In response to TrueChamp's comment:
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to RockScully's comment:
Do you ever, ever, ever admit to being wrong even when proven wrong? "Serious question".
I don't know? How do you feel about the 40 passes from Brady? That's the formula for a loss right?
I would argue the Pats did a very good job of putting themselves in position to possibly give up that lead by continuing to throw low percentage throws in the 4th quarter with a huge lead.
Frankly I am surprised more people have not complained about it today but then I have to remember that I am not sure anyone on here coaches and you watch a game very differently as a fan than as a coach.
No one will convince me it was good game or clock managment by the Pats in the late 3rd Qtr and most of 4th Qtr.
People always want to rail about the defense giving up a lead late but I would argue that through the process of a game that just a single rush attempt on every given series, especially when already rushing the ball well AND having a sizable lead would easily wipe out 3 or 4 more minutes off the clock at a minimum.
To be honest I was pissed that Brady threw that ball to Vereen down the left sideline for the TD. It worked. It's great in hindsite but that instantaneous TD was not needed in that situation after the turnover on downs with an already good lead of 30-13. It could just as easily have been intercepted as well given it's a low percentage throw and not Brady's strongest attribute in his great skill set.
What WAS needed was chewing up clock and giving your defense a rest after just leaving the field on the turnover on downs and keeping your kickoff coverage unit off the field as long as possible while having a rough night.
There was 13 minutes on the clock still. That game took forever because the Pats never burned much clock and gave the Texans more time of posession. Football is a complimentary game and I personally don't think they did a good job with the sizable lead in that game.
The Pats could have more sytematically tried to work their way down from the 33 to a TD while working clock, continuing to tire and bludgon the Texans D, rest their own D, Maintaining more time of posession, bring the clock ever closer to a time when Texans would need to consider to start using Time outs, prolonging the Texans an opportunity to get their successful KO receiving team on the field, etc, etc.
Even if the drive failed they would have done most of those things I mentioned as well as still be in FG range with a most likely lead stretching FG that takes it to a 3 possession game with much less time on the clock.
Anything can happen with lots of time on the clock no matter how big the lead but when the time runs out game over and nothing bad can happen when you already have the lead with zero time left.
As it turned out the Pats kicked off and the Texans ran it back to the NE 37 and quickly got the TD right back and still no time barely run off the clock.
Sorry but the Pats would have indeed been better off running the ball just a lil bit more with the big lead starting earlier in the game.
Sometimes you win as a coach because your team is just that much better or you made more good decisions than bad but that doesn't mean you made the best decisions in every situation.
BB knows way more than me obviously but he also has not had the headset on many times when the Offense has the ball and didn't during this scenario but I would be willing to bet when he reevaluates the entire thing as it played out he'll have a few questions for McD.
Don't agree at all.
You are talking about trying to sit on a 30 point score with ten minutes to go.
Well, no tricky bounces ... Texas ended up dropping 28 points on the defense.
Now crunch those numbers ... if one bad unlucky bounce happens, an onside kick works, Texas could have easily won it with NE sitting on that lead.
That throw, not the highest, but certainly not a 50/50 proposition was a mismatch that NE spotted and exploited. It put the game a-w-a-y. Over.
Maybe you missed it but BB plays aggressive and he always has. He literally said, just last week ... you don't win games by sitting in foxholes.
Moreover, his thinking was justified. Texas almost got the score they needed, and grinding 2 off the clock was about the only thing slowing the game down there guarantees. And grinding 2 off the clock does less to guarantee a win than a FG or TD.
It's basic win probability.
The next two drives, then they started running because it was over.
I knew you would go to the fox hole thing. Clearly you took from my post what you wanted and didn't read it since I never said anything about not going for a TD and just trying to sit on anything, least of all a lead.
Also no one said to run exclusivley at any point in time or become ultra conservative. We'll agree to disagree since it was obviously lost on you or not written well by me. I am not a great writer, apologies.
Never said to not take advantage of Brady, your best player. I said to do it in a way that was better game and clock management. Being agressive does not mean exclusively taking the path of quickest results or lower probability of success.
I'll have to assume you are insinuating you need to do one or the other. Try and score with bombs and lower percentage throws down the field to consider it NOT sitting in a fox hole? ...or try and mix in some runs with higher percentage throws moving the chains on your way to trying to score a touch down, while purposely using a bunch of clock (sitting in the fox hole as you put it).
I'll take the clock rolling away, my defense off the field, their defense taking more abuse, etc etc WHILE I am trying to score the TD. You're in control of the game, starting already in field goal range. It's a luxury to be able to work clock as you extend your lead from 2 possession to three, even if it ended in a FG and not TD. In that situation I will easily live with the result of 3 points instead of 7 if 4 minutes or more were also taken off the clock in the process.
The average person thinks game or clock management comes down to the final possession of two of a game. When it's predicatable. Let me assure you it doesn't. It especially doesn't when you have a comfortable lead. Coaches know better.
Another great response. I like Z,actually I like all Pats fans on this site. Yet when Z is disagreed with he tends to ignore the crux of the discussion,then exaggerate one aspect to make it seem like the other person is being unreasonable.
Nobody wants to be a run 1st run all the time offense. We want our OC and coaching staff to help Tom Brady by utilizing all aspects of the offense, and yes running the ball/throwing to the rbs to keep our d off the field and wear down the opposing D.
We have done that this season. We lead the LG in rushing tds, and are 2nd in rushing atts only to run 1st Seattle. Every "football guy" I respect on radio, Internet and TV says this is the best/most efficient Pats offense or perhaps any offense ever. It is due to the commitment to the running game and no longer beingprimarily a downfield pass finesse offense.
Yes Rid is better then BJGE but the FACT is that we only run at .2 ypc more then we did under OB last year yet we are 2nd in The LEAGUE IN RUSHING ATTS. Actually Seattle and Washington were 1st and 3rd but they averaged 5 ypc as a team and 4.8 ypc respectively. A lot better then us as we got 4.2 ypc, but we were COMMITED TO THE RUN UNDER MCD.
Anyway I won't let these guys be buzz kills. As you said we will agree to disagree. Our offense is way better then last year and our rebuilt defense is coming along nicely. This is the best chance we have to win a SB since 2004 as our D is not too old, and our offense will run the football, which has more benefits then guys here are apparently aware of.
Are you really accusing me of this?
You follow me around telling me I say football is "dumb luck" because I said (exactly what BB said) that it's mostly about execution and second guessing/nitpicking a few plays here and there has little to do with anything.
And it's not just this issue either, but I say the same thing to others (who are much less intransigient) when they come here complaining that BB doesn't "blitz" enough, or doesn't have a "tough attacking" defense.
This idea that adding a couple more of one kind of play will swing the outcome of game is ludicrous, and basically any coach that would read such a thing would probably laugh it off for what it is ... internet fodder by people who want something to critique.
If your position is .... NE hasn't pieced together that final win because they didn't run the football enough ... I'm not changing topics.
You are flat out incorrect. Sorry. It's an abuse of history. It's an abuse of the reality of how football is played.
NE won games PASSING THE BALL 52, 48 times, 43 times times earlier in the decade. Sometimes turning it over three times. Some games they completely ignored the run. Football doesn't come down to "how balanced" you are.
They just won a game by splitting a top notch defense in half after losing their best skill position player, and did it strictly by passing the football, from empty backfield sets.
There is no rigid formula for winning a football game that comes down to how often you run or pass. Establishing the run (as we've seen recently) does not guarantee a victory. Nor does not establishing the run have anything to do with losing to the Giants or Jets (two games in which they did more to establish the run than this recent shellacking of the Texans).
NE always tries to run the football they always have... then when things don't work or they fall behind ... they pass more to catch up. It's as old as football itself.
ANd no, this offense is neither much more balanced, nor is it much better than last season. As a matter of fact ... they lost one more game than last year's team. Yeah, Ridley as an every day back is better than BJGE and Lloyd is better than anything they've had outside since Moss left. But statistically they are essentially identical.
Here is establishing the run TC. Let's go through it again.
NE in this Texans game had about 24 runs.
They had 20 in the Superbowl.
BJGE had 10 runs. Woodhead 7. Welker 2.
Ridley just got 15 carries. Vereen 7. Brady 1.
You cry ... cry .. 41 passes to 19 runs. Claiming that imbalance led to to low output.
OK, now ... if six of them came on a clock killing drive ... that means he got 9 carries before that final drive.
Ridley with 9 through three quarters.
BJGE with 10.
Keep following me.
Brady threw 40 passes this week.
Brady threw 41 in the Superbowl.
On the final drive Brady threw 2 passes.
On the final drive of the Superbowl Brady threw 9 passes trying to catch up in 54 seconds.
Through the "real" game he threw about 32 passes.
OK, so what's the balance tally? What is the limit of establishing the run? Giving Brady "help."
Now keep following because I'd love a real repsonse that isn't an off topic cut and paste about how Brady thinks McD is the best.
38 passes to 17 runs is the final tally before a garbage time drive to kill the clock off against the Texans.
32 passes to 19 runs in the Superbowl, before a last ditch drive.
One is more balanced than the other. And we could run this through with the Jets loss as well in which NE ran the ball 28 times, and was incredibly disciplined maintaining a "balance" between running and passing. 13 of them came on a final last ditch drive. The pass/run tally was 32/28.
If NE *executes* better in those games then those final drives are running drives like this last Texans drive.
If they manage the same 7 run plays on a final clock killing drive (follow me now):
The final tally is likely:
32 passes to 26 runs in the Superbowl.
32 passes to 35 runs in the Jets loss.
And you are here talking about how balance won the day, the same way you are now about a Texans win (drubbing really) that was fundamentally much more imbalanced than either of those two losses.
Please ... I mean it ... respond (focused) on that statistical breakdown. All I need is for you to see that what you are saying is in this case wrong on two accounts.
They (obviously) didn't lose either game "because of a lack of commitment to the run." They lost them because they made a mistake here and there, and their defense didn't add any value the way it just did against the Texans.
I would love for you to ONCE respond without changing topics again. Final run tally weightings are situational almost always. When you play well ... you cna run the clock and get more runs late in the game. If you haven't played well ... you end up passing trying to make a score in minutes.
90% of games feature a run/pass balance (38-17/ 32-17 /32-28) that is within 4-6 play area. Changing those 4-6 plays will not dramatically alter the outcome. Changing the 4-6 plays where you make mistakes will.
Neither of those games were lost because of imbalance. It's patently absurd to insist so.
They were lost because of execution. A.) the offense didn't execute as well, though in either game it executed well enough to win, and B.) the defense didn't execute well enough, most importantly ... it did nothing to contribute to the win.
The fact of this weeks game: NE could have turned the ball over once AND left 7 points off the board and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game. Why? Because they had positive contributions from their defense. It wasn't a great game, no game where you allow 28 points in 12 drives is "great." But it was "good enough." And it had a few series with 3 and outs. It had a one turnover that got the ball back to NE at midfield.