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

  1. 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:

    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 a blowout) and won them all.

    2005 played 2 games, beat the Jaguars ran the ball more, lost to the Broncos ran the ball less.

    2006 played 3 games, beat the Jests ran the ball more, barely beat the chargers (3points) because we ran less and Brady threw two INT's, before finally losing to the Colts... we ran less.

    2007 we played 3 games and beat the Jags and Chargers, ran more in both games, lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl because we ran less.

    2008 we should have made the playoffs, we ran the ball (4th in the NFL in rushing attempts) and that's why we ranked #1 in first downs, 8th in points, 5th in yards, 5th least INTs, 1st in scoring %, 3rd in time of possession and went 11-6 with a QB who didn't start a single college game.  This is where I believe McDaniels realized running was why he lost the Super Bowl the year prior and dusted off the old playbooks from 2001-2004 to make Cassel successful.

    2009-2011: let's call these the O'Brien years, we got bounced in the first round his first two year against the Ravens and Jests.  The Ravens ran the ball 52 times, we ran 18 times, Kevin Faulk our third down back was our leading rusher with 14 attempts = 33-14 loss at home.  Next year we started Danny Woodhead against the Jests because we thought he would give us an advantage in the passing game, he was our leading rusher with 14 carries even though LawFirm averaged 4.7 YPC... they ran more, we ran less, they ran with their 1A power back, they won.  2011 we played three games, Denver ran more than us because they had to, Tebow sucked and couldn't pass so we won, we ran an equal amount as the Ravens and barely won, the Giants ran more than us in the Super Bowl and we lost.

    2012 we played two games, we ran more than the Texans and won, we ran less than the Ravens (and they knocked our leading rusher the F out) we lost.

    2013 = ?

    In summation, from 2001 to the present day we've played 24 playoff games.  

    We ran as much or more than our opponent in 14 of those games and won them all including three Super Bowl titles.  

    We ran less than our opponent in 10 of those games, we lost all but three of them, getting bounced twice at home and losing two Super Bowls.

    I don't need a pie chart... that says it all.  

    The Ernhardt-Perkins offensive system we employ relies heavily on the run game to set the tone and to beat up our opponent physically.  This is a fact, and though it may have evolved over time the only time tested, tried and true version of this system that has been successful in the playoffs, whether it was The Patriots, the Parcell's Giants, the Bill Cowher Steelers or the Tom Coughlin Giants has been the one grounded in the running game.

    You can argue against history, playoff records, straightforward easy to read stats, but what is undeniable is that the Patriots ran their way to 3 Super Bowl rings and passed their way to 2 losses.

    Those are the facts.




    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?


    I feel like I need to re post this to point out some fallacies that continue to be ignored a day later.

     


    - 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.


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

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

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

     

    I feel like I need to re post this to point out some fallacies that continue to be ignored a day later.

    - 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.

     

     



    This is a long convoluted way of saying "yeah the Patriots did run the ball more, but..."

     

    I would counter by saying we were behind in two superbowls and an afc title game and HAD to pass the ball to get within field goal range to win.  

    I would also add that anyone who knows football, that knows Tom Brady is one of if not the best play action QB's of all time, that the run game makes the pass game better.  

    Or maybe you've heard it phrased another way in that old maxim; a good running game is a QB's best friend.

    You could have summed this long wordy post ^ up in two words "yeah but..."  

    The actual reality is sitting in my thorough post two posts back.  We ran more we won, we passed more we lost.

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

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

    Here's the abridged version again:

    In summation, from 2001 to the present day we've played 24 playoff games.  

    We ran as much or more than our opponent in 14 of those games and won them all including three Super Bowl titles.  

    We ran less than our opponent in 10 of those games, we lost all but three of them, getting bounced twice at home and losing two Super Bowls.

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

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

    I heard belichick say in an interview recently that the quarterback is not that important in play action - the most important thing he said was the offensive line 

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

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

    "Yeah but" isn't a rebuttal, even if there is a "but" is involved.

    Mike Reiss is right, Belichick is right when he says balance is a good thing to keep an opponent off balance, history proves this, you guys are wrong; period.

     
  • 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 CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:

    I heard belichick say in an interview recently that the quarterback is not that important in play action - the most important thing he said was the offensive line 



    I don't disagree, I would also add that play action without the threat of actually running the ball is about as useful as a knuckle in my johnson.

     
  • 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:

    I heard belichick say in an interview recently that the quarterback is not that important in play action - the most important thing he said was the offensive line 



    I guess Brady has had some wicked good offensive lines then hey, because playaction was a major factor in our super bowl wins. I threw in a little bawston accent for good measure!

    On a side note champs, you know I was being sarcastic when I said mayo sucks on your polian thread right?  There is a guy who floats around here who says mayo sucks and ninkovich suck. So I like to out him whenever possible. Not surprising to hear polian call him the best mlb in the nfl.

     
  • 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:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

     

    I feel like I need to re post this to point out some fallacies that continue to be ignored a day later.

    - 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.

     

     



    This is a long convoluted way of saying "yeah the Patriots did run the ball more, but..."

     

    I would counter by saying we were behind in two superbowls and an afc title game and HAD to pass the ball to get within field goal range to win.  

    I would also add that anyone who knows football, that knows Tom Brady is one of if not the best play action QB's of all time, that the run game makes the pass game better.  

    Or maybe you've heard it phrased another way in that old maxim; a good running game is a QB's best friend.

    You could have summed this long wordy post ^ up in two words "yeah but..."  

    The actual reality is sitting in my thorough post two posts back.  We ran more we won, we passed more we lost.



    We were only behind in the 4th quarter in 2 playoff games above. One of them was against Carolina and it was one point and it lasted for one drive. The Pats had leads in all the other games in the 4th quarter. In many cases they had 2 score leads. You don't want to put 2 and 2 together. Belichick is right (as well as ZBellino and Pezz). The Pats were running more because of the 4th quarter circumstances (leads).  In 2 of those above games it was the kneel downs that gave the Pats the edge. We only tied the Raiders in runs because Brady ran it too Viniateri's comfort spot for an overtime field goal when they were allready in chip shot range. 

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

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

     

    n response to wozzy's comment:

    "Yeah but" isn't a rebuttal, even if there is a "but" is involved.

    Mike Reiss is right, Belichick is right when he says balance is a good thing to keep an opponent off balance, history proves this, you guys are wrong; period.



    Hey don't leave Brady out, we might hear from rusty again.

    Brady said. "We've got to be able to figure out how to slow him down and then we've got to be really balanced on offense like we've been. We've got to run it, and when we throw, we've got to throw it good." 

    I wonder what Brady means by we've got to be really balanced on offense? It is clearly not the case as these guys interpreted BB's own words to mean [ doesn't matter how many times you run it or you pass it.] 

     

     
  • 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 DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

     

    I feel like I need to re post this to point out some fallacies that continue to be ignored a day later.

    - 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.

     

     



    This is a long convoluted way of saying "yeah the Patriots did run the ball more, but..."

     

    I would counter by saying we were behind in two superbowls and an afc title game and HAD to pass the ball to get within field goal range to win.  

    I would also add that anyone who knows football, that knows Tom Brady is one of if not the best play action QB's of all time, that the run game makes the pass game better.  

    Or maybe you've heard it phrased another way in that old maxim; a good running game is a QB's best friend.

    You could have summed this long wordy post ^ up in two words "yeah but..."  

    The actual reality is sitting in my thorough post two posts back.  We ran more we won, we passed more we lost.



    We were only behind in the 4th quarter in 2 playoff games above. One of them was against Carolina and it was one point and it lasted for one drive. The Pats had leads in all the other games in the 4th quarter. In many cases they had 2 score leads. You don't want to put 2 and 2 together. Belichick is right (as well as ZBellino and Pezz). The Pats were running more because of the 4th quarter circumstances (leads).  In 2 of those above games it was the kneel downs that gave the Pats the edge. We only tied the Raiders in runs because Brady ran it too Viniateri's comfort spot for an overtime field goal when they were allready in chip shot range. 



    That makes no sense. We ran less in SB 42 and SB 46 with a lead in the 4th qtr with leads.

    You're a moron or didn't do your homework. 

    Stop living in the past. It's easier to be an offensive player in today's game than ever before and Brady has been WORSE.



    I wonder how much Wozzy and True Champ enjoy having your support. You are wrong so often that by associating with them publicly you make them look bad.  I would bet 90% of the posters here don't bother reading your posts. We already know you are wrong and we are petrified that you might somehow agree with us.

     

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

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


    uh oh, we got another know nothing hack journalist Salk, who thinks he knows more then BB. The nerve, ugh

     

    And that brings us to Tom Brady and the Patriots chances against the Colts this Saturday.

    All year, I have argued that the Patriots are at their best when they are offensively balanced. I wrote about it before the season and my thoughts haven't changed much since then. I thought this year's team was at its best in the final two games where they ran more often than they threw. For a team that had success running the ball and a young, inconsistent receiving corps, I think it's shocking that they attempted more passes this season (628) than in 2007 (578). To be fair, some of those numbers are inflated by the need to come roaring back after bad first halves against Denver, Cleveland, Houston and Miami.

    But the point stands: this team is better when Josh McDaniels remembers he has a running game.

    Still, to advocate for balance should not be confused with taking Tom Brady for granted. In fact, I think it is a respect for Brady's ability that (ironically) makes me want to see less of him.

    Establishing a running game is so important because of its ancillary benefits. Not only do you usually gain positive yardage on a running play, you wear out opponents, make third down conversions easier, and set up play action passes. Furthermore, because a good running game gives you multiple options near the goal line, it also helps your red zone effectiveness. And for a Patriots team that has lost its best red zone threat, that may be the most important factor. They need to convert their red zone opportunities and a balanced attack gives them the best chances to do so.

    The Patriots are capable of beating any of the seven teams they could face in the next few weeks. A commitment to a balanced attack should allow them to keep games close until the final minutes. And with games increasingly being decided by a few key plays late, they have the ultimate weapon in Brady.

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

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

    Lets see what that hack Salk was talking about before the season, not that it matters, BB already told us running wasn't important(wait, he didn't say that?) Skip the 1st part about the murderer...

    I am thinking this will put not a dent but a hole big enough to drive a car through ccns fallacies about not being very balanced other then Dillions 04 year.

    TO BALL-CONTROL OFFENSE Mon, 07/01/2013 - 9:45am      9    Email 17 Comments

    Aaron Hernandez is in jail, has been denied bail (twice) and still is a long way away from going to trial. The bizarre and horrible story has cause people to rip the Patriots organization, defend the Patriots organization, and wonder about Bill Belichick and the Patriots Way. That's fine. But the only reason we know who Hernandez is in the first place is because we know him in a football perspective. And we are now less than four weeks away from the start of training camp and I'm curious how this offseason will change the Patriots on the field.

     

    It might be time for Josh McDaniels to adjust the Patriots' offensive strategy and stop relying so much on Tom Brady. (AP)

    It might be time for Josh McDaniels to adjust the Patriots' offensive strategy and stop relying so much on Tom Brady. (AP)

    Let's start with what we know. With no Hernandez,  Wes WelkerBrandon Lloyd nor Danny Woodhead on the roster, the Patriots have given up players that accounted for nearly 300 of the 401 completions  Tom Bradythrew in 2012. Throw in the likely-to-be-injured  Rob Gronkowski, and 87 percent of last season's completions are in limbo, at best.

     

    That leaves the Pats with an unproven receiving corps -- one with some potential but which has yet to be proven in this system. Belichick and his offensive coaches may look at this group and decide it is just as capable as last year's group of running the same offense. They may believe that Tom Brady is so good that he can turn this collection of unprovens into the next batch of stars. They might be right.

    But they could also go in a completely different direction.

    When I think of the three Super Bowl-winning teams, I think of a ball-control offense. Yes, Brady was a burgeoning star (certainly by 2004), but he didn't throw it that often. In 2001, he attempted just 413 passes, in 2003 it was up to 527 but by 2004 it was back down to 474. He has not had a year with fewer attempts since, peaking at 637 attempts last season.

    In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29.

    The numbers bear out what any of us might have guessed: The Pats have become much more of an aerial attack than a pounding running style. They score quickly and often. And while that has made sense with their explosive offensive personnel, it has had an effect on their defense. (UH OH ZBELLINO, ANOTHER IDIOT WHO THINKS AN AERIAL OFFENSE CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON OUR DEFENSE)For the last three years, that defense has given up yardage in droves, though they've remained among the leaders in fewest points allowed.

    What would happen if the Pats abandoned their high-flying offense and returned to their ball-control style?

    Well, Tom Brady might stop being Peyton Manning. Remember when Brady vs. Manning began and everyone knew that while Manning would put up the huge regular-season numbers, Brady would get the better if him when it mattered most? Well, Brady's regular seasons have since competed with Manning's, but unfortunately, so have his postseasons. One theory on why that's occurred is that the team has asked him to do too much for too long. The ball-control Patriots asked Brady to make a few big plays per game. The aerial-attack Pats ask him to make dozens. The ball-control Pats used their quarterback as part of a multifaceted offense. The aerial-attack Pats built everything around him, almost like a certain ex-Colt (but without the constant histrionics at the line of scrimmage)?

    In the four years I spent working with ex-quarterback Brock Huard in Seattle, one of the things he taught me was that offense and defense can have a symbiotic relationship. (UH OH ZBELLINO ANOTHER MORON WHO THINKS OFFENSE HAS AN EFFECT ON DEFENSE, YOU REMEMBER THAT TALK RIGHT BIG GUY)When an offense scores quickly, it puts pressure on the other team, but it also can have an adverse effect on its own defense in terms of the raw numbers. Quick scores lead to more possessions per game which in turn leads to higher yardage totals. In theory, a Pats team built around more of a ball-control offense should help the defense by keeping it off the field for longer stretches of time.(SOUNDS FAMILIAR, I SAID THIS IN THE PAST BUT WAS TOLD I WAS WRONG BY MY MAIN MEN< ZBELLINO< PROLATE AND A FEW CRONIES)

    If Belichick goes in that direction, it could make the Pats a better team even while it diminishes some of the offensive output. But there are some huge questions.

    First, is this offense capable of running the ball effectively as a primary option?(YES) The running backs are solid, certainly at Antowain Smith's level. Smith was a solid if unspectacular back who fit the system by hardly ever giving up the football. Stevan Ridley fumbled just four times last year (the same number as Smith in 2001), LeGarrette Blount has averaged three fumbles per season andShane Vereen has lost just one. And while the offensive line may have been built to protect Brady,Logan Mankins leads what could potentially be an effective run-blocking unit.

    But the Pats' aerial attack has been all-encompassing, especially recently. All of those conversations Belichick had with Chip Kelly led to an uptempo style that complemented it perfectly. I would think a system built around controlling the ball would necessitate a move away from Kelly's hyperspeed influence. Would Belichick be willing to change so drastically?

    Finally, a key piece to each of the three Super Bowl teams was the blocking not just from the five linemen, but from the tight ends and wide receivers as well. Daniel Graham may never have become the dual threat he had projected to be, but he was a force in the running game. Receivers like Troy BrownDavid Patten and David Givens were always willing to sacrifice their bodies to take out a corner or a downfield safety. Can the group of replacement tight ends approximate Graham? Will the rookie receivers be willing to block?

    The 2013 Patriots will have more questions to answer than any of their recent iterations. But if the personnel changes at wide receiver and tight end lead to a return of ball-control football, I'll be eager to see how they are answered.(THEY ANSWERED THE BELL NOW LETS KEEP IT GOING!)

     
  • 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 TrueChamp's comment:

     

    n response to wozzy's comment:

    "Yeah but" isn't a rebuttal, even if there is a "but" is involved.

    Mike Reiss is right, Belichick is right when he says balance is a good thing to keep an opponent off balance, history proves this, you guys are wrong; period.



    Hey don't leave Brady out, we might hear from rusty again.

    Brady said. "We've got to be able to figure out how to slow him down and then we've got to be really balanced on offense like we've been. We've got to run it, and when we throw, we've got to throw it good." 

    I wonder what Brady means by we've got to be really balanced on offense? It is clearly not the case as these guys interpreted BB's own words to mean [ doesn't matter how many times you run it or you pass it.] 

     



    This is a "straw man" argument. When did I once say balance was bad. I could care less about balance. My point is we only ran more than our opponents in most of the 2001 -2004 playoff games because of the 4th quarter circumstances. Which is clearly what Belichick was referring to. Wozzy saying we won because we ran more than the Titans is blatantly false. We ran more because we had 2 kneel downs at the end. We ran it more than the Steelers in 2001 because we had 3 kneel downs at the end.The number of runs means nothing in comparison to the other team. Pezz's charts, if accurate (and I am not double checking them but I encourage others to) proves Belichicks statement, at least for the first 9 games of 2013. The run differance or totals is determined by who has the lead in the 4th quarter more often than not.

    Be honest. If you were in charge of the play calling in 2007 and 2011 you believe the Pats would have had a better chance to win the super bowl. The pass run ratio drives you crazy, so say it. Belichick was wrong and you are right. At least be honest about it. Rusty says it but since Belichick is his god he says Brady went rogue on Belichick. What's funny if he wasn't such an obvious troll I might think he actually believes it.  You get offended when someone criticizes a draft pick so be honest. Belichick ruined the Pats chances for winning super bowls because he doesn't know how to run an offense anymore. I could care less if the Pats run it twice for every pass. I have no idealogical predisposition for any offensive style. You can win football games in many ways. I think Belichick is a great coach who knows what he is doing and he is right way more than he is wrong. It's obvious that Belichick knows exactly what Pezz was talking about in those charts. I suspect he has had the Pats run similar analysis on his own and even if he hasn't he innately knew the truth based on his statements. There is nothing immoral about criticizing the coach. The fake punt in 2010 probably cost them the super bowl or at least the chance to go to the super bowl. Dumbest decision Belichick has been involved with since he started in New England in my opinion.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

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

    Pretty impressive stuff, even though I am completely lost on "binary logistic regression."
    Do you do stuff like this for a living? That would take me a month to put together. The charts were easy to follow the rest was a little over my head.

     

    I didn't do it bro but I did deal with it a little in college as a math major before switching to business.

    I do work with statistics (somewhat) to try and determine probability.  But it's only a small part of my business.

      That's really all it is, statistics with variables.

    Luckily there are programs for that because I don't think my mind would allow me to go there anymore.  The actual equations are daunting.  The programs, not so much.Smile

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

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

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    n response to wozzy's comment:

    "Yeah but" isn't a rebuttal, even if there is a "but" is involved.

    Mike Reiss is right, Belichick is right when he says balance is a good thing to keep an opponent off balance, history proves this, you guys are wrong; period.



    Hey don't leave Brady out, we might hear from rusty again.

    Brady said. "We've got to be able to figure out how to slow him down and then we've got to be really balanced on offense like we've been. We've got to run it, and when we throw, we've got to throw it good." 

    I wonder what Brady means by we've got to be really balanced on offense? It is clearly not the case as these guys interpreted BB's own words to mean [ doesn't matter how many times you run it or you pass it.] 

     



    This is a "straw man" argument. When did I once say balance was bad. I could care less about balance. My point is we only ran more than our opponents in most of the 2001 -2004 playoff games because of the 4th quarter circumstances. Which is clearly what Belichick was referring to. Wozzy saying we won because we ran more than the Titans is blatantly false. We ran more because we had 2 kneel downs at the end. We ran it more than the Steelers in 2001 because we had 3 kneel downs at the end.The number of runs means nothing in comparison to the other team. Pezz's charts, if accurate (and I am not double checking them but I encourage others to) proves Belichicks statement, at least for the first 9 games of 2013. The run differance or totals is determined by who has the lead in the 4th quarter more often than not.

    Be honest. If you were in charge of the play calling in 2007 and 2011 you believe the Pats would have had a better chance to win the super bowl. The pass run ratio drives you crazy, so say it. Belichick was wrong and you are right. At least be honest about it. Rusty says it but since Belichick is his god he says Brady went rogue on Belichick. What's funny if he wasn't such an obvious troll I might think he actually believes it.  You get offended when someone criticizes a draft pick so be honest. Belichick ruined the Pats chances for winning super bowls because he doesn't know how to run an offense anymore. I could care less if the Pats run it twice for every pass. I have no idealogical predisposition for any offensive style. You can win football games in many ways. I think Belichick is a great coach who knows what he is doing and he is right way more than he is wrong. It's obvious that Belichick knows exactly what Pezz was talking about in those charts. I suspect he has had the Pats run similar analysis on his own and even if he hasn't he innately knew the truth based on his statements. There is nothing immoral about criticizing the coach. The fake punt in 2010 probably cost them the super bowl or at least the chance to go to the super bowl. Dumbest decision Belichick has been involved with since he started in New England in my opinion.



    typical responses when losing your foot hole in an argument. Dumb it down to a blanket statement and force the respondent to say what you want him to say in a last dash effort to sustain your position....

    Read the articles up top. Have I said BB, McD, OB, and whoever else was in charge should have had a better balance and not been over reliant on the great one for the last half decade? Well in the words of Colonel Jessup, Your GD DAMN RIGHT I DID. GASPPPP hey did that give you what you needed? I hope it was an adequate life line, now go tell everyone I think I know more then BB or something.

     

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

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    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.




    ^ This is about as true as true ever gets around here.

    If I were saying BB was the best GM of all-time, but then still saying everything negative that I actually say about his specific decisions on drafting, FAs and the like, I would be doing exactly what these guys do regarding BB's coaching.

    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.

     

     

     
  • 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 TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    n response to wozzy's comment:

    "Yeah but" isn't a rebuttal, even if there is a "but" is involved.

    Mike Reiss is right, Belichick is right when he says balance is a good thing to keep an opponent off balance, history proves this, you guys are wrong; period.



    Hey don't leave Brady out, we might hear from rusty again.

    Brady said. "We've got to be able to figure out how to slow him down and then we've got to be really balanced on offense like we've been. We've got to run it, and when we throw, we've got to throw it good." 

    I wonder what Brady means by we've got to be really balanced on offense? It is clearly not the case as these guys interpreted BB's own words to mean [ doesn't matter how many times you run it or you pass it.] 

     



    This is a "straw man" argument. When did I once say balance was bad. I could care less about balance. My point is we only ran more than our opponents in most of the 2001 -2004 playoff games because of the 4th quarter circumstances. Which is clearly what Belichick was referring to. Wozzy saying we won because we ran more than the Titans is blatantly false. We ran more because we had 2 kneel downs at the end. We ran it more than the Steelers in 2001 because we had 3 kneel downs at the end.The number of runs means nothing in comparison to the other team. Pezz's charts, if accurate (and I am not double checking them but I encourage others to) proves Belichicks statement, at least for the first 9 games of 2013. The run differance or totals is determined by who has the lead in the 4th quarter more often than not.

    Be honest. If you were in charge of the play calling in 2007 and 2011 you believe the Pats would have had a better chance to win the super bowl. The pass run ratio drives you crazy, so say it. Belichick was wrong and you are right. At least be honest about it. Rusty says it but since Belichick is his god he says Brady went rogue on Belichick. What's funny if he wasn't such an obvious troll I might think he actually believes it.  You get offended when someone criticizes a draft pick so be honest. Belichick ruined the Pats chances for winning super bowls because he doesn't know how to run an offense anymore. I could care less if the Pats run it twice for every pass. I have no idealogical predisposition for any offensive style. You can win football games in many ways. I think Belichick is a great coach who knows what he is doing and he is right way more than he is wrong. It's obvious that Belichick knows exactly what Pezz was talking about in those charts. I suspect he has had the Pats run similar analysis on his own and even if he hasn't he innately knew the truth based on his statements. There is nothing immoral about criticizing the coach. The fake punt in 2010 probably cost them the super bowl or at least the chance to go to the super bowl. Dumbest decision Belichick has been involved with since he started in New England in my opinion.



    typical responses when losing your foot hole in an argument. Dumb it down to a blanket statement and force the respondent to say what you want him to say in a last dash effort to sustain your position....

    Read the articles up top. Have I said BB, McD, OB, and whoever else was in charge should have had a better balance and not been over reliant on the great one for the last half decade? Well in the words of Colonel Jessup, Your GD DAMN RIGHT I DID. GASPPPP hey did that give you what you needed? I hope it was an adequate life line, now go tell everyone I think I know more then BB or something.

     



    So tell me did the pass run ratio have anything to do with the super bowl losses in 2007 and 2011?

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pretty impressive stuff, even though I am completely lost on "binary logistic regression."
    Do you do stuff like this for a living? That would take me a month to put together. The charts were easy to follow the rest was a little over my head.

     



    Junk science.

     

    In the words of Belichick himself; "the only stats that matter outside of wins, is points scored and points allowed."

     



    Notice, though, Wozzy, that Belichick doesn't include "number of rush attempts" in those stats that matter. 

     

    Look, I think having a good running game matters.  And I'm sure Belichick wants to have a good--heck, even a great--running game.  More than that, I'm happy to see some success running the ball recently and think it's important that they have similar success in the playoffs. 

    We're I've disagreed with you, TrueChamp, and Rusty is that I don't believe for a minute that simply increasing the number of times we run the ball would necessarily lead to wins. There is no simple formula like that.  

    Now, you, TrueChamp, and Rusty all have different theories about why the Pats offense has been the way it is, but the bottom line is the same: you all believe that the Pats have lost games because they don't run enough, and that simply by calling more run plays they would have won games that they lost.  In other words, you all think that not running enough caused us to lose games and that we lost important games because the wrong plays were called.  Now none of you seems to have the stones to blame Bill Belichick for this alleged failure of play calling, game planning, and overall offensive philosophy.  Instead, you and TrueChamp blame it on his coordinators and Rusty blames it on Brady changing the plays.  Those might be credible excuses for Belichick if the "problem" occurred in one or two games.  But you all say that it has gone on for full seasons--in fact, for multiple seasons, maybe a half decade, since 2007.  If Bill Belichick didn't approve of what his coordinators and Brady were doing with the offense, he would never have let it continue for more than a game or two.  The "problem" would not persist for four, five, six seasons unless Bill Belichick didn't see it as a problem or Bill Belichick is absolutely incompetent and has no control of his team.  I agree with you that good leaders delegate and don't micromanage--but they also don't allow their organizations to fail repeatedly by tolerating incompetence and allowing their subordinates to make the same errors over and over.  The fact that this alleged "run-too-little" problem has gone on for years makes it pretty clear that Bill Belichick doesn't agree it's a problem.

     

     

    This week Bill Belichick came out and said out loud what the last five years of his tolerance of the play calling confirm: that Bill Belichick does not believe that number of runs is a significant stat and that you don't manage an offense by trying to achieve some specific ratio of runs to pass. 

    Over the past five years, the Pats, on average, have run about 45% of the time.  In their most "pass happy" years (2002 under Weis and 2011 under O'Brien) the running percentage drops to about 40%.  In their most "run happy" years it gets close to 50%.  I think in the entire time Belichick has coached the team, it only reached 50% once, in 2004, when Corey Dillon was around. For the most part, under Weis, under O'Brien, and under McDaniels, the run-pass ratio has hovered around 45% runs, 55% passes, give or take a few percentage points. The difference between 40% and 45% in a 70 play game is 3 or 4 plays.  So there hasn't been a huge difference in any case. 

    Honestly, TrueChamp is the only guy who seems to focus solely on run-pass ratios as if simply calling more runs is some kind of magic formula for more winning.  His theory seems to be that running more will confound opposing defenses, keep our own defense off the field, and "protect" Brady, who he sees as aging and immobile.  Your theory seems to revolve more around a dislike for the overall style of offense.  You see it as too "finesse" and not "smashmouth" enough.  Rusty's theory is more about Brady prefering the shotgun and passing, apparently for ego reasons. 

    In reality, however, I think the type of play calls we see from the Pats are dictated by three things:

    1. The personnel on the team.  Bill Belichick and his offensive coordinators design an offense each year that suits the personnel they have.  The "finesse" style is based on what works best with the personnel the team has.  They design an offense that emphasizes the strengths of the players and hides their weaknesses.  With Brady and Welker, quick passes have been the strength of the offense--not smashmouth running--and so the offense emphasizes that strength.  Still, the offense has always incorporated a good amount of running--and the team clearly has worked on improving the running personnel and schemes year after year.  Belichick wants a more diverse offense that can both run and pass well--I'm sure of that.  But he still creates an offensive plan each year that allows his personnel to utilize their strengths and doesn't try to force them to do things over and over that they aren't as good at.  He simply isn't going to build an offense around BenJarvus Green-Ellis when he has Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez on the team.  This is smart.  In fact, this ability to adjust schemes to personnel is maybe the most impressive part of Bill Belichick's ample genius.  
    2. Particular match-ups with opposing teams.  Belichick is a "game plan" coach--and he adjusts what he's doing based on the personnel the other team has and how his team matches up.  Some games that might lead to an emphasis on the run, sometimes on the pass.  But it's always based on particular match-ups, not some overriding philosophy of how much you run or how much you pass.
    3. Finally, game situations.  What happens in the actual game dictates what types of plays make sense to call.  If you are way ahead late in the game, you'll run more.  If you end up in a lot of 3 and longs, you'll pass more.  If you get the ball with two minutes left in a half and need to score, you'll pass more.  If the defense shows certain looks, you'll either run or pass more to take advantage of what the defense is giving you. These actual game situations are what determine the exact run-pass ratio of any game.  They are simply outcomes of the situations you find yourself in. 

    Now my opinion has always been that Belichick, his coordinators, and Tom Brady are all extremely good at doing all three of the things above. They design brilliant offenses each season that work exceedingly well with the talent they have.  They game plan as well as anyone in the league.  And the situational play calling is excellent.  Are they perfect? No, no one is.  But is there some kind of systemic failure in offensive design, game planning, and play calling that has persisted for five or so years?

    That's simply preposterous. 

    Bill Belichick is the winningest coach in NFL history, and his offenses have been among the highest scoring in the league.  To say this is a failure and other approaches are better boggles the mind.

    But it's what we hear on BDC.com over and over, year after year. 

    I honestly thought Belichick's comments this week would finally put an end to the absurdity, but apparently it is only going to continue . . . at a more fevered pitch. 

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79'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 ccnsd's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Pretty impressive stuff, even though I am completely lost on "binary logistic regression."
    Do you do stuff like this for a living? That would take me a month to put together. The charts were easy to follow the rest was a little over my head.

     



    Junk science.

     

    In the words of Belichick himself; "the only stats that matter outside of wins, is points scored and points allowed."

     



    Notice, though, Wozzy, that Belichick doesn't include "number of rush attempts" in those stats that matter. 

     

    Look, I think having a good running game matters.  And I'm sure Belichick wants to have a good--heck, even a great--running game.  More than that, I'm happy to see some success running the ball recently and think it's important that they have similar success in the playoffs. 

    We're I've disagreed with you, TrueChamp, and Rusty is that I don't believe for a minute that simply increasing the number of times we run the ball would necessarily lead to wins. There is no simple formula like that.  

    Now, you, TrueChamp, and Rusty all have different theories about why the Pats offense has been the way it is, but the bottom line is the same: you all believe that the Pats have lost games because they don't run enough, and that simply by calling more run plays they would have won games that they lost.  In other words, you all think that not running enough caused us to lose games and that we lost important games because the wrong plays were called.  Now none of you seems to have the stones to blame Bill Belichick for this alleged failure of play calling, game planning, and overall offensive philosophy.  Instead, you and TrueChamp blame it on his coordinators and Rusty blames it on Brady changing the plays.  Those might be credible excuses for Belichick if the "problem" occurred in one or two games.  But you all say that it has gone on for full seasons--in fact, for multiple seasons, maybe a half decade, since 2007.  If Bill Belichick didn't approve of what his coordinators and Brady were doing with the offense, he would never have let it continue for more than a game or two.  The "problem" would not persist for four, five, six seasons unless Bill Belichick didn't see it as a problem or Bill Belichick is absolutely incompetent and has no control of his team.  I agree with you that good leaders delegate and don't micromanage--but they also don't allow their organizations to fail repeatedly by tolerating incompetence and allowing their subordinates to make the same errors over and over.  The fact that this alleged "run-too-little" problem has gone on for years makes it pretty clear that Bill Belichick doesn't agree it's a problem.

     

     

    This week Bill Belichick came out and said out loud what the last five years of his tolerance of the play calling confirm: that Bill Belichick does not believe that number of runs is a significant stat and that you don't manage an offense by trying to achieve some specific ratio of runs to pass. 

    Over the past five years, the Pats, on average, have run about 45% of the time.  In their most "pass happy" years (2002 under Weis and 2011 under O'Brien) the running percentage drops to about 40%.  In their most "run happy" years it gets close to 50%.  I think in the entire time Belichick has coached the team, it only reached 50% once, in 2004, when Corey Dillon was around. For the most part, under Weis, under O'Brien, and under McDaniels, the run-pass ratio has hovered around 45% runs, 55% passes, give or take a few percentage points. The difference between 40% and 45% in a 70 play game is 3 or 4 plays.  So there hasn't been a huge difference in any case. 

    Honestly, TrueChamp is the only guy who seems to focus solely on run-pass ratios as if simply calling more runs is some kind of magic formula for more winning.  His theory seems to be that running more will confound opposing defenses, keep our own defense off the field, and "protect" Brady, who he sees as aging and immobile.  Your theory seems to revolve more around a dislike for the overall style of offense.  You see it as too "finesse" and not "smashmouth" enough.  Rusty's theory is more about Brady prefering the shotgun and passing, apparently for ego reasons. 

    In reality, however, I think the type of play calls we see from the Pats are dictated by three things:

    1. The personnel on the team.  Bill Belichick and his offensive coordinators design an offense each year that suits the personnel they have.  The "finesse" style is based on what works best with the personnel the team has.  They design an offense that emphasizes the strengths of the players and hides their weaknesses.  With Brady and Welker, quick passes have been the strength of the offense--not smashmouth running--and so the offense emphasizes that strength.  Still, the offense has always incorporated a good amount of running--and the team clearly has worked on improving the running personnel and schemes year after year.  Belichick wants a more diverse offense that can both run and pass well--I'm sure of that.  But he still creates an offensive plan each year that allows his personnel to utilize their strengths and doesn't try to force them to do things over and over that they aren't as good at.  He simply isn't going to build an offense around BenJarvus Green-Ellis when he has Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez on the team.  This is smart.  In fact, this ability to adjust schemes to personnel is maybe the most impressive part of Bill Belichick's ample genius.  
    2. Particular match-ups with opposing teams.  Belichick is a "game plan" coach--and he adjusts what he's doing based on the personnel the other team has and how his team matches up.  Some games that might lead to an emphasis on the run, sometimes on the pass.  But it's always based on particular match-ups, not some overriding philosophy of how much you run or how much you pass.
    3. Finally, game situations.  What happens in the actual game dictates what types of plays make sense to call.  If you are way ahead late in the game, you'll run more.  If you end up in a lot of 3 and longs, you'll pass more.  If you get the ball with two minutes left in a half and need to score, you'll pass more.  If the defense shows certain looks, you'll either run or pass more to take advantage of what the defense is giving you. These actual game situations are what determine the exact run-pass ratio of any game.  They are simply outcomes of the situations you find yourself in. 

    Now my opinion has always been that Belichick, his coordinators, and Tom Brady are all extremely good at doing all three of the things above. They design brilliant offenses each season that work exceedingly well with the talent they have.  They game plan as well as anyone in the league.  And the situational play calling is excellent.  Are they perfect? No, no one is.  But is there some kind of systemic failure in offensive design, game planning, and play calling that has persisted for five or so years?

    That's simply preposterous. 

    Bill Belichick is the winningest coach in NFL history, and his offenses have been among the highest scoring in the league.  To say this is a failure and other approaches are better boggles the mind.

    But it's what we hear on BDC.com over and over, year after year. 

    I honestly thought Belichick's comments this week would finally put an end to the absurdity, but apparently it is only going to continue . . . at a more fevered pitch. 

     

     



    aaa aaa aaa junk science..... triple, qaudruple speech.... your wrong, BB is right, it's just he does not micro manage his OC and gives complete autonomy to his QB.... Your a m0ron who just doesn't get it.... BB has proven me right by slapping down Brady and the OC last two games...

     

    Oh just figure I'd get some of the irrational responses out of the way. 

     
  • 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 ccnsd's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pretty impressive stuff, even though I am completely lost on "binary logistic regression."
    Do you do stuff like this for a living? That would take me a month to put together. The charts were easy to follow the rest was a little over my head.

     



    Junk science.

     

    In the words of Belichick himself; "the only stats that matter outside of wins, is points scored and points allowed."

     



    Notice, though, Wozzy, that Belichick doesn't include "number of rush attempts" in those stats that matter. 

     

    Look, I think having a good running game matters.  And I'm sure Belichick wants to have a good--heck, even a great--running game.  More than that, I'm happy to see some success running the ball recently and think it's important that they have similar success in the playoffs. 

    We're I've disagreed with you, TrueChamp, and Rusty is that I don't believe for a minute that simply increasing the number of times we run the ball would necessarily lead to wins. There is no simple formula like that.  

    Now, you, TrueChamp, and Rusty all have different theories about why the Pats offense has been the way it is, but the bottom line is the same: you all believe that the Pats have lost games because they don't run enough, and that simply by calling more run plays they would have won games that they lost.  In other words, you all think that not running enough caused us to lose games and that we lost important games because the wrong plays were called.  Now none of you seems to have the stones to blame Bill Belichick for this alleged failure of play calling, game planning, and overall offensive philosophy.  Instead, you and TrueChamp blame it on his coordinators and Rusty blames it on Brady changing the plays.  Those might be credible excuses for Belichick if the "problem" occurred in one or two games.  But you all say that it has gone on for full seasons--in fact, for multiple seasons, maybe a half decade, since 2007.  If Bill Belichick didn't approve of what his coordinators and Brady were doing with the offense, he would never have let it continue for more than a game or two.  The "problem" would not persist for four, five, six seasons unless Bill Belichick didn't see it as a problem or Bill Belichick is absolutely incompetent and has no control of his team.  I agree with you that good leaders delegate and don't micromanage--but they also don't allow their organizations to fail repeatedly by tolerating incompetence and allowing their subordinates to make the same errors over and over.  The fact that this alleged "run-too-little" problem has gone on for years makes it pretty clear that Bill Belichick doesn't agree it's a problem.

     

     

    This week Bill Belichick came out and said out loud what the last five years of his tolerance of the play calling confirm: that Bill Belichick does not believe that number of runs is a significant stat and that you don't manage an offense by trying to achieve some specific ratio of runs to pass. 

    Over the past five years, the Pats, on average, have run about 45% of the time.  In their most "pass happy" years (2002 under Weis and 2011 under O'Brien) the running percentage drops to about 40%.  In their most "run happy" years it gets close to 50%.  I think in the entire time Belichick has coached the team, it only reached 50% once, in 2004, when Corey Dillon was around. For the most part, under Weis, under O'Brien, and under McDaniels, the run-pass ratio has hovered around 45% runs, 55% passes, give or take a few percentage points. The difference between 40% and 45% in a 70 play game is 3 or 4 plays.  So there hasn't been a huge difference in any case. 

    Honestly, TrueChamp is the only guy who seems to focus solely on run-pass ratios as if simply calling more runs is some kind of magic formula for more winning.  His theory seems to be that running more will confound opposing defenses, keep our own defense off the field, and "protect" Brady, who he sees as aging and immobile.  Your theory seems to revolve more around a dislike for the overall style of offense.  You see it as too "finesse" and not "smashmouth" enough.  Rusty's theory is more about Brady prefering the shotgun and passing, apparently for ego reasons. 

    In reality, however, I think the type of play calls we see from the Pats are dictated by three things:

    1. The personnel on the team.  Bill Belichick and his offensive coordinators design an offense each year that suits the personnel they have.  The "finesse" style is based on what works best with the personnel the team has.  They design an offense that emphasizes the strengths of the players and hides their weaknesses.  With Brady and Welker, quick passes have been the strength of the offense--not smashmouth running--and so the offense emphasizes that strength.  Still, the offense has always incorporated a good amount of running--and the team clearly has worked on improving the running personnel and schemes year after year.  Belichick wants a more diverse offense that can both run and pass well--I'm sure of that.  But he still creates an offensive plan each year that allows his personnel to utilize their strengths and doesn't try to force them to do things over and over that they aren't as good at.  He simply isn't going to build an offense around BenJarvus Green-Ellis when he has Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez on the team.  This is smart.  In fact, this ability to adjust schemes to personnel is maybe the most impressive part of Bill Belichick's ample genius.  
    2. Particular match-ups with opposing teams.  Belichick is a "game plan" coach--and he adjusts what he's doing based on the personnel the other team has and how his team matches up.  Some games that might lead to an emphasis on the run, sometimes on the pass.  But it's always based on particular match-ups, not some overriding philosophy of how much you run or how much you pass.
    3. Finally, game situations.  What happens in the actual game dictates what types of plays make sense to call.  If you are way ahead late in the game, you'll run more.  If you end up in a lot of 3 and longs, you'll pass more.  If you get the ball with two minutes left in a half and need to score, you'll pass more.  If the defense shows certain looks, you'll either run or pass more to take advantage of what the defense is giving you. These actual game situations are what determine the exact run-pass ratio of any game.  They are simply outcomes of the situations you find yourself in. 

    Now my opinion has always been that Belichick, his coordinators, and Tom Brady are all extremely good at doing all three of the things above. They design brilliant offenses each season that work exceedingly well with the talent they have.  They game plan as well as anyone in the league.  And the situational play calling is excellent.  Are they perfect? No, no one is.  But is there some kind of systemic failure in offensive design, game planning, and play calling that has persisted for five or so years?

    That's simply preposterous. 

    Bill Belichick is the winningest coach in NFL history, and his offenses have been among the highest scoring in the league.  To say this is a failure and other approaches are better boggles the mind.

    But it's what we hear on BDC.com over and over, year after year. 

    I honestly thought Belichick's comments this week would finally put an end to the absurdity, but apparently it is only going to continue . . . at a more fevered pitch. 

     

     



    Hey, how come you don't say, me wozzy, and mike reiss? And Salk? Not too mention many others here who haven't jumped on the thread.

    It's a nice tactic you are using. Try and slant the agenda so that if you agree with the idea that we have relied on a pass heavy offense and our QB to do too much for us then you think BB is an idiot. Oh and that he is a failure,  in the mean time you've been blasting this guys team building skills for years,  virtually saying he doesn't know how to build a team, or acquire good talent. Here is one for ya, BB is the only GM of this team, but he isnt the only coach....can't believe you think so little of BB blah blah blah, same old tired fall back.

     

    Hey what's BB doing in this picture

     

    or this one

     

    you ever see him down on 1 knee coaching the offense while Patricia calls plays for the defense? 

    Me neither.

     
  • 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:


    uh oh, we got another know nothing hack journalist Salk, who thinks he knows more then BB. The nerve, ugh

     

    And that brings us to Tom Brady and the Patriots chances against the Colts this Saturday.

    All year, I have argued that the Patriots are at their best when they are offensively balanced. I wrote about it before the season and my thoughts haven't changed much since then. I thought this year's team was at its best in the final two games where they ran more often than they threw. For a team that had success running the ball and a young, inconsistent receiving corps, I think it's shocking that they attempted more passes this season (628) than in 2007 (578). To be fair, some of those numbers are inflated by the need to come roaring back after bad first halves against Denver, Cleveland, Houston and Miami.

    But the point stands: this team is better when Josh McDaniels remembers he has a running game.

    Still, to advocate for balance should not be confused with taking Tom Brady for granted. In fact, I think it is a respect for Brady's ability that (ironically) makes me want to see less of him.

    Establishing a running game is so important because of its ancillary benefits. Not only do you usually gain positive yardage on a running play, you wear out opponents, make third down conversions easier, and set up play action passes. Furthermore, because a good running game gives you multiple options near the goal line, it also helps your red zone effectiveness. And for a Patriots team that has lost its best red zone threat, that may be the most important factor. They need to convert their red zone opportunities and a balanced attack gives them the best chances to do so.

    The Patriots are capable of beating any of the seven teams they could face in the next few weeks. A commitment to a balanced attack should allow them to keep games close until the final minutes. And with games increasingly being decided by a few key plays late, they have the ultimate weapon in Brady.



    The guy who wrote this article is as dumb as mike reiss is....what an idiot. Right pro? All this

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

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

    Maybe BB learned his lesson from Seattle game last year. 9:30 left in game with 13 point lead and lose. We threw 6 incomplete passes, which stops the clock, 3 TO's for Seattle, plus 2:00 warning. We gave Seattle 10 TO's. One drive by the Pats took 14 seconds. Not counting 2nd Intentional Grounding Penalty, after a 9 yard run by Woodhead. Why on earth are we passing 2nd and 1.

    He wont make that mistake again.

     

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

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

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Mike Reiss is clearly more of an expert than Bill Belichick.  

     



    I was just thinking the same thing, after all everything he says is lauded around here as gospel. 

    Once again...running=good. Not being able to run and yet still trying to=you are going to lose.

    I'm going to trust that Belichick knows what he is doing more so than Mickey Mouse Reiss (I still don't think he's tall enough to get on Space Mountain). You can't tell me this guy never got his tongue stuck on a flag poll. You can't.




    Funny how Reiss is cherry picked by the warped agenda crowd. They hardly made a peep about his brilliance when he called BB a mediocre drafter. LMAO

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share