Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    The extent of the denial as to how a strong running game has added a powerful aspect to our offense is puzzling to me. If some say it's up some say no it's down...so some say OK it's down....then the others say no it's up.

    This team needs a strong running game to have any chance to get to the SB...period. They are simply missing too many pieces of the passing puzzle to be a pass first team.

    BB is going to stay as far away as possible from any attempt for anyone to steer the conversation into why didn't you run more earlier in the season....

     

     

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

    Q: You're 9-0 when you rush 30 or more times in a game. What do you make of that statistic?

    BB: I'm sure a lot of those rushes came when we were ahead so it's easy when you're ahead in the fourth quarter to want to run the ball. The problem is getting to that point. I don't think that statistic is that significant. What's significant is how you get the lead to put yourself in that situation in the game. Anytime you get 12, 14 carries in the fourth quarter, that's going to get you up to 30 rushes normally.

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off.

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.



    I'm going to post an excerpt from a conversation I was having this weekend with Champ and SeattlePat about why we didn't run more against the Bengals (my comments are in bold below, Seattle's in regular text).  See the highlighted text in Belichick's quote above and mine below.  This whole debate about whether we should run more really comes down to asking is the run helping us move the ball and score points. An exception is late in the game if you have the lead and are more interested in running the clock down than scoring--and even then, it only works if you are moving the ball well enough to run enough clock down. 

    If you look at the play-by-play in the games where the Patriots didn't run as much as some think they should have, what you'll see are a lot of runs that left the Pats in 2nd and long or 3rd and long.  If your run game isn't producing enough 5 and 6 yard gains, you're going to have to pass more.  It may be because the defense is defending the run well or it may be because you're just not executing well in the running game on offense, but the fact is the point of any offensive play is, as Belichick says, to move the ball and score points.  An effective run game will be giving you first downs or putting you in lots of second and manageable situations and third and shorts. If the run game is not doing that, you are going to pass more.  Pass plays, even with incompletions and sacks taken into account, average about 6 yards.  Run plays average about 4 yards.  To get first downs running a lot, you've got to be getting a high percentage of runs in the 5, 6, 7 yard range.  You can't be getting too many gains of 3 yards or less because you only have three downs to work with.  If you are getting a lot of those sub 4-yard runs, you'll end up passing because of situation--and also because if you play the averages, the pass is going to give you the better odds of getting the yardage you need to gain the first down.  In fact, the average completed pass goes for more than 11 yards, so just one completion gets you the first down on average and most teams have completion rates better than 33%. Modern NFL teams pass almost 60% of the time.  This is not because coaches have gotten impressed with "fantasy stats."  It's because the averages tell them that's the sensible thing to do. 

     

    Why not run all the time? Definitely not for the reason you mention. Running all the time will make them predictable. The D defends it and the average run will go down.

    Predictability is only a part of it.  The primary goal of play calling is to score points.  And a subsidiary goal is to get first downs and accumulate yardage, since that's what keeps drives alive and makes it possible to score points.  Teams don't run over and over because it's hard to get enough first downs when plays average 4.2 yards.  It's a lot easier when plays average 6.2 yards.  Three average run plays are required for a first down.  Two average pass plays (taking into account sacks and incompletions) are required for a first down.  In the Bengals game, where we weren't getting first downs by running, we ended up throwing a lot just because that gave us the better odds of getting the yards required.  We didn't succeed, but the odds were still better.

    Teams nowadays are averaging 60% pass plays.  Why are they doing that?  Because passes in today's NFL are better ways to get first downs, accumulate yards, and get into scoring position.  Mixing in the run is necessary to avoid predictability, and it's also a relatively sure way to get safe (though generally low) yards, which in certain situations is the best strategic option.  But it's kind of like a cash investing strategy.  It can be safe and useful in certain situations and it has to be a part of your portfolio, but it's the pass which is like your stock investment and that really produces the bigger gains. 

    Did we run al over the Bengals? No, but again not for the same reason you say. I do not see how one can say they ran all over the Bengals when they did not run enough?

    However, if you are asking whether they had an effective run game given the number of run plays, then my answer is YES.

    No.  In my opinion, it wasn't effective because it didn't produce first downs or leave us in enough short yardage situations.  This is why we didn't run more.  It wasn't helping our drives, pure and simple.  The pass wasn't helping much either, but the odds of getting the big gain with the pass far outweigh the odds of getting such a gain with the run, and when you can't win straight up and have to gamble, gambling on the pass is more likely to produce the gain than gambling with the run.  I have complete faith in Bill Belichick and his offensive coordinator (whoever it is) to make these decisions correctly. 

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Don't worry, True Champ will straighten him out Wink

     




    I don't pretend to know more then BB, like you, murtl, babe, and tcal. I dont pizz on the guys team building skills while he is nearing the end of the greatest run in professional spots history.

