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

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. 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 TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Expecting honesty on this is hopeless.

    Let's face it, if BB himself came in and slapped some of these characters silly screaming all the while, "WE RUN MORE WHEN IT'S BEING EFFECTIVE, GOT IT?", they would all be here the next day posting the same nonsense.

     



    Is it "honesty" is simply being pigheaded?  IMHO, most everyone here has acknowledged issues with the team over the years.  .......  So, is it honesty or just trying to scream louder than everyone else: "I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE ALL WRONG!"?



    Bill, I hope you don't group me in with rusty and his insane theory about everything being the best QB in nfl histories fault.

    My premise is simple, since we started going with more of a pass heavy aerial attack, we have struggled in the post season against good defenses.  I dont think BB is an idiot, i dont understand how a debate could turn into that?

    I think it is only natural to fall back on your HOF QB who broke every passing record in the book a little too often. I dont see a lot of games where we came out and ran 15 20 times for 50 yards. I dont see our running game getting shut down like babe and company claim. I saw woodhead getting nowhere out of the draw plays, but our power backs have always ran well under coach scsrs o line. 

    I don't understand what all the fuss is about. We have scored 15.5 pog in 5 playoff losses in a row. I mean our defense has been nowhere near the level of the dynasty defense I get it, but it is an offensive driven league now.  15.5 ppg? We can't pretend that is going to win us playoff games can we? Not when we average over double that. 

    I respect your opinions a lot. What do you think of reiss's take on how the pass heavy approach has hindered our offense in some tough post season exits? Or Salks take on what a ball control balanced offense does for all 3 phases of the game, and how it wears down a defense?



    Triple...  no I do not.  Meant as a general statement and referencing some posters who are very steadfast in their opinions regardless of contrary arguments.

    I have said in the past that it is a head scratcher when the team goes away from what is working in a game, running or passing.  Take for example, SB42..  both TDs were not scored with pass happy series.  Combinations of runs and passes with an up tempo attack not giving the Giants' D an opportunity to haul off and going to the edges instead of up the middle.  All other times, Pats tried for pass plays that required time to set up and the Giants' rush did not allow for it.

    To your last paragraph...  Consider the mindset of the team.. PASSING was working ALL season long and they had the weapons.  There was a barely a team that could stop them. Do you blame them?  In both those SB losses, the Giants D played well above what it did in the regular season, which happens.  Pats did not adjust in time.  Recall how often run plays got blown up?  Anyway, it is what it is.. we can't change that history and, hopefully, what we saw late this season portends a more balanced attack, or rather, an attack the other team can't figure out which way it will go..  run or pass heavy. 



    Bill you were responding to me, not triple, but I agree, the pass worked so well for us in the regular season it was hard to get away from it in the playoffs. Only natural to rely on the HOF QB.

    Did you read Reiss's opinion that focusing on the pass too much played a role in our post season exits? Or Salks take on how a balanced attack can help the defense and wear down defensive lines, which would help Tom Brady and play to his strength of PA passing? 

    This has been my premise for years. I never want to see us run 20 times just for the sake of it and if we are only getting 2.5 ypc, but that hasn't happened too often.Or if were are getting beat by 3 scores or something extreme, but again, doesn't happen much.

    Maroney came off back to back 120 yard 1 td games before the gints held him the SB. Other then that our lead back has produced well enough, usually 4-5 ypc, and the games were always close, other then 09 when the ravens creamed us.

    Anyway, looks like Mcd and BB have made running an area of focus.Top 10 run game the last 2 years!  



    Sorry, rusty keeps burying my reply with his b.s

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

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

    Wasn't this the original run thread... I love that we had to start numerous new threads to hide this thread about running where all the originators of these new threads got owned by two reporters who had to the temerity to write articles within 24 hours that support that these new threads are garbage.

     

     
  6. 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 wozzy's comment:

    Wasn't this the original run thread... I love that we had to start numerous new threads to hide this thread about running where all the originators of these new threads got owned by two reporters who had to the temerity to write articles within 24 hours that support that these new threads are garbage.

     



    So damn funny!

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

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

    Besides we have a perfectly good thread about running the ball right here that already debunks most of the garbage you guys are recycling in your new diversionary threads, why don't we stay on topic?

     
  8. 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:

    Pipe down, True CHamp.  You're becoming as obnoxious as they are for chrissakes.

    Babe trying to wiggle out of naming is not b.s.  He's being disingenuous and not backing his premise. He's being doubly disingenuous by trying to tell me I need to list 15 QBs better than Brady when I never said Brady is a mediocre QB.

    So, that BBW Guild is sneaky. VERY sneaky.

    Lastly, your buddy Shizzles apparently had no idea SB 42 was played in February of 2008 either, so I had a little straightening out to do, so to speak. lol




    Is this what you do what I once I leave you sorry *ss sap!?  You stay trying to assault someones character. If you dont think I know the 08 SB is from the 07 season, you got issues. Noone else would pick that up from my post from you because you get owned on here so much you have to make up slights and say ohh look, Shizzles is so dumb! I will say it again. One game does not carry over to the next. I dont give a flying Flub if Maroney had 300 yards rushing vs the Chargers. The important game that We LOST he didnt even sniff 100 yards and was UNABLE to take the pressure off of Brady who was forced to try to win a game all on his own with no run game. You are a moron extraodinaire I tell ya......

    You couldnt straighten out a ruler you sad sap

     
  9. 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:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    Pipe down, True CHamp.  You're becoming as obnoxious as they are for chrissakes.

    Babe trying to wiggle out of naming is not b.s.  He's being disingenuous and not backing his premise. He's being doubly disingenuous by trying to tell me I need to list 15 QBs better than Brady when I never said Brady is a mediocre QB.

    So, that BBW Guild is sneaky. VERY sneaky.

    Lastly, your buddy Shizzles apparently had no idea SB 42 was played in February of 2008 either, so I had a little straightening out to do, so to speak. lol




    Is this what you do what I once I leave you sorry *ss sap!?  You stay trying to assault someones character. If you dont think I know the 08 SB is from the 07 season, you got issues. Noone else would pick that up from my post from you because you get owned on here so much you have to make up slights and say ohh look, Shizzles is so dumb! I will say it again. One game does not carry over to the next. I dont give a flying Flub if Maroney had 300 yards rushing vs the Chargers. The important game that We LOST he didnt even sniff 100 yards and was UNABLE to take the pressure off of Brady who was forced to try to win a game all on his own with no run game. You are a moron extraodinaire I tell ya......

    You couldnt straighten out a ruler you sad sap




    Is this another example of how you only talk football?

     
  10. 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 wozzy's comment:

    Wasn't this the original run thread... I love that we had to start numerous new threads to hide this thread about running where all the originators of these new threads got owned by two reporters who had to the temerity to write articles within 24 hours that support that these new threads are garbage.

     



    So damn funny!



    As you said above, once Rusty joined in everyone's points were drowned in pages of Rusty's BS. 

     
  11. 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:

    Besides we have a perfectly good thread about running the ball right here that already debunks most of the garbage you guys are recycling in your new diversionary threads, why don't we stay on topic?



    Sure, you guys have all "debunked" Bill Belichick's statements by quoting sports talk hosts and repeating the same statistics Bill Belichick said were insignificant. 

     
  12. 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:

    As you said above, once Rusty joined in everyone's points were drowned in pages of Rusty's BS. 



    Everyone complains about Rusty yet they refuse to put him on ignore.

     
  13. 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:

    Sure, you guys have all "debunked" Bill Belichick's statements by quoting sports talk hosts and repeating the same statistics Bill Belichick said were insignificant. 



    We don't have to "debunk" Bill's statements, they walk lockstep with everything True and I are saying, maybe not your biased interpretation of his words but what he actually said.  I love how you guys ingore the "balanced" part of his statement and try to make it seem like we said there is some magic ratio or even advocated passing less.  Don't lump us in with Rusty.

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.

     

     
  14. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Besides we have a perfectly good thread about running the ball right here that already debunks most of the garbage you guys are recycling in your new diversionary threads, why don't we stay on topic?



    Sure, you guys have all "debunked" Bill Belichick's statements by quoting sports talk hosts and repeating the same statistics Bill Belichick said were insignificant. 



    We don't have to "debunk" Bill's statements, they walk lockstep with everything True and I are saying, maybe not your biased interpretation of his words but what he actually said.  I love how you guys ingore the "balanced" part of his statement and try to make it seem like we said there is some magic ratio or even advocated passing less.  Don't lump us in with Rusty.

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.

     



    No one has ever said that a physical run game is bad or unnecessary. The debate has always been around whether or not our coaches make appropriate play calls.  Some people (more Champ than you) seem to think the coaches mess up the play calling by not calling runs often enough.  My argument has always been that the play calls are appropriate taking into account game situation, team personnel, and their opponents'defensive personnel and strategies.

    Running is good in many situations, but when you need seven yards on third down or you need to score with 2 minutes left, it's not your highest probability play. I know you prefer smashmouth football.  But the reality is that there isn't just one way to win games, and the Pats do what they feel works best given their personnel and their opponent's personnel. I think BB is great at that.  I think the 2011 offense was brilliantly designed given the Pat's personnel and probably would have carried them to the Championship if only Gronk stayed healthy. Was it the 49ers smashmouth offense? No.  But the Pats don't have the 49ers offensive personnel and don't have a defense that keeps games low-scoring like the 49ers defense does.  

    Belichick designed a great scheme for his team.  It wasn't "smashmouth" but really given the defense's penchant for giving up points in 2011, would we have even made the playoffs if we tried to run BenJarvus Green-Ellis 25 times a game? We can't know for sure, but I trust BB made the right decision. 

     

     
  15. 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]

    No one has ever said that a physical run game is bad or unnecessary.

    But you'll be the first to point at it's absence and say "that wasn't it."  It's the same thing isn't it, instead blaming the defense for the offense posting 14 points and turning the ball over?

    The debate has always been around whether or not our coaches make appropriate play calls.  Some people (more Champ than you) seem to think the coaches mess up the play calling by not calling runs often enough.  My argument has always been that the play calls are appropriate taking into account game situation, team personnel, and their opponents'defensive personnel and strategies.

    True and I agree that there have been miscues in gameplanning and game calling, both of which we attribute to young, inexperienced offensive coaches cutting their teeth on playoff football for the first time.  We also agree that some are more talented than others, McDaniels over O'Brien being the main example.  I have to think Brady agrees considering how much he and Obie went at each other's throats on the sidelines, that's not the "Patriot way" by any means and I suspect Tom knew something was off.

    Running is good in many situations, but when you need seven yards on third down or you need to score with 2 minutes left, it's not your highest probability play. I know you prefer smashmouth football.  But the reality is that there isn't just one way to win games, and the Pats do what they feel works best given their personnel and their opponent's personnel. I think BB is great at that.  I think the 2011 offense was brilliantly designed given the Pat's personnel and probably would have carried them to the Championship if only Gronk stayed healthy. Was it the 49ers smashmouth offense? No.  But the Pats don't have the 49ers offensive personnel and don't have a defense that keeps games low-scoring like the 49ers defense does.

    Running is good as a general rule, you can nick your opponent to death or you can slay them, you can beat them with jabs or you can knock them out, but you have a much better chance of knocking them out when you jab them until they tire, then land the haymaker.  We'll never know what might have been different about 2011 had we done it differently, the bottom line is Gronk played well enough to streak 30 yards down the field, an injury excuse for a player who played is just that, an excuse.

    Belichick designed a great scheme for his team.  It wasn't "smashmouth" but really given the defense's penchant for giving up points in 2011, would we have even made the playoffs if we tried to run BenJarvus Green-Ellis 25 times a game? We can't know for sure, but I trust BB made the right decision. 

    Nothing protects a weak defense better than a time consuming offense that scores efficiently, not the feast or famine finesse offense that O'Bie produced.  Sorry, but this is plain wrong, a complete misconception.  This isn't a chicken or the egg scenario...

     
  16. 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:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    No one has ever said that a physical run game is bad or unnecessary.

    But you'll be the first to point at it's absence and say "that wasn't it."  It's the same thing isn't it, instead blaming the defense for the offense posting 14 points and turning the ball over?

    The debate has always been around whether or not our coaches make appropriate play calls.  Some people (more Champ than you) seem to think the coaches mess up the play calling by not calling runs often enough.  My argument has always been that the play calls are appropriate taking into account game situation, team personnel, and their opponents'defensive personnel and strategies.

    True and I agree that there have been miscues in gameplanning and game calling, both of which we attribute to young, inexperienced offensive coaches cutting their teeth on playoff football for the first time.  We also agree that some are more talented than others, McDaniels over O'Brien being the main example.  I have to think Brady agrees considering how much he and Obie went at each other's throats on the sidelines, that's not the "Patriot way" by any means and I suspect Tom knew something was off.

    Running is good in many situations, but when you need seven yards on third down or you need to score with 2 minutes left, it's not your highest probability play. I know you prefer smashmouth football.  But the reality is that there isn't just one way to win games, and the Pats do what they feel works best given their personnel and their opponent's personnel. I think BB is great at that.  I think the 2011 offense was brilliantly designed given the Pat's personnel and probably would have carried them to the Championship if only Gronk stayed healthy. Was it the 49ers smashmouth offense? No.  But the Pats don't have the 49ers offensive personnel and don't have a defense that keeps games low-scoring like the 49ers defense does.

    Running is good as a general rule, you can nick your opponent to death or you can slay them, you can beat them with jabs or you can knock them out, but you have a much better chance of knocking them out when you jab them until they tire, then land the haymaker.  We'll never know what might have been different about 2011 had we done it differently, the bottom line is Gronk played well enough to streak 30 yards down the field, an injury excuse for a player who played is just that, an excuse.

    Belichick designed a great scheme for his team.  It wasn't "smashmouth" but really given the defense's penchant for giving up points in 2011, would we have even made the playoffs if we tried to run BenJarvus Green-Ellis 25 times a game? We can't know for sure, but I trust BB made the right decision. 

    Nothing protects a weak defense better than a time consuming offense that scores efficiently, not the feast or famine finesse offense that O'Bie produced.  Sorry, but this is plain wrong, a complete misconception.  This isn't a chicken or the egg scenario...



    ^ This is simply mythical. The Obrien/McDaniel's offense has been better at consuming time than the Weiss offense ever was. The average time consumed per drive by Weiss' offense was 2:36 per drive ... the average time consumed by O'brien's offense was 2:42. Just because you are passing doesn't mean you don't consume time, and it certainly doesn't mean you hurt a defense. 

    On top of that Weiss' offenses turned the ball over a lot more, especially in the playoffs. Not a single Superbowl went by withot Weiss' offense turning the ball over. In the regular season, it wasn't even a contest. Weiss' three offenses turned the ball over 76 times in those three seasons, whereas the last few seasons New England has turned the ball over just just 43 times. 

    I won't even get into the scoring for the defense. 

    Simply making blanket statements about what helps defenses doesn't make a truth out of it. 

    The real disparity is in the number of turnovers forced BY the defense. Weiss was the beneficiary of 8 turnovers in decisive games. 

    McDaniel's/Obrien were the beneficiary of one. They didn't create any against the Jets, Giants, and Ravens, and only created one the first time around against the Giants. 

    How can you ignore that as if it isn't a major differnence in how those teams played, or in the possible outcomes of a game?

    Now you could propose that it was Weiss returning a pick six against the Rams in in the Superbowl, though I doubt he would fit in Ty Law's outift ... or you could wax introspective for a moment and calculate the final score of Superbowl 42 with seven points from the defense ... New England wins outright, 21-17 ... or imagine what the final score of Superbowl 46 might have been if the defense has gathered the four turnovers it did against the Eagles. 

    There is a big difference between blaming one thing for a loss (there is never one phase involved in a loss) and pointing out the difference between two teams. 

    One contentiion, that the sole difference is how often they ran the ball has been the singular change resulting in losses is simply nonsense. It's silly. It's laughable.

    Another, that the defense has done a lot less for the offense is palpable and true. 

    Most of the stats between these games are actually really close, outside of turnovers and points off of turnovers. 

    That doesn't even beging the conversation about missing your best offensive player in the playoffs. Weiss never lost Corey Dillon or Deion Branch right before the biggest game of the year. It's simply mendacious to even start lookiing at any stats without taking that into consideration. 

     
  17. 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 wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Sure, you guys have all "debunked" Bill Belichick's statements by quoting sports talk hosts and repeating the same statistics Bill Belichick said were insignificant. 

     



    We don't have to "debunk" Bill's statements, they walk lockstep with everything True and I are saying, maybe not your biased interpretation of his words but what he actually said.  I love how you guys ingore the "balanced" part of his statement and try to make it seem like we said there is some magic ratio or even advocated passing less.  Don't lump us in with Rusty.

     

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.

     




    I got this one fellas.

    Wozzy, I think BB knows what he is doing. If the run game worked he would do it more. You think you know more then BB...HA I burned you with that one....

    Now, excuse me while I start a bunch of threads telling everybody how BB's defense sucks, and how he doesn't know how to acquire talent. What? What do you mean hypocritical? I am not! You are!

     
  18. 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:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Besides we have a perfectly good thread about running the ball right here that already debunks most of the garbage you guys are recycling in your new diversionary threads, why don't we stay on topic?



    Sure, you guys have all "debunked" Bill Belichick's statements by quoting sports talk hosts and repeating the same statistics Bill Belichick said were insignificant. 



    We don't have to "debunk" Bill's statements, they walk lockstep with everything True and I are saying, maybe not your biased interpretation of his words but what he actually said.  I love how you guys ingore the "balanced" part of his statement and try to make it seem like we said there is some magic ratio or even advocated passing less.  Don't lump us in with Rusty.

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.

     



    No one has ever said that a physical run game is bad or unnecessary. The debate has always been around whether or not our coaches make appropriate play calls.  Some people (more Champ than you) seem to think the coaches mess up the play calling by not calling runs often enough.  My argument has always been that the play calls are appropriate taking into account game situation, team personnel, and their opponents'defensive personnel and strategies.

    Running is good in many situations, but when you need seven yards on third down or you need to score with 2 minutes left, it's not your highest probability play. I know you prefer smashmouth football.  But the reality is that there isn't just one way to win games, and the Pats do what they feel works best given their personnel and their opponent's personnel. I think BB is great at that.  I think the 2011 offense was brilliantly designed given the Pat's personnel and probably would have carried them to the Championship if only Gronk stayed healthy. Was it the 49ers smashmouth offense? No.  But the Pats don't have the 49ers offensive personnel and don't have a defense that keeps games low-scoring like the 49ers defense does.  

    Belichick designed a great scheme for his team.  It wasn't "smashmouth" but really given the defense's penchant for giving up points in 2011, would we have even made the playoffs if we tried to run BenJarvus Green-Ellis 25 times a game? We can't know for sure, but I trust BB made the right decision. 

     



    As Reiss just said and I agree, especially for OUR football team. "This team performs better when it relies on the running game" As I have shown you ad nauseam we have trended away from that philosophy for too long.

    It is a simple premise, it is shared by many people. I think we are moving back into a direction that will prevent a defense from stifling our offense on the biggest stage. I am happy about that.

     

     
  19. 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 zbellino's comment:
    [/QUOTE]

    ^ This is simply mythical. The Obrien/McDaniel's offense has been better at consuming time than the Weiss offense ever was. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Postseason time of possession:

    Weis:

    2001 - 32:30 (three games, Super Bowl champs)

    2003 - 33:05 (three games, Super Bowl champs)

    2004 - 32:36 (three games, Super Bowl champs)

    O'Brien:

    2009 - 27:39 (one game, loss at home)

    2010 - 34:56 (one game, loss at home)

    2011 - 25:20 (three games, loss in Super Bowl)

    Not only were Weis teams more efficient, they held the ball longer, ran the ball more, punted less, but they also scored more.  Oh yeah, they went further in the playoffs and played more games which makes these averages that much more impressive.

    I guess the myth is "ball control" = less scoring or that you need a great defense to run this style of play.  The reality is this style of play strengthens and empowers a defense.  

    I can shoot holes in this garbage all day, but I don't have to, point made.  Anyone putting Rusty and TripleOG on ignore and reading this thread from beginning to end would be convinced, or they can just read the articles by Reiss and be convinced.

