loss was anomalous. But I wouldn't say NE gave up on the run in that game at any point in time, until the last few minutes when running just wasn't an option.
And Shenanigan's point has some merit. But only in situations (for me) where the runner is carrying a 1-2 ypc.
3-4 is good enough, statistically. I mean, the 2001 and 2003 Pats average 3.7 and 3.4 for a whole season. And they got by.
But then, they had great defenses making up for it, and Tom Brady waiting to run some no-huddle in the last minutes. It was a really winning formula. Great QB plus great defense.