    I do think the losses of great coaches,and player personnel, that BB brought with him from the cleveland where he actually developed his system of grading players with ozzie,saban,lafrentz,weiss,RAC,Pioli, and a slew of others has hurt his coaching staff. Hey that is what happens when you build a dynasty. I still think our current staff is good, but RAC was the longest tenured coach in the NFL, you think guys listen to Matt Patricia as much as they did Crennel? Anybody who doesn't agree with that idea, I would love to hear why?

    Now, BB as we know, is, and always has been a defensive master mind. Before I get the same b.s over the top responses from the "Clan" like, "you think BB knows nothing about offense rah, rah, rah, yes of course BB knows offensive football, but we know the guy who has his super bowl defensive game plan in the hall of fame is a defensive coach and always will be. We see it every time the D comes off the field as he is on 1 knee coaching them up in game, while the offense runs itself.

    Now, I think McD has made significant gains in restoring some variety in our offense, as we not only had a great passing game like usual, but for the past 2 years we were 2nd and 9th in rushing. We were a one dimensional offense too often before that and it still rears it's ugly head from time to time.

    2010 after trading Moss we adopted the run game and Brady was the only unanimous MVP in league history, relying on the run lead to 4 interceptions for the year. An immobile QB like Tom Brady needs a good running game, and we have always had one of the better O -lines to accomplish that. See 2008 when cassel came in and we were 6th in the league in rushing with lamont freaking jordan and sammy morris toting the rock.

    I think BB is the greatest coach and general manager this game has ever seen, but when you lose people close to you, that helped you accomplish the great things you have done, it will have a negative impact on your business. This is true in all facets of life.

    I stand by my thoughts that we have still fallen back on the greatest QB in the history of the game to win with his right arm in too many situations that didn't need it. Good post season defense's have slowed us down because of it. We have scored 14, 13, 21, 17, and 13 in our last 5 post season exits.

    3 or 4 guys here think it is because BB suddenly forgot how to acquire talent after a 40 year career of scouting and growing up as the son of Navy's great scout Steve Belichick. Others think our defense has sucked despite allowing 17, and 19 points in 2 super bowl losses, 1 person who might have more then 1 personality thinks it is all Brady's fault. I try to remove the variables from the equation, Belichick is still here, I think the losses of great coaches that the greatest coach of all time trusted and relied on throughout his entire head coaching career has been a major factor in tough post season losses.

    Individual players didn't show a mental toughness that is usually instilled in you by not only your head coach, but your O.C and position coaches. Yes, I think we should have relied on the run game more, not because we would have run for 6 ypc and scored 4 rushing td's in those games, but because running goes hand in hand with successful passing and prevents a defense from guessing right, and defense's sure have done a lot of that in our last 5 playoff exits.

    Anyway, BB knows what he is talking about, as usual, and I don't think anything in what he just said conflicts with my opinion. Some games you have to pass more, some games you have to run more, but ask yourselves this question...How many games do you remember int he past 5 or 6 years, where we should have passed more then we did? Now, how many games do you remember where we should have ran more then we did?

    I'm sure prolate won't remember any, because our coaching staff no matter how many hits it takes, is always right, but our GM BB can't even acquire enough talent to win super bowls....only go 12-4 every year. Must be a fine line in how much talent it takes to get you 12-4 but lose on the last 2 minutes of super bowls.

    Sorry about the rant...Go Pats!



    I have been critical of some of the personel decisions the past few years.

    I see a draft philosophy of trying to draft a player that best fits the system, rather than drafting the best players, and re tooling the system to best fit those players. I understand the philosophy and cannot argue with the wins and losses. But I also feel those wins and losses are more related to superior coaching than personel decisions.

    I also see a free agent philosophy of signing your own first, which I whole heartedly agree with. I also understand the middle class, depth, and not pooling much of your resources into one area/position/player. However, I have not been a fan of the signings of players on the back end of their careers. For every Kelly or Washington (Ted), there are too many failures to list. The failures far out number the successes, and the money lost is clearly listed in dead money.   

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off.

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.



    Rusty has just been schooled by BB.  It is not about run, run, run, just for the sake of "balance" or keeping Brady from passing more than 40 times a game.  It is SITUATIONAL football and Rusty just doesn't GET IT!!!

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

     

    All I know for sure is that from 2001-2004 the Patriots ran the ball in the playoffs more than almost every other team, we all know the result.

     



    Let's look at this.

     

    2001 Raiders Game 52 passes to 30 runs.

    2001 Steelers Game 39 passes to 25 runs.

    2001 Rams Game  27 passes to 25 runs.

    So far you are 0 for 3 should I continue.

    2003 Titans game 41 passes to 27 runs.

    2003 Colts game 37 passes to 32 runs. (5 Colts turnovers)

    2003 Panthers  48 passes to 35 runs.

    Now you are 0 for 6, should I continue.

