In response to TrueChamp's comment:
In response to themightypatriots' comment:
In response to pezz4pats' comment:
Yes it is. Time relates to possessions. The amount of possessions are dictated by the time it takes to complete them.
1 drive of 8 minutes decreases possessions as 4 drives totaling 8 minutes increases possessions.
1 drive of 8 minutes means an ineffecient defense while 4 drives totaling 8 minutes indicates an ieffecient D. They would be on the field more times but are spending no more time than they would be for the one, 8 minute possession. (assuming those possessions are not quick strike scores for the other team)
Holding the ball ='s time lost='s possessions lost.
The only time a defense holding the ball would be a good thing (prevent) is at the end of the game, with a substantial lead. Then you are using time to kill possessions for the other team.
Feels like we're trying to teach the alphabet to kindergardners.
On average for a 16 game season...
Team A scores 35 ppg.
Team B scores 26 ppg
Team A allows 21 ppg
team B allows 25 ppg.
Which team is more likely to score more points while allowing leSS points in a 14 possession game? A 10 possession game? A 4 possession game.
Hint... Team A is the answer to all 3 questions.? The only factor that changes things is if one half of team A under performs.
As Bill Belichick just said in Prolates postabove points is the number one determining factor in the outcome of a game.
Class dismissed, you can go back to cheer leading now. Try not to drop anyone while executing the pyramid Formation.
No. That is completely incorrect.
Over a small sample ANY of these teams could score the highest amount of points. You are making a fallacy that an average that is arrived at over 180-200 chances to score will seemlessly translate to a small sample of 8 or 12.
At every turn, if you want to realize that advantage you want MORE possessions until that advantage is realized ... then you want to attempt to "cash out."
An average over the season functions better as a predictive measure the more opportunities given to the team with an advantage.
There are literally articles upon articles for coaching and possession/clock management that discuss this phenomenon.
What you are generally looking for, too, is point differential overall. The team that over a broad sample has a larger point differential should seek to lengthen games ... not shorten them.
The team with the narrower point differential wants to take the money and run, as it were, and short the game to increase the odds that they can win it.
You must not be a gambler, but try it sometime. Sit down with some real pro's or spirited amateurs, win a big hand in your first five, and see what they think about you cashing out on the spot.
Ot try it playing pool, if you can muster a win against someone much superior for cash ... see how quickly they want a best out of three.
They won't like it, because they know a short series (as we say anything can happen) favors the weaker team.
I mean this is precisely how NE beat the Rams, only in the inverse.
IF you accept that limiting the opponents possessions with a ball control offense somehow "helped" the NE Patriots in 2001, and in general that keeping the opposing offense off the field helps your team, which you have millions of times, you quite literally MUST accept why .... because in those situations NE was not as good and needed to keep the game as short as possible. Why? Because over a larger series of drves, St Louis beats NE.
You wany as many possible possessions for your team ... and the least possible possessions for the opponent.
At the outset of the game, with this team, I want as many chances for the offense to score as is physically possible. In general, BB does as well, considering the team is still a.) heavily pass dominant, and b.) runs more hurry up than any team in the history of the NFL.
Then when you have a decent lead, you can change gears and start thinking about shortening the game. This is basically what NE has done all season, with a heavily skewed amount of runs coming late in winning games.
But you don't come out waving a white flag trying to limit the drives from snap one when you have a team that is basically #1 in point differential in most matchups, #1 season to season, through the last four (save the year GB won the SB) and 2007.
Until you have a lead that matches with the remaining game clock, you want to preserve as many chances as you can.
As far as running that play goes ... even debating whether Brady should have taken that shot, at an isolated Vereen on a LBer is just insane. You take the shot ... it ends the game. If it doesn't, you still have a big lead and a few downs to work with.
This was NE taking advantage of a Texans' mistake by the safety to shade to the side of the field that leaves Vereen 1-on-1. Not a designed playcall.
Finally, again, given that the Texans brought the score to 28 ... those points they scored were necessary. You cannot a.) guarantee another first down, b.) guarantee another score, or c.) guarantee that the Texans won't score.
You take the points that make it basically mathematically impossible if they are there for the taking.
E F G ...