Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

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

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Shocking that we didn't re-sign BJGE. If we had kept him and benched Brady in favor of Hoyer, this team is a Super Bowl lock. It's sad but it's true. It just is. Can't deny it. You just can't.
    Posted by CliffyHatesBrady


    True...I mean I just can't argue with genius.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : True...I mean I just can't argue with genius.
    Posted by mthurl


    Right.  And if we dumped brady and turned the reigns over to Hoyer, we could afford 15 running backs.  Why the he11 not, we wouldn't need any recievers.  Just HB's and TE's to block for them.
    Brilliant, I say..just brilliant!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Shocking that we didn't re-sign BJGE. If we had kept him and benched Brady in favor of Hoyer, this team is a Super Bowl lock. It's sad but it's true. It just is. Can't deny it. You just can't.
    Posted by CliffyHatesBrady


    Maybe Brady could play CB.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    Well lets see what we have. 60% seems to be a magical number. When you pass more then 60% the odds of the Pats losing increases greatly so lets see if that holds true with SB's

    01'
    reg season 43.5% run
    SB             47.1% run
    result Win (screen heavy too and screens are an extension of run game)

    03'
    reg season 46.8% run
    SB             42.2% run
    result Win (screen heavy too and screens are an extension of run game)

    04'
    reg season 51.9% run
    SB             45.9% run
    result Win (screen heavy too and screens are an extension of run game)

    07'
    reg season 43.5% run
    SB             25% run
    result Loss (barely any screens whice are an extension of run game)

    11'
    reg season 42.1% run
    SB             31.7% run
    result Loss (barely any screens whice are an extension of run game)

    So when the Pats stay above that 40% run mark and extend the running game with screens they have won. When they don't stick with what got them to the SB and went pass heavy they lose. That's a fact. Of yeah before you cry that the D was the major issue

    01' D allowed 1.54 points/possession
    03' D allowed 2.23 points/possession
    04' D allowed 1.62 points/possession
    07' D allowed 1.89 points/possession
    11' D allowed 2.65 points/possession

    so in 07 the D was not the overwhelming issue and in 11 the D was almost 1 point/possession worse which does lead you to say the 11' D was in fact worse. But, scientifically speaking the numbers are within close enough noise that it's clear the dominant factor in the loses was the absences of a running game compared to the season averages

    BTW BB commented on a single RB 300 times not on a RB core. He basically said if he had Dillion, a HoF RB, he'd run it 300 times but since he doesn't why can't you have a RB core who covers the 300 runs over 3 players?

    Balance keeps the D guessing and McDaniels will bring part of that back with not only utilizing Vereen and Ridley but also extending the running game with screens (notice how many screens were used in the 1st preseason game?)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    Great post PatsEng. I just got on this thread and luckily saw your post before I responded.(saved me the time) Then again it is only the same 3 or 4 guys who refuse to acknowledge the impact the run game has on our offense. So in essence you are talking to a wall.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": Im having trouble believing the number 1 defense in the NFL in 03 (by points) was that bad at points per drive. Where did you get those numbers. If the Pats had tried to run the 76 yards in 30 seconds on the last four possessions of the game in 07 instead of pass then they would have a 45-55 run pass split, do you think that would have made them win? If they were ahead at that point in the game than I'm sure they would have finished with runs then I guess it would fulfill you're thesis.
    Posted by shenanigan


    I went to NFL.com looked up the play by play for the SB and counted posessions (not including last possession of half type of stuff). Then I divded score by possession
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Well lets see what we have. 60% seems to be a magical number. When you pass more then 60% the odds of the Pats losing increases greatly
    Posted by PatsEng



    These are absolutely spurious numbers.

    We know this because we know the offense did score more points per possession in at least one of the 5 games in question that they passed over your magical threshold.

    This 60% is a coincidence and its being so is proven by other known facts that have a direct correlation to offensive production rather than being coincidental; just as it is a coincidence that they win SBs in stadiums with 2 words in its name.

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

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Of yeah before you cry that the D was the major issue

    01' D allowed 1.54 points/possession
    03' D allowed 2.23 points/possession
    04' D allowed 1.62 points/possession
    07' D allowed 1.89 points/possession
    11' D allowed 2.65 points/possession

    so in 07 the D was not the overwhelming issue and in 11 the D was almost 1 point/possession worse which does lead you to say the 11' D was in fact worse. But, scientifically speaking the numbers are within close enough noise that it's clear the dominant factor in the loses was the absences of a running game compared to the season averages
    Posted by PatsEng


    You have got to be kidding.

    Using your stats.

    12 possessions in '01 = 18.48

    12 possessions in '11 = 31.8

    Which would you call good D?

    As had been proven upteen times the D's inability to get off the field in '11 caused a low scoring game by reducing the overall number of possessions. The unwillingness of some to simply admit this obvious fact shows their truculence in admitting they are flat out wrong.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Great post PatsEng. I just got on this thread and luckily saw your post before I responded.(saved me the time) Then again it is only the same 3 or 4 guys who refuse to acknowledge the impact the run game has on our offense. So in essence you are talking to a wall.
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Of course you like the phoney numbers because you are a phoney who can't admit you are wrong because of your silly agenda.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Simple for me stay one dimensional in the NFL you'll be in trouble. Too many teams have done it and failed.  Even the great 49's teams, who was a pass first Offense, knew the importance of running the ball. And the most important factor was they had 2 Mobile QB's, who did not have to stay in the Pocket in case of a Great Pass Rush. You better have a Dominating Offensive Line, if your QB is not Mobile, and your game plan is Passing as your first choice. Doesn't matter about the New Rules, Good Teams will gameplan their Defense waiting for you to pass. This has nothing to do with QB's, personnel, this has to do with decieving the Defense, so they cannot predict the Offense.
    Posted by bobbysu


    That's all well and good. But despite that, or any other notion. The fact is the offense scored more points per possession in the 2011 SB than they did in a winning SB.

    The axiom that really appllies is that if you have a defense that can't get off the field you aren't going to win the SB.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Again with the BB bashing?  You think that BB has somehow decided that scoring 30+ ppg and winning 13 games regular season games, creating the easiest path through the playoffs was a mistake?  You're an idiot.
    Posted by JetMangione


    Why would anyone pay attention to a clueless Jets fan like you? Other than Babe
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : These are absolutely spurious numbers. We know this because we know the offense did score more points per possession in at least one of the 5 games in question that they passed over your magical threshold. This 60% is a coincidence and its being so is proven by other known facts that have a direct correlation to offensive production rather than being coincidental; just as it is a coincidence that they win SBs in stadiums with 2 words in its name.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    It's not made up. I did the research before and pointed it out to you that the Pats have lost 5 games when throwing over 60% compared to 1 on average when throwing less then 60% of the time. I have used this number repeatedly in all my arguments over the last year and have provided numbers to back up that claim and you always blow it off saying it doesn't matter.

    Well it does matter because running the ball or using screen plays more frequently forces the opponents D to stop focusing on one aspect of the game and opens up the passing game. It also allows the Pats to increase their ToP improving the D by giving more rest. Heck even Brady said they should run more. Why do you think BB drafted 2 RB's in the first 3 rounds last year? Or that he's been on a mad search for a FB the last year or so, or that he's tried to put Hern into the HB position? He understands why the run game is important and has been trying to fix it for the last year since basically going with Maroney and fill in name RB here type of players.

    But no the run can't be important if BB has only invested so much into it over the last year. You can toss any RB back there just as long as Brady throws it 45+ times a game right?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    btw Babe, want to know you aren't on the right side, a Jet troll agrees with you
     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    Great post PatsEng. I just got on this thread and luckily saw your post before I responded.(saved me the time) Then again it is only the same 3 or 4 guys who refuse to acknowledge the impact the run game has on our offense. So in essence you are talking to a wall.
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Of course you would say that champ.
    The few you accusing of  not acknowledging the importance of the run game have been saying all along what BB just said.
    It is the PRODUCTION of the runner/run game that is the issue, NOT HOW MANY TIMES YOU RUN..
    There is no Dillion on the field and apparently last year, none of the backs combined could make up for his production.
    Get this!  You do what gives you the best chance to win. (have you heard this before because we've been screaming it all along?)
    The sheer number of runs is extremely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
    Just looking at the number of runs in a game is useless as you would also have to look at the production of those runs, whether they helped set up the pass, the downs and situation of those downs, whether the opposing team had a strong run D,  how the defense is playing, whether the run or pass would be more effective in gaining yards and first downs., distance required to make those 1st downs and a slew of any number of circumstance.
    No coach goes into a game thinking "we have to run a required number of times or we gotta have a 300  runner".

    Guess you disagree with BB, too.  He couldn't have made it more clear.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : THANK YOU for finally saying that!  I know it's obvious, but no one says squat and the Pezz/Vertigo types, amongst others just align with the trolls, which only feeds the trolls.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere


    Babe and Jetboy are lovers. They trade off who wears the Brady mask
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Why would a supposed fan of the patsies continue to bash a coach like BB for doing what's best to win games?
    Posted by JetMangione


    And now you're going to show some posts were I do that right boy?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : You're one up on me.  I didn't know there was a Brady mask. 
    Posted by JetMangione


    Sure you didn't. Come on child we all know you and babe are lovers.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Sure you didn't. Come on child we all know you and babe are lovers.
    Posted by glenr


    Hi Rusty.

    Don't get it messed up fool. You and Rusty are the lovers. Very weird since you are the same person.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    btw Babe, want to know you aren't on the right side, a Jet troll agrees with you
    Posted by PatsEng



    And the Colts' trolls agree with you and Rusty balls.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : THANK YOU for finally saying that!  I know it's obvious, but no one says squat and the Pezz/Vertigo types, amongst others just align with the trolls, which only feeds the trolls.
    Posted by CliffordWasHere


    The troll obviously has knowledge.  Any one that blames TB for all of the losses and none of the wins, which happens to be the best in the NFL, obviously has no knowledge or has some kind of sick agenda.  Which is it, dusty/rusty?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : It's not made up. I did the research before and pointed it out to you that the Pats have lost 5 games when throwing over 60% compared to 1 on average when throwing less then 60% of the time.
    Posted by PatsEng


    And I blew that to smithereens. Name the thread and I'll dig it up. I challenged you and you could not answer the call. So don't act like you succeeded.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Well it does matter because running the ball or using screen plays more frequently forces the opponents D to stop focusing on one aspect of the game and opens up the passing game.
    Posted by PatsEng


    Not if the running is ineffective which the lame ypc in both losing SBs attests to.

    As BB has said, he will run more if it is working. You can't carry BB's jock strap so stop trying.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share