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. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Is

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    I'll give this one more shot then I'm done discussing it. I'll say he didn't play well in the last AFC championship game...and I think you can say that for a lot of players on that team that day. You've listed a lot of games and truthfully the guy has played in probably more big games than any player in the history of the league, and he has played well in most of them, outstanding in others and poor in a few of them. Truthfully the team gets as far as they do most every year because of him. Playing poorly to the best pass defense in the league (Baltimore) is not what you are looking for, but it's to be expected a little bit. Both times he was missing his best player on offense. I've said it before and I'll say it again...he would of been the MVP of Super Bowl 46 if we had won that game. He made two poor decisions in that entire game under some of the best pass rushing you'll see and he did that with his best target far less than 100%. If we win that game he gets the MVP trophy...hands down...no question...money.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    People forget that this is a team game...that we are not the team we were when we were winning championships....you tell people that everyday (that we are not and can't be expected to be the talented team we were). In those years Brady made mistakes....big ones, yet they weren't nearly as costly (the interception in the 4th against Carolina comes to mind, so does the drive killing pick against the Eagles). Yet those defenses held their opponents, this one can't. To think a quarterback can just carry his team through three playoff games by himself is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. When he gets help things will change, until that happens we will not win another thing...you can bank on that. This team is not built good enough anymore, it hasn't been for a long time.

     

     

     

     




    Ok, at least you're being somewhat civil for once. 

     

     

     

     

     

    While I agree he would have been SB 46's MVP and SB 42's, do you see the common denominator is Brady, 45+ passes from either from 2007 or 2011? He wasn't because he and the offense played poorly over hugh chunks of game, costing us in the end.

    Our 2007 team "wasn't built well"?

    What on earth? What are you talking about?   

    Even if I excuse Brady and the offense for disappearing completely in terms of sustaining drives in the 2006 AFC title game and Caldwell wasn't a #1, Dillon or Maroney couldn't have carried the ball a bit more in that second half, to milk the clock a bit more? Really? We choose to throw 45+ times with the lead?????

    That was a better team than that Colts team, but our offense faded away again in the second half allowing the Colts to come from down by 15 at the half.

    This problem, which is a lot deeper than BB needing to rebuild through the draft almost exclusvely into the 2011 lockout, has been festering all the way back to when we fielded a balanced offense and had guys who owned 3 SB rings as the base of our defense.

    This problem has NOTHING to do with how well our team has been built, because a loaded offense can't even function in the postseason.

    Also, if you use the Gronk excuse, I get to use the Andre Carter excuse or the CHandler Jones and Talib excuse from January.

    Your comments still fail to attack what the problem is. It's either BB, Brady, the OC, or a combination of 2 or all 3. I feel it's BB deferring to what Brady feels comfortable doing. I say that's going to be scaled bick a bit now. 

    1. No one can stomach another poor performance from Brady at home in the title game again.

    2. Scaling it back a bit will help Brady be better than he has been, even if the stats are less.

    How our defense plays has nothing to do with how we can approach a good ball control strategy on offense.

     

     

     

     



    You can have the no Chandler Jones or Carter excuse, it all factors into those games. I do agree we pass too much. I have no problem saying that...I have no problem admitting we are a finesse football team, because we are. I do have a problem pointing the finger on who's fault that is, because you think its Brady's fault and its the guy who built the roster. I think someone has leaned on Brady's arm a little too much do to the personnel of this team as it is constructed, until that changes you'll continue to see a finesse club that gets punched in the face at home during playoff games. I'm tired of it quite frankly. I don't think it's Brady's fault.

     

     

     

     

    I can guarantee that if Belichick had another back like Dillon he would run his legs off...just like he throws Brady's arm off...does he have that now? I don't think that's on the roster right now. Blount has some talent - despite what the media says about him - he's young enough still and if he's motivated you can run him right between the tackles. The thing is none of our backs are very dynamic, and backs that aren't dynamic get stopped...usually in playoff games against good defenses.

     

     



    I don't really care about the blame at this point. I am not chaning my gut feelings on the matter, you won't change yours. That doesn't matter at this point. I am very comfortable in my premise.  The press hates BB, so they blame him to the point it's become ridiculous overkill and some Pats fans are completely in the dark with how Brady has underperformed.

     

     

     

    That shouldn't even matter anymore at this point. What's done is done. All I ask is for is a fair assessment with what has happened and to stop this subtle, but obvious premise that somehow this all falls into BB's lap. It flat out does not.

    It's come to the point we have threads about BB being a subar GM. That's how ridiculous the trol work has become on this board.

    He can't control the decisions Brady makes on the field.  It's so ridiculous to make that claim.

    The players need to held responsible for not executing. And, sometimes the other team just makes more of the better plays, which is fine.  I have no issues losing because a team played great and we only played pretty good or bad. No issues there.

    However, this "problem" on offense is so deep rooted, it goes back to the days when some of our favorite defenders still played here.  THEY were affected by it in 2005.. 2006.  And of course, in 2007. 

    If Samuel doesn't pick a gimpy Rivers twice in the 2007 AFC title, I am not sure we get to that SB. Also, LT didn't even play.

    As much as the Denver playoff loss in 2005 was just a bad day in the second half with a slew of turnovers (5, total, I believe), we didn't score in the first half. Dillon was on one foot, so we used Faulk as the lead back and we ran mostly shotguns.

    That right there is a great example of why this finesse thing used as the bulk of what we do on offense is a failure. Even plopping Moss and Welker into it wasn't good enough. It can't sustain. It's GREAT to have when you need it, but it can't be the basis of your offense.  It can't. It's been proven as such.

    There are a dozen examples of this since 2005.  It's actually more rare to see the D play BAD where the offense played great.  It is. If the D bailed out this offense in 2/3 of the last AFC title games at home, how is the D more to blame? It can't be.

    Even in the 2006 AFC title game, two of those TDs, points of our 31 or whatever it was were either a Def TD and essentially the 80 yard kick off return by Hobbs. So, if you take away 14 points from what the offense generated by itself, they only really scored 17 points with their own doing.

    17 points is what our finesse shotgun spread scored in SB 46. That is not going to cut it in this era. In 1971 it might, but not now. 

    SB 23 was the only SB I can think of in the last 30-40 years minus the Cowboys/Colts SB in the early 70s where 17 points (16 by SF vs Cincy in January of 1989), was enough.

    I think Brady prefers the shotgun spread to this level because he got injured in 2008 and feels more comfortable seeing who is coming at him. Makes sense for him, but it's actually hurt our team over the game. Why is this opinion so offensive? 

    So, without our D getting a pick 6 or our kick returner setting up a golden opp, or our D creating 2 turnovers automatically, this offense really only puts out around 17 points per game against good Ds.

    Outside of the Giants and their luck Tyree catch situation, there is not one SB winning team that wins by scoring just 17 points.

    The 14 and 13 in recent games is obviously worse.

     

     



    Again, it's a team game. You want to talk about offenses putting up more than 17 points against good teams in Super Bowls, you'll also have to talk about those very same teams having better defenses. Because that's what it boils down to...one of those teams got an assist from that defense to get a ball back...get a scoring opportunity. This is good football and its what we haven't had to win it all. I look at the Ravens team recently - they got it from both sides - both the offense and the defense won that thing throughout those playoffs and ultimately the Super Bowl. They ran it when they had to and were able to check it down to their backs when the receivers were covered. They got huge plays from those receivers...I mean at times they just could not be stopped, it didn't matter the coverage or situation, they were coming down with the ball. And that defense didn't make many mistakes...they executed...it was a total team win.

     

     

    I agree our offense has not done enough at times, but they will never single handily be able to carry a team through three playoff teams on the way to hoisting a Lombardi trophy...you can't do it that way. You had better have your defense create a turnover, sack a QB, get off the field on a third down, intimidate someone. We used to do all that...all that. We never even sacked Sanchez once a few years ago, we made the worst quarterback in the NFL look like Joe Montana. Christ we made Eli Manning look like a Hall of Famer twice! Eli got absolutely pounded on the way to that second Super Bowl and we never even touched him?? How does that happen? The guy nearly dies playing against the 49ers two weeks before the Super Bowl and when he faces us he never hits the turf?

    I don't blame belichick's coaching one bit, not one. When he talks about us needing to coach better after loses he's just taking the heat off an offense or defense that didn't execute a game plan that probably was more than good enough for us to win. It's the players (both sides). It's us facing some of the best teams in the league in the playoffs (to be expected).




    We had 4.5 sacks in SB 46 and our D held to 13 points for the whole game until it became too much and they ran out gas. You also act like the 2 fumbles they caused in the SB were not really created by humans on NEs D.

     

    Even with those facts, if you are up in the 4th qtr and your D is holding over and over and your offense fades, who was more to blame?

     




    Again, 3 is not 4.5.  And how does a team get a half a sack anyway.  Who gets the other 1/2 sack?  LMAO

    Offensive Line: The Giants' line gave Eli Manning a clean pocket when he needed it late in the game. They gave up three sacks, but those didn't have a huge impact on the game. Their run blocking was solid all night long. If Bradshaw had been a bit more patient, the Giants could have had more big plays on the ground. Grade: A-


    Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andrew_perloff/02/05   /super.bowl.xlvi.grades/index.html#ixzz2YQAJfgC5   What did the D hold over and over?  Their weewee?  Nope not even that as they peed themselves in allowing the Gints to score on 3 of 4 second half drives.  Actually it was more like #2. It's so freaken easy to catch you in a lie.  How pitiful. Sad thing is if you ever do tell the truth, not a soul will believe you.  WOLF, WOLF!!!![/QUOTE]


    I don't know. Ask Michael Strahan.

    Did you just ask who gets credit for a half sack when they are in on the sack? LOL!

    You're an easy pink helmet.

    These are stats that outperform our offense?

    Top Performers

    Passing: E. Manning (NYG) - 296 YDS, 1 TD

    Rushing: A. Bradshaw (NYG) - 17 CAR, 72 YDS, 1 TD

    Receiving: H. Nicks (NYG) - 10 REC, 109 YDS

    Umm, I am pretty sure those are OUTSTANDING box score stats which should show a losing team.

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

    With ease. On just ONE of thos plays. We gave it away on offense, not defense. We don't pay our offense that money to be that bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    no classless sore loser - u were just beat by a better team...

    again

     
  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

Share