    Facts absolutely suck when you're wrong.

     
  20. 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 wozzy's comment:

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.



    I love how you guys won't acknowledge, address this or touch it with a 10 foot pole... ^

     
  21. 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 wozzy's comment:

     

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.



    I love how you guys won't acknowledge, address this or touch it with a 10 foot pole... ^



    "insert sounds of crickets chirping here"

     

     

    Well I don't blame you guys, this is where this conversation ends.

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

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

    This has got to be record for posts and threads about meaningless stats.

     
  • 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 glenr's comment:

    This has got to be record for posts and threads about meaningless stats.



    These stats are very relevant if we're discussing playoff failure.

     
  • 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:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    That's not it at all.  There are palpable differences between running and passing.  Mainly that running is attacking your opponent while passing is a defensive stance, receiving their attack.  You guys completely dismiss how being on the defensive, as it were, for the majority of a game allows an opponent to wear you down with their pass rush and look for a weakness  

    Conversely an offensive attack using a punishing run game (Smith, Dillon, Blount and even Law Firm) pounds on an opponent and wears them down, exposing them to passing attacks and longer runs through sheer exhaustion.  

    You guys have taken this very basic premise of football, the physicality and removed it from the equation entirely, that is absolutely silly.  Football is the only sport where you can go up to your opponent, knock him out, take the ball away from him... but you guys would have us believe this game is as innocuous as chess.  

    That's the most laughable part of this entire conversation.



    I love how you guys won't acknowledge, address this or touch it with a 10 foot pole... ^



    "insert sounds of crickets chirping here"

     

     

    Well I don't blame you guys, this is where this conversation ends.



    wozzy just so you know I totally agree and Ive been saying as much since Wes got his 1st 100 catches here. YOu cant use a slot WR as an extension to the run game and expect to wear out a D by making them tackle wes welker. More likely, a D will tire from tackling a 250 lb back all day. Here is the General Problem with all the run game folks on this board. They wanna argue with posters but wont accept that BB calls the shots. They wanna say BB is hiding behind coordinators. I am just trusting that BB knows more than me. babe is right when he sais YOU guys bash BB more than anyone by saying he doesnt control the team. Weve all seen the proof of managing the offense, yelling into the headset to keep throwing. Its because BB knows his D stinks and cant play ball control.

    If Anything changes THIS year it will be because THIS year BB found his guy in Blount. You guys will however come here on Monday and proclaim that Josh jus turned a corner which is pathetic. Just last night I heard Joshy on the Radio reluctantly say...

    "Patience in the run game CAN lead to good things...... Sometimes"  That sounds like a guy who agrees with HIS coach that depending on situations, matchup,etc that it MAY be good to establish some times and clearly speaks to an Idealogy that everyone agrees with wether right or wrong. This is ALL an EGO argument,. I have stepped forward and admitting that enforcing your will via the run is more effective than the Slot WR but alas, They signed Danny Amendola to take over for Wes and still have Eds so it doesnt seem as BB has checked Brady or changed any style of play...YET

     

     

  •  
  • 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:

    Here is the General Problem with all the run game folks on this board. They wanna argue with posters but wont accept that BB calls the shots. They wanna say BB is hiding behind coordinators. I am just trusting that BB knows more than me. babe is right when he sais YOU guys bash BB more than anyone by saying he doesnt control the team. Weve all seen the proof of managing the offense, yelling into the headset to keep throwing. Its because BB knows his D stinks and cant play ball control. 



    The reality is that coordinators can't hide behind BB, not the opposite.  If BB over by the bench with his headset around his neck, somebody is calling the shots on offense, how often do we see this in-game... every game is the answer.

    All three phases take some blame for a playoff loss, the problem with the pass happy crew is the offense receives a pass every time.  

    The presence of a power running game is the answer along with health and the remaining phases playing well... without the running game our chances of winning dip dramatically.  

    I don't give the defense a pass at all, but I don't lay all the blame at their feet when they actually performed good enough to win and our offense failed miserably, it doesn't matter how good the offense was in the regular season.  That is the Peyton Manning Colts, we are the Patriots.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share