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

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

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

    A team plays its strengths and attempts to hide its weaknesses. The Pats running game was a short yardage game. They compensate by throwing screens (to lessen concentration on their passing game by defenders blitzing) and dumping the ball off in short yardage throws. They excel in the short throwing game, is anyone better? If you don't have the deep threat then the short yardage throwing game suffers as well and teams can defend it better. Thus, BB's obvious statement that one could categorize the passing game as vulnerable as the running game.  There were a few game rules introduced in the past years that favor passing over running. Most teams transitioned into throwing the ball more because it is more likely to succeed than a running play given the playing rules.  I give BB, the coaches, and the front office a lot of credit since 2000. They have a great football organization and are there year in and year out, even when drafting at the bottom of the order year in and year out. The drafting order is meant to favor built in parity but the Pats have overcome it.  Who else has done it? Pittsburg? Baltimore? Green Bay? But you can't overcome the disadvantage of winning consistently in all aspects of the game for very long. The system is designed to make winners weaker. Don't have a running game....pshaw! When a team says you can't run against us, then you throw. When a team says you can't throw against us then you run...yeah, the Pats running game does not put fear into opposing coaches. Still doesn't. It is the weakened aspect of their game. But, I'd still pick the Pats over the other teams and if it hadn't of been for Pollard and his intentional injury of Gronk I believe the Pats would have won last year's superbowl.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

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

    This is a pretty close account of what many people on the forum have maintained.

    It's right out there in the game if you are watching. Not only does NE not have a running game that is feared, but it is just not good. They have decent running stats, but those stats are often accumulated in blowouts against teams with attrocious run defense, or with trick runs that sneak by folks, or with runs in long passing downs that still don't net anything. 

    Listen to the quotes from other players ... teams can focus on passing because it's so easy to contain their runners. Simply running more doesn't make for better runners ... it just wastes downs and ultimately lowers your TOP because you are getting less first downs. 

    I would add to this that NE also has a one dimensional passing offense that hasn't been able to stretch the field since Moss left, and that also hurts the runners because it allows safeties to stay home. 

    I have been complaining, since Maroney came here, that when NE *needs* rushing yards they haven't been able to get them. Their best short yardage runner is their QB for the love of god. 

    I have also been just upset at how teams are allowed to dedicate every into rushing lanes and bring safeties up over the TEs, because they aren't afraid of the runners. 

    NE doesn't run because their running backs have been weak since the Maroney pick flopped. Here is to hoping that Ridley/Vereen continue to develop. 

    Still, the major sea change between now and 2003-4 is the defense. This offense is more than enough to win a championship with. NE needs to cultivate a defense that creates turnovers in close games consitently and not only in blowouts where the opponents are forced to pass, pass, pass. And they need to stay on top of TOP battles by forcing 3 and outs and 5 and outs. Get the other team off the field, get the offense back on the field. Give them more chances. That is the defense's job, and they have not been doing it. When the yards-per-drive and first-downs-per-drive start to come down on defense, and the average number of possessions for the offense start to come up, then this team will start to hum.

    Then again, given the huge issues NE has at OL right now, it is not a forgone conclusion that the 2012-13 offense will be nearly as good as the one we saw last season. Mankins is coming off an injury, the Tackle position has been a mess since Light left, and Waters is mulling his future here and his paychecks, which means he is not on the field.

    If the OL plays like it did in the preseason, the offense will take a step back, no matter how well Ridley and Vereen develop, or how well Lloyd ends up fitting in. If they can't create holes for runners, and they can't protect Brady .... it doesn't matter how many toys they have.

    And (positive rookie additions aside, because we don't what kind of impact they will have) I shudder to think what this defense is going to look like without an offense that nets 30+ a game.  

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

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

    In response to OlderbutWiser's comment:

    A team plays its strengths and attempts to hide its weaknesses. The Pats running game was a short yardage game. They compensate by throwing screens (to lessen concentration on their passing game by defenders blitzing) and dumping the ball off in short yardage throws. They excel in the short throwing game, is anyone better? If you don't have the deep threat then the short yardage throwing game suffers as well and teams can defend it better. Thus, BB's obvious statement that one could categorize the passing game as vulnerable as the running game.  There were a few game rules introduced in the past years that favor passing over running. Most teams transitioned into throwing the ball more because it is more likely to succeed than a running play given the playing rules.  I give BB, the coaches, and the front office a lot of credit since 2000. They have a great football organization and are there year in and year out, even when drafting at the bottom of the order year in and year out. The drafting order is meant to favor built in parity but the Pats have overcome it.  Who else has done it? Pittsburg? Baltimore? Green Bay? But you can't overcome the disadvantage of winning consistently in all aspects of the game for very long. The system is designed to make winners weaker. Don't have a running game....pshaw! When a team says you can't run against us, then you throw. When a team says you can't throw against us then you run...yeah, the Pats running game does not put fear into opposing coaches. Still doesn't. It is the weakened aspect of their game. But, I'd still pick the Pats over the other teams and if it hadn't of been for Pollard and his intentional injury of Gronk I believe the Pats would have won last year's superbowl.



    Exactly. I agree. The offense is more than enough to win with. Even without a running game. Minus Gronkowski, their best player not named Brady, they had their second most efficient offensive performance in points per drive and first downs per drive, trailing only the unit that dropped a bomb on Carolina, and really dramatically outpacing the units from 2001 and 2003.

    And no, no one in the NFL has had a better precision passing game since Brady got here. He made this offense sing as soon as he stepped in. I mean Troy Brown went from being a 3rd wideout/special teams guy, to tacking on a few pro-bowl caliber seasons at slot with Brady. 

    It has been the best aspect of this offense in the Brady era from beginning to end, and the bedrock of what has made it work under Weiss, McD, and OBrien.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

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

    Many of us have been calling for balance and better play calling since Josh left, coincidently he is here and we're running, calling screen passes and play action but some of you want to say it is coincidence... that O'Brien would have called more screen plays and run plays if his players were better?

    Now you sound comical.

    Josh ranked #4 rushing the ball the NFL in 2008 with Maroney and Sammy Morris.  Wake up fellas, it's coaching, always has been, always will be...  If Cassall didn't have a learning curve to start the season we may have won more games than 11-5, as it was we should have made the playoffs over the 9-7 teams that did go, but that is the NFL's cross to bear.

    If O'Brien didn't leave he would have been let go in favor of McDaniel's, that's what I read into this article.  O'Brien blew, predictable, choke artist... he couldn't produce in the clutch.  Our last three Super Bowl victories ended with a last minute drive, there was none of that confidence under O'Bie.  

    2010 was Brady's best season under him, he also had Law Firm rush for over 1000 yards coincidentally...  when the playoffs started Obie started Woodhead in favor of Law Firm and we got blown out.  Brilliant game planning no doubt about it.



     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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:

    How can a team have a good running game if they don't practice it, use it, establish it in a game and throw 65% of the time?

    Why would any Pats fan applaud our offense being like the Colts of the '00s?  There is no way you can be a fan of these aspects and like the Pats. It doesn't make any sense.  The offense is flawed. Had nothing to do with Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, BJGE or Woodhead. 

    Smith and Faulk helped win SBs specifically because the offense was run better. 

    Good luck ever seeing a high profile RB in here with Brady making 20 mil per year. Ain't happening.


    Brilliant!! The Patriots do not practice the running game therefore we don't run the ball well! I'm sure the best GM ever would laugh his butt off if he ever read that. Geez!! If only I had practiced running the ball during all those four hour practices! Wow, I really should of thought of that while working 20 hour days and having 20 offensive meeting a week. What was I thinking?

    You can't make this stuff up - you really can't. Benny never had to face a defense designed to stop him...not once and yet he still couldn't run it well enough to convince BB to put the ball in his hands.
     
  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 zbellino's comment:

    This is a pretty close account of what many people on the forum have maintained.

    It's right out there in the game if you are watching. Not only does NE not have a running game that is feared, but it is just not good. They have decent running stats, but those stats are often accumulated in blowouts against teams with attrocious run defense, or with trick runs that sneak by folks, or with runs in long passing downs that still don't net anything. 

    Listen to the quotes from other players ... teams can focus on passing because it's so easy to contain their runners. Simply running more doesn't make for better runners ... it just wastes downs and ultimately lowers your TOP because you are getting less first downs. 

    I would add to this that NE also has a one dimensional passing offense that hasn't been able to stretch the field since Moss left, and that also hurts the runners because it allows safeties to stay home. 

    I have been complaining, since Maroney came here, that when NE *needs* rushing yards they haven't been able to get them. Their best short yardage runner is their QB for the love of god. 

    I have also been just upset at how teams are allowed to dedicate every into rushing lanes and bring safeties up over the TEs, because they aren't afraid of the runners. 

    NE doesn't run because their running backs have been weak since the Maroney pick flopped. Here is to hoping that Ridley/Vereen continue to develop. 

    Still, the major sea change between now and 2003-4 is the defense. This offense is more than enough to win a championship with. NE needs to cultivate a defense that creates turnovers in close games consitently and not only in blowouts where the opponents are forced to pass, pass, pass. And they need to stay on top of TOP battles by forcing 3 and outs and 5 and outs. Get the other team off the field, get the offense back on the field. Give them more chances. That is the defense's job, and they have not been doing it. When the yards-per-drive and first-downs-per-drive start to come down on defense, and the average number of possessions for the offense start to come up, then this team will start to hum.

    Then again, given the huge issues NE has at OL right now, it is not a forgone conclusion that the 2012-13 offense will be nearly as good as the one we saw last season. Mankins is coming off an injury, the Tackle position has been a mess since Light left, and Waters is mulling his future here and his paychecks, which means he is not on the field.

    If the OL plays like it did in the preseason, the offense will take a step back, no matter how well Ridley and Vereen develop, or how well Lloyd ends up fitting in. If they can't create holes for runners, and they can't protect Brady .... it doesn't matter how many toys they have.

    And (positive rookie additions aside, because we don't what kind of impact they will have) I shudder to think what this defense is going to look like without an offense that nets 30+ a game.  



    It's pretty simple to understand isn't it? If we had a runner worthy of producing, we would of gave him the ball more often. Bill Belichick isn't dumb - he knows exactly what type of runner Benny was and how defenses would stop him. Keep in mind that Benny never saw an eight man front designed to stop him in his life (at least not here) and he still couldn't be counted on. Benny seemed like a great guy..try hard...good story...not someone you put your offense through though.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

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



    The point is that 2008 clearly shows we CAN run the ball despite the level of talent. Defense's knew we were going to run the ball as we had a QB who never even started a college game in his life...and we still ran the ball effectively with Lamont Jordan,Morris and 33 year old Faulk. It is not about level of talent, it is about commitment to running even when running isn't going so well.
     
    Imagine if we had Brady in 2008 and still ran that much. Unstoppable imo. Maybe even 19-0 given the schedule that year.

    In 2010 when we committed to the run Brady threw 4 int's...for the season, which what he had in the Buffalo loss last year when we were up by 3 scores but kept throwing....thanks Obrien.

    As the writer notes in the end of the article. Passing more then running is ok, but N,E has gone way too far with it. Predictable offense's fall apart in the playoffs. Talent is not an excuse, it never was before, why would it be now?

    Obrien out. McDaniels in. Offense fixed, plus it looks like BB has gone back to focusing on D. Is it Sunday yet????
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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!

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:



    The point is that 2008 clearly shows we CAN run the ball despite the level of talent. Defense's knew we were going to run the ball as we had a QB who never even started a college game in his life...and we still ran the ball effectively with Lamont Jordan,Morris and 33 year old Faulk. It is not about level of talent, it is about commitment to running even when running isn't going so well.
     
    Imagine if we had Brady in 2008 and still ran that much. Unstoppable imo. Maybe even 19-0 given the schedule that year.

    In 2010 when we committed to the run Brady threw 4 int's...for the season, which what he had in the Buffalo loss last year when we were up by 3 scores but kept throwing....thanks Obrien.

    As the writer notes in the end of the article. Passing more then running is ok, but N,E has gone way too far with it. Predictable offense's fall apart in the playoffs. Talent is not an excuse, it never was before, why would it be now?

    Obrien out. McDaniels in. Offense fixed, plus it looks like BB has gone back to focusing on D. Is it Sunday yet????



    I basically said the same thing in a previous post.  If Brady didn't get hurt and they went with the same offensive philosophy what would have happened?  Still just 11 wins and no playoffs?  I doubt it. 

    Cassel had a learning curve to go through and they still won 11 games.  Granted the schedule was pretty weak but this is still the NFL.

    The only true great running back the Pats have had was Dillon and Fred Taylor who got hurt before he could do anything.  Both were at the tail end of their careers.  The Pats won only one SB with Dillon.  

    The rest were pedestrian.  Antwoine Smith, LaMont Jordan, Sammy Morris, Faulk, Woodhead and Benny.


     
  12. 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!

    I forgot the dancing with the stars, Maroney.

     
  13. 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 zbellino's comment:

    This is a pretty close account of what many people on the forum have maintained.

    It's right out there in the game if you are watching. Not only does NE not have a running game that is feared, but it is just not good. They have decent running stats, but those stats are often accumulated in blowouts against teams with attrocious run defense, or with trick runs that sneak by folks, or with runs in long passing downs that still don't net anything. 

    Listen to the quotes from other players ... teams can focus on passing because it's so easy to contain their runners. Simply running more doesn't make for better runners ... it just wastes downs and ultimately lowers your TOP because you are getting less first downs. 

    I would add to this that NE also has a one dimensional passing offense that hasn't been able to stretch the field since Moss left, and that also hurts the runners because it allows safeties to stay home. 

    I have been complaining, since Maroney came here, that when NE *needs* rushing yards they haven't been able to get them. Their best short yardage runner is their QB for the love of god. 

    I have also been just upset at how teams are allowed to dedicate every into rushing lanes and bring safeties up over the TEs, because they aren't afraid of the runners. 

    NE doesn't run because their running backs have been weak since the Maroney pick flopped. Here is to hoping that Ridley/Vereen continue to develop. 

    Still, the major sea change between now and 2003-4 is the defense. This offense is more than enough to win a championship with. NE needs to cultivate a defense that creates turnovers in close games consitently and not only in blowouts where the opponents are forced to pass, pass, pass. And they need to stay on top of TOP battles by forcing 3 and outs and 5 and outs. Get the other team off the field, get the offense back on the field. Give them more chances. That is the defense's job, and they have not been doing it. When the yards-per-drive and first-downs-per-drive start to come down on defense, and the average number of possessions for the offense start to come up, then this team will start to hum.

    Then again, given the huge issues NE has at OL right now, it is not a forgone conclusion that the 2012-13 offense will be nearly as good as the one we saw last season. Mankins is coming off an injury, the Tackle position has been a mess since Light left, and Waters is mulling his future here and his paychecks, which means he is not on the field.

    If the OL plays like it did in the preseason, the offense will take a step back, no matter how well Ridley and Vereen develop, or how well Lloyd ends up fitting in. If they can't create holes for runners, and they can't protect Brady .... it doesn't matter how many toys they have.

    And (positive rookie additions aside, because we don't what kind of impact they will have) I shudder to think what this defense is going to look like without an offense that nets 30+ a game.  



    Still, the major sea change between now and 2003-4 is the defense. This offense is more than enough to win a championship with. NE needs to cultivate a defense that creates turnovers in close games consitently and not only in blowouts where the opponents are forced to pass, pass, pass. And they need to stay on top of TOP battles by forcing 3 and outs and 5 and outs. Get the other team off the field, get the offense back on the field. Give them more chances. That is the defense's job, and they have not been doing it. When the yards-per-drive and first-downs-per-drive start to come down on defense, and the average number of possessions for the offense start to come up, then this team will start to hum. 

    exaclty as i see it

    Then again, given the huge issues NE has at OL right now, it is not a forgone conclusion that the 2012-13 offense will be nearly as good as the one we saw last season. Mankins is coming off an injury, the Tackle position has been a mess since Light left, and Waters is mulling his future here and his paychecks, which means he is not on the field. 

    If the OL plays like it did in the preseason, the offense will take a step back, no matter how well Ridley and Vereen develop, or how well Lloyd ends up fitting in. If they can't create holes for runners, and they can't protect Brady .... it doesn't matter how many toys they have. 


    point.



    well said post. concur completely
    seems like a few of us have been saying this for a while
    let's see what comes of the youth this year. and whatever week waters is willing to come back, that he does.
     
  14. 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 best part of this thread so far is knowing a Home Economics teacher thinks he knows what he is talking about as a newer fan.  Absolutely priceless.  The love Hurl has for Tom Brady is his business, but also very pathetic for a middle aged man. 

    Anyway, I digress:

    When Charlie Weis was here and the very run of the mill Antowain Smith got carries, he got those carries early in games to force the opposing defenses to respect the idea, that yeah, Antowain Smith might get some more carries in the second half. The use of the run game wasn't an afterthought for Weis, but a must in terms of making sure he called a balancec game. 

    Case in point was SB 38, where it was a high scoring shootout, but Weis also made sure the ball got into Smith's hands for plenty of carries (26).  Bill O'Brien never once would consider this in 2009 or 2011 because a certain #12 prefers to be in a shotgun 65% of the time and Woodhead is the better shotgun RB to use.  This kind of stuff cannot be debated because it is what happened.

    No one stacked the box on Antowain Smith or Kevin Faulk or any other back here short of when Dillon was here.

    Anotwain Smith has 2 SB rings.    Guess who played better because Weis made sure a run game was established? Tom Brady.  Your dream lover, Hurl.

    This weak angle by Hurl and others was slapped down because of Antowain Smith.  Just think, our lead RB who failed a conditioning test more than once here, was crucial in helpingTom Brady be a better QB.

    Yet, somehow Hurl can't comprehend this concept. What a shock.  Antowain Smith was a Bills cast off and did jack squat after he left NE.     Gee, I am confused.  Was it because Weis's brilliance as an OC helped Smith while here? Gee, I think that's the answer Hurlie. Actually, I know it is.  Having a strong coordinator is vital.  Weis was by far the best, McDaniels is good and O'Brien was average at best and one dimensional in his thinking.

    Good thing you had today off from class Hurl. The class could really use it.  lol

    BB does not run the offense either. Weis did.  McDaniels just got Lloyd in here, made sure he had system guys in Gaffney and Stallworth, now acquiring Salas, not by accident.  BB doesn't tell Charlie Weis what to do on every playcall just like he didn't micromanage Romeo Crennel.


    Refresh my memory, was that the same Antowain Smith that ran a 4.4 at 225lbs and was a first round pick? The same Antowain Smith that BB decided was a good idea to not only bring him in, but award him a multi-million dollar contract extension? Because I think you often confuse him with the smaller, slower, undrafted, not resigned, now on the Bengals because Bill Belichick drafted not one, but two runners to replace him - Benny.

    Sometime you should sit down with someone who understands football and watch some tape of the two runners to get a better understanding of the difference between them. And unlike most fans - some of us appreciate what Kevin Faulk was as a player - there was a reason he was drafted in the second round and not an undrafted priority free agent.

    Hey? Isn't it about that time we were going to sign some of those big name free agents after they were released from teams that are in "salary cap hell"? That's what was going to happen right? That's what you said was the reason we smartly were going to be sitting here with 8-10 million to spend under the cap heading into the season - for the second year in a row. I imagine Andre Johnson will be getting cut soon and we will be gobbling him on up.

    Your mom is calling you...the frozen lasagna is ready!! Lol.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

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

    Rusty why didn't you get your old sign in back with your posts like Babe did after he was banned? I guess you don't work for BDC or The Times.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

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

    I don't think people remember how painful it was to watch Antowain run after that 2001 season. I swear the guy would run 5 straight times for a total of 1 or 2 yards. 2002 and 2003 when he and Faulk were our lead backs we were in deep sht.

    Shoot, in 2003 we avergaed 3.4 ypc for the entire season but out of just over 1,000 plays we still ran over 470 att's. 2011 we had 40 more plays from scrimmage, but ran almost 40 less att's despite averageing 4ypc. Why? Talent? Certainly we were more talented then the guys who got us 3.4 ypc!

    Then of course we took those 3..4 ypc backs and ran the heck out of them in the post season, despite their terrible 3.4 yard average. It is just a change in philosophy from then till now, as the author alluded to.


    Guys, imagine if we averaged 3.4 ypc last year? We might have completely given up running the ball. Somebody from this board might have kidnapped Danny Woodhead, or poisoned Bennys food!

    Coach is right we couldn't run the ball when we had to, becuase we never really tried. 135 pass att's to 55 rush att's in 3 losses in a row against the Giants, when we were leading in all 3 games. If somebody can explain how that is trying and failing, I would love to hear it. Oh btw BJGE  averaged over 4 ypc in the last 2 losses. Coach is certainly right about saying we couldn't pass when we had to. That has been tried through and through...and failed. 135-55.

    Please help us McD! Please!

    "You are as only as good as the people around you"

    BB has lost multiple coordinators. Depsite what some of you might think, he doesn't coach the team alone. He snapped at the opportunity to get rid of OB and bring back McD for a reason!
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

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

    Just to be clear I am a Brady lover too. As BB said, "no QB I'd rather have"
     
  21. 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 TrueChamp's comment:

    Just to be clear I am a Brady lover too. As BB said, "no QB I'd rather have"



    Oh man! You better take that back or your good friend rusty won't play in the sand box anymore with you. Whatever you do, don't argue with him when he tells you that BB had nothing to do with coaching half the team last year (the offense)...he believes O'Brien and Brady duck taped him to a chair during the 680 offensive meetings last year leaving him helpless to make one single decision on that side of the ball. It's why we (despite being ranked 2nd in offense) were so bad. And the improper use of Ocho (it was all Brady's fault..that meanie).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    This is a pretty close account of what many people on the forum have maintained.

    It's right out there in the game if you are watching. Not only does NE not have a running game that is feared, but it is just not good. They have decent running stats, but those stats are often accumulated in blowouts against teams with attrocious run defense, or with trick runs that sneak by folks, or with runs in long passing downs that still don't net anything. 

    Listen to the quotes from other players ... teams can focus on passing because it's so easy to contain their runners. Simply running more doesn't make for better runners ... it just wastes downs and ultimately lowers your TOP because you are getting less first downs. 

    I would add to this that NE also has a one dimensional passing offense that hasn't been able to stretch the field since Moss left, and that also hurts the runners because it allows safeties to stay home. 

    I have been complaining, since Maroney came here, that when NE *needs* rushing yards they haven't been able to get them. Their best short yardage runner is their QB for the love of god. 

    I have also been just upset at how teams are allowed to dedicate every into rushing lanes and bring safeties up over the TEs, because they aren't afraid of the runners. 

    NE doesn't run because their running backs have been weak since the Maroney pick flopped. Here is to hoping that Ridley/Vereen continue to develop. 

    Still, the major sea change between now and 2003-4 is the defense. This offense is more than enough to win a championship with. NE needs to cultivate a defense that creates turnovers in close games consitently and not only in blowouts where the opponents are forced to pass, pass, pass. And they need to stay on top of TOP battles by forcing 3 and outs and 5 and outs. Get the other team off the field, get the offense back on the field. Give them more chances. That is the defense's job, and they have not been doing it. When the yards-per-drive and first-downs-per-drive start to come down on defense, and the average number of possessions for the offense start to come up, then this team will start to hum.

    Then again, given the huge issues NE has at OL right now, it is not a forgone conclusion that the 2012-13 offense will be nearly as good as the one we saw last season. Mankins is coming off an injury, the Tackle position has been a mess since Light left, and Waters is mulling his future here and his paychecks, which means he is not on the field.

    If the OL plays like it did in the preseason, the offense will take a step back, no matter how well Ridley and Vereen develop, or how well Lloyd ends up fitting in. If they can't create holes for runners, and they can't protect Brady .... it doesn't matter how many toys they have.

    And (positive rookie additions aside, because we don't what kind of impact they will have) I shudder to think what this defense is going to look like without an offense that nets 30+ a game.  



    Very well stated zbellino. Nice to see you adding your adept analysis again.
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

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

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:

    I love Brady too, but not recently with his abysmal decision making and poor play at times in recent postseasons. I would prefer not be Jay Cutler in January and February.  Not hard to understand.


    You love him but bash him on every thread.  Hmmm.. sounds like a jilted GF to me.
    Still insulting, still delusional, still rusty.
    Will you ever learn? 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share