All I have to say is.....if running the ball in itself would have raised our chances at winning automatically, why hasn't BB figured this out in years!
That's the million dollar question. If it is simple as 1+1=2, and we are all blind but the select few cognoscenti here, then why can't Bill Belichick figure it out?
D. I will never concede what I think is right because I can't be proven wrong, or if I am.... I will attack and ignore any facts or statement "even by BB" till everyone gives up arguing and this thread falls off the front page and out of memory.
That is the most likely answer you are really going to recieve from that camp. People on this forum are too dug in. There is way too much at stake for people to recognize some errors in a thing they posted years ago. There are too many arguments under the belt.
That a run-pass ratio is an outcome, and if Bill had his way, NE would have been running the clock out in the 4th quarter like Charlie Weiss used to have the luxury to do, I take as a fact. But then, if you look at Weiss' offenses in those final playoff ending games, win lose or draw, MINUS THE 4TH QUARTER you have nearly the exact same percentage of runs 22 runs to 29 passes or 44-56% as you do in the "post-Weiss" era in the same games, 22 runs to 30 runs per3Q or 43%-57%.
So what Bill is saying is pretty much true. There is really no difference in how often Weiss ran it, unless you count runs that happen at the end of the wins and passes at the end of losses. Then, sure, it appears like New England passes a whole lot more per game in the playoffs than they did before.
The truth is they do, but only because they aren't keeping opponents from scoring as well, and they are not scoring the points to make up for it. The difference is in how well they executed leading up to that point on offense and defense. Weiss had a tremendous defense backing him, and won games where the offense scored 13-13-11-17 points.
The last five or six years, New England could never win a game scoring so few points. They just couldn't. There literally isn't a single game their defense has allowed less than that, or scored itself to bring the total score up.
For me it's never really even been about coaching, and even if New England has had less overall talent than those old teams it's less about that.
They have been as successful as they were then, if we look at football outside of a playoff context and look at it like a game of black-jack. They have won as many or more games, etcetera. They've just come up short in a "winner-take-all" game.
In a game of win-probability, averages, etcetera, like Black Jack or Poker, you also have a system. The difference is the odds are almost never "winner-take-all" the way the playoffs in the NFL are. So your system can be evaluated on how well it wins overall, rather than face scathing scrutiny based on the overblown merits of one particular loss.
SB 42 illustrates this perfectly. New England won more games than it ever had that season. They even beat the Giants once. They just didn't get it done the second time. Who would fault a whole system for failing to win ONE out of NINETEEN games against an opponent it had already beaten?
Let's say, per chance, that Ty Law doesn't gather a pick-six against Kurt Warner. New England loses that game 13-17. Let's say Givens pulls a Welker against the Panthers and drops his pass in the 4th quarter leaving New England an unmakeable 4th and 9? They likely lose that game too. You could go on and on. No Troy Brown punt return TD against the Steelers? New England gathered 5 turnovers against the Colts in 2003! Brady even threw an interception in that game, in the 4th quarter! They won by ten, but the final FG was on a last minute drive. For the majority of the game, it was a seven point contest. Stop and consider if ANY of those five turnovers didn't happen, there is likely a different outcome.
So when people doubt the system that wins so often, I can only say bah. And I really can't even muster a response when people say things like "It all comes down to running more or less" and then can't even back it with meaningful statistics. It's not the system's fault, but the nature of the game.
In no way does a Superbowl drought invalidate the merits of Bill Belichick's "system" from top to bottom. He still wins more than anyone else in football if you look at it holistically. There isn't a coach I'd rather have, even if his game plans aren't always perfect and he misses sometimes in the draft, because no coach is as good consistently, and I firmly believe that using his system, New England will have more chances to win, and will likely finish it off the right way a few more times.