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

  1. 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 : 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?
    Posted by pezz4pats


    True. Why in the world would a Jets' fan defend Brady unless it was true?
     
  2. 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 : Jet fans are far more educated and reasonable than patsie fans.  Just because we root against a team or player, that does not prevent us from seeing the quality of them.  Every source regarding NFL players will say that Revis is, hands down, the best corner in the NFL.  Yet, there are many here who just won't admit it.
    Posted by JetMangione


    Yup claiming you're going to win the SB year after year is a sure sign of intelligence.

    As for Revis...you just keep telling yourself that having a top player in one position is a formula for winning championships.
     
  3. 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 : True. Why in the world would a Jets' fan defend Brady unless it was true?
    Posted by BabeParilli


    Your excuses are getting really thin. Anyone who posts here regularly knows Jetsboy will say anything to get a rise out of people. The fact that he backs you just proves how ridiculous your posts are.
     
  4. 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 : Your excuses are getting really thin. Anyone who posts here regularly knows Jetsboy will say anything to get a rise out of people. The fact that he backs you just proves how ridiculous your posts are.
    Posted by glenr


    Right Rusty. A Jets' fan defending Brady is only going to get a rise out of you and your fake accounts. Most Pats' fans are quite happy to have Brady for our QB and are content with his play in the postseason and regular season.
     
  5. 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

    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 : 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.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    He had that response in reference to a question about using one RB for 300 plus carries. Not about the importance of running the ball. The 2 lead power backs for the pats had 268 carries between them. The top 3 Rb's had 345 carries(4.2 ypc despite the lead back battling injury) which coincidentally was the same amount that Dillion had in his 1 great season for us in 2004.
     
    It is ok to platoon 3 guys in order to get over 300 carries. The problem was the lack of balance overall leading to a predictable offense.  610 pass att's is a lot compared to 345 rush att's by pretty much your only RB's. Wouldn't you agree? 

    Just because BB realizes he doesn't have a back that is capable of getting 300 carries(as 20 something other teams don't have) doesn't mean he means to go into a season throwing 610 pass att's with his 35 year old QB. You might get that from what he is saying, but you would be wrong.

    i just don't think BB feels his best chance of winning is to have a predictable offense, and looking at the steps he has taken to address that situation I would say I am correct in that assumption.
     
  6. 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 : Right Rusty. A Jets' fan defending Brady is only going to get a rise out of you and your fake accounts. Most Pats' fans are quite happy to have Brady for our QB and are content with his play in the postseason and regular season.
    Posted by BabeParilli


    If you're so smart and always right then why do you need the stupid fake accounts whine? I've had the same variation of Evil for ten years. A long time before you showed up. Try being a man for once in your life.
     
  7. 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 : I see where the problem is.  You're confusing a brash coach predicting a superbowl win with a fan base doing the same.  And yet here you are disagreeing with the fundamental structure of how BB assembled and runs the patsies.  "As for Revis..." Are you suggesting that having a player that is best at his position is a bad way to go?  Do you think BB drafts guys thinking... "I hope this guy doesn't end up being the best at his position....we'll have to get rid of him"
    Posted by JetMangione


    Once again you puss out by pretending not to understand. All you ever do when someone mentions how pathetic the Jets are is to bring up Revis.

    Too bad Rex's coaching abilities don't match his brashness isn't it?
     
  8. 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

    i just don't think BB feels his best chance of winning is to have a predictable offense, and looking at the steps he has taken to address that situation I would say I am correct in that assumption

    Of course he doesn't want predictability, but you do what works even if it's 5000 Qb sneaks.  He obviously didn't think the run game was productive enough to take the ball away from TB, despite being predictable.
    If it were he would have used it more.  Don't you think?
    Pats strength was having the ability to pass even though the D knew you were going to pass.  It worked a vast majority of the time.
    Negative rushing yardage is as bad as a sack and worse than an incompletion.  Can't have too many of those, especially in big games.
     
  9. 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 : Generally speaking, naming the "top player" at any position is not easy. It just so happens that Revis is so far ahead of number two that it is easy at CB. As far as talent goes, the Jets have plenty, including some that are considered top 5 or 10 at their position. The fact that you claim it's only Revis, just magnifies your ignorance.
    Posted by JetMangione


    I don't see you naming them and it's your team
     
  10. 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 : Who was that other head coach who took over a team in his first stint as a HC, replaced 11 starters in one year (I think you've been calling that "rebuilding") and then went to back to back championship games, winning 24 games and 4 road playoff games while beating the defensive guru BB with his bad coaching?
    Posted by JetMangione
    ]

    You left out LOSING the AFC championships. But hey you're a Jets fan so even getting there is big for you guys. When was your last SB appearance? Before the Beatles broke up wasn't it?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from JetsMangione. Show JetsMangione's posts

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

    Well, we had our chance a couple of years ago. We caught the Patriots on a bad day and made it to the AFC Championship game. We were in over our heads but it was a great feeling to make it that far.  Patriots fans are spoiled because they either win or are very close to winning the Super Bowl every single year. Making the AFC Championship is a big deal to most of us. 

    These next few years are going to be tough.. I know that the Patriots are way out of our league and will win it all this year but now we have the Bills to worry about. I don't see us finishing any higher than 3rd this year. What a drag man.
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. 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 : If you're so smart and always right then why do you need the stupid fake accounts whine? I've had the same variation of Evil for ten years. A long time before you showed up. Try being a man for once in your life.
    Posted by glenr


    Because the fake accounts make it seem to those who aren't familiar with the site that there is more support for your boneheaded spin than there is Rusty balls.
     
  15. 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

    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs:
    i just don't think BB feels his best chance of winning is to have a predictable offense, and looking at the steps he has taken to address that situation I would say I am correct in that assumption Of course he doesn't want predictability, but you do what works even if it's 5000 Qb sneaks.  He obviously didn't think the run game was productive enough to take the ball away from TB, despite being predictable. If it were he would have used it more.  Don't you think? Pats strength was having the ability to pass even though the D knew you were going to pass.  It worked a vast majority of the time. Negative rushing yardage is as bad as a sack and worse than an incompletion.  Can't have too many of those, especially in big games.
    Posted by pezz4pats


    Well then by your estimation BB has not thought the run game has been productive enough for the last 5 years, other then in 2008 when Cassel was the Qb and we were one of the best run teams in the league even though we had Maroney, Morris and Faulk!!!

    So, if BB really feels that way then why hasn't he addressed the problem?
     
  16. 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 then by your estimation BB has not thought the run game has been productive enough for the last 5 years, other then in 2008 when Cassel was the Qb and we were one of the best run teams in the league even though we had Maroney, Morris and Faulk!!!
    Posted by TrueChamp


    Do you think BB might run more with the backup being forced to play after Brady's injury? Ya think? Maybe?

    In 2008 we did manage to average .2 ypc more than the average NFL team. Nothing to crow about, but nice, even if against a very weak schedule.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

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

    I think it's time to get back to football here. The important question is- Does it annoy anyone else when people call, the Super Bowl by the year it's played and not the season it's played. Like saying the Patriots won the 2002 Super Bowl because the game occurred in 2002. It annoys me.
     
  18. 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:
    I think it's time to get back to football here. The important question is- Does it annoy anyone else when people call, the Super Bowl by the year it's played and not the season it's played. Like saying the Patriots won the 2002 Super Bowl because the game occurred in 2002. It annoys me.
    Posted by shenanigan



    It annoys me as well. I just go by the year of the season. Makes it much simpler.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

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

    For what it's worth, these are the rankings of the Super Bowl winners since 2001 in rush yards:

    2001 - 13th   (Pats)
    2002 - 27th   (Bucs)
    2003 - 27th   (Pats)
    2004 - 7th     (Pats)
    2005 - 5th     (Pitt)
    2006 - 18th   (Indy)
    2007 - 4th    (NYG)
    2008 - 23rd   (Pitt)
    2009 - 6th    (NOrl)
    2010 - 24th  (Pack)
    2011 - 32nd  (NYG)

    This may prove nothing other than you DO NOT need a dominant running game to win in the NFL.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy'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:
    For what it's worth, these are the rankings of the Super Bowl winners since 2001 in rush yards: 2001 - 13th   (Pats) 2002 - 27th   (Bucs) 2003 - 27th   (Pats) 2004 - 7th     (Pats) 2005 - 5th     (Pitt) 2006 - 18th   (Indy) 2007 - 4th    (NYG) 2008 - 23rd   (Pitt) 2009 - 6th    (NOrl) 2010 - 24th  (Pack) 2011 - 32nd  (NYG) This may prove nothing other than you DO NOT need a dominant running game to win in the NFL.
    Posted by Muzwell


    Give us the postseason rankings, this means nothing?
     
  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:
    For what it's worth, these are the rankings of the Super Bowl winners since 2001 in rush yards: 2001 - 13th   (Pats) 2002 - 27th   (Bucs) 2003 - 27th   (Pats) 2004 - 7th     (Pats) 2005 - 5th     (Pitt) 2006 - 18th   (Indy) 2007 - 4th    (NYG) 2008 - 23rd   (Pitt) 2009 - 6th    (NOrl) 2010 - 24th  (Pack) 2011 - 32nd  (NYG) This may prove nothing other than you DO NOT need a dominant running game to win in the NFL.
    Posted by Muzwell


    Generally, for a very long time now, the teams that run the most, more often than not lack a really good QB. They don't have much choice.
     
  22. 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:
    For what it's worth, these are the rankings of the Super Bowl winners since 2001 in rush yards: 2001 - 13th   (Pats) 2002 - 27th   (Bucs) 2003 - 27th   (Pats) 2004 - 7th     (Pats) 2005 - 5th     (Pitt) 2006 - 18th   (Indy) 2007 - 4th    (NYG) 2008 - 23rd   (Pitt) 2009 - 6th    (NOrl) 2010 - 24th  (Pack) 2011 - 32nd  (NYG) This may prove nothing other than you DO NOT need a dominant running game to win in the NFL.
    Posted by Muzwell



    You don't need a dominant running game. You need one that's good enough to keep the opponent's defense honest. Especially in short yardage 3rd down situations. You need to have formations that don't say 'I'm going to pass' or 'I'm going to run'.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

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

    For example;

    2001: Marshall Faulk #1, Antoine Smith #2 in rushing attempts = Super Bowl for both teams, we know the result

    2002: Pittman and Alstott were #1 and #2 on the list, Charlie Garner #3 = Super Bowl victory for Bucs over Raiders

    2003: Stephan Davis #1, Antoine Smith #2 = Patriot victory over Carolina

    2004: Corey Dillon #1, Brian Westbrook #3 = Patriot victory over Philly

    2005:  Shaun Alexander #1, Willie Parker #2, Bettis #3 = Pitt SB victory over Seattle

    2006: Addai #1, Rhodes#2, Thomas Jones #3, Cedric Benson #5 = Colt victory over Bears

    2007: Brandon Jacobs #1, Maroney #2 : you remember

    2008: Willie Parker #1, Edge James #2 = Pittsburgh win over Arizona

    2009: Addai #4, Pierre Thomas #5 = Saints over Colts

    2010: James Starks #1, Mendenhall #2 = Packers over Steelers

    2011: Ahmad Bradshaw #1, Law Firm #4, Brandon Jacobs#5 = last season

    All the team's in the Super Bowl had the leading post season rusher's and were the top teams in rushing attempts per game. The only aberration amongst these stats was 2009, two dome teams.

    What you've proven here is that it doesn't matter what you do in the regular season, you MUST be able to run the ball in the post season as well as pass.


     
  24. 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:
    In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : You don't need a dominant running game. You need one that's good enough to keep the opponent's defense honest. Especially in short yardage 3rd down situations. You need to have formations that don't say 'I'm going to pass' or 'I'm going to run'.
    Posted by glenr


    Good point and I also think it proves what the coach said yesterday...we didn't have a guy that we could just give the ball to on third downs and expect him to pick up those tough yards.

    I'm pretty sure a coach like Belichick (who probably came out of the womb drawing formations) would not allow us to use so many deliberate pass formations if he/the team could run it. I think if Benny proved anything, it was that he couldn't break tackles along the line of scrimmage - which is where it's needed when the defense knows you're going to run it. Give him a head of steam and he'll break those tackles -sure - but if he was met in the hole he was going down. You might say, well how many guys are capable of breaking those tackles anyways? Here's the thing, if you can't break those tackles you had better be allusive or very quick....he wasn't.
     
  25. 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:
    For example; 2001: Marshall Faulk #1, Antoine Smith #2 in rushing attempts = Super Bowl for both teams, we know the result 2002: Pittman and Alstott were #1 and #2 on the list, Charlie Garner #3 = Super Bowl victory for Bucs over Raiders 2003: Stephan Davis #1, Antoine Smith #2 = Patriot victory over Carolina 2004: Corey Dillon #1, Brian Westbrook #3 = Patriot victory over Philly 2005:  Shaun Alexander #1, Willie Parker #2, Bettis #3 = Pitt SB victory over Seattle 2006: Addai #1, Rhodes#2, Thomas Jones #3, Cedric Benson #5 = Colt victory over Bears 2007: Brandon Jacobs #1, Maroney #2 : you remember 2008: Willie Parker #1, Edge James #2 = Pittsburgh win over Arizona 2009: Addai #4, Pierre Thomas #5 = Saints over Colts 2010: James Starks #1, Mendenhall #2 = Packers over Steelers 2011: Ahmad Bradshaw #1, Law Firm #4, Brandon Jacobs#5 = last season All the team's in the Super Bowl had the leading post season rusher's and were the top teams in rushing attempts per game. The only aberration amongst these stats was 2009, two dome teams. What you've proven here is that it doesn't matter what you do in the regular season, you MUST be able to run the ball in the post season as well as pass.
    Posted by wozzy


    Is it a coincidence that 90% of the backs that you listed are pretty good backs?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share