Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to sporter81 comment:

    Thats why a lot of us wanted them to go after a guy like MJD or another proven back. They had Ridley last year, he was definitely capable but couldn't hold on to the football and got benched. He's got to correct that or he's gone.  You can't win in this league with a one dimensional offense either way, it will win some games but like we saw in the playoffs, better teams figure it out.    



    Cmon folks lets at least be acurrate here! Stop believing the media hype that Ridley is a fumbling machine! The truth is that last year he touched the ball  97 times (87 rushes, 3 receptions, 7 KR's) and fumbled ONCE! In the playoffs he touched the ball 5 times (4 rushes 1 reception) and fumbled ONCE. (and most folks dont remember that fumble was on a pass catch not a running attempt)That totals 102 touches and 2 fumbles for an average of 1 fumble every 51 touches. Not BJGE like but not bad for a rookie. Ridley will be fine!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to Quagmire3 comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sporter81 comment:

    Thats why a lot of us wanted them to go after a guy like MJD or another proven back. They had Ridley last year, he was definitely capable but couldn't hold on to the football and got benched. He's got to correct that or he's gone.  You can't win in this league with a one dimensional offense either way, it will win some games but like we saw in the playoffs, better teams figure it out.    



    Cmon folks lets at least be acurrate here! Stop believing the media hype that Ridley is a fumbling machine! The truth is that last year he touched the ball  97 times (87 rushes, 3 receptions, 7 KR's) and fumbled ONCE! In the playoffs he touched the ball 5 times (4 rushes 1 reception) and fumbled ONCE. (and most folks dont remember that fumble was on a pass catch not a running attempt)That totals 102 touches and 2 fumbles for an average of 1 fumble every 51 touches. Not BJGE like but not bad for a rookie. Ridley will be fine!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    exactly. what is this rationality on this board. whats it coming to....
    thanks for some moments of clarity.

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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    I'll just remind folks that 2008 is the only year we haven't made the playoffs since Weis left and the only year we haven't finished first in the AFC East.  Our victories in 2008 also came over some of the worst teams in the league, as shown by the season records of the teams we beat:

    KC:  2-14
    NYJ (split series): 9-7
    SF: 7-9
    DEN: 8-8
    SL: 2-14
    BUF (twice): 7-9
    MIA (split series): 11-5
    SEA: 4-12
    OAK: 5-11
    ARI: 9-7

    It's also worth pointing out that there isn't a huge difference in rushing percentage between 2010 and 2008.  In 2010, we rushed 46.0% of the time (fifth most during BB's tenure) and in 2008 we rushed 46.8% of the time (fourth most during BB's tenure).  

    Rushing and offensive "balance" isn't some kind of magic wand that solves all problems.  You win with a lot of things, and good defense is a big part of that. In my opinion, the major difference between the teams of 2003 and 2004 and the team's of 2007 and beyond is defense.  We haven't had a defense that can reliably win games by itself when the offense sputters.  In 2003 and 2004 we had that.  

    And if you do want to look at the problems the offense has had in the playoffs, a weak running game is part of the problem, but O-line play is the oft-ignored Achilles heel of this offense in the playoffs.  Against good front sevens we get beat at the line of scrimmage.  Run or pass doesn't matter.  Our O-line has not been able to create good holes for the running backs or protect Brady sufficiently.  It gets out-physicalled by the best defensive fronts. 


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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Some of us have been calling for balance since 2007, whether by draft, free agency or however.  

    I don't see how this vindicates anybody, if anything it emphasizes that the offense has been finesse over smashmouth and that it hasn't been a good thing... how is that any different than what some of us have been saying this whole time?


    Woozy, I think what was lost in all this "we need to run more" stuff was that just about everyone agreed we DID need to run more and become more balanced. The debate then changed to WHY we didn't run more.

    It was two sided...on one half you had the "it's Brady and O'Brien's fault, we could be runnning more but these two are spoiled and holding us back - Brady is controlling the offense and is in love with stats". Some people were actually saying that (Rusty). Then there was the other side..."we aren't taking the ball out of Brady's hands to put it into an average running back that will get stuffed when they know we need to run it". I think this article clears that part of it up - the WHY we didn't run more part of it - not the we need to run more (everyone knows that). 
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to prolate0spheroid' comment:

    I'll just remind folks that 2008 is the only year we haven't made the playoffs since Weis left and the only year we haven't finished first in the AFC East.  Our victories in 2008 also came over some of the worst teams in the league, as shown by the season records of the teams we beat:

    KC:  2-14
    NYJ (split series): 9-7
    SF: 7-9
    DEN: 8-8
    SL: 2-14
    BUF (twice): 7-9
    MIA (split series): 11-5
    SEA: 4-12
    OAK: 5-11
    ARI: 9-7

    It's also worth pointing out that there isn't a huge difference in rushing percentage between 2010 and 2008.  In 2010, we rushed 46.0% of the time (fifth most during BB's tenure) and in 2008 we rushed 46.8% of the time (fourth most during BB's tenure).  

    Rushing and offensive "balance" isn't some kind of magic wand that solves all problems.  You win with a lot of things, and good defense is a big part of that. In my opinion, the major difference between the teams of 2003 and 2004 and the team's of 2007 and beyond is defense.  We haven't had a defense that can reliably win games by itself when the offense sputters.  In 2003 and 2004 we had that.  

    And if you do want to look at the problems the offense has had in the playoffs, a weak running game is part of the problem, but O-line play is the oft-ignored Achilles heel of this offense in the playoffs.  Against good front sevens we get beat at the line of scrimmage.  Run or pass doesn't matter.  Our O-line has not been able to create good holes for the running backs or protect Brady sufficiently.  It gets out-physicalled by the best defensive fronts. 


    I think it's funny how Weis is put on a magical seahorse pedestal here. It's like the guy invented offense - this is the same guy that was run out of town an ND and has bounced around since. Where is he now? Florida? I can't remember.

    I admit, I did like him a lot while he was here and that includes the job he did as Martin's coach his rookie year and Coates when he was the tight end coach. He also was Glenn's positional coach during his rookie year, if I remember correctly. He then went and did a pretty darn good job on the jet's offense with  Parcells. I was happy Belichick brought him back with him. He was very tough and demanding on the players and he understood balance. His offenses seemed to have a quick hitting flow to them and he would challenge all areas of the field. However I think if Weis had Benny as a running back and Brady as his QB...he'd be throwing the ball all over the place. Creativity and balance would go out the window. Would he do better than O'Brien or McDaniels? Maybe, but I still don't see him mindlessly pounding an average running back into the backs of his blockers.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    Hurl, I'd just add that in my opinion it's not so much that we need to run more but that we need to run more effectively.  Our pass-run ratio was roughly 60%-40% last year, which is on the high side, but in today's NFL, the average is roughly 57%-43%, and very few teams run 50% of the time (only three last year--Houston, Denver, and SF).  It's also worth pointing out that our 59.5-40.5 pass-run ratio was 20th in the league, with 12 teams actually passing at a higher rate. So the amount of running isn't way out of whack.  What needs to get better is the effectiveness of the running game.  Some say that means less predictable play calling.  I'd agree a bit, though I think a lot of what we need our better backs who make less predictable play calling possible.  And maybe even more is we need more physicality on our O-line.  To me that's the area that maybe hasn't been discussed enough.  I know everyone in the media says we have a great O-line, but the more film I watch, the more I wonder about this. Our OLs get beat a lot, both in the running game and the passing game.  I'm not enough of an expert to really judge O-line play, but the more I look at film, the more I wonder whether this O-line is as good as people tend to think. In preseason, it clearly wasn't . . . 


     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to prolate0spheroid' comment:

    Hurl, I'd just add that in my opinion it's not so much that we need to run more but that we need to run more effectively.  Our pass-run ratio was roughly 60%-40% last year, which is on the high side, but in today's NFL, the average is roughly 57%-43%, and very few teams run 50% of the time (only three last year--Houston, Denver, and SF).  It's also worth pointing out that our 59.5-40.5 pass-run ratio was 20th in the league, with 12 teams actually passing at a higher rate. So the amount of running isn't way out of whack.  What needs to get better is the effectiveness of the running game.  Some say that means less predictable play calling.  I'd agree a bit, though I think a lot of what we need our better backs who make less predictable play calling possible.  And maybe even more is we need more physicality on our O-line.  To me that's the area that maybe hasn't been discussed enough.  I know everyone in the media says we have a great O-line, but the more film I watch, the more I wonder about this. Our OLs get beat a lot, both in the running game and the passing game.  I'm not enough of an expert to really judge O-line play, but the more I look at film, the more I wonder whether this O-line is as good as people tend to think. In preseason, it clearly wasn't . . . 


    I agree 100%
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Hurry up Offense, and Replacement Refs, might have to run more. These Replacements are going to slow the game down so much, might have to go Old School.
    The Replacements are going to hurt the Pats Offense more than people think.


    Never thought of that, I imagine that the real refs will come back sooner rather than later when mistakes cost teams wins, etc. It's hard to believe a league that makes this much money would haggle over something so important. 
     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    The O Line would be better if it wasn't dropping back to predictably to pass protect 40+ times in a game.

    Get over it.  Oh my god.  Did you ever watch how this team won 3 SBs? No, you didn't. It's pretty obvious you didnt. 

    This debate ended in SB 46.  It should have ended after the 2010 playoff loss.   Brady is now 35 years old. 

    It's a new season, so just admit it's been a major problem that needs to be addressed, mostly by the playcalling and how they approach putting drives together.  The O'Brien way with 60% passing and being predictable,  waiting on the ever annoying and arrogant "matchups" for 4 qtrs didn't work.    Tell the O Line to get nasty and be prepared to run block. A lot.



    Have you bought the coaches film from the NFL yet Rusty?  Buy that, watch it a bit, and then we can discuss specific plays.  
     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    The O Line would be better if it wasn't dropping back to predictably to pass protect 40+ times in a game.

    Get over it.  Oh my god.  Did you ever watch how this team won 3 SBs? No, you didn't. It's pretty obvious you didnt. 

    This debate ended in SB 46.  It should have ended after the 2010 playoff loss.   Brady is now 35 years old. 

    It's a new season, so just admit it's been a major problem that needs to be addressed, mostly by the playcalling and how they approach putting drives together.  The O'Brien way with 60% passing and being predictable,  waiting on the ever annoying and arrogant "matchups" for 4 qtrs didn't work.    Tell the O Line to get nasty and be prepared to run block. A lot.


    Aren't we at the point now where the things you say/write don't really have any credibility? I mean you are the guy that blamed Ocho's ineffectiveness on Brady last year and you are the guy that called this offensive line loaded before training camp started. This was AFTER Matt Light retired and AFTER they signed Robert Gallery.

    I think what you need to do is stop criticizing coaching decisions by this team, because when you can't get the offensive line or Ocho thing right you had better get back to basics. You know just start small. I'm just trying to help you out:) I'll tell you what - you can continue to help me with spelling errors and I (and others) will teach you about football. Sound good?  

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    Let's not forget that in the orig. post Belichick said when asked if the Patriots were capable of running the ball last year when they had to run (and presumably when the other team knew the same thing), Belichick said, "No."

    Fixing the Patriots' running game should be a priority for head coach Bill Belichick. (Getty Images)He quickly added that, "You could say the same thing about our passing game."

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

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    This is the key quote from that article--it's exactly what some of us have been saying for a long time:

    "You didn't have to prepare for those guys," an NFC head coach said. "Green-Ellis and Woodhead weren't going to hurt you. They got the yards they were supposed to get because of the scheme of the offense. They weren't going to make mistakes, but they weren't explosive."


    Another quote worth paying attention to:

    "But when you get into the fourth quarter in a tight game, it's pretty easy to defend them. You can take away the running game pretty easily and then get physical with them. You see the way the Giants have played them the past two times [in the Super Bowl]. Tight game, suffocate their offense and give yourself a chance. You still have to make great plays to win, but it's easier because the running game doesn't scare you … they can't impose their will."

    Backs aren't explosive and we're not physical enough at the LOS.  Maybe the play calling could have been improved too, but the real problem was execution in the running game--and that has to do with the talent at running back and on the line.  This year, I think the backs are better.  The line, however, is still something of a question mark.  We'll see soon enough . . . 

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Here is your answer to all the debate over the running game from BB mouth!

    Hello Horse..........meet Mr Beating......
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share