Is "ball control" the right strategy when your offense is better than your defense?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:



    Umm, or very articulate people who have been season ticket holder for decades.

    I don't need to use them as a reference. I use casual Pats fans or non Pats fans who ask "what has happened to Brady"?

    When I explain what has happened, they nod and it makes sense. 



    Do your articulate people all start their statements with "umm..."?  LOL  What a goon.

    Anyway, I think it's great that you explain your crazy theory about Brady's shotgun routine being the downfall of the Pats.  It's nice that you can convince "casual Pats fans or non Pats fans" of this. 

    Unfortunately, the facts and stats have shown that the entire foundation of your soap opera is false.  Keep telling non Pats fans about it, however.  If nothing else, it sounds good.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:



    No. He was awful for the most of the game or mediocre for most of it.  Update: INTs on 1st downs for no reason or bad passes in the 4th qtr of a SB aren't recommended.

    Aren't you the guy who falls for Jacobs reading from a piece of paper as if he cares? We used to make fun of you/fans like you, because you're so gullible and such a homer. lol



    No no no.  You've been saying for weeks that the problem is Brady calling too many shotgun formations.  Why have you backed away from that premise?  Is it because it's been proven completely false? 

    I like when you try to talk about hockey because you don't want to talk about football.  If I made so many huge errors, I'd be trying to change the subject as well.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    Just think, if Brady didn't take a Safety, toss a horrendous INT or throw high to Welker, we win with ease.

     

    ---

     

    A professional football player should probably be able to reel this one in.  You are the only person I've ever heard blame Brady for throwing too high.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:




    It's part of the problem.  Weeks? LOL!!

     

    I've been in here for YEARS saying ignoring a run to channel the 2007 season and the stats is not the answer.

    Ignoring it with any gimmick possible with Brady not wanting to be under Center is unacceptable.

     



    I'm sorry.  I've only been reading your theories on Brady and the shotgun for weeks.  I had you on ignore for a long time.  Anyway, so for YEARS you've been saying that the problem is Brady calling the shotgun too much?

    That's really gotta hurt now that the stats show the opposite.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:



    Umm, his wanting to use it or choose to pass with leads up to 45 times in these games is me not pointing out he's been worse in that kind of an offense as opposed to 2001-2004?

    Funny. He's found more ways to chase stats and throw more, shotgun included, before a run game is established, but he'd never have won 3 rings without at least 20 carrries from a lead back to win those SBs.

    Looks like you forgot to do your homework, which isn;t surprising. Jacobs is your idol and Brady is as good in the postseson now as he was in 2004.

    LMAO



    No no no, Rusty.  You've been blaming the shotgun.  Now that your shotgun theory has been proven false, you are attempting to add other parameters to your attack.  It won't work.

    But, thank you for finally admitting that " Brady is as good in the postseson now as he was in 2004."  Your words, not mine.

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

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     Do you really know anything about football?  Players get half sacks. Teams cannot get half sacks because sacks are a whole.  They can be credited to two different players (ON THE SAME TEAM) but a team cannot get half a sack.

    AND IT WAS THREE, Not 4 not 4.5 not 10000.

    Like I told you before

    13 is not 19 points

    1200 yards is not 1500 yards

    27 TD's is not 35 TD's

    A D with a 91.7 passer rating (the worst in the NFL) did not play good no matter how in love with BB you are or how you spin it or how much you hate TB since you found out he isn't gay.

     AND>>>>>Whatever other 65000 lies you told today are NOT TRUE

    What an absolute disgrace and waste of air space and any air, for that matter.

     


     

     

     

     

     

     

    "?

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    Funny. He's found more ways to chase stats and throw more, shotgun included, before a run game is established, but he'd never have won 3 rings without at least 20 carrries from a lead back to win those SBs.

    Looks like you forgot to do your homework, which isn;t surprising. Jacobs is your idol and Brady is as good in the postseson now as he was in 2004.

    LMAO



    First half running plays

    In victory vs. the Rams:  11

    In victory vs. the Panthers:  16

    In the vicotry vs. the Eagles:  9

    First loss vs. the Giants:  10

    Second loss  vs. the Giants:  8

    Tell us more about establishing the run.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    Just think, if Brady didn't take a Safety, toss a horrendous INT or throw high to Welker, we win with ease.

     

    ---

     

    A professional football player should probably be able to reel this one in.  You are the only person I've ever heard blame Brady for throwing too high.

     




    Don't get me started on this one.  You can add me as the second person then.  That pass could have and should have been much better.  It was high and to the outside shoulder.  Should have hit Welker in stride on the inside shoulder.

     

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

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     



    Yes, and if our QB is not having a good TD/INT ratio, how can we have ball control?????!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Brady had had a 2/1 TD/INT ratio for 4 of his last 5 playoffs. Not good enough for you dumbkoff?

     

     

     

     




    His last 3 AFC title games at HOME:

     

     

     

    3 TDs, 7 INTS

    You know, that's the game you play in before you can get to a SB? lmao

    No, abusing the Broncos in  2011 for 6 TDS isn't as impressive as you think it is.  Denver's D sucked. Dawkins and Dumervil were hurt and Light abused Von Miller the whole game. Old man Bailey is old.

    Nice try.

    Throw out his best and worst games since 2007.  That would the Denver 2011 playoff and the 2009 playoff games.

    Then, look at the overall numbers.

    NOT GOOD.

    AT ALL.

    In fact, unacceptable.

     




    Okay dumbkoff, let's play your cherry picking game. We'll take out his best playoff (04) and his worst (09) and compare the TD/INT ratios pre 07 and post 06.

     

     

     

    Adjusted post 06 TD/INT ratio 20/13.

    Adjusted pre 07 TD/INT ratio - 15/9

     

    Pretty much the same ratio goombah.

    You lose again. Nothing new.

     

    You're worse than UD6. Worse. LMAO@U

     

     

     




     

    Or, instead of using words like "adjusted" which basically means you're being sneaky, very SNEAKY,



    I plainly showed what the adjustment was, and you call it "sneaky". LMAO@U Your level of dense is astounding. I did what was akin to that you has just suggested, throw out the best and worst playoff season then look at the time periods YOU prescribed to begin with.

    You don't like the result because it smashes your spin to dust.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    I don't need to use them as a reference. I use casual Pats fans or non Pats fans who ask "what has happened to Brady"?

    When I explain what has happened, they nod and it makes sense.  

     



    Come on, now you are lying.  Most people I know who are and who aren't big football fans say man, your teams defense is horrible.  Poor Brady.  If he had a better defense he would have more SB rings.  And that's the truth.

    I'm sure when you are done ranting about Brady to the grocery store clerk who couldn't care less about it, they probably nod and say it makes sense just so you will leave them alone.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    2001-2004 - 11 TDs, 3 INTs - This is almost a 4:1 ratio

    2005-2012 - 32 TDS, 19 INTs - This is clearly not near the desired 2:1 ratio

     



    More cherry picking from the dumbkoff.

     

    Bottom line is that Brady has maintained a 2/1 or better TD/INT ratio all of his 10 playoff years except 2001, 2006 and 2009.

    As a matter of fact he has only one under 2/1 ratio postseason in the 07 and after period you complain about so much and has two in the seasons before that which you say were not contaminated by the dreaded shotgun-spread! LMAO@U

    And these facts make you look like the fool that you are.

    Another day, another bludgeoning of the VI.

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Is

    Not that it matters much but this thread became essentially unreadable after page 3 or so.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In a nutshell there are people on my side


    The "voices" aren't people nutjob.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    The "voices" aren't people nutjob.

     



    No, it's not the people here.  It's the people that don't post here.  People that wait on hold for 90 minutes to tell Felger and Mazz that Brady stinks.

    Also, casual and non-Patriot fans that he encounters along the road or in line at the pharmacy.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     


    The "voices" aren't people nutjob.

     

     



    No, it's not the people here.  It's the people that don't post here.  People that wait on hold for 90 minutes to tell Felger and Mazz that Brady stinks.

     

    Also, casual and non-Patriot fans that he encounters along the road or in line at the pharmacy.




    I'm sure his living in "Carolina Panthers" nation has afforded him many the opportunity to enjoy Brady bashing with the local hicks.

     

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

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    Not that it matters much but this thread became essentially unreadable after page 3 or so.

     



    It's because it was derailed.  I am also pretty sure this was another deflection based thread by Prolate to sell the idea that the offense of ours is so superior to our D, that a ball control offense meant that the offense wouldn't have been able to protect our supposed awful D.

    Sorry, but I call out fraud premises when I see them.

     

    The fact is, that premise hasn't been true whatsoever in recent postseasons.

    Bloated regular season stats by our offense have meant diddly squat come January, for like the last 5 or 6 postseasons.

    It's just one game where our offense had a bad day at the office. It's a pattern.

    In a nutshell there are people on my side and there are people who think the offense, led by Brady, are above reproach. I don't.



    C'mon Rusty.  The purpose of the thread was to further discuss the claim made by Mike Salk (and echoed by many other posters) that the Pats should change to a more ball control style of offense.  Most people seem to want that because they think it helps the defense.  I was questioning two things:

    1. Whether ball control makes sense if your defense is weaker than your offense (which I do believe is the situation for the Pats)
    2. Whether ball control really helps the defense stay rested.

    I concluded that ball control probably doesn't make a lot of sense if your offense is strong and your defense average to weak (though I'd be interested in alternative points of view) and that it does probably help the defense stay rested, but not nearly as signficiantly as some think. I also pointed out that ball control doesn't necessarily mean running.  It can also be effected by using lots of short passes, keeping those pass plays inbounds, and having a high completion percentage. 

    I was hoping to see a debate about the types of teams that would benefit or not benefit from a  ball control style of offense.  I really wasn't interested in going off topic to debate Brady's skills.

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

    Re: Is

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     I was questioning two things:

     

    1. Whether ball control makes sense if your defense is weaker than your offense (which I do believe is the situation for the Pats)
    2. Whether ball control really helps the defense stay rested.

    I concluded that ball control probably doesn't make a lot of sense if your offense is strong and your defense average to weak (though I'd be interested in alternative points of view) and that it does probably help the defense stay rested, but not nearly as signficiantly as some think. I also pointed out that ball control doesn't necessarily mean running.  It can also be effected by using lots of short passes, keeping those pass plays inbounds, and having a high completion percentage. 

    I was hoping to see a debate about the types of teams that would benefit or not benefit from a  ball control style of offense.  I really wasn't interested in going off topic to debate Brady's skills.



    Someone else posted something similar to: The offense should take advantage of the opponent's defensive weakness is - so, whether it's mostly passing, mostly rushing, play action, screens - or any combination of all of the above - to score as many points as possible.

    I think Ball Control can mean different things at different times. Sometimes running out the clock means one has to keep the ball for X amount of time.  Incomplete passes mean clock stoppage; rushing the ball and completions keep the clock moving.  And it's a stretch, but punting might be used as "ball control". For example, punting around mid field to pin opponents w/i their own 10. This increases the liklihood that opponents would NOT be able to march 90+ yards down the field (altho not a guarantee).

     

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

    Re: Is

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

     

     



    Someone else posted something similar to: The offense should take advantage of the opponent's defensive weakness is - so, whether it's mostly passing, mostly rushing, play action, screens - or any combination of all of the above - to score as many points as possible.

     

     

    I think Ball Control can mean different things at different times. Sometimes running out the clock means one has to keep the ball for X amount of time.  Incomplete passes mean clock stoppage; rushing the ball and completions keep the clock moving.  And it's a stretch, but punting might be used as "ball control". For example, punting around mid field to pin opponents w/i their own 10. This increases the liklihood that opponents would NOT be able to march 90+ yards down the field (altho not a guarantee).

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Back when the Pats had a dominant defense, toward the end of games when the Pats had a two score or more lead, BB would often seem to let the other team burn the clock with long slow drives.  It was kind of ball control, but accomplished by a defense that allowed teams to creep down the field but not score fast.  In recent years, though, the defense too often gives up quick scores.  i think BB feels this requires the offense to stay aggressive because a two score lead isn't really secure with this defense. 

     Ball control is always desirable when you have a secure lead.  But it's hard to have a secure lead if your defense is prone to giving up quick scores. 

     

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

    Re: Is

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Back when the Pats had a dominant defense, toward the end of games when the Pats had a two score or more lead, BB would often seem to let the other team burn the clock with long slow drives.  It was kind of ball control, but accomplished by a defense that allowed teams to creep down the field but not score fast.  In recent years, though, the defense too often gives up quick scores.  i think BB feels this requires the offense to stay aggressive because a two score lead isn't really secure with this defense. 

     Ball control is always desirable when you have a secure lead.  But it's hard to have a secure lead if your defense is prone to giving up quick scores. 

     



    I agree with you

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

    Re: Is

    The entire notion that ball control is purely a function of the rushing attack is nonsense.  Since 2001 the two Patriots squads with the highest average ToP were 2007 and 2009.  In 2010 when Brady passed under 500 times for the first time since 2004 and only the third time since 2001 the Patriots had a negative ToP differential.  

    I don't think anyone disputes that it is nice when you have a lead late in an individual game to be able to pound a guy like Dillon and eat up the clock.  I also don't think anyone disputes that in those kind of games it is likely that you will win the ToP battle.  However to conclude from these two points that running the ball leads to winning ToP which leads to winning the game is silly.  There are a million other factors that went into getting that lead which allowed you to even try and kill the clock.  More importantly there are a million factors other than your rushing attack which help dictate ToP ranging from the play of your defense, turnovers, quick scores like defensive TDs or ST TDs or big plays from your offense, how quickly you run your offense etc.  

    For all the hand wringing about the Patriots throwing too much and going 3 and out it should be pointed out for the millionth time that the Patriots went 3 and out less than any other team in the NFL last season.  Football is a complicated game.  If it was as simple as some posters on this board would have you believe then there would be very little benefit from elite coaching.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Is

    pcmIV ..... you cann notprovide contex here! Btw great post.

     

     

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Is

    Sry... Trying out firefox on phone and swipe is acting up...can't edit.

     

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

    Re: Is

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    The entire notion that ball control is purely a function of the rushing attack is nonsense.  Since 2001 the two Patriots squads with the highest average ToP were 2007 and 2009.  In 2010 when Brady passed under 500 times for the first time since 2004 and only the third time since 2001 the Patriots had a negative ToP differential.  

    I don't think anyone disputes that it is nice when you have a lead late in an individual game to be able to pound a guy like Dillon and eat up the clock.  I also don't think anyone disputes that in those kind of games it is likely that you will win the ToP battle.  However to conclude from these two points that running the ball leads to winning ToP which leads to winning the game is silly.  There are a million other factors that went into getting that lead which allowed you to even try and kill the clock.  More importantly there are a million factors other than your rushing attack which help dictate ToP ranging from the play of your defense, turnovers, quick scores like defensive TDs or ST TDs or big plays from your offense, how quickly you run your offense etc.  

    For all the hand wringing about the Patriots throwing too much and going 3 and out it should be pointed out for the millionth time that the Patriots went 3 and out less than any other team in the NFL last season.  Football is a complicated game.  If it was as simple as some posters on this board would have you believe then there would be very little benefit from elite coaching.



    too true. good post

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

    Re: Is

    BB says he will run more if it's being effective. I agree with BB.

     

     

     photo BBandtheRat_zpsc338a3a1.gif

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts