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

  1. 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 DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    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...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. You can have an effective run game under 4 YPC. We've seen it.

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

    See?

    We've literally lost SBs and some big games because we never established, showed we wanted to establish a run game or completely ignored even doing it in the first half of a game.

    A gimmick offnese cannot be a base offense vs a good or great D.  

    [/QUOTE]

    The way I do math 26 carries and 126 yards is 4.8 yards per carry and 22 carries 122 yards is 5.5 yards per carry. I may be wrong, but I did major in Math, and can use a 10 key calculator fairly well, even though I am not Six Sigma. Those are outstanding averages, not mediocre or 'not great but not bad'. If the Pats were averaging 3 YPC in those games, they would have run less. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I was not using those as examples.  I was using them as 20+ carry examplss when we barely led or were trailing.

    I realize those are over 4 ypc.  I am just saying, going at 4 or even under does not mean, run game is not working well.  People get too fixated on stats.

    20+ carries is the point.  They stuck with it used it basically to help win the game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Antowian Smith had 26 carries for 83 yards with a long of 9, the definition of grinding out tough yards against a dominate defensive line. We scored the most points in our 7 super bowl history. We stayed committed to running...right up until our dynasty defense gave up the lead in the 4rth quarter.

     
  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 TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. You can have an effective run game under 4 YPC. We've seen it.

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

    See?

    We've literally lost SBs and some big games because we never established, showed we wanted to establish a run game or completely ignored even doing it in the first half of a game.

    A gimmick offnese cannot be a base offense vs a good or great D.  

    [/QUOTE]

    The way I do math 26 carries and 126 yards is 4.8 yards per carry and 22 carries 122 yards is 5.5 yards per carry. I may be wrong, but I did major in Math, and can use a 10 key calculator fairly well, even though I am not Six Sigma. Those are outstanding averages, not mediocre or 'not great but not bad'. If the Pats were averaging 3 YPC in those games, they would have run less. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I was not using those as examples.  I was using them as 20+ carry examplss when we barely led or were trailing.

    I realize those are over 4 ypc.  I am just saying, going at 4 or even under does not mean, run game is not working well.  People get too fixated on stats.

    20+ carries is the point.  They stuck with it used it basically to help win the game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Antowian Smith had 26 carries for 83 yards with a long of 9, the definition of grinding out tough yards against a dominate defensive line. We scored the most points in our 7 super bowl history. We stayed committed to running...right up until our dynasty defense gave up the lead in the 4rth quarter.

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady also threw 48 times for 354 yards averaging 7.4 yards an attempt.   Maybe throwing 48 times is the key? 

     

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

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

    Gee, I think maybe BB, McD and tB know what they now have. listen to TBs latest presser. all you need to hear to feel comfy.They have to run and TB has to pass well

    This team is versatile and physical and gritty

    The most physical teams usually win. Blount ,  and Ridley and the FB are all good short- and All three runners Blount, Ridley and Vareen are dangerous past the LOS.  t

     JE, DA, KT  ( Dobbie out?) Vareen are all quick , darting recvrs. the key is spacing and keeping the D guessing and on its heels. accomplished by formations and play calling. Some is what the D gives up , 8 in the box?, or whatever. using no huddle to keep down substitutions. I am fine with the shotgun at certain times Then, it Depends on match ups.

    But it all starts with the Oline and holding onto the ball

     

     
  4. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, since all you care about is winning what did you think of the 90 pass to 33 runs we put up in both super bowl losses? All good? 

    Against he jets we ran our power back 9 times for 45 yards, but elected to once again go with woody for 14 carries at like 3 ypc out of a spread offense.Instead of throwing the interception on the 1st drive maybe we keep giving our power back the ball who was moving chains.

    Same in the 2011 SB, run power back for 5, run power back for 7, then on 1st down against the best pass rush in football we run 30yard routes and throw an interception to a DE 40 yards down field. Was that BB's fault? No, because he was doing what he always does, coaching the defense.

    And to be fair, balance got SB wins in 01, 03, and 04.

    A one dimensional offense got 15.5 ppg and 2 losses in 07 and 11.

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't Belichick just say yesterday?: "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."

     

    Run pass ratios do not and never did explain why we won or lost any game.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

     So from that statement you ascertain that BB was happy with his 90 pass to 33 rush ration....which lead to not "moving the chains", or "scoring points"? Stop tryng to turn what he said into a blanket statement. Ask him if he was happy with his results from his offense in the super bowls we lost. I wonder what his answer would be...

    And it isn't now, nor has it ever been about certain ratios. It is about the offense's tendency to rely too much on Tom Brady and the passing game. That's my opinion, and if you don't see it, you are probably not looking to do so.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

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

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

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

    [/QUOTE]

    Every? Pfft 100% false and you know it.

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, let me put it another way, from 2001-2004 we played 9 games in the playoffs, we ran more than our opponent in all but one of those games (which was blowout) and won them all.

    Please explain how this is disingenuous?

    [/QUOTE]

    Lets look at this statement which first of all is not entirely true. Let's look at it in light of what BB said in the original post. Of the 9 wins the Pats ran more than 7 of their opponents. I argue it was the 4th quarter leads that dictated the running game not some run first style  that Brady (or McDaniels or O'Brien) forced Belichick to abandon.


    - In the 2001 Raider game both teams ran it 30 times. The Pats ran it 5 times in a row at the end of the game while in field goal position, including a QB sneak. The Raiders ran it 30 times with 31 passes. Vastly superior balance but they ran only 61 plays to the Pats 82 (not counting sacks or penalties).  No one would argue the balance favored the Pats. Minus the last few runs when the Pats were within the 20, about to kick the winning field goal, the Raiders would have ran it more.

    - In the 2001 Steelers game the Pats ran it 25 times to the Steelers 22 times. The Pats had a 17 point lead in the second half and the last 3 plays of the game were Bledsoe kneel downs which count as runs in the stat book. Down by 17 in the second half the Steelers clearly had to reduce the run game. They threw 42 passes overall but even that is flukey. Eight of those passes were in the final minute of the 2nd quarter when they were trying to score before halftime. So yes the Pats ran it 3 more times but it's a fluke caused by a 4th quarter lead and 3 kneeldowns at the end of the game. 

    - In the 2001 Rams game the Pats were super balanced. They were a little too conservative at times in my opinion. The last 8 plays by the Pats were Brady passes to set up the winning field goal. The Pats ran it 25 times to the Rams 22 times but let's look at it in the context of Belichicks statements about the 4th quarter. Down by 14 with a minute left to go in the 3rd the Rams passed it 18 times to 5 runs (not counting penalties and sacks). Being down 2 scores late clearly influenced the play calling of the rams.. They scored 2 TD's on those 3 drives and if it weren't for a huge McGinest sack they may have scored more points.  The Rams final tally of 2 passes to 1 run ratio (44-22) was a product of the score not the game plan.

    -In the 2003 Titans game the Pats ran it 27 times to the Titans 26 times. Not counting sacks the Pats had 68 plays to 52 plays. One more run in all those extra plays. The Pats were never behind in this game and the Pats had 2 kneel downs at the end of the game by Brady to jump over the Titans run total by one.

    - In the 2003 Colts game the Pats ran it 32 times to the Colts 25 times. Down 21-7 in the 4th quarter the Colts passed it 27 times to 6 runs (not counting sacks). The Pats ran it 8 times in the 4th quarter including a kneel down to 6 passes. Once again it was the lead that gave the Pats the run advantage. Not the game plan.

    - In the 2003 Panthers game Wozzy is right. The Pats clearly ran it more, 35 times to 16, though the Pats ran 30 more plays to skew it some. Since Brady threw it 48 times for well over 300 yards and 3 TD's it's hard to argue the running game was the decider, but it definately contributed.

    - In the 2004 Colts game. Another easy win by the Pats. With Dillon leading the way the Pats ran it 39 times to 15 by the record setting Manning Colts. In the 4th quarter down 2 scores the Colts passed it 16 times to 1 run. Not counting sacks or penalties the Pats ran it 15 times. Proving the 4th quarter score dictated the ratio. Though the Pats with Dillon were a great running team.

    -In the 2004 Steelers game the Pats ran it less than their opponents. The Steelers ran it 37 times to 32 by the Pats. With a big 4th quarter lead I counted at least 14 Patriot runs, once again proving Belichick's point.

    -In the 2004 Eagles game the Pats ran it 28 times to 17 for the Eagles. The Eagles 17 runs got them only 45 yards (less than 3.0 ypc). Nonetheless Belichick's point holds true once again. With the lead in the 4th quarter I count 11 runs. Down by 2 scores in the 4th the Eagles passed it 17 times to 2 runs by my count. Going into the 4th the Pats had only a few more runs than their opponents.

    Notice how the Pats had leads in the 4th quarter in every one of these games but the Raider game and the Panther game. Even in the Panther game the Pats were only behind for one drive and that was by one point. So when true champ tells you the Pats passed more because of the score he is being disingenous. The Pats with that defense usually had leads for most of the game. It was the defense that was the key. Put the 2001, 2003 or 2004 defense on the 2011 Pats. That games a blow out. Not even close. There is nothing wrong with a good or great run game. When BB had Dillon he used it. Especially after he got the lead late. Don't try to convince me that the 2007 Giants game would have been won with Maroney carrying it 25 times. I'm not buying it if thats what you are selling and Rusty has been trying to sell that junk for years.

     
  7. 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 CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey look, I found an extended portion of the interview. 

    Q. Coach, you say "whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one COULD BE GOOD as long as you are acheiving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over". would it be fair to say that if you run it 50 times and do not acheive any of those goals then it didn't work very well?

    A. um, yes I would say that is a fair conclusion.

    Q. Well then may we also safely assume that if you threw the ball 50 times and it lead to failing to acheive previous mentioned goals of moving the ball, scoring points amd not turning it over then perhaps that didnt work very well either.

    A. NOOOOOOO you idiot!, "run pass ratios have nothing to do with winning or losing the game....whatever happened happened, nothing could ever have been done differently ROOOOOAAAARRRRRRR!

    Wow, glad I found this excerpt!  This must be where prolate got his idea from.

    You were right all along prolate. Congrats bro....

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

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

    Like a 17th century parliamentarian refusing to insult the king, just his ministers. It's those evil minister's leading our godly king astray. Belichcik is a great coach, it's his coordinators/ministers that are leading him astray. If he would only take our advice and do what we say and not what his coordinators want he would be a great coach.

    Just say the truth. You think he is a good coach but he could be a great coach if he just did what you say. He's wrong and you are right. The 12 wins were in spite of the offensive game plans and the play calling. The fact that this is probably the winningest coach/qb combo in NFL history is a fluke. It's in spite of their game plans. Not because of them. You know his teams and their abilities better than he does. You watch the same film he does and his opinion is wrong and you are right. Don't criticize a draft pick that may not have panned out but rip his strategy, I mean his coordinators strategy since Bill wanted to run Maroney 30 times against the Giants but McDaniels and Brady refused. He definately wanted to run BJGE 30 times against the Giants in 2011 but Brady and O'Brien overruled him. Just who the heck is at the helm of this ship? I know all this as a fact because it's the only way it fits my theory that Belichick can do no wrong but he refuses to do what I want. It's obviously all against his will. He let Green Ellis leave because he was so disgusted with Brady he vowed to never allow Tom to have such a great runner ever again. He put a pox on his own house.

    By the way. I think the Pats have to run it like the Cowher Steelers from here on out in 2013. Not because I think it's good football but I don't think the Pats O line is good at pass blocking and the receivers are mostly weak. I base my opinion simply from watching them play on TV since Gronk got hurt. Since Belichick has the track record that I don't have I'll let him watch the film and make the game plan. Unlike most of you I'm just a fan, not an out of work offensive coordinator who knows more than the 3 time super bowl winning head coach.

     
  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 TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     



    Oh, since all you care about is winning what did you think of the 90 pass to 33 runs we put up in both super bowl losses? All good? 

     

    Against he jets we ran our power back 9 times for 45 yards, but elected to once again go with woody for 14 carries at like 3 ypc out of a spread offense.Instead of throwing the interception on the 1st drive maybe we keep giving our power back the ball who was moving chains.

    Same in the 2011 SB, run power back for 5, run power back for 7, then on 1st down against the best pass rush in football we run 30yard routes and throw an interception to a DE 40 yards down field. Was that BB's fault? No, because he was doing what he always does, coaching the defense.

    And to be fair, balance got SB wins in 01, 03, and 04.

    A one dimensional offense got 15.5 ppg and 2 losses in 07 and 11.



    Didn't Belichick just say yesterday?: "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."

     

    Run pass ratios do not and never did explain why we won or lost any game.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

     So from that statement you ascertain that BB was happy with his 90 pass to 33 rush ration....which lead to not "moving the chains", or "scoring points"? Stop tryng to turn what he said into a blanket statement. Ask him if he was happy with his results from his offense in the super bowls we lost. I wonder what his answer would be...

    And it isn't now, nor has it ever been about certain ratios. It is about the offense's tendency to rely too much on Tom Brady and the passing game. That's my opinion, and if you don't see it, you are probably not looking to do so.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think BB was satisfied with the offense's performance, but I'm sure wasn't sitting around saying "oh gee, I'm a dope . . . I should have run the ball more and shouldn't have relied so much on the passing game and Tom Brady. I keep making the same mistake, Super Bowl after Super Bowl. We would have won both Super Bowls if only I had told Josh or Bill to call more runs."

    What you don't get is that the run-pass ratio was an outcome of what happened in the game not the cause of what happened. Passing more than running didn't lead to the inability to get first downs and score.  The fact that we weren't moving the ball well enough forced us into more passing situations.  What Belichick is concerned about is why we didn't move the ball well--both in the passing game and the running game.  I'm sure after Super Bowl 42, Bill Belichick wasn't beating himself up for not giving Maroney more runs.  But he probably was asking why it was that Maroney was getting repeatedly stuffed at the LOS so we couldn't use him more.  He was probably also asking what we needed to do differently to stop a pass rush like the Giants' rush.  All those things were what really resulted in the inability to move the ball and score points.  Calling the run more wouldn't have solved anything at all.  The number of runs called didn't cause anything.  It was simply an outcome of the situations the Pats found themselves in. The cause of the problem was, pretty simply, bad blocking and bad execution.  I'm sure that's what Belichick was focused on.  

     

     

     

     

     

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

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

    You guys still going at it about the run game? BB has said many of times, he will do what he feels is necessary and with a bad D, its necessary to score a lot of points which usually requires you to throw and BB loves to WIN and last I checked we are still winning so who is the idiot who thinks running = winning?

     

    He also said last year that if he back like Dillon he would run it more and last he checked Dillon hasnt been out there for a while...which means, the pats havent had anyone nearly good enough to take the ball out of toms hands. Blount MAY be that guy but Brady is STILL the man here. Deal with it Rusty!

     

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

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


    When BB can steal a good Rb from another team that they dont want, we win. When He drafts a RB or picks up an undrafted Free agent, we LOSE

    Its that simple for me. You homers are sitting here saying we should run it every year but fail to see THIS year is an outlier because we picked up Blount this offseason. He saved BBs goose. IN 2001, it was Antoine Smith, cast away by the Bills but helped win a Title in 01 and 03!

    After that He goes and gets the next guy. Dillon coming out of Cincy because they didnt want him. Championship. We rode him for 3 years until he dropped off completely in 2006 in the meltdown game. Then in 2007, needing another Guy, he goes and drafts Maroney while D'angelo Williams, Joseph Addai and lendale White were all on the board and all players who had more success than Maroney who was traded to Denver after not wanting to be hit after his shoulder was hurt. He never did anything and promptly was arrested. So you see, BB cant draft RBs either but he is good at recognizing them once they are in the league and works to trade for them but you see, it doesnt happen every year. This year we got lucky with Blount. Why are you guys making this so hard to understand. You were WRONG

     
  12. 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 seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gee, I think maybe BB, McD and tB know what they now have. listen to TBs latest presser. all you need to hear to feel comfy.They have to run and TB has to pass well

    This team is versatile and physical and gritty

    The most physical teams usually win. Blount ,  and Ridley and the FB are all good short- and All three runners Blount, Ridley and Vareen are dangerous past the LOS.  t

     JE, DA, KT  ( Dobbie out?) Vareen are all quick , darting recvrs. the key is spacing and keeping the D guessing and on its heels. accomplished by formations and play calling. Some is what the D gives up , 8 in the box?, or whatever. using no huddle to keep down substitutions. I am fine with the shotgun at certain times Then, it Depends on match ups.

    But it all starts with the Oline and holding onto the ball

    [/QUOTE]

    Bottom line..   the entire team must play well.  Even though there may be a few singular, great, performances by some players this Saturday, not all of them pass, catch, run, block, defend or tackle. 

     
  13. 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 TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, since all you care about is winning what did you think of the 90 pass to 33 runs we put up in both super bowl losses? All good? 

    Against he jets we ran our power back 9 times for 45 yards, but elected to once again go with woody for 14 carries at like 3 ypc out of a spread offense.Instead of throwing the interception on the 1st drive maybe we keep giving our power back the ball who was moving chains.

    Same in the 2011 SB, run power back for 5, run power back for 7, then on 1st down against the best pass rush in football we run 30yard routes and throw an interception to a DE 40 yards down field. Was that BB's fault? No, because he was doing what he always does, coaching the defense.

    And to be fair, balance got SB wins in 01, 03, and 04.

    A one dimensional offense got 15.5 ppg and 2 losses in 07 and 11.

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't Belichick just say yesterday?: "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."

     

    Run pass ratios do not and never did explain why we won or lost any game.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

     So from that statement you ascertain that BB was happy with his 90 pass to 33 rush ration....which lead to not "moving the chains", or "scoring points"? Stop tryng to turn what he said into a blanket statement. Ask him if he was happy with his results from his offense in the super bowls we lost. I wonder what his answer would be...

    And it isn't now, nor has it ever been about certain ratios. It is about the offense's tendency to rely too much on Tom Brady and the passing game. That's my opinion, and if you don't see it, you are probably not looking to do so.

    [/QUOTE]


    Best not say that too loud or you'll be attacked for implying that the offense needs more than Brady. I argued for the last few years that we needed to return to a balanced attack so a running game could enable the play action pass which was Brady's bread and butter earlier in his career.

    On this site any mention of offense that does not rely solely on passing is seen as an attack on Brady.

     
  14. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What you don't get is that the run-pass ratio was an outcome of what happened in the game not the cause of what happened. Passing more than running didn't lead to the inability to get first downs and score.  The fact that we weren't moving the ball well enough forced us into more passing situations.  What Belichick is concerned about is why we didn't move the ball well--both in the passing game and the running game.  I'm sure after Super Bowl 42, Bill Belichick wasn't beating himself up for not giving Maroney more runs.  But he probably was asking why it was that Maroney was getting repeatedly stuffed at the LOS so we couldn't use him more.  He was probably also asking what we needed to do differently to stop a pass rush like the Giants' rush.  All those things were what really resulted in the inability to move the ball and score points.  Calling the run more wouldn't have solved anything at all.  The number of runs called didn't cause anything.  It was simply an outcome of the situations the Pats found themselves in. The cause of the problem was, pretty simply, bad blocking and bad execution.  I'm sure that's what Belichick was focused on.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Baloney, you dictate what you will do to your opponent in football, not the opposite.  Even if we're only taking 3.5 yards a carry, which more often than not we were doing much better than that, you still have to continue to run to keep the defense on the other side honest.  There are only three ways to forward the ball in football, run/pass/punt, you don't remove one from the equation because it will make you stronger.  Obie was overmatched.

    The reality is that offense is all about rhythm, running helps your team find itself when nothing else is working, it grounds you and just getting positive yardage, even 3-4 yards, creates a minuscule amount of momentum.  Once you say "we can't run so we have to pass" you have lost.

    I might add that the season after the 2nd loss to the Giants a reporter asked BB why the Pats were having trouble running the ball in the playoffs, the pass happy crew here jumped all over it and cherry picked certain comments from it without reading the whole thing, BB said we didn't run very well and we didn't pass very well either (I'm paraphrasing) the reality was the offense from 2009-2010 was finesse, it was all smoke and mirrors without much substance.  

    Now if you wanted to continue to say it was because of the players we had, then please continue to do so even though Ridley was on that team as well as Law-firm, but you can't have it both ways.  Either our players stunk or the Giants schemed to stop the run, if so they also stopped the pass because we couldn't do anything, the bottom line is those offense's had no balls and the defense got blamed, even after holding the opponent to the lowest point totals of all our Super Bowls.

    This year , even with all the injury, we're better built to win, the main reason is added personnel at the fullback, tightend, runningback positions but more importantly Josh McDaniels taking us back to the early 2000s with some smash-mouth football.  I don't embrace excuses but if this team had half the injuries we have now we would run away with the Super Bowl title.  

    If you've never managed people than you don't know how difficult, that the biggest challenge you face, is replacing good leaders on your team, it's no knock on BB to say he has had difficulty replacing highly experienced coaches, it is an absolute slam to say something as broad as he just can't evaluate talent anymore... and it's also a load of horsesht.  

    Young coaches go through growing pains and some are just plain more talented than others, the only way to find out who has "it" is to put them under stress tests and watch what happens.  Obie = nice guy, probably excels in some aspects of coaching but he was a by product of a veteran QB, the best in the game, he added nothing to the position as a coordinator in terms of guile, historical reference or innovation.  His play calling was bland and predictable, it worked more often than not in the regular season because it was the regular season, the better playoff coaches and teams laughed at it, it's why the Viking defensive coordinator told the press the Patriot's had gotten predictable on offense.  McDaniels is slowly turning that perception around by playing old school Patriot's football.

    Truth

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

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


    ^ Anti - BB agenda!

    Call the Forum Police!!!

     

    Why do you guys Fail to see the one difference this year?

    We have Blount. Ridley fumbles, Bolden stinks, vareen isnt a lead back.

    Thats what happend this year. Wozzy you think McDanieals turned a corner this year and personell has nothing to do with it??  Sounds like you dont think BB is too bright.

     
  16. 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 TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ^ Anti - BB agenda!

    Call the Forum Police!!!

    Why do you guys Fail to see the one difference this year?

    We have Blount. Ridley fumbles, Bolden stinks, vareen isnt a lead back.

    Thats what happend this year. Wozzy you think McDanieals turned a corner this year and personell has nothing to do with it??  Sounds like you dont think BB is too bright.

    [/QUOTE]

    We turned a corner last year when we went from 15th-25th in the league rushing the ball to 2nd.  

    You dont bother reading posts do you, you just read the first sentence and respond otherwise you would see that I am sticking up for Belichick, that I have to stand up for Belichick on this forum only proves what a bunch of entitled ninnies we have here.

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Baloney, you dictate what you will do to your opponent in football, not the opposite.

    So on 3rd and 9 you would "dictate" a run? Serious question? If Bill Belichik is wrong, and situations do not, in fact, dictate the type of plays you can run, then you should be able to confidently answer "yes." 

     

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ^ Anti - BB agenda!

    Call the Forum Police!!!

    Why do you guys Fail to see the one difference this year?

    We have Blount. Ridley fumbles, Bolden stinks, vareen isnt a lead back.

    Thats what happend this year. Wozzy you think McDanieals turned a corner this year and personell has nothing to do with it??  Sounds like you dont think BB is too bright.

    [/QUOTE]

    We turned a corner last year when we went from 15th-25th in the league rushing the ball to 2nd.  

    You dont bother reading posts do you, you just read the first sentence and respond otherwise you would see that I am sticking up for Belichick, that I have to stand up for Belichick on this forum only proves what a bunch of entitled ninnies we have here.

    [/QUOTE]

    N.E was actually 7th in rushing last year but who is counting right. I am talking playoff running as are most posters. Where the Defenses are better.

    I apologize If I misunderstood. I DID read your whole post and it seems to indicate a problem with coordinators and that maybe changing this year so to me thats a slight to BB saying he is a slave to his coordinators and cant run when he wants. To the contrary, weve all seen the film of BB on the sidelines urging his O.C. to "throw it, throw it, throw it, throw it. SO im just saying, to me it didnt really sound like you were sticking up for him.

     

    BB makes up the gameplan. This we know. The coaches await him to come in on tuesday and say "this is how we are gonna attack. Sure things change in game but before the game starts, BB had already made the roadmap and can always detour but he decides BEFORE the game, Ok, this team cant stop the run, we should try to grind it out and things can change in game after that. You are putting everything on the O.C. like Rusty does to give a bill a pass. Thats what I saw and if thats not what you meant, than I rescind it

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

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

     

    Baloney, you dictate what you will do to your opponent in football, not the opposite.

     

     

    So on 3rd and 9 you would "dictate" a run? Serious question? If Bill Belichik is wrong, and situations do not, in fact, dictate the type of plays you can run, then you should be able to confidently answer "yes." 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I thought it was pretty clear watching the pats offense operate the last 4 or 5 years that they just take what the D gives them,, Almost ALL the time. I dont agree with every call but I know if the D is gonna stack the box, Brady will audible to a pass like he is told to do. If the team is back in a cover 2, he will audible to a run. When teams know this, some of the better Ds can fake a look or coverage and get Brady to make the wrong audible and Brady looks bad  and we blame HIM when it was really a good Defensive scheme.

    Now sure, when you have a Defense, you can dictate more and slow the game down and say "I dont care if you have 8 in the box, we are trying to ESTABLISH something" but weve seen the top running teams do SQUAT in playoffs, You need a Qb. Look at the Vikes last year. Or the Cheifs with Larry Johnson, preist homes. etc,. They never sniffed a SB....smh

    Why is this hard to get?  Even when BB smacks them, they are still in denial

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Hey look, I found an extended portion of the interview. 

    Q. Coach, you say "whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one COULD BE GOOD as long as you are acheiving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over". would it be fair to say that if you run it 50 times and do not acheive any of those goals then it didn't work very well?

    A. um, yes I would say that is a fair conclusion.

    Q. Well then may we also safely assume that if you threw the ball 50 times and it lead to failing to acheive previous mentioned goals of moving the ball, scoring points amd not turning it over then perhaps that didnt work very well either.

    A. NOOOOOOO you idiot!, "run pass ratios have nothing to do with winning or losing the game....whatever happened happened, nothing could ever have been done differently ROOOOOAAAARRRRRRR!

    Wow, glad I found this excerpt!  This must be where prolate got his idea from.

    You were right all along prolate. Congrats bro....

    [/QUOTE]


    Haha. As opposed to the part of the interview where he says:

    "90 passes, 40 runs ... that was our plan coming in, and obviously it was wrong. It is about getting the ball to a certain player or position a certain number of times. That is what football is about, we just forget it here from time to time, and every time we lose ... that's when we happen to forget it. "

    Oh, wait, that part didn't happen! What he DID say was that pass-run ratios are "insignificant" data, and that the amount you run is dictated by how well you are able to move the ball prior to the later portion of the game that puts you in "that situation" where you can run frequently because you have a lead or a manageable down and distance.

    He said, "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."

    He discussed it in the  exact same terms I've been using for years on this forum. It really cannot be said more clearly. There is no double speak ... he USED THE EXACT SAME WORDS I"VE BEEN USING. All I need to do is cut and paste the quote.    If you have an issue with it, you should start openly critiquing Bill Belichick instead of hiding behind sarcasm directed at other board members.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

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

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ^ Anti - BB agenda!

    Call the Forum Police!!!

    Why do you guys Fail to see the one difference this year?

    We have Blount. Ridley fumbles, Bolden stinks, vareen isnt a lead back.

    Thats what happend this year. Wozzy you think McDanieals turned a corner this year and personell has nothing to do with it??  Sounds like you dont think BB is too bright.

    [/QUOTE]

    We turned a corner last year when we went from 15th-25th in the league rushing the ball to 2nd.  

    You dont bother reading posts do you, you just read the first sentence and respond otherwise you would see that I am sticking up for Belichick, that I have to stand up for Belichick on this forum only proves what a bunch of entitled ninnies we have here.

    [/QUOTE]

    N.E was actually 7th in rushing last year but who is counting right. I am talking playoff running as are most posters. Where the Defenses are better.

    I apologize If I misunderstood. I DID read your whole post and it seems to indicate a problem with coordinators and that maybe changing this year so to me thats a slight to BB saying he is a slave to his coordinators and cant run when he wants. To the contrary, weve all seen the film of BB on the sidelines urging his O.C. to "throw it, throw it, throw it, throw it. SO im just saying, to me it didnt really sound like you were sticking up for him.

     

    BB makes up the gameplan. This we know. The coaches await him to come in on tuesday and say "this is how we are gonna attack. Sure things change in game but before the game starts, BB had already made the roadmap and can always detour but he decides BEFORE the game, Ok, this team cant stop the run, we should try to grind it out and things can change in game after that. You are putting everything on the O.C. like Rusty does to give a bill a pass. Thats what I saw and if thats not what you meant, than I rescind it

    [/QUOTE]

    No, we don't. In fact, I saw Tom Brady suggesting plays in the playbook in the 2009 "BB: A Football Life" when leading up to the game vs Baltimore that year, one I attended.  

    So, you're wrong. Brady has full autonmy, helps with gameplanning, as does McDaniels.  McDaniels is the OC. That is his title.  BB does not micromanage.

    It's a joint effort.  BB is also not micromanaging the offense during games. Much of the time he is coaching up the D on one knee in front of the bench, so you're wrong, as usual.

    Christ, you have to be watched here constantly for spreading lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh how convenient. DId you just close your glenr account to open up this one after I called him out for being a troll. So as usual not a day goes by that I dont have to school you.

    Lets see what what we are dealing with. You want to refer to the 2009 special on BB to say that Brady helps with gameplanning. Meaning he can come offer tidbits of how he wants to run the offense. He doesnt have to impliment it. To me, BB looked very stern while Brady was talking and didnt ever really say YES TOM, its going in. He agreed that it MIGHT work and then lets look at the game shall we. Edleman ended up being the best player for us that game and YOU constantly use it to say Welker is overated but you always FAIL to admit you saw BB on the sidelines telling O'bie to "Throw it BIlly, throw it!!" All throughout the special.  LMAO!  What a fraud

    You lose Again...

     
  24. 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 TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ^ Anti - BB agenda!

    Call the Forum Police!!!

    Why do you guys Fail to see the one difference this year?

    We have Blount. Ridley fumbles, Bolden stinks, vareen isnt a lead back.

    Thats what happend this year. Wozzy you think McDanieals turned a corner this year and personell has nothing to do with it??  Sounds like you dont think BB is too bright.

    [/QUOTE]

    We turned a corner last year when we went from 15th-25th in the league rushing the ball to 2nd.  

    You dont bother reading posts do you, you just read the first sentence and respond otherwise you would see that I am sticking up for Belichick, that I have to stand up for Belichick on this forum only proves what a bunch of entitled ninnies we have here.

    [/QUOTE]

    N.E was actually 7th in rushing last year but who is counting right. I am talking playoff running as are most posters. Where the Defenses are better.

    I apologize If I misunderstood. I DID read your whole post and it seems to indicate a problem with coordinators and that maybe changing this year so to me thats a slight to BB saying he is a slave to his coordinators and cant run when he wants. To the contrary, weve all seen the film of BB on the sidelines urging his O.C. to "throw it, throw it, throw it, throw it. SO im just saying, to me it didnt really sound like you were sticking up for him.

     

    BB makes up the gameplan. This we know. The coaches await him to come in on tuesday and say "this is how we are gonna attack. Sure things change in game but before the game starts, BB had already made the roadmap and can always detour but he decides BEFORE the game, Ok, this team cant stop the run, we should try to grind it out and things can change in game after that. You are putting everything on the O.C. like Rusty does to give a bill a pass. Thats what I saw and if thats not what you meant, than I rescind it

    [/QUOTE]

    No, we don't. In fact, I saw Tom Brady suggesting plays in the playbook in the 2009 "BB: A Football Life" when leading up to the game vs Baltimore that year, one I attended.  

    So, you're wrong. Brady has full autonmy, helps with gameplanning, as does McDaniels.  McDaniels is the OC. That is his title.  BB does not micromanage.

    It's a joint effort.  BB is also not micromanaging the offense during games. Much of the time he is coaching up the D on one knee in front of the bench, so you're wrong, as usual.

    Christ, you have to be watched here constantly for spreading lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh how convenient. DId you just close your glenr account to open up this one after I called him out for being a troll. So as usual not a day goes by that I dont have to school you.

    Lets see what what we are dealing with. You want to refer to the 2009 special on BB to say that Brady helps with gameplanning. Meaning he can come offer tidbits of how he wants to run the offense. He doesnt have to impliment it. To me, BB looked very stern while Brady was talking and didnt ever really say YES TOM, its going in. He agreed that it MIGHT work and then lets look at the game shall we. Edleman ended up being the best player for us that game and YOU constantly use it to say Welker is overated but you always FAIL to admit you saw BB on the sidelines telling O'bie to "Throw it BIlly, throw it!!" All throughout the special.  LMAO!  What a fraud

    You lose Again...

    [/QUOTE]


    All throughout the special.  LMAO!  What a fraud

    You lose Again...

     

    Just more proof that the reason you're here isn't to discuss football but to play interent tough guy

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

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

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Why is this hard to get?  Even when BB smacks them, they are still in denial




    I've already said the reason. This isn't about football or analysis. It's about two things. Initially it was about broad frustration that New England has been a couple plays away. At this point in forum history, the arguments have been presented ad nauseum. It's really about egos. Bill could not be any clearer. The fact that the people who have pushed this pet theory are resorting to page long diatribes to triple talk their way around Bill's statement illustrates the sheer desperation. 

    There are only two possible resolutions after Bill's latest remark, which was so trenchant as it cut to the core of this internet forum's consistent and stultifying point of debate. 

    It is, mind you, impossible for any one of them to say something as simple as "you know, you did have a point." Even when Bill Belichick comes out and makes the exact same point you've been making for years. But that is only one outcome, and highly unlikely.  

    If they had a modicum of guts, they would just say what they've been saying all along, i.e., "I don't agree with how Bill Belichick runs this team." And then they'd end it at that, and the debate could move forward on some realistic terms.  People who agree with the way the team is managed, and people who don't agree with the way the team has been managed could meet and debate Bill's merits as a head coach in the National Football League. 

    That won't happen either. The most insane irony here is how Bill has been elevated to such a position of preisthood by this group that pure cognitive dissonance is the only response. He's not even human any more, and it doesn't matter what he says. Bill has ascended to a dogma, and if he refutes that dogma, it is only the man talking, not the myth.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share