Impact balance can have on a great offense.

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

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/football/patriots/christopher-price/2012/11/01/stevan-ridley-leads-renaissance-patriot

     

    Stevan Ridley leads Patriots running game's renaissance

     

    Here you go Babe, Z-bo and Pro.


    "When you take a look at the splits between the first eight games of the 2011 season and the first half of this season, the difference is astounding: through the first eight games last year, New England had 199 rushes on 893 rushing yards for an average of 4.5 yards per carry and six touchdowns. This year, in that same stretch, the Patriots have 276 rushes on 1,197 rushing yards for 4.3 yards per carry and 12 touchdowns."

     

    UH OH. The YPC this year are below last years output but the rushing attempts have gone up almost 10 per game. Sounds like somebody is committing to a running game.

    Ahh heck you guys are right. Running more means nothing. The 1 dimesnional down field passing attack was fine and did great on the biggest stages(jets playoff loss,Ravens afc squeaker,and Gints Sb loss) and giving your defense rest by running the ball 77 more times in 8 games means nothing becuase we allow the same ppg as we did last year, despite being 3rd in the league in defensive turnovers,and allowing a league low 3.5 ypc on the ground.....GOOD ONE.




    What are you trying to say?  They are running more?  And.......?

    Bottom line is most D's are geared to stop TB, not SR.

    It's great they now have that option, as they did not in the past but TOM BRADY is not passing less and most teams D's are geared more to that.

    When the increased rushing attempts lead to more points and more wins against the better D's, we'll be estatic.  So far, that is not the case.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:

    Bottom line for me, and you all can disagree if you feel otherwise.  Going into the playoffs (assuming they get there), do you feel better if the opposing defense has to worry about Ridley, Vereen, Bolden and Woodhead?  I do.  When the playoffs come and the level of D you're facing isn't like the tomato can D's you ran roughshod over during the regular season, your chances for a deep playoff run are decreased if the other team plays you primarily for the pass.  And it requires Brady to be...well, superstar, clutch Brady all the time.     


    It's a testament to Brady that this team got to the superbowl last year.  They also had some luck, like any superbowl team does.  But the Giants were able to stifle this offense enough eke out two wins.  Granted, the defense let up the lead, and the defense needs to be better, but the offense was not flawless despite the fact that they did enough to put the team in position to win.  

    I don't think this is solely a statistical argument, and this offense will have to win the day convincingly to get another championship. 




    I'm not concerned going into the playoffs what the other defense is worried about.

     

    I'm concerned about what the opposing offense is worried about. Unfortunately they will be pretty much worried about nothing.




    Babe, that much-maligned D gave up 21 in the superbowl and the offense had a number of 3-and-outs, stalled drives, punts, a taken saftey and an INT.  While I agree that the D gave up the points, the O wasn't lighting the world on fire. 

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

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Funny how all the usual suspects were dead silent after last week's pedestrian offensive showing and now this week are blowing the balance/running/josh horn.

    Bottom line

    After eight games last year : 5-3

    After eight games this year: 5-3

    And many of those offensive statistics last year were similar to those this year. 

    As far as the running game goes, the talent is way better this year. Talent makes a difference, just like we were saying last year. 



    The difference was that last the Patriots were 5-3 have played the two best teams (the Steelers and the Giants - both losses btw). This year, the two toughest games (49ers and Texans) are still on the schedule. Add in two games against an improved Dolphins team, a Colts team that upset the Packers already, and the Jets (who I do not think are good, but will be playing for their lives on national TV on Thansgiving). 

    The second half schedule this year is a lot tougher than last year... I do not expect them to end the year on a 10-game winning streak the way they ended last year on an 8-game winning streak. Two more losses will almost certainly cost the Patriots a first round bye and mean playing either at Denver, Pittsburg or Baltimore in the second round and in Houston in the AFC championship game. 

    Side note, the Patriots have never won (or even made it to) a Super Bowl without a bye under Belichick. 

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

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:


    I have actually come around to the argument that talent had a lot to do with the limited effectiveness of the running game at times last year.  Ridley was a rookie, Vereen was hurt and the rest of the RB stable (BJGE, Faulk, Woodhead) were average to slightly above.  Ridley has taken a big step, Vereen is beginning to emerge a bit and Bolden looks like a find.  So yes, the talent level is better.  

    Brady was this team's best chance to win last year.  However, just because last year's offense is as statistically good as this year's offense doesn't mean it wasn't flawed -- or at least it was easier for good defensive teams to prepare against.  Yes, the Pats should rely on their best player in gut check situations, but we unfairly expect Brady to deliver 100% of the time.  Having a more effective run game makes Brady's job easier and may help them win another superbowl.  We all can argue statistics, run vs. pass ratio and whatever numbers exist, but I see a 5-3 team that can be a dominant running team and who can make teams pay for trying to key on Brady and the passing game.  I feel much better about this team going forward into the playoffs (offensively anyway) than I did about last year's team.



    This is a smart post.  Last year the Pats were one-dimensional on offense.  But with the talent they had, they did their best and did a remarkable job of scoring points and winning games despite an offense that had weak RBs and no perimeter or deep receiver.  Add to that a defense that gave up big passing plays at the most inopportune times and you have to give credit to all the coaches for what they did to get us to a Super Bowl.  Would have been nice to win it, of course, but given the talent level of the team going 14-3 and getting to the big dance was a remarkable accomplishment even without taking home the Lombardi.

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

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    My entire position on this subject was not that BJGE was an all star, but that since 2009 we have been a one dimensional offense. Over reliant on the pass. It was our offensive philosophy and it didn't work against any kind of above average defense. We haven't beat a team with a winning record since the Packers in 2010. This means how we built the team and the schemes we used each Sunday was an issue, so in that respect I agree that talent was an issue. Having 2 undrafted starting RB's for 2 years is a problem with the philosophy imo.

    Yes our defense is not what it used to be, but our offense talent wise is as good as any team in history. Now that BB has turned his attention to being balanced by drafting RB's (like in the draft) and bringing back an O.C (who absolutely excelled here in 07 and 08) we are will be capable of doing what the Giants did to us twice. Keep the ball away from other teams offense's. Keep our defense off the field.

    The Packers,Saints,and Giants all have the same problems in the secondary that we have. Scheme for a defense and using minimal use of extra rushers(rush 4 drop 7) might just have something to do with the secondary problems for all these teams. It isn't a coincidence that they are annually in the bottom 10 in passing defense. Granted after losing our starting safeties for the 2nd year in a row our rookies in the secondary are still getting burned in prevent coverage and that is unacceptable, but they will learn. They look like good athletes and most of our defense is made up of high draft picks, talent will win out!



    We all agreed the team was one-dimensional.  Heck, I had started talking about the over reliance on a spread-the-field passing game back in 2009.  Where I've consistently disagreed with you and Wozzy, however, is in your opinion that the one-dimensionality was the result of stubborness or incompetence on the part of the coaches.  In my opinion it always has been the result of the talent we had (or didn't have).  In my opinion, the coaches have been doing a great job of getting good results from limited talent.   

     

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

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    My entire position on this subject was not that BJGE was an all star, but that since 2009 we have been a one dimensional offense. Over reliant on the pass. It was our offensive philosophy and it didn't work against any kind of above average defense. We haven't beat a team with a winning record since the Packers in 2010. This means how we built the team and the schemes we used each Sunday was an issue, so in that respect I agree that talent was an issue. Having 2 undrafted starting RB's for 2 years is a problem with the philosophy imo.

    Yes our defense is not what it used to be, but our offense talent wise is as good as any team in history. Now that BB has turned his attention to being balanced by drafting RB's (like in the draft) and bringing back an O.C (who absolutely excelled here in 07 and 08) we are will be capable of doing what the Giants did to us twice. Keep the ball away from other teams offense's. Keep our defense off the field.

    The Packers,Saints,and Giants all have the same problems in the secondary that we have. Scheme for a defense and using minimal use of extra rushers(rush 4 drop 7) might just have something to do with the secondary problems for all these teams. It isn't a coincidence that they are annually in the bottom 10 in passing defense. Granted after losing our starting safeties for the 2nd year in a row our rookies in the secondary are still getting burned in prevent coverage and that is unacceptable, but they will learn. They look like good athletes and most of our defense is made up of high draft picks, talent will win out!



    We all agreed the team was one-dimensional.  Heck, I had started talking about the over reliance on a spread-the-field passing game back in 2009.  Where I've consistently disagreed with you and Wozzy, however, is in your opinion that the one-dimensionality was the result of stubborness or incompetence on the part of the coaches.  In my opinion it always has been the result of the talent we had (or didn't have).  In my opinion, the coaches have been doing a great job of getting good results from limited talent.   

     



    There was a blatant overhaul in the offensive makeup of the offense this past offseason, tightends or fullbacks whatever you want to call them in lieu of more wide receivers.  We have four runningbacks on the roster and we use them all and they actually catch passes too.  This is the work of Josh McDaniel's.

    Under Obie the offense feasted on weak teams and floundered against playoff teams. 

    Whether Obie had this in the back of his mind as the same direction to go offensively this year is up for debate but I can tell you Obie was never as consistent a play caller as J Mac.  

    If Obie was so great maybe he would have been promoted over a guy substantially younger back in 2007 but he wasn't.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Impact balance can have on a great offense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    There was a blatant overhaul in the offensive makeup of the offense this past offseason, tightends or fullbacks whatever you want to call them in lieu of more wide receivers.  We have four runningbacks on the roster and we use them all and they actually catch passes too.  This is the work of Josh McDaniel's.

    Under Obie the offense feasted on weak teams and floundered against playoff teams. 

    Whether Obie had this in the back of his mind as the same direction to go offensively this year is up for debate but I can tell you Obie was never as consistent a play caller as J Mac.  

    If Obie was so great maybe he would have been promoted over a guy substantially younger back in 2007 but he wasn't.



    Isn't that the same thing this team has done. Through 8 games, they have the same record against what was supposed to be an easier schedule...

    I am not sold on McDaniels, sure he had the number one offense in 2007, but did anyone credit the play calling at the time. It was all about Brady, Moss and Welker. In the Super Bowl, when it mattered most, an offense that averaged 411 yards and 37 points, put up 274 and 14...

    He got a head coaching job based on having a top ten offense the next year without Brady... He got himself run out of Denver and last season was the OC of the worst offense in the NFL. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts