It's about "Balance"

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

    Re: It's about

    This is why the Pats lost the super bowl to one of the least balanced and all around worst running teams in the NFL last year. If you need refernces look it up on ESPN (worst YPC and YPG). Balance is great but it had nothing to do with winning the super bowl last year (during the game though the Pats were fairly balanced except for the final 2 minutes in the first half and the final minute of the game where they threw something like 16 passes to 2 runs.)

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is why the Pats lost the super bowl to one of the least balanced and all around worst running teams in the NFL last year. If you need refernces look it up on ESPN (worst YPC and YPG). Balance is great but it had nothing to do with winning the super bowl last year (during the game though the Pats were fairly balanced except for the final 2 minutes in the first half and the final minute of the game where they threw something like 16 passes to 2 runs.)

    [/QUOTE]

    And then that "worst running" team ran the ball 28 times to the Pats 18. We were winning. What does that mean for us?

    Our lead power back averaged more ypc then theirs did. This thread is embarrassing for the 3 or 4 who defend the 1 dimensional offense the Pats have had since 07.

     

     

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

    Re: It's about



    And then that "worst running" team ran the ball 28 times to the Pats 18. We were winning. What does that mean for us?

    Our lead power back averaged more ypc then theirs did. This thread is embarrassing for the 3 or 4 who defend the 1 dimensional offense the Pats have had since 07.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not trying to defend any offense. I need proof that a balanced attack wins super bowls, thats it. Prove it to me and I'll agree. Passing teams have been winning the majority of super bowls lately. Since the 2007 Giants all the super bowl winners except for the 2009 Saints primarily relied on the passing game to win (the Saints did too but they had an excellant running attack). The Ravens had a much more balanced attack in 2011 than the Pats with a good QB, great running back and a great defense yet the Patriots still beat them. The 49ers were more balanced, they had a very good QB (at least for one season), a great RB and a better defense yet lost to the Giants. The Pats have lost two SB's in the final minute over the last 5 years. Welker catches a pass he should have caught (though Brady clearly threw a bad pass) the Pats kill the Giants time outs and perhaps win (the Pats really needed at least 1 more first down to really make the Giants nervous). Belichek has clearly felt that he needed to pass the ball more to win for whatever reason (bad defense, bad RB's, great QB & recievers etc) but I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with Belichek having Brady on his fantasy team. As Brady gets older I would love to see the Pats turn int the late 90's Broncos. An excellant defense, a 1500-2000 yard running back and Brady only throwing it 25-30 times a game to great playmakers. I'm fine with it, but they have not had that kind of defense, or a running back of that Caliber since Dillon. Maybe Ridley is that guy. People like you conveniently forget that in 2010 the Pats were a very balanced team and completely gagged against the Jets in the playoffs (the Pats balanced attack for 3 1/2 quarters that day may have been one of the problems).

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

    Re: It's about



    Furthermore, the idea that the Pats have not been balanced since 2007 is a crock of doo doo. In 2008 and 2010 the Pats were very balanced and went  0-1 in the playoffs combined. There 2 most unbalanced years (2007-2011) they went to the super bowl. While personally I want to see a great running attack and more balance to keep Brady healthy we should be careful for what we wish for. A good defense would be vastly more valuable than a "balanced attack".

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

    Re: It's about

    "This thread is embarrassing for the 3 or 4 who defend the 1 dimensional offense the Pats have had since 07." ~truechamp

    Bill Belichick could come on here via live web-cam, and say:

    "Hey guys...We forsook what made us great and 3X Superbowl Champs in the past.  It was b/c we focused too heavily on the shotgun based spread Offense, and the passing game towards the point that it made us unbalanced, 1-dimensional on Offense...  Furthermore, it left us a lesser complete situational Football team in it's entirety, shortchanging TOP, ball-control, the ability to run the ball more effectively in order to close out more games in the 2nd half in a more solidified and exacting manner;  Overall, it made us more limited, and therefore more obvious, and thus lesser in our ability to offer up a recognizable complete attack on Offense- See, it's my fault...  Roger Goodell opened up the passing game simply too much with these Offensively beneficial extremely liberal PI calls, shortening and enforcing the jamming area for CBs at the LOS, greatly overlooking Offensive line holding calls more than any time prior, and finally calling an overwhelming number of defensive penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct and illegal hits, through the great emphasises on high hits and helmet hits against WRs, late hits on WRs and QBs, low hits on QBs, and altogether defenseless receiver hits, en masse.  The game changed, and thus you attempt to adapt in order to try to exploit the suddenly large-scale changing, tweeking, and altering of gameplay on the Professional football field gridiron.  I gambled, and I trully believe that this, in a greatly differentiating way, allows me to be forever innovative and to stay ahead of the curb.  It's what makes me SUCH a greatly successful NFL Head Coach, and deep down, I think that ALL you diehard Pats Fans not only, already know this...but respect and appreciate this in me, your NE Patriots Head Coach...  Again- It was a worthy gamble to place your wager on, and man- Not once, But TWICE, this "wager" was merely SECONDS away from paying off with the ultimate reward: Bringing home 2 more Lombardi Trophies to place in our Patriots Place alter...  But I'm here, right now, this second- October 4th 2012, In order to admit that in terms of what I had always believed in and had formerly always previously attempted to enact with great & EXACTING detailed effort, planning, and care- THAT is, The greatest amount of malleability in my team, negating AS MANY weakened links in my team's total gameplay, beit player-wise, positionally, no weak-links in my Seperate field units, nor as little negating of 1 schematic, 1 type of caliber of play, or design greatly over and above another=WAS, unfortunately, precisely what inevitably DID occur.  Ultimately, I've come on BDC here, in order to say both, 'I'm sorry...mostly towards my team and my own football philosophies,' AND that 'Gameplanning MY TEAM in such an unbalanced way, rather than & as opposed to oftentimes 1 specific gameplan around what 1 specific opponent's D likes to deploy successfully on the field, IS...RIGHT NOW...as of this very instance as we stand here in the 2012-13 NFL Year, Completely and Totally- Over in NE."  

    TrueChamp...  Belichick could say THIS...exactly...and, in the 1st person...And this forum would STILL have doubters as to the betterment and true successes of enacting a more multi-dimensional threat of an attack in scheme, play-design, and play-calling.  Belichick could actually even DO this...and win the next 3 Superbowls by doing this, back to back to back, WHILE going on the radio each week in a weekly Pats Fans address in order to read and re-read that above statement as being the uptmost critical piece of dogmatic change in NE's playing designs...And there would STILL, be no less than 10 or so posters on this very board whom say,

    "Yeaaa, but see, I'm sorta still waitin' to see if this is really altogether better or not...I mean, remember those glory-days when Brady was throwing for 800 yards every game without 1 incompletion or interception...? =Now THAT, was trully a Championship caliber team you could Trully BELIEVE In!" 

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

    Re: It's about

    [/QUOTE]

    I let BB figure out the balance. How about you?

    ~babe

    [/QUOTE]


    I'll let Josh do it, because Obie couldn't figure it out.

    ~wozzy

    ~~~

    Wozzy, don't distract babe...He's making a ready claim that since we don't have control of The Pats Team in any form, there's really no reason to discuss what we'd like to happen, what we believe could work, what we liked which did or did not work, nor what we didn't neccessarily like occuring on the football field for the Pats... 

    Everything else is fair game for future discussion though...  I know, I know, but don't worry=Babe's gonna lead by example here, as he immerses us in his very best personal qualities and aspects of posting on here:  His wit, his football IQ, his open-mindedness, his integrity, and his calm and accepting demeanor heaping niceties, 1 after another after another... 

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

    Re: It's about

    O'Brien ran a very balanced attack in 2010, 454 rush attempts to 507 passing attempts. So why is he such a villian. The Pats led the league in scoring in 2010 and were 3rd in 2011 with over 500 points in both seasons.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    And then that "worst running" team ran the ball 28 times to the Pats 18. We were winning. What does that mean for us?

    Our lead power back averaged more ypc then theirs did. This thread is embarrassing for the 3 or 4 who defend the 1 dimensional offense the Pats have had since 07.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not trying to defend any offense. I need proof that a balanced attack wins super bowls, thats it. Prove it to me and I'll agree. Passing teams have been winning the majority of super bowls lately. Since the 2007 Giants all the super bowl winners except for the 2009 Saints primarily relied on the passing game to win (the Saints did too but they had an excellant running attack). The Ravens had a much more balanced attack in 2011 than the Pats with a good QB, great running back and a great defense yet the Patriots still beat them. The 49ers were more balanced, they had a very good QB (at least for one season), a great RB and a better defense yet lost to the Giants. The Pats have lost two SB's in the final minute over the last 5 years. Welker catches a pass he should have caught (though Brady clearly threw a bad pass) the Pats kill the Giants time outs and perhaps win (the Pats really needed at least 1 more first down to really make the Giants nervous). Belichek has clearly felt that he needed to pass the ball more to win for whatever reason (bad defense, bad RB's, great QB & recievers etc) but I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with Belichek having Brady on his fantasy team. As Brady gets older I would love to see the Pats turn int the late 90's Broncos. An excellant defense, a 1500-2000 yard running back and Brady only throwing it 25-30 times a game to great playmakers. I'm fine with it, but they have not had that kind of defense, or a running back of that Caliber since Dillon. Maybe Ridley is that guy. People like you conveniently forget that in 2010 the Pats were a very balanced team and completely gagged against the Jets in the playoffs (the Pats balanced attack for 3 1/2 quarters that day may have been one of the problems).

    [/QUOTE]

    There are a bunch of guys here who reduce football to simplistic formulas. Apparently in their minds the whole super bowl came down to the giants running ten more times than the patriots. Manning's 75% completion rate on 40 passes had nothing at all to do with it. Nor did the dominancee of the giants d-line over our (injured) o-line. Nor did the injury to Gronk matter. Those 10 carries are the whole game.  Execution, talent, mismatches--none of that matters. It all comes down to how many running plays the offensive coordinator calls.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    O'Brien ran a very balanced attack in 2010, 454 rush attempts to 507 passing attempts. So why is he such a villian. The Pats led the league in scoring in 2010 and were 3rd in 2011 with over 500 points in both seasons.

    [/QUOTE]

    Then he rolled Danny Woodhead out as the starting back against the Jets in the opening game and didn't run at all, 1st round playoff bounce.  Some other misconceptions you've stated aloud; 2007 were were very balanced, that's what opened up the passing game, we were ranked 10th that year in rushing attempts.  2008 we had a guy at QB who didn't start a single game in college and finished with a 10-6 record, if he could have gotten over the learning curve faster we would have made the playoffs, the fact that we ranked in the top 3 in rushing that year was the only reason we were as successful as we were.  Last year the Giant's ran the ball in the playoffs, they weren't statistically high during the regular season because Jacobs missed most of the year but when the playoffs came around Coughlin ran the ball.

     

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    And then that "worst running" team ran the ball 28 times to the Pats 18. We were winning. What does that mean for us?

    Our lead power back averaged more ypc then theirs did. This thread is embarrassing for the 3 or 4 who defend the 1 dimensional offense the Pats have had since 07.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not trying to defend any offense. I need proof that a balanced attack wins super bowls, thats it. Prove it to me and I'll agree. Passing teams have been winning the majority of super bowls lately. Since the 2007 Giants all the super bowl winners except for the 2009 Saints primarily relied on the passing game to win (the Saints did too but they had an excellant running attack). The Ravens had a much more balanced attack in 2011 than the Pats with a good QB, great running back and a great defense yet the Patriots still beat them. The 49ers were more balanced, they had a very good QB (at least for one season), a great RB and a better defense yet lost to the Giants. The Pats have lost two SB's in the final minute over the last 5 years. Welker catches a pass he should have caught (though Brady clearly threw a bad pass) the Pats kill the Giants time outs and perhaps win (the Pats really needed at least 1 more first down to really make the Giants nervous). Belichek has clearly felt that he needed to pass the ball more to win for whatever reason (bad defense, bad RB's, great QB & recievers etc) but I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with Belichek having Brady on his fantasy team. As Brady gets older I would love to see the Pats turn int the late 90's Broncos. An excellant defense, a 1500-2000 yard running back and Brady only throwing it 25-30 times a game to great playmakers. I'm fine with it, but they have not had that kind of defense, or a running back of that Caliber since Dillon. Maybe Ridley is that guy. People like you conveniently forget that in 2010 the Pats were a very balanced team and completely gagged against the Jets in the playoffs (the Pats balanced attack for 3 1/2 quarters that day may have been one of the problems).

    [/QUOTE]

    There are a bunch of guys here who reduce football to simplistic formulas. Apparently in their minds the whole super bowl came down to the giants running ten more times than the patriots. Manning's 75% completion rate on 40 passes had nothing at all to do with it. Nor did the dominancee of the giants d-line over our (injured) o-line. Nor did the injury to Gronk matter. Those 10 carries are the whole game.  Execution, talent, mismatches--none of that matters. It all comes down to how many running plays the offensive coordinator calls.

    [/QUOTE]

    There are also a bunch of guys here who can't see past the end of their own nose, otherwise they would realize that running the ball opens up the passing game; therein lays the "balance."  The very idea of complimentary football is lost on these guys.

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

    Re: It's about

    Or maybe this switch from finesse back to smash mouth football by BB is all just one big coincidence?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    I let BB figure out the balance. How about you?

    ~babe

    [/QUOTE]


    I'll let Josh do it, because Obie couldn't figure it out.

    ~wozzy

    ~~~

    Wozzy, don't distract babe...He's making a ready claim that since we don't have control of The Pats Team in any form, there's really no reason to discuss what we'd like to happen, what we believe could work, what we liked which did or did not work, nor what we didn't neccessarily like occuring on the football field for the Pats... 

    Everything else is fair game for future discussion though...  I know, I know, but don't worry=Babe's gonna lead by example here, as he immerses us in his very best personal qualities and aspects of posting on here:  His wit, his football IQ, his open-mindedness, his integrity, and his calm and accepting demeanor heaping niceties, 1 after another after another... 

    [/QUOTE]


    Just more personal attacks. I have stopped that for some time now. Funny how the ones who complained the loudest are doing it the most. Again, excepting wozzy, who has practiced what he preaches.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Or maybe this switch from finesse back to smash mouth football by BB is all just one big coincidence?

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think BB drafting Vereen and Ridley high in 2010 was a coincidence. He obviously wanted to inject some vigor into the run game.

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

    Re: It's about

    Balance = Unpredictability.

    If you do one thing or the other all the time, being unpredictable goes right out the window.

    Arguing over which one works better, or which one cost us the superbowl is a waste of time. Someone else said it earlier in the thread, superbowls are won by being MISTAKE FREE. Take away a couple of key mistakes in both our previous SB losses, and they become wins.

    This continued debate of more pass vs more run is beyond useless. Balance the attack, and play solid mistake free football (ON BOTH SIDES), and we will win. Period.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: It's about

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't think BB drafting Vereen and Ridley high in 2010 was a coincidence. He obviously wanted to inject some vigor into the run game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe,

    I find your posts not only much more palatable but containing more good points. I appreciate your holding back on the negative stuff.

    I agree very much with many things you are saying including this last one about Ridley and Vereen. I felt when they drafted the two TEs it signaled a change in team philosophy back towards the flexibility the team had both offensively and defensively when they were winning SBs. It required a more dominant running game that they could employ when a D was ignoring the run in trying to stop TB & Co. In drafting the two TEs, the two RBs, and Volmer, Solder and Canon they built the basis of a strong running game while not throwig away the hugely efficient and effective passing game. It looks like they will still need to upgrade at center and possibly at either guard or tackle depending on Volner's reliability healthwise and Canon's and Connolly's abilities to start at G or T.

    The D is fallowing suit. They are stouter against the run. They are improving the pass rush - though that is still a work in progress. Hopefully Bequette will add value there in the not too distant future. Cunningham has definately improved. I wonder how much of an up side there is to him. The three LBs are great I believe. Wilson looks like he will turn in to a solid safety. McCourty and Arrington show some good and some so so play. But I think if the pass rush issues are fully dealt with then the two of them will be fine.

    There is no one way to win a SB. The Giants did it without much of a running game. But here I think we need to be able to go to it in the fourth quarter of big games like that. Not exclusively. But the opponents D needs to be either spanked with it or at least threated with it so TB can more assuredly do his thing successfully.

     

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Balance = Unpredictability.

    If you do one thing or the other all the time, being unpredictable goes right out the window.

    Arguing over which one works better, or which one cost us the superbowl is a waste of time. Someone else said it earlier in the thread, superbowls are won by being MISTAKE FREE. Take away a couple of key mistakes in both our previous SB losses, and they become wins.

    This continued debate of more pass vs more run is beyond useless. Balance the attack, and play solid mistake free football (ON BOTH SIDES), and we will win. Period.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed, though the "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee has evolved over time to the "don't run because the OLine isn't good at it," finally to the "couldn't run because they're not talented enough" ...

    Nobody over here ever said run exclusively, but it was that rigid dogma is what made the pass happy crowd ridiculous in the first place.  You can't take one of the ten commandments of football which is "Run the ball, stop the run" and dismiss it entirely because the league wants to be pass happy. 

    Nobody wants that crappy brand of football anyhow and it won't help sales or head trauma either, despite what the marketing gurus might say.

     

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Balance = Unpredictability.

    If you do one thing or the other all the time, being unpredictable goes right out the window.

    Arguing over which one works better, or which one cost us the superbowl is a waste of time. Someone else said it earlier in the thread, superbowls are won by being MISTAKE FREE. Take away a couple of key mistakes in both our previous SB losses, and they become wins.

    This continued debate of more pass vs more run is beyond useless. Balance the attack, and play solid mistake free football (ON BOTH SIDES), and we will win. Period.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed, though the "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee has evolved over time to the "don't run because the OLine isn't good at it," finally to the "couldn't run because they're not talented enough" ...

    Nobody over here ever said run exclusively, but it was that rigid dogma is what made the pass happy crowd ridiculous in the first place.  You can't take one of the ten commandments of football which is "Run the ball, stop the run" and dismiss it entirely because the league wants to be pass happy. 

    Nobody wants that crappy brand of football anyhow and it won't help sales or head trauma either, despite what the marketing gurus might say.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You continue to make straw man arguments. I'm not pass happy, I'm win happy. The Pats have been winning like crazy since 2001 despite going against what you think makes a team win. The Pats did not use the run to open up the pass in 2007. Were you even watching the games? Didn't Brady start that season with 6 or 7 games with at least 3 TD passes. They were crushing teams and it was not because of Maroney. O' Brien was in charge of 2 of the best offenses of the last 2 years including a very balanced one in 2010. If you wan't to argue that running the ball 45% of the time wins games fine, but you need to prove to me that it actually works with something more than personal insults. i remember your argument last year was that the more you run the better your defense is, you couldn't prove that then without insults either.

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

    Re: It's about

    Saying something is a straw man argument is a great way of saying "I can't argue with logic, so I'll refer to it as a straw man."  The pass happy contingent, whoever they may be, have argued that a finesse offense can win with the same regularity as a smashmouth offense, which is preposterous.

    You can say what you want about 2007 but the Pat's were ranked 9th out of 32 teams in rushing attempts, I know revisionists and fantasy freaks alike love to recall Brady to Moss, but the reality was Maroney (4.5 YPC) and Sammy Morris with a helping hand by Faulk (who was also the 3rd leading receiver) was a big part of that.

    Controlling the clock and time of possession is easier with a run game because it's more reliable than passing, trying to convert 3rd and short is easier than converting a 3rd and long.  A running game requires less variables and moving pieces than a pass game, but most importantly there are three options on offense; a run, a pass or a punt.  To dismiss one as unnecessary and say you're better off, that you can create the same parity and confusion to an opposing defense is downright dumb.

    Not that I'm insulting you, because you're obviously overly sensitive since nowhere have I personally insulted as you've ascribed.

     

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't think BB drafting Vereen and Ridley high in 2010 was a coincidence. He obviously wanted to inject some vigor into the run game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe,

    I find your posts not only much more palatable but containing more good points. I appreciate your holding back on the negative stuff.

    I agree very much with many things you are saying including this last one about Ridley and Vereen. I felt when they drafted the two TEs it signaled a change in team philosophy back towards the flexibility the team had both offensively and defensively when they were winning SBs. It required a more dominant running game that they could employ when a D was ignoring the run in trying to stop TB & Co. In drafting the two TEs, the two RBs, and Volmer, Solder and Canon they built the basis of a strong running game while not throwig away the hugely efficient and effective passing game. It looks like they will still need to upgrade at center and possibly at either guard or tackle depending on Volner's reliability healthwise and Canon's and Connolly's abilities to start at G or T.

    The D is fallowing suit. They are stouter against the run. They are improving the pass rush - though that is still a work in progress. Hopefully Bequette will add value there in the not too distant future. Cunningham has definately improved. I wonder how much of an up side there is to him. The three LBs are great I believe. Wilson looks like he will turn in to a solid safety. McCourty and Arrington show some good and some so so play. But I think if the pass rush issues are fully dealt with then the two of them will be fine.

    There is no one way to win a SB. The Giants did it without much of a running game. But here I think we need to be able to go to it in the fourth quarter of big games like that. Not exclusively. But the opponents D needs to be either spanked with it or at least threated with it so TB can more assuredly do his thing successfully.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm trying to remain civil despite several attacking me personally on a number of occasions. laz, truechamp and glenr come to mind. People expressed a distaste for that kind of confrontation, so I am refraining from that for their benefit. I appreciate your noticing my restraint.

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

    Re: It's about

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Saying something is a straw man argument is a great way of saying "I can't argue with logic, so I'll refer to it as a straw man."  The pass happy contingent, whoever they may be, have argued that a finesse offense can win with the same regularity as a smashmouth offense, which is preposterous.

    You can say what you want about 2007 but the Pat's were ranked 9th out of 32 teams in rushing attempts, I know revisionists and fantasy freaks alike love to recall Brady to Moss, but the reality was Maroney (4.5 YPC) and Sammy Morris with a helping hand by Faulk (who was also the 3rd leading receiver) was a big part of that.

    Controlling the clock and time of possession is easier with a run game because it's more reliable than passing, trying to convert 3rd and short is easier than converting a 3rd and long.  A running game requires less variables and moving pieces than a pass game, but most importantly there are three options on offense; a run, a pass or a punt.  To dismiss one as unnecessary and say you're better off, that you can create the same parity and confusion to an opposing defense is downright dumb.

    Not that I'm insulting you, because you're obviously overly sensitive since nowhere have I personally insulted as you've ascribed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is at least my 3rd time trying to respomd to your post (god only knows where the previous attempts went). Talking about a "don't need to run it's a passing league" committee while referencing my comments is an example of a straw man argument. When have I or anyone ever stated that the Pats should not run the ball. I would be extremely happy if the Pats were a good running team as long as they have a good defense as well as a good passing attack. If they do not have a good defense it is easier (in fact a lot easier) to win with a top flight QB and a strong passing attack. Teams that can only pass good win at much higher percentages than teams that run well assuming the defenses are only average. The Pats, Colts, Packers, Saints and Giants have shown recently that you can win a lot by being a passing team with a below average defense (some of these teams have had horrible defenses). Give the 49ers or Ravens last years Packers defense and do they even get close to the playoffs let alone the AFC or NFC championship games. Anyone who claims that the 2007 Pats offensive explosion was a direct result of the Pats running game (Maroney) and not because of the passing attack clearly was not watching a lot of Patriot games very closely that year.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share