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

  1. 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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": I don't see how, the teams that played in the SB had more pass attempts than anyone else also- for the same reason.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    Funny, of all the teams listed that won the SB, I don't think one of them had a 31st ranked D that couldn't produce a turn over or a 6 & out or get off the feild  even if the whole stadium caught on fire.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid'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": [QUOTE]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?) Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE] Correlation does not prove causation, and if teams throw a lot when behind in an attempt to catch up (as we know they do), a high pass percentage could be a consequence of being behind rather than the cause of it. In fact, i think the Pats rarely game plan to throw so much. When they do throw more than 60% of the time it's usually because the in-game situation demands it. Ultimately BB knows what he's doing and if the difference between winning and losing could be reduced to a simple pass percentage formula, BB would certainly do what the formula demanded to ensure a win. But all this continued arguing is silly because BB made it quite clear why he doesn't hand the ball 300 times to a back. It's because the Pats haven't had a good enough back.
     
  3. 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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": I don't see how, the teams that played in the SB had more pass attempts than anyone else also- for the same reason.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    Run attempts haven't shrunk over the past decade, that's automatically the assumption because passes have increased.  The amount of runs has stayed the same, but pass attempts have increased because the amount of penalty flags since 2001 have more than doubled.

    The NFL wanted an offense laden product and made it so... thank the Rams in 2001 but moreso the Colts and the NFL competition committee.  So if you like this new and "improved" high flying NFL it means you enjoy watching the ref's bail out offense's so they can keep drives alive. I for one don't enjoy watching the zebras work.

    An interesting thing to note though, in the playoff's there is a "let them play" attitude much like the NBA and other sports. Penalties in the playoff's have pretty much stayed the same, which would AGAIN indicate that as much as the game has changed, in the playoff's nothing has changed and the team that can impose their will (run the ball) will likely win.


     
     
  4. 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": [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": I don't see how, the teams that played in the SB had more pass attempts than anyone else also- for the same reason. Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE] After 2001 our team(which is really what is important no?) In every SB had a 1st rd bye. So they played in1 less game anyway....which defeats the purpose of your statement.
     
  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": [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": Correlation does not prove causation, and if teams throw a lot when behind in an attempt to catch up (as we know they do), a high pass percentage could be a consequence of being behind rather than the cause of it. In fact, i think the Pats rarely game plan to throw so much. When they do throw more than 60% of the time it's usually because the in-game situation demands it. Ultimately BB knows what he's doing and if the difference between winning and losing could be reduced to a simple pass percentage formula, BB would certainly do what the formula demanded to ensure a win. But all this continued arguing is silly because BB made it quite clear why he doesn't hand the ball 300 times to a back. It's because the Pats haven't had a good enough back. Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE] Lmao. Neither did 30 other teams....only 2 teams last year had a 300 carry back. He didn't hand the ball to any back in our history 300 times other then Dillion ONCE. He handed the ball to a committee 345 times last year. That was fine, but Brady threw it 610 times. Hence the predictable play calling. Come playoff time it is difficult for an offense to run the ball when their top 3 RB's have only seen 33% of the action. You remember the saying, practice makes perfect. No better practice then live game action! 610 pass att's to 345 rush att's by our top 3 RB's. What is the defintion of predictability again? Oh and before you three fall back on your only argument of "you think you know more then BB, rah, rah, rah" I'll ask this..... What is the job function of an offensive coordinator again?
     
  6. 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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": Lmao. Neither did 30 other teams....only 2 teams last year had a 300 carry back. He didn't hand the ball to any back in our history 300 times other then Dillion ONCE. He handed the ball to a committee 345 times last year. That was fine, but Brady threw it 610 times. Hence the predictable play calling. Come playoff time it is difficult for an offense to run the ball when their top 3 RB's have only seen 33% of the action. You remember the saying, practice makes perfect. No better practice then live game action! 610 pass att's to 345 rush att's by our top 3 RB's. What is the defintion of predictability again? Oh and before you three fall back on your only argument of "you think you know more then BB, rah, rah, rah" I'll ask this..... What is the job function of an offensive coordinator again?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    NFL average team rushing attempts in 2011 = 436

    NEP rushing attempts in 2011 = 438

    You lose for the trillionth time Truechump.
     
  7. 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:
    [QUOTE] McDaniel's tastes better...   He has always had a better grasp of the play book, offensive philosophy and produced the single most explosive, well balanced single season the league has ever seen from this system in 2007.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]


    And in 2007 we ran exactly 13 times more than we ran in 2011.

    That's less than one run a game, and we passed 1.5 more times a game.

    So you're basically talking about ONE PLAY A GAME that was a pass instead of a run being the difference between 2007 and 2011.


    Look like a fool much wozzydoo?
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re:  Oh and before you three fall back on your only argument of "you think you know more then BB, rah, rah, rah" I'll ask this..... What is the job function of an offensive coordinator again?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    The OC's job is to run the offense to the satisfaction of the HC.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid'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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs": Lmao. Neither did 30 other teams....only 2 teams last year had a 300 carry back. He didn't hand the ball to any back in our history 300 times other then Dillion ONCE. He handed the ball to a committee 345 times last year. That was fine, but Brady threw it 610 times. Hence the predictable play calling. Come playoff time it is difficult for an offense to run the ball when their top 3 RB's have only seen 33% of the action. You remember the saying, practice makes perfect. No better practice then live game action! 610 pass att's to 345 rush att's by our top 3 RB's. What is the defintion of predictability again? Oh and before you three fall back on your only argument of "you think you know more then BB, rah, rah, rah" I'll ask this..... What is the job function of an offensive coordinator again?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    The argument that "you think you know more than BB"  (though apparently you do) is not my only argument--it's just that you choose not to listen to any of the other arguments and just keep repeating simplistic formulas of pass versus run attempts and assume they prove something.  They don't. 

    I will just remind you that the Patriots 610 pass attempts versus 345 run attempts during the regular season was good enough to get them 13 wins and the top seed in the AFC.  

    The idea that game plans and offensive philosophies have to change wholesale during the playoffs is something fans and media speculate on, but I've never heard any NFL coach espouse this opinion.  

    Besides, Brady already told us that the offensive philosophy isn't changing, that the playbook is remaing the same and that, while different OCs may have slightly different styles, most differences we'll see this year have more to do with changes in personnel than with changes with anything else.  Belichick also explained quite clearly why he doesn't rely heavily on the single "lead back" that so many posters here have been saying he should rely on.  (You know, Rusty's mantra that BB shouldn't never sub for the "lead" back--and that the lead back should get the ball 20+ times per game--which in a 16 game season would, in fact, add up to at least 320 carries.)

    Honestly, I think over the past two days, Brady's and BB's comments have completely confirmed what I've been saying for months now: that talent has been the primary issue for the Pat's offense in recent years.  You can continue to make whatever arguments you like, but Brady's and BB's words have only more firmly convinced me that I was right all along. So keep typing "lmao" as much as you want.  I'll chuckle quietly and move on secure that BB and Brady themselves have already confirmed my arguments. 

    Really, it's time to move on. 








     
  10. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Run attempts haven't shrunk over the past decade, that's automatically the assumption because passes have increased.  The amount of runs has stayed the same, but pass attempts have increased because the amount of penalty flags since 2001 have more than doubled. The NFL wanted an offense laden product and made it so... thank the Rams in 2001 but moreso the Colts and the NFL competition committee.  So if you like this new and "improved" high flying NFL it means you enjoy watching the ref's bail out offense's so they can keep drives alive. I for one don't enjoy watching the zebras work. An interesting thing to note though, in the playoff's there is a "let them play" attitude much like the NBA and other sports. Penalties in the playoff's have pretty much stayed the same, which would AGAIN indicate that as much as the game has changed, in the playoff's nothing has changed and the team that can impose their will (run the ball) will likely win.  
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Passing plays have increased since 1979 and are in direct correlation to Pass Efficiencyand rule changes.  Not sure why you relate it to the Zebras for the past 6 years or the Rams.  Teams adapt.  It's time you do too.



     
  11. 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




    Posts: 4533
    First: 10/5/2008
    Last: 8/15/2012


    The argument that "you think you know more than BB"  (though apparently you do) is not my only argument--it's just that you choose not to listen to any of the other arguments and just keep repeating simplistic formulas of pass versus run attempts and assume they prove something.  They don't.

    I will just remind you that the Patriots 610 pass attempts versus 345 run attempts during the regular season was good enough to get them 13 wins and the top seed in the AFC.

    If we were the Oakland Raiders I would feel as you do and I wouldn't be wondering what we could do better on offense or defense. We are not.

    The idea that game plans and offensive philosophies have to change wholesale during the playoffs is something fans and media speculate on, but I've never heard any NFL coach espouse this opinion.

    If the offensive philosophies had included some variety in the play calling and reliance on anything other then the big 3 then nothing would need to be changed in the post season. 

    Besides, Brady already told us that the offensive philosophy isn't changing, that the playbook is remaing the same and that, while different OCs may have slightly different styles, most differences we'll see this year have more to do with changes in personnel than with changes with anything else.  Belichick also explained quite clearly why he doesn't rely heavily on the single "lead back" that so many posters here have been saying he should rely on.  (You know, Rusty's mantra that BB shouldn't never sub for the "lead" back--and that the lead back should get the ball 20+ times per game--which in a 16 game season would, in fact, add up to at least 320 carries.)

    Honestly, I think over the past two days, Brady's and BB's comments have completely confirmed what I've been saying for months now: that talent has been the primary issue for the Pat's offense in recent years.  You can continue to make whatever arguments you like, but Brady's and BB's words have only more firmly convinced me that I was right all along. So keep typing "lmao" as much as you want.  I'll chuckle quietly and move on secure that BB and Brady themselves have already confirmed my arguments.

    If saying we have not given our backs 300 carries reaffirms your position that the only reason our offense is one dimensional is due to talent then you are in effect saying BB has been ignoring this problem in all but 1 year in N.E.....since he has only given 300 carries to a back once.

    Sound theory fellas.

    How dare you question BB, blah blah blah.


    Really, it's time to move on.

    Ready when you are.Tongue Out

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Really, it's time to move on. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    These tools will never move on. As I stated, if BB himself logged in and told them they would not change their rant. Clearly, they believe they know better than him despite fact after fact after fact destroying them.

    wozzydoo just raved about the 2007 "balanced" offense. I pointed out the difference in balance between that team and 2011 was about one play a game. But that won't even slow them down when a reasonable man would admit their error.
     
  15. 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:
    [QUOTE]If saying we have not given our backs 300 carries reaffirms your position that the only reason our offense is one dimensional is due to talent
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    NFL average team rushing attempts in 2011 = 436

    NEP rushing attempts in 2011 = 438

    You lose again for the trillionth and first time Truechump.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

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

    Belichick is wrong on this one. Of all people he should know the statistical magic number of runs per game that guarantees victory. It doesn't matter who is running the ball. Why would a coach gameplan based on the players on his team? That is flat out stupid.

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

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

    A few comments on Champ's last post:

    We are definitely not the Oakland Raiders, but maybe we could be if BB listened to Champ.  The Raiders had the eigth highest rushing percentage in the league, after all, therefore being a model team for Champ's philosophy . . .

    I would haved loved to see us rely on more than the big three . . . but the big three was all we had who were any good.  Hence my argument that talent was an issue last year, and the primary reason for the lack of diversity was the number of quality receivers/runners, not Bill O'Brien's alleged idiocy.  I know, some were claiming that Ocho really should have been incorporated more or that BJGE needed 20 carries a game.  But come on?  How many are clamoring for more Ocho after the fiasco in Miami?  And maybe BJGE will prove me wrong by looking like Corey Dillon once you put a Bengals uniform on him, but 6 of his 7 runs in the Bengals-Jets games went for less than 2 yards. We'll see what happens.

    Having a back that deserves 300 carries is a rare event.  The fact that BB hasn't had a back like that except for one year doesn't mean that BB is ignoring anything. It just reflects how rare that kind of running talent is.  In the absence of a great runner like Dillon in 2004, you have to look for other ways to make your offense productive.  And diversity of offense cannot be reduced merely to the "balance" between run and pass.  Diversity depends more on:

    Types of running plays called 
    Types of passing plays called
    Formations used
    Player packages used

    The Pats used a lot of different formations and called a fairly wide variety of passing plays.  They also had more variation in their running plays then some think.  Where they fell short last year was in player packages.  Almost every play had the same four receivers and one of the same two backs.  There just weren't a lot of players involved in the offense.  With the same players on the field on every snap, there's a limited amount you can do.  You can change formations and vary up plays, but ultimately the individual strengths and weaknesses of those players remain constant and you can't do anything to broaden the strengths you challenge a defense with unless you can change up the players.  The Pats offensive roster just didn't have enough quality depth to allow them to mix up the players on the field all that much.  



     
     
  18. 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

    Every time we get into a debate (this debate) where one side can't argue on the merits of the facts and stat's, the end result is "you think you know more than Belichick."

    Whack...

    Why do we even come here to discuss football, why don't we assume every move the Patriot's make is picture perfect and just circle jerk instead?  

    Argue the facts, explain how the stat's above about the leading rushing teams all ending up in the Super Bowl is not relevant, or how the 49er's can increase their rushing attempts from worse to first in one season and their record improves simultaneously despite no personnel changes other than coach, how the Patriot's can win 3 rings running to set up the pass but somehow this has no bearing on losses during the pass happy era.

    "You think you know more than BB" or "because I said so"  or "all they want to do is run the ball, they want to stop passing altogether" isn't something that wins you points in the debate club.  

    Argue the merits of the facts/stat's, don't put words in our mouths, ignore and gloss over the facts, or let them fade away and then start a new thread to hide the previous beatings you've received in this debate.

    We have the weight of three rings on our side, you have two losses and numerous first round exits...  but somehow you're correct.  Laughable.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : I have to assume with comments like this you must not think BB is that good on the Defensive side. You might be right, when we stay on one subject and it always goes back that Defense hasn't been good, and BB is known for his Defense, what's your take on this. He gets the personnel, Coaches, schemes, everything. Why do you think BB is not that good on the Defensive side. Just curious.
    Posted by bobbysu[/QUOTE]

    Well played^

    And the defense was ranked 15th, not 31st... they still tally scores in the NFL with points.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid'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:
    [QUOTE]Every time we get into a debate (this debate) where one side can't argue on the merits of the facts and stat's, the end result is "you think you know more than Belichick." Whack... Why do we even come here to discuss football, why don't we assume every move the Patriot's make is picture perfect and just circle jerk instead?   Argue the facts, explain how the stat's above about the leading rushing teams all ending up in the Super Bowl is not relevant, or how the 49er's can increase their rushing attempts from worse to first in one season and their record improves simultaneously despite no personnel changes other than coach, how the Patriot's can win 3 rings running to set up the pass but somehow this has no bearing on losses during the pass happy era. "You think you know more than BB" or "because I said so"  or "all they want to do is run the ball, they want to stop passing altogether" isn't something that wins you points in the debate club.   Argue the merits of the facts/stat's, don't put words in our mouths, ignore and gloss over the facts, or let them fade away and then start a new thread to hide the previous beatings you've received in this debate. We have the weight of three rings on our side, you have two losses and numerous first round exits...  but somehow you're correct.  Laughable.
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Like I said last time, wozzy, we both would like to see more diversity in the offense and that includes a more effective running game.  My point, though, is that the talent hasn't been there to allow effective diversity.  You can disagree and think it's all play calling, but it's hard to prove one way or the other which of us is right. 

    All I'll say is BB's decisions (letting BJGE go, acquiring more deep/perimeter receivers) seem to match my opinion that the talent wasn't suitable. In addition, BB's recent statement about there not being a Corey Dillon available to feed the ball to and Brady's recent statements about the change in personnel all seem to mesh with my opinion. 

    You could argue that the change in OC suggests dissatisfaction with last year's OC, but there's no proof that BB wanted O'Brien to leave.  As far as we know, O'Brien left for the obvious reason--i.e., he was offered a head coaching position at a major college. Any speculation about BB wanting him to leave is just that--speculation.  BB never said anything that suggests he was dissatisfied with O'Brien and even promoted him before last season. 

    The Pats' actual run percentage was slightly lower than average for the league (40.5% versus an NFL average of 42.9%).  That put them 20th in the league based on rushing percentage.  So if we are looking only at run-pass balance, it's hard to argue that the Pats systematically ignored the run.  They maybe were less diverse in the running plays they called, but that's nothing you can prove without looking at the actual running plays game by game and seeing what was called.  I just bought Game Pass and now have the coaches film for all of last season.  If I have time, I'll look at the coaches film for a good sample of games and see what it shows.  Looking at just a few games, I was actually surprised to find that there was more variety in running plays than I remember--including a number of I-formation runs and runs where the TE was in motion before the snap and was essentially in a FB position at the snap. 

    The other argument you guys make about underutilizing the run in the Super Bowl is of course statistically true.  But if you look at the situations the Pats found themselves in that game, their use of the run and pass makes a lot of sense.  As one simple example, the final drive consisted of 8 straight passing plays (one fifth of Brady's passes were thrown on that final 54 second drive)--this really skewed the final pass-run statistics, but they Pats really had no choice but to throw on that drive.  In the first half they ran 33% of the time, but some of the low utilization of the run was because their major drive in the half was a hurry up drive at the end of the half where they didn't have time to run a lot.  If you look at actual game situations, you can't conclude that the game plan was designed to underutilize the run.  All you can conclude is that the Pats found themselves in situations where passing made more sense than running.  

    Anyway, this debate is getting tedious and if you and True Champ want to think you've won it, go ahead. Personally, though, I feel pretty comfortable from what BB has said and done during the offseason that my belief that the talent wasn't where it needed to be is sound. 

     
  23. 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:
    [QUOTE]A few comments on Champ's last post: We are definitely not the Oakland Raiders, but maybe we could be if BB listened to Champ.  The Raiders had the eigth highest rushing percentage in the league, after all, therefore being a model team for Champ's philosophy . . . I would haved loved to see us rely on more than the big three . . . but the big three was all we had who were any good.  Hence my argument that talent was an issue last year, and the primary reason for the lack of diversity was the number of quality receivers/runners, not Bill O'Brien's alleged idiocy.  I know, some were claiming that Ocho really should have been incorporated more or that BJGE needed 20 carries a game.  But come on?  How many are clamoring for more Ocho after the fiasco in Miami?  And maybe BJGE will prove me wrong by looking like Corey Dillon once you put a Bengals uniform on him, but 6 of his 7 runs in the Bengals-Jets games went for less than 2 yards. We'll see what happens. Having a back that deserves 300 carries is a rare event.  The fact that BB hasn't had a back like that except for one year doesn't mean that BB is ignoring anything. It just reflects how rare that kind of running talent is.  In the absence of a great runner like Dillon in 2004, you have to look for other ways to make your offense productive.  And diversity of offense cannot be reduced merely to the "balance" between run and pass.  Diversity depends more on: Types of running plays called  Types of passing plays called Formations used Player packages used The Pats used a lot of different formations and called a fairly wide variety of passing plays.  They also had more variation in their running plays then some think.  Where they fell short last year was in player packages.  Almost every play had the same four receivers and one of the same two backs.  There just weren't a lot of players involved in the offense.  With the same players on the field on every snap, there's a limited amount you can do.  You can change formations and vary up plays, but ultimately the individual strengths and weaknesses of those players remain constant and you can't do anything to broaden the strengths you challenge a defense with unless you can change up the players.  The Pats offensive roster just didn't have enough quality depth to allow them to mix up the players on the field all that much.    
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Bingo!! And bingo! to a few other posts you wrote. Really I cannot believe that even the most stubborn of people on here can even argue about why we were the way we were last year on offense at this point.

    It totally blows my mind...completely. I'm actually starting to think that Rusty IS all the people that are still clinging to this argument...which is a depressing thought.
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : Bingo!! And bingo! to a few other posts you wrote. Really I cannot believe that even the most stubborn of people on here can even argue about why we were the way we were last year on offense at this point. It totally blows my mind...completely. I'm actually starting to think that Rusty IS all the people that are still clinging to this argument...which is a depressing thought.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    They really could all be Rusty. The number of fake accounts and the longevity of the fake account system he has created has ruined this board. BDC has to implement the local control and tie accounts to a verifiable ISP provider e-mail and screen IP addresses as well to destroy this infestation of Rusty and his fake accounts.
     
  25. 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:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Belichick provides some great answers about the slow death of 300-carry backs : They really could all be Rusty. The number of fake accounts and the longevity of the fake account system he has created has ruined this board. BDC has to implement the local control and tie accounts to a verifiable ISP provider e-mail and screen IP addresses as well to destroy this infestation of Rusty and his fake accounts.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Of course Babe everyone who dares oppose your blameless brady BS is Rusty. In fact your entire world is full of rusty clones out to get you. That guy that cut you off on the highway yesterday-Rusty. The repairman that showed up an hour late--yup Rusty clone again. The nieghbor who mows his lawn at sunrise on Sunday--you guessed it--Rusty
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share