In response to TrueChamp's comment:
We complain about the offense, because we watch it score 35 ppg year in and year out only to score 14, 13, 21, 17, and 13 again, in its last 5 playoff losses. For the mathematicians that is 15.6 points per game we have scored in our pkay off losses since 2007.
I know putting things this blountly will draw the usual rebuttal from murtl and prolate that I must think BB is am idiot, or they might try amd lump me in with rustys insane and ignorant theory that everything is Bradys fault. However, I will be right here saying what ive been saying until last year, our offense was too one dimensional to be productive against good defenses on the biggest stage.
135 passes to 55 rushes in 3 straight losses( 2 super bowl losses) to the ny giants and we lead more then half of those games. We scored 14, 20, and 17 points which is 16 points per game. I don't care who's fault that problem is, I am just smart enough to know it is indeed a problem.
Running helps our offense. It doesn't hurt it.
Yeah, we all know the Pats offense didn't perform well in the playoffs. But was not running the real reason? You only have one test case for that--last year--when they ran 21 times in the first half and still only scored 13 points in the game. If running more in the playoffs was the answer, why didn't it work last year when we actually did it?
Again, you are looking simplistically at pass-run numbers and assuming that if you changed that mix, the results would be better. It's just as possible they would have been even worse.
I do agree that the offense has been somewhat one-dimensional. I just don't agree that running more fixes the scoring problem. Sure it creates more variety in plays, but those plays only improve the offense if they are effective. Last year we saw what happens with more variety and no more effectiveness. A dismal offensive performance. Variety is nice when it is effective. It isn't worth a hill of beans if it is ineffective.