It's the passing game, stupid!

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

    It's the passing game, stupid!

    Once again, a team that approaches the running game as a necessary annoyance wins the Super Bowl.  It is, for once and for all, a passing game.  The old adage that you must be able to run the ball and stop the run is passe. In today's game, you must throw it and your defense must be able to defend the pass, and hopefully your DBs can get a little support from the pass rush and cause a few turnovers.  The ground and pound won't win in the end any more.  Even Pittsburgh is predominantly a passing team.

    That said, I think the Pats are in great position to take a further leap forward next year if they can find one more WR and find a way to get a bit more sustained pressure on the QB.  It would be nice to also find a defender that must be accounted for on every play. A guy who is a threat to concuss a QB at any time. I don't see that guy right now.  A Terrell Suggs, James Harrison, Clay Matthews, etc. type. Maybe they have to trade up to get him. Maybe a guy like Cunningham makes that leap?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    Disagree completely.  That, last night, is an anamoly, not the norm.

    Pitt is just not a very good Pass D and the GB O Line was superb.

    It was SB 42, but with a good O Line and better gamecalling.

    I don't think that means you toss the concept of needing a run game out the window.

    You have to have both.

    Agree with the last paragraph. Woodley and Ali are free agents.    BB will own the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds of this draft.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]Once again, a team that approaches the running game as a necessary annoyance wins the Super Bowl.  It is, for once and for all, a passing game.  The old adage that you must be able to run the ball and stop the run is passe. In today's game, you must throw it and your defense must be able to defend the pass, and hopefully your DBs can get a little support from the pass rush and cause a few turnovers.  The ground and pound won't win in the end any more.  Even Pittsburgh is predominantly a passing team. That said, I think the Pats are in great position to take a further leap forward next year if they can find one more WR and find a way to get a bit more sustained pressure on the QB.  It would be nice to also find a defender that must be accounted for on every play. A guy who is a threat to concuss a QB at any time. I don't see that guy right now.  A Terrell Suggs, James Harrison, Clay Matthews, etc. type. Maybe they have to trade up to get him. Maybe a guy like Cunningham makes that leap?
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, disagree. If it wasn't for Mendenhall coughing up the ball, the Steelers were on their way to winning that game due to the run.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to It's the passing game, stupid! : Sorry, disagree. If it wasn't for Mendenhall coughing up the ball, the Steelers were on their way to winning that game due to the run.
    Posted by CarveMaster[/QUOTE]

    Ummm, but they didn't. Nice try. My thesis holds.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from CarveMaster. Show CarveMaster's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]I My thesis holds.
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    But you are the only one who believes that...

    The Pats are going no where next season, unless they get a better run game.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    I would look no further than the pattern of our own Bill O'Brien and the Pats losing their edge on the O Line with a predictable spread offense against a team that can match it.

    You need more than one bullet in the chamber.

    You cannot be one dimensional, generally speaking. Credit Rodgers brilliance and that O Line to effectively spread out Pitt.

    It's what NE did to them earlier in the year.

    Pitt isn't a good pass D, really. They manhandle average teams  up front and it makes Polamalu and Clark look better.  McFadden is average. Ike Taylor is pretty good, but they aren't a good pass D, really.  Their nickel and dime packages are weak.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    I'm torn on the issue. I can see both perspectives. I guess there's just enough of a sample size yet for anyone to justify the passing game is in and the running game is out. Whereas, there's a clear correlation between running the ball and winning, historically.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]Disagree completely.  That, last night, is an anamoly, not the norm. Pitt is just not a very good Pass D and the GB O Line was superb. It was SB 42, but with a good O Line and better gamecalling. I don't think that means you toss the concept of needing a run game out the window. You have to have both...
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Bottom line is Green Bay won without a running game. New Orleans won without a run game. The Colts won without a running game. The Pats went 18-1 without a running game. They went 14-2 this year by slinging the ball. Pittsburgh is a passing team, check the stats. Good luck winning anything of consequence in this league without a great passing game.

    OK, all those teams ran the ball here and there. They were successful with their running game because everybody they play is overloaded against the pass, because you have to be. If you have a stifling defense, like Baltimore has had, you can win regular season games. But to advance in the playoffs, you have to be able to throw the ball in big situations. Baltimore can't, the Jets can't and yesterday, Pittsburgh couldn't.  They ran the ball effectively and they got their tails kicked.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]Pitt isn't a good pass D, really. They manhandle average teams  up front and it makes Polamalu and Clark look better.  McFadden is average. Ike Taylor is pretty good, but they aren't a good pass D, really.  Their nickel and dime packages are weak.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. They really need to rebuild their secondary. The plays they gave up on 3rd and long just killed them last night.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid! : Bottom line is Green Bay won without a running game. New Orleans won without a run game. The Colts won without a running game. The Pats went 18-1 without a running game. They went 14-2 this year by slinging the ball. Pittsburgh is a passing team, check the stats. Good luck winning anything of consequence in this league without a great passing game. OK, all those teams ran the ball here and there. They were successful with their running game because everybody they play is overloaded against the pass, because you have to be. If you have a stifling defense, like Baltimore has had, you can win regular season games. But to advance in the playoffs, you have to be able to throw the ball in big situations. Baltimore can't, the Jets can't and yesterday, Pittsburgh couldn't.  They ran the ball effectively and they got their tails kicked.
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    That's not really true.  New Orleans absolutely had a run game.

    We  may just see this philosophy differently. teams like to use the pass to set up the run.

    My comment is more about being able to use both to show balance and be able to adapt during games.

    Pretending a running game is not needed is really short sighted, in my opinion.  I'd argue it's a must in the postseason.

    If you get it by using the pass, so be it.  But, you need to establish it in certain games as well. Depends on the matchup.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]Yeah that worked out pretty well for the NFL's top rated offense this year who got stymied by great dbackfield play. 
    Posted by PhatRex[/QUOTE]

    This proves my point actually. They lost because they couldn't pass it when they had to.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    I think it puts too much on the idea of perfect execution. It's too much to ask over a season or a even a close game

    You saw how many drops they ahd last night. 

    Look at thre Pats loss to the Jets. A Crumpler drop and a Brady poor throw makes them lose the game, essentially. 

    14-0 with NY on the ropes is not a good spot. But instead, it was 7-3 and then 14-3, NY, as we know.

    If NE simply shows run, it doesn't play into NY's entire focus/gameplan of winning the line battle and then covering.

    If NE had tried to dictate with the run instead of moving away from it, trying to get cute, NE may have beaten NY.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid! : Agreed. They really need to rebuild their secondary. The plays they gave up on 3rd and long just killed them last night.
    Posted by CarveMaster[/QUOTE]

    Dick LeBeau is 74 and needs a new contract.  If he retires now, watch Pitt miss the playoffs next year.

    Sometimes I wonder what people are looking at when they say a defense is great.  It's very good/great up front.  Polamalu is the lone good/great player in the secondary.

    They need better CBs and better depth at CB.   This is why they were trying to sign Leigh Bodden.

    I am also not convinced they can keep all the players they have counted on for so long.

    Farrior is one year older. Woodley needs a deal and may be franchised.  

    I also think Tomlin and Mendenhall are overrated. LeBeau makes Tolmin a better coach and Mendenhall, while good/solid, is not Pro Bowl material.

    I don't see Mendenhall being any better than BJGE.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    The Steelers could not take away what the Packers do best..pass the ball.

    On the flip side the Steelers showed more balance, but were undone by 3 turnovers. -3 in turnovers usually not gonna get it done.

    So Rodgers, 3 TD passes no INTs..Roth..2 Td and 2 INts. 

    So it was really turnovers that decided the game for me..not the style of offense. 

    Fumble by mendenhall was a knife in the heart. 

    Turnover ratio was huge advantage for the Pats in the reg season. Not winning the turnover battle was a big factor in the Pats playoff loss (going against the season trend).
    So one can argue that turnover ratio dictated the success of the both the Super Bowl winner and the Patriots.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]Completely disagree with the original post...  Turnovers kill, especially in the playoffs and while the fumble hurt, the pick-6 Ben threw early was the difference maker.  Oh by the way, that came out of the PASSING GAME.  And as for treating the running game as a necessary annoyance, do you REALLY think that the Packers wouldn't have LOVED having Ryan Grant in the backfield...  I'm sure when he went down in week one, the entire team was thinking "whew... at least we don't have to deal with that annoying running game now"
    Posted by manowar333[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I think the whole point of this post went over your head like an errant hurl from Big Ben. Duh, it's better if you can run the ball effectively. Like New Orleans was able to do last year. I suppose I shouldn't have said those teams won "without" a running game. Of course they ran the ball from time to time.  Some even ran it well.  But they're all predominantly passing teams.

    Since the Polian Rules went into effect, passing has become the name of the game. In order to win in the NFL, you must be able to throw it effectively.

    This isn't complicated. It wasn't always the case either. See, e.g., Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. There's not going to be another journeyman QB like that winning the Super Bowl, nor will we see another '85 Bears or '00 Ravens type team win the Super Bowl again, unless they change the rules again.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wildwillis. Show Wildwillis's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    Personally I think that you need to be able to do both effectively, A great running game can beat up the other team and open up the play action.  A great passing game can soften up the D because they need to play off a bit.  Either way it goes you will not win (unless you get take aways) w/ out both.  Hence the game that must not be named and the loss to the Jets this year. 

    I for one would love to see Mark Ingram and the return of Donte Stallworth for next season w a pass rushing ROLB not Nink. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid! : ...It's no secret the last time the Pats went to and won the Superbowl Cory Dillion had 1,635 regular season yards and averaged 97 yards per game in the playoffs. So I personally think your "thesis" is bunk!  
    Posted by Prophet76[/QUOTE]

    That was then. Polian changed the rules after that season. The thesis holds.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

     In the old days you would pass off of the run, now you run off of the pass. 
      You still need a balanced attack to keep the defence honest but if you can't throw the ball the safties will cheat up on the line and you will not be able to run it either.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid! : That was then. Polian changed the rules after that season. The thesis holds.
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really hold, though.  Josh McDaniels in SB 42 proves this, as does every single Pats game in 2009 or 2010 when they didn't run the ball enough.

    It works against the teams that don't feature good/great defenses.

    Keep in mind, as many have mentioned, the turnovers from Rothlisturd and Mendenhall, eliminate the reality of 11 carries by Starks. 

    Rodgers also took sacks, which is one hit away from another concussion or an injury.  This is another reason why I don't buy your premise.

    I kept wondering where John Kuhn was last night for a change of pace, but give credit to McCarthy and Rodgers for running the spread and executing it.

    It was a strong one, just as it was for NE against Pitt in November.  We know why it works.

    Just don't expect that gameplan to be a slam dunk in every situation.

    The 3 Pitt turnovers actually dispel your premise.

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid! : That was then. Polian changed the rules after that season. The thesis holds.
    Posted by Muzwell[/QUOTE]

    Actually, it was the season before Dillon arrived, not the year after he arrived.

    I do agree Goodell wants ratings, the league likes this aerial stuff, etc, but carrying one bullet is not the consistent pattern of success.

    Being a chamaleon is.  GB got away with it by creating turnovers.

    There was a small window in that game where a lot of people said "why aren't they running a little more"?

    If they had lost, GB fans would look at the 11 carries and be skewering McCarthy this morning.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from WeDerrWEDAT. Show WeDerrWEDAT's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE] In the old days you would pass of of the run, now you run of of the pass.    You still need a balanced attack to keep the defence honest but if you can't throw the ball the safties will cheat up on the line and you will not be able to run it either.
    Posted by Mungomunro[/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.  Especially against the steelers this year.  If you try to run the ball on this defense, you play right into their hands.  Not only with the safeties but look at their LBs.  They aint built for coverage and that is where their weekness lies. Make them play the pass and they lose a little bit of that run stuffing ability. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    Maybe the right answer is that you need to be good in at least three of the four main phases of the game.  If you can defend against the run, defend against the pass, and pass well (as Green Bay can), you can survive without a running game.  If you run well and defend the run well, but are only average in the other two areas, passing and defending the pass (like the Steelers), you're in a tougher spot. 

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

    Re: It's the passing game, stupid!

    In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: It's the passing game, stupid! : It doesn't really hold, though.  Josh McDaniels in SB 42 proves this, as does every single Pats game in 2009 or 2010 when they didn't run the ball enough. It works against the teams that don't feature good/great defenses. ...Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, it does. Maybe I haven't articulated it well enough. But nothing anybody has said has proved it wrong. There are always fluke games, e.g., the aforementioned SB 42, and obviously if you turn the ball over, or your defense is Godawful, or... But the essence of the the thesis is that you absolutely cannot win consistently in the NFL at the highest level if