    2004 Colts game 27 passes to 39 runs (Corey Dillon gets you one).

    2004 Steelers game 21 passes to 32 runs (Corey Dillon gets you two).

    2004 Eagles game 33 passes to 28 runs.

    What does this prove. Your eyes were telling you wrong except for when Corey Dillon was on the team. The Pats won plenty of playoff games throwing 35+ passes. Since the Pats had good sized leads in several of these games the running stats were probably skewed a bit in your favor with 4th quarter runs (as Bill Belichick mentions in his quote). Especially in 2004 when Pats rather handily beat the Colts and Steelers. For example I count 14 runs against the Steelers in 2004 during the 4th quarter with a two score lead. Against the Colts with a two score lead in the 4th quarter I counted 12 runs. So while I agree a good running game is important it was not more important than the passing game during the super bowl years. If anything it was the defense that was key in most of these games.

    [/QUOTE]

    2001:  Patriots had the 2nd most rushing attempts in the postseason, Rams were 3rd not coincidentally.  Both were Super Bowl participants.  Patriots ran more, played keep away from a high flying pass heavy Ram's offense and won.  They ran more than the Steelers in the AFC championship game, they ran an equal amount vs oakland and won in the closest game of the postseason.  They ran more than all but one of their opponents who ran an equal amount and won.

    2003:  Pathers were #1 in rushing attempts, Patriots were #2; both were Super Bowl participants, Patriots ran more in the big game and won.  They ran more than the Titans and won, they ran more than the Colts in the AFC championship game and kept the high flying, pass happy Peyton Manning Colts off the field and won.

    2004: Patriots were #1 in rushing attempts and #1 in postseason rushing TD's, Eagles were #3, both were Super Bowl participants.  Patriots ran the ball more in the big game and won.  They ran 2/3rd more than the Colts and crushed them, ran almost as much as Pittsburgh in the AFC game and beat them in every phase absolutely crushing them.

    I didn't say the Patriots didn't pass a lot, I said the Patriots ran the ball. 

    I didn't say running was more or less important, I said balance was important and always has been.  Balance doesn't have to be 50/50, those advocating the run aren't suggesting some magical ratio, just that it is consistent and persistent.

    Facts only get in the way when they aren't cherry picked to prove some false narrative.  Look if you disagree with my politics that's fine, but to argue against a 100 plus years of football logic just to be contrarian justs makes one look silly.  The first thing you have to do in football is stop the run and run the ball, decades before the first forward pass, there was only the run.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    I don't pretend to know more then BB, like you, murtl, babe, and tcal. I dont pizz on the guys team building skills while he is nearing the end of the greatest run in professional spots history.

    I do think the losses of great coaches,and player personnel, that BB brought with him from the cleveland where he actually developed his system of grading players with ozzie,saban,lafrentz,weiss,RAC,Pioli, and a slew of others has hurt his coaching staff. Hey that is what happens when you build a dynasty. I still think our current staff is good, but RAC was the longest tenured coach in the NFL, you think guys listen to Matt Patricia as much as they did Crennel? Anybody who doesn't agree with that idea, I would love to hear why?

    Now, BB as we know, is, and always has been a defensive master mind. Before I get the same b.s over the top responses from the "Clan" like, "you think BB knows nothing about offense rah, rah, rah, yes of course BB knows offensive football, but we know the guy who has his super bowl defensive game plan in the hall of fame is a defensive coach and always will be. We see it every time the D comes off the field as he is on 1 knee coaching them up in game, while the offense runs itself.

    Now, I think McD has made significant gains in restoring some variety in our offense, as we not only had a great passing game like usual, but for the past 2 years we were 2nd and 9th in rushing. We were a one dimensional offense too often before that and it still rears it's ugly head from time to time.

    2010 after trading Moss we adopted the run game and Brady was the only unanimous MVP in league history, relying on the run lead to 4 interceptions for the year. An immobile QB like Tom Brady needs a good running game, and we have always had one of the better O -lines to accomplish that. See 2008 when cassel came in and we were 6th in the league in rushing with lamont freaking jordan and sammy morris toting the rock.

    I think BB is the greatest coach and general manager this game has ever seen, but when you lose people close to you, that helped you accomplish the great things you have done, it will have a negative impact on your business. This is true in all facets of life.

    I stand by my thoughts that we have still fallen back on the greatest QB in the history of the game to win with his right arm in too many situations that didn't need it. Good post season defense's have slowed us down because of it. We have scored 14, 13, 21, 17, and 13 in our last 5 post season exits.

    3 or 4 guys here think it is because BB suddenly forgot how to acquire talent after a 40 year career of scouting and growing up as the son of Navy's great scout Steve Belichick. Others think our defense has sucked despite allowing 17, and 19 points in 2 super bowl losses, 1 person who might have more then 1 personality thinks it is all Brady's fault. I try to remove the variables from the equation, Belichick is still here, I think the losses of great coaches that the greatest coach of all time trusted and relied on throughout his entire head coaching career has been a major factor in tough post season losses.

    Individual players didn't show a mental toughness that is usually instilled in you by not only your head coach, but your O.C and position coaches. Yes, I think we should have relied on the run game more, not because we would have run for 6 ypc and scored 4 rushing td's in those games, but because running goes hand in hand with successful passing and prevents a defense from guessing right, and defense's sure have done a lot of that in our last 5 playoff exits.

    Anyway, BB knows what he is talking about, as usual, and I don't think anything in what he just said conflicts with my opinion. Some games you have to pass more, some games you have to run more, but ask yourselves this question...How many games do you remember int he past 5 or 6 years, where we should have passed more then we did? Now, how many games do you remember where we should have ran more then we did?

    I'm sure prolate won't remember any, because our coaching staff no matter how many hits it takes, is always right, but our GM BB can't even acquire enough talent to win super bowls....only go 12-4 every year. Must be a fine line in how much talent it takes to get you 12-4 but lose on the last 2 minutes of super bowls.

    Sorry about the rant...Go Pats!



    This is actually a "fantastic post," all these other posts just play to our desire to see high flying, offense heavy, fantasy football that is wussyfing the game with yellow flags. 

    I blame Tecmo Bowl...

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    I don't pretend to know more then BB, like you, murtl, babe, and tcal. I dont pizz on the guys team building skills while he is nearing the end of the greatest run in professional spots history.

    I do think the losses of great coaches,and player personnel, that BB brought with him from the cleveland where he actually developed his system of grading players with ozzie,saban,lafrentz,weiss,RAC,Pioli, and a slew of others has hurt his coaching staff. Hey that is what happens when you build a dynasty. I still think our current staff is good, but RAC was the longest tenured coach in the NFL, you think guys listen to Matt Patricia as much as they did Crennel? Anybody who doesn't agree with that idea, I would love to hear why?

    Now, BB as we know, is, and always has been a defensive master mind. Before I get the same b.s over the top responses from the "Clan" like, "you think BB knows nothing about offense rah, rah, rah, yes of course BB knows offensive football, but we know the guy who has his super bowl defensive game plan in the hall of fame is a defensive coach and always will be. We see it every time the D comes off the field as he is on 1 knee coaching them up in game, while the offense runs itself.

    Now, I think McD has made significant gains in restoring some variety in our offense, as we not only had a great passing game like usual, but for the past 2 years we were 2nd and 9th in rushing. We were a one dimensional offense too often before that and it still rears it's ugly head from time to time.

    2010 after trading Moss we adopted the run game and Brady was the only unanimous MVP in league history, relying on the run lead to 4 interceptions for the year. An immobile QB like Tom Brady needs a good running game, and we have always had one of the better O -lines to accomplish that. See 2008 when cassel came in and we were 6th in the league in rushing with lamont freaking jordan and sammy morris toting the rock.

    I think BB is the greatest coach and general manager this game has ever seen, but when you lose people close to you, that helped you accomplish the great things you have done, it will have a negative impact on your business. This is true in all facets of life.

    I stand by my thoughts that we have still fallen back on the greatest QB in the history of the game to win with his right arm in too many situations that didn't need it. Good post season defense's have slowed us down because of it. We have scored 14, 13, 21, 17, and 13 in our last 5 post season exits.

    3 or 4 guys here think it is because BB suddenly forgot how to acquire talent after a 40 year career of scouting and growing up as the son of Navy's great scout Steve Belichick. Others think our defense has sucked despite allowing 17, and 19 points in 2 super bowl losses, 1 person who might have more then 1 personality thinks it is all Brady's fault. I try to remove the variables from the equation, Belichick is still here, I think the losses of great coaches that the greatest coach of all time trusted and relied on throughout his entire head coaching career has been a major factor in tough post season losses.

    Individual players didn't show a mental toughness that is usually instilled in you by not only your head coach, but your O.C and position coaches. Yes, I think we should have relied on the run game more, not because we would have run for 6 ypc and scored 4 rushing td's in those games, but because running goes hand in hand with successful passing and prevents a defense from guessing right, and defense's sure have done a lot of that in our last 5 playoff exits.

    Anyway, BB knows what he is talking about, as usual, and I don't think anything in what he just said conflicts with my opinion. Some games you have to pass more, some games you have to run more, but ask yourselves this question...How many games do you remember int he past 5 or 6 years, where we should have passed more then we did? Now, how many games do you remember where we should have ran more then we did?

    I'm sure prolate won't remember any, because our coaching staff no matter how many hits it takes, is always right, but our GM BB can't even acquire enough talent to win super bowls....only go 12-4 every year. Must be a fine line in how much talent it takes to get you 12-4 but lose on the last 2 minutes of super bowls.

    Sorry about the rant...Go Pats!

     



    This is actually a "fantastic post," all these other posts just play to our desire to see high flying, offense heavy, fantasy football that is wussyfing the game with yellow flags. 

     

    I blame Tecmo Bowl...



    It's a fantastic post if you think Bill Belichick is incompetent and still hasn't recovered from the loss of Weis and Crennel a decade ago.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

     

    All I know for sure is that from 2001-2004 the Patriots ran the ball in the playoffs more than almost every other team, we all know the result.

     



    Let's look at this.

     

    2001 Raiders Game 52 passes to 30 runs.

    2001 Steelers Game 39 passes to 25 runs.

    2001 Rams Game  27 passes to 25 runs.

    So far you are 0 for 3 should I continue.

    2003 Titans game 41 passes to 27 runs.

    2003 Colts game 37 passes to 32 runs. (5 Colts turnovers)

    2003 Panthers  48 passes to 35 runs.

    Now you are 0 for 6, should I continue.

    2004 Colts game 27 passes to 39 runs (Corey Dillon gets you one).

    2004 Steelers game 21 passes to 32 runs (Corey Dillon gets you two).

    2004 Eagles game 33 passes to 28 runs.

    What does this prove. Your eyes were telling you wrong except for when Corey Dillon was on the team. The Pats won plenty of playoff games throwing 35+ passes. Since the Pats had good sized leads in several of these games the running stats were probably skewed a bit in your favor with 4th quarter runs (as Bill Belichick mentions in his quote). Especially in 2004 when Pats rather handily beat the Colts and Steelers. For example I count 14 runs against the Steelers in 2004 during the 4th quarter with a two score lead. Against the Colts with a two score lead in the 4th quarter I counted 12 runs. So while I agree a good running game is important it was not more important than the passing game during the super bowl years. If anything it was the defense that was key in most of these games.



    2001:  Patriots had the 2nd most rushing attempts in the postseason, Rams were 3rd not coincidentally.  Both were Super Bowl participants.  Patriots ran more, played keep away from a high flying pass heavy Ram's offense and won.  They ran more than the Steelers in the AFC championship game, they ran an equal amount vs oakland and won in the closest game of the postseason.  They ran more than all but one of their opponents who ran an equal amount and won.

    2003:  Pathers were #1 in rushing attempts, Patriots were #2; both were Super Bowl participants, Patriots ran more in the big game and won.  They ran more than the Titans and won, they ran more than the Colts in the AFC championship game and kept the high flying, pass happy Peyton Manning Colts off the field and won.

    2004: Patriots were #1 in rushing attempts and #1 in postseason rushing TD's, Eagles were #3, both were Super Bowl participants.  Patriots ran the ball more in the big game and won.  They ran 2/3rd more than the Colts and crushed them, ran almost as much as Pittsburgh in the AFC game and beat them in every phase absolutely crushing them.

    I didn't say the Patriots didn't pass a lot, I said the Patriots ran the ball. 

    I didn't say running was more or less important, I said balance was important and always has been.  Balance doesn't have to be 50/50, those advocating the run aren't suggesting some magical ratio, just that it is consistent and persistent.

    Facts only get in the way when they aren't cherry picked to prove some false narrative.  Look if you disagree with my politics that's fine, but to argue against a 100 plus years of football logic just to be contrarian justs makes one look silly.  The first thing you have to do in football is stop the run and run the ball, decades before the first forward pass, there was only the run.



    And decades before there were cars there were only horses, but if you want to get somewhere fast, I suggest the car. Wink

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

     

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

     



    BB knows that balance is important, he also knows that scoring points and stopping teams from scoring is more important than yards.  

     

    As far as what it takes to have great offense I would say that is not his specialty and he of all people is keenly aware of this which is why he leaves it to his offensive coaches and can always be found on gameday coaching the defense and special teams.

    And the fact remains, the Pats are 9-0 when they run thirty times or more, I would add there is probably data that can support the notion that the more they have run the more they have won, at least that's what my eyes tell me and I have watched every game over the last decade.  I would also add that running in the playoffs is substantially more important in the playoffs where snow and the elements play a factor.

    All I know for sure is that from 2001-2004 the Patriots ran the ball in the playoffs more than almost every other team, we all know the result.



    Let's look at this.

    2001 Raiders Game 52 passes to 30 runs.

    2001 Steelers Game 39 passes to 25 runs.

    2001 Rams Game  27 passes to 25 runs.

    So far you are 0 for 3 should I continue.

    2003 Titans game 41 passes to 27 runs.

    2003 Colts game 37 passes to 32 runs. (5 Colts turnovers)

    2003 Panthers  48 passes to 35 runs.

    Now you are 0 for 6, should I continue.

    2004 Colts game 27 passes to 39 runs (Corey Dillon gets you one).

    2004 Steelers game 21 passes to 32 runs (Corey Dillon gets you two).

    2004 Eagles game 33 passes to 28 runs.

    What does this prove. Your eyes were telling you wrong except for when Corey Dillon was on the team. The Pats won plenty of playoff games throwing 35+ passes. Since the Pats had good sized leads in several of these games the running stats were probably skewed a bit in your favor with 4th quarter runs (as Bill Belichick mentions in his quote). Especially in 2004 when Pats rather handily beat the Colts and Steelers. For example I count 14 runs against the Steelers in 2004 during the 4th quarter with a two score lead. Against the Colts with a two score lead in the 4th quarter I counted 12 runs. So while I agree a good running game is important it was not more important than the passing game during the super bowl years. If anything it was the defense that was key in most of these games.




    Wait a minute. Those are good pass to run ratios. And by the way, I will borrow a line I hear often on this forum, those numbers were skewed in all 3 super bowl wins because in all 3 super bowls our vaunted dynasty defense gave up the lead in the 4rth quarter and forced the great one to put the team on his back in the last minute by throwing to win.

    But let's look at how Antowian Smith pounded a dominate panthers d line for 28 carries at barely 3.5 yards per clip to wear that D down and open up our offense to score the most points they ever had in their super bowl history.

    Or 2001 when we had 27 passes for 134 yards, and 25 rushes for 133 yards and won the game.

    Or 2004 when we had 33 passes to 27 runs for 112 yards which lead to the 2nd most points scored in our super bowl history.

    Now lets's take a look at the 2 super bowl losses. 90 passes to 33 rushes = 15.5 ppg scored...oh but it's the defense's fault.

    You know why our defense in all 5 super bowl appearances couldn't stop the other team? Because the other team was 1 of 2 of the best teams in the league. They were going to score. Unfortunately for us, our open book offense with a 3-1 pass to run ratio could only score 14 and 17 points with the same game plans.After scoring the most points in NFL history in the regular season and averaging 35 ppg the 2nd game.

    Yes Maroney was limited in 07 but only had 11 carries, How did Faulk do you ask? Well he only had 1 carry. BJGE ran for 4.5 ypc in 2011 but only received 10 of them, why? Because we wanted to go pass heavy against a weak run defense who, had the best pass rush in the NFL. So we gave Woodhead 7 carries for 18 yards. I guess the gints knew what we were doing....again.

    Hey, I got 1 more for ya. All of those playoff games you listed we had more runs in all of them then our 2 power backs had combined in both super bowl losses. How did that work out?

    Trying to sell us that we were not a more balanced offense in our dynasty years is as erroneous as the 4 horsemen trying to tell us BB doesn't know how to build a good football team, or rusty trying to say that Brady is some ego maniac who is only about his passing stats.

    All 3 agendas are equally fallacious.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    2001:  Patriots had the 2nd most rushing attempts in the postseason, Rams were 3rd not coincidentally.  Both were Super Bowl participants..

    2003:  Pathers were #1 in rushing attempts, Patriots were #2; both were Super Bowl participants, Patriots ran more in the big game and won..

    2004: Patriots were #1 in rushing attempts and #1 in postseason rushing TD's, Eagles were #3, both were Super Bowl participants..

    The Super Bowl participants annually play the most playoff games of any of the 12 postseason participants.  Of course they are going to have the most rushing attempts and touchdowns in the postseason.  They're also going to have the most pass attempts, punt returns, plays from scrimmage and cups of Gatorade drunk.

    I'm not saying your premise of balanced offense is wrong, but the above stats are wildly disingenuous.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    Belichick: "I don't think that statistic is that significant . . .  I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points."

    Simple, clear, concise.  The only debate now is whether we think Bill Belichick knows what he's talking about or not. He's not dissembling here, because we know the playcalling has been consistent with him not thinking number of runs matters so much.  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

    Q: You're 9-0 when you rush 30 or more times in a game. What do you make of that statistic?

    BB: I'm sure a lot of those rushes came when we were ahead so it's easy when you're ahead in the fourth quarter to want to run the ball. The problem is getting to that point. I don't think that statistic is that significant. What's significant is how you get the lead to put yourself in that situation in the game. Anytime you get 12, 14 carries in the fourth quarter, that's going to get you up to 30 rushes normally.

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off.

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.



    Flaw.

    It is.  

    This is fine in principle, but when BB is not over-seeing things and on the sideline dealing with the D, he is not in charge.   McDaniels and the supposed GOAT are.

    Clearly, subbing your RB for matchups to tip off the opponent is not a good idea.  Brady prefers that shotgun.  Ugh.  I wish Brady did not prefer the shotgun, Moss and Welker never came here and Brady never had his knee blown out.

    I, too, wish Brady/McD weren't running shotguns on 1st and 2nd down that the rate he has.

    He's been brutal in the postseason that the rate. Good news is, the odds are that Brady can't continue on with that, so Pats fans should like the odds for a better Brady.



    Did this moron just call BB's assesment of how to play football a "flaw"?  Can you believe that anyone, especially the guy that is so in love with BB that he needs to bash Brady at every turn, thinks they know more about football than BB?  Shocking.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    Great thread.  Is Rusty in hiding?  Dodging this thread now? Just more proof he is a fraud.  LOL @ him, his idol has spoken against his thoughts.  Must be crushing to him. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:

    Q: You have some harsh critics on the BDC message board that like to criticize your offensive gameplans and believe that committing to the run = a win in every game. Thoughts?

    BB: That guy they call "Rusty" is one of the dumbest SOB's alive. Have you seen the way he talks about Tom? Are we done?




    Yeah because he's the only one? Every 'Brady is God' bandwagon fan on this board attacks BB

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    If it isn’t kool aid being guzzled in copious amounts its red herrings being tossed out there.

     

    This has nothing to do with BB. It has nothing to do with the past. It’s about the here and now.

     

    For whatever reason we find ourselves with Vereen, Bolden, Ridley and Blount. And a fairly healthy group at that. When given the chance they have done a pretty solid job. Blount has looked special.

     

    Our offense is highly damaged and compromised.

     

    Our defense is highly damaged and compromised.

     

    Carpe diem

    How ever far this years Pats Team goes in the next few weeks will depend largely on how well the 4 running backs play....or more importantly....how well they are used.

     

    Never look a gift horse in the mouth. The Pats actually can hurt teams with those 4 players....let them do it.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

     

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

     



    BB knows that balance is important, he also knows that scoring points and stopping teams from scoring is more important than yards.  

     

    As far as what it takes to have great offense I would say that is not his specialty and he of all people is keenly aware of this which is why he leaves it to his offensive coaches and can always be found on gameday coaching the defense and special teams.

    And the fact remains, the Pats are 9-0 when they run thirty times or more, I would add there is probably data that can support the notion that the more they have run the more they have won, at least that's what my eyes tell me and I have watched every game over the last decade.  I would also add that running in the playoffs is substantially more important in the playoffs where snow and the elements play a factor.

    All I know for sure is that from 2001-2004 the Patriots ran the ball in the playoffs more than almost every other team, we all know the result.



    Let's look at this.

    2001 Raiders Game 52 passes to 30 runs.

    2001 Steelers Game 39 passes to 25 runs.

    2001 Rams Game  27 passes to 25 runs.

    So far you are 0 for 3 should I continue.

    2003 Titans game 41 passes to 27 runs.

    2003 Colts game 37 passes to 32 runs. (5 Colts turnovers)

    2003 Panthers  48 passes to 35 runs.

    Now you are 0 for 6, should I continue.

    2004 Colts game 27 passes to 39 runs (Corey Dillon gets you one).

    2004 Steelers game 21 passes to 32 runs (Corey Dillon gets you two).

    2004 Eagles game 33 passes to 28 runs.

    What does this prove. Your eyes were telling you wrong except for when Corey Dillon was on the team. The Pats won plenty of playoff games throwing 35+ passes. Since the Pats had good sized leads in several of these games the running stats were probably skewed a bit in your favor with 4th quarter runs (as Bill Belichick mentions in his quote). Especially in 2004 when Pats rather handily beat the Colts and Steelers. For example I count 14 runs against the Steelers in 2004 during the 4th quarter with a two score lead. Against the Colts with a two score lead in the 4th quarter I counted 12 runs. So while I agree a good running game is important it was not more important than the passing game during the super bowl years. If anything it was the defense that was key in most of these games.




    Wait a minute. Those are good pass to run ratios. And by the way, I will borrow a line I hear often on this forum, those numbers were skewed in all 3 super bowl wins because in all 3 super bowls our vaunted dynasty defense gave up the lead in the 4rth quarter and forced the great one to put the team on his back in the last minute by throwing to win.

    But let's look at how Antowian Smith pounded a dominate panthers d line for 28 carries at barely 3.5 yards per clip to wear that D down and open up our offense to score the most points they ever had in their super bowl history.

    Or 2001 when we had 27 passes for 134 yards, and 25 rushes for 133 yards and won the game.

    Or 2004 when we had 33 passes to 27 runs for 112 yards which lead to the 2nd most points scored in our super bowl history.

    Now lets's take a look at the 2 super bowl losses. 90 passes to 33 rushes = 15.5 ppg scored...oh but it's the defense's fault.

    You know why our defense in all 5 super bowl appearances couldn't stop the other team? Because the other team was 1 of 2 of the best teams in the league. They were going to score. Unfortunately for us, our open book offense with a 3-1 pass to run ratio could only score 14 and 17 points with the same game plans.After scoring the most points in NFL history in the regular season and averaging 35 ppg the 2nd game.

    Yes Maroney was limited in 07 but only had 11 carries, How did Faulk do you ask? Well he only had 1 carry. BJGE ran for 4.5 ypc in 2011 but only received 10 of them, why? Because we wanted to go pass heavy against a weak run defense who, had the best pass rush in the NFL. So we gave Woodhead 7 carries for 18 yards. I guess the gints knew what we were doing....again.

    Hey, I got 1 more for ya. All of those playoff games you listed we had more runs in all of them then our 2 power backs had combined in both super bowl losses. How did that work out?

    Trying to sell us that we were not a more balanced offense in our dynasty years is as erroneous as the 4 horsemen trying to tell us BB doesn't know how to build a good football team, or rusty trying to say that Brady is some ego maniac who is only about his passing stats.

    All 3 agendas are equally fallacious.



    Damn you are on the ball today champ.  Two great posts. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

     

     

    If it isn’t kool aid being guzzled in copious amounts its red herrings being tossed out there.

     

    This has nothing to do with BB. It has nothing to do with the past. It’s about the here and now.

     

    For whatever reason we find ourselves with Vereen, Bolden, Ridley and Blount. And a fairly healthy group at that. When given the chance they have done a pretty solid job. Blount has looked special.

     

    Our offense is highly damaged and compromised.

     

    Our defense is highly damaged and compromised.

     

    Carpe diem

    How ever far this years Pats Team goes in the next few weeks will depend largely on how well the 4 running backs play....or more importantly....how well they are used.

     

    Never look a gift horse in the mouth. The Pats actually can hurt teams with those 4 players....let them do it.




    Expect the run to dominate the play calling until Indy proves they can stop it. If the run performs and is mixed with the play action Luck could spend a lot of the game watching from the sidelines.

    However this will only work IF we can score TDs at the end of drives not settle for FGs. If we can't produce in the red zone we're toast no matter how much we control the clock.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:

     

     

    If it isn’t kool aid being guzzled in copious amounts its red herrings being tossed out there.

     

    This has nothing to do with BB. It has nothing to do with the past. It’s about the here and now.

     

    For whatever reason we find ourselves with Vereen, Bolden, Ridley and Blount. And a fairly healthy group at that. When given the chance they have done a pretty solid job. Blount has looked special.

     

    Our offense is highly damaged and compromised.

     

    Our defense is highly damaged and compromised.

     

    Carpe diem

    How ever far this years Pats Team goes in the next few weeks will depend largely on how well the 4 running backs play....or more importantly....how well they are used.

     

    Never look a gift horse in the mouth. The Pats actually can hurt teams with those 4 players....let them do it.




    Expect the run to dominate the play calling until Indy proves they can stop it. If the run performs and is mixed with the play action Luck could spend a lot of the game watching from the sidelines.

    However this will only work IF we can score TDs at the end of drives not settle for FGs. If we can't produce in the red zone we're toast no matter how much we control the clock.




    I agree...and inside the 20 yd lines is bonus...is actually keeps our passing viable as well.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    So... err, Belichick just refuted everything that Rusty, TC, and Woz have been saying for awhile, correct?

    Is this really a point of contention?

    We have a certain group of posters who seem to think that success, specfically playoff success, depends solely upon the number of attempted rushes per game. Regardless of circumstances that may arise in a game, or other various factors... the only thing that matters is the number of attempted rushes.

    The majority of people here knew that opinion seemed faellacious... and Belichick has now confirmed this.

    Yet they won't admit they were wrong. 

    Sorry guys, but this war is over. If hearing Belichick's opinion doesn't change your mind, I don't think anything will. 

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

     

    2001:  Patriots had the 2nd most rushing attempts in the postseason, Rams were 3rd not coincidentally.  Both were Super Bowl participants..

    2003:  Pathers were #1 in rushing attempts, Patriots were #2; both were Super Bowl participants, Patriots ran more in the big game and won..

    2004: Patriots were #1 in rushing attempts and #1 in postseason rushing TD's, Eagles were #3, both were Super Bowl participants..

     

     

    The Super Bowl participants annually play the most playoff games of any of the 12 postseason participants.  Of course they are going to have the most rushing attempts and touchdowns in the postseason.  They're also going to have the most pass attempts, punt returns, plays from scrimmage and cups of Gatorade drunk.

    I'm not saying your premise of balanced offense is wrong, but the above stats are wildly disingenuous.



    How are they "wildly" disingenuous if he gives 3 examples, which shows a pattern, to support the premise?

    I love how people borrow my word choices, too.  LOL

    We have a the intelligent part of our fanbase all but beginning for Brady not to abuse what he prefers (the shotgun) and to establish a base run game to work from, when that concept is intended to HELP Brady!

    It's just so simple.

    If you ignore doing it or don't really commit or stick to it, you've been compromised as an offense.

    It's why teams want to stop someoen's run game!  Duh!  We stop it FOR the opponent.

    Until I see every postseason game with Brady under Center, a lead back who can get into a running rhythm in the first half, I won't believe McDaneles and Brady get this.

     




    None of it matters. We can run the ball all day and own the clock but if all we get is FGs we will lose.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    So... err, Belichick just refuted everything that Rusty, TC, and Woz have been saying for awhile, correct?

    Is this really a point of contention?

    We have a certain group of posters who seem to think that success, specfically playoff success, depends solely upon the number of attempted rushes per game. Regardless of circumstances that may arise in a game, or other various factors... the only thing that matters is the number of attempted rushes.

    The majority of people here knew that opinion seemed faellacious... and Belichick has now confirmed this.

    Yet they won't admit they were wrong. 

    Sorry guys, but this war is over. If hearing Belichick's opinion doesn't change your mind, I don't think anything will. 




    It's NOT attempts per say....it's what those attempts yield. And it's hard to argue that the yield of late has not warrented more attempts....the math is so simple even a caveman can do it...

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share