Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011
posted at 1/3/2013 12:01 PM EST
In response to coolade2's comment:
Agree... It seems quite obvious most of the time. Especially the use of the running game. Obie apologists point to overall totals and see only a minimal difference. this ignores HOW the running game is used during games. mcd has a better sense of this while obie was scattered and they lost games because of it.
Perfect example last year @ buffalo, obie threw it all over the place EVEN THO THE RUNNING GAME WAS WORKING.... multiple picks lose game. . THIS year mcd recognized running game , both Ridley and Bolden go over 100yards.
That said there are still stretches where running game is ignored, especially the shotgun with no back in the backfield. disagree with this formation in general since back can be more useful in backfield rather than trotting out split wide.
Here's some good Belichick quotes about converting third downs and turnovers:
"I think ultimately, sure, it comes down to execution. Some of that of course is the situations that you are in. Nobody in the league is converting 50 percent of 10-pluses. You put yourself in enough long yardage situations, you wonÂÂÂt convert them. Conversely, third-and-one, third-and-two, you're up in the 70 percent range league-wide. The distance you're in, the situation you're in, has something to do with it."
"It's hard enough gaining 10 yards on three downs. If you start trying to gain 12 or 13 or 17 on two, then eventually it's probably going to catch up with you."
Last season, Ridley was put in mothballs after fumbling twice (one lost) late in the year. Asked how he would handle Ridley's playing time going forward this season, Belichick said, "There's nothing more important than possession of the ball. We can't afford to lose it, it's as simple as that."
"We work on ball security with every player that handles the ball. Every week. Every day," said Belichick. "That includes everybody that touches the ball. Center. Quarterback. Running backs, receivers, punters, kickers, snappers, returners, defenders when they get it if they happen to get it on a turnover. We talk and work on ball security every day with everybody. Everybody who handles it, it's important. It's the highest priority with everybody."
Everyone is amazed the Giant's won the time of possession, not surprising since they ran the ball ten more times than the Pats did with their primary backs (not their scatback) and even though the Patriots were more effective running the ball!
Also I love how they point out that the Pat's defense couldn't get the Giant's off the field yet the Giants punted more than the Pats did, does that make sense? I think they're remembering a different game?
Turnovers by our offense and their inability to not only not score, but simply convert first downs and get in good field position ruined us. Yes, the defense could have played better, could have recovered the fumbles they caused but the offense (best in the NFL?) didn't do its job protecting the ball and controlling the clock.
I'm not absolving the defense but you can't tout your offense as the best in the land, spend all of your cap money on offense, insist that through perfect execution you can win by passing alone and not have it come back to bite you in the rear. Yes you can win without running but it is substantially harder to execute.
We had no chance to win if the offense didn't play well, they didn't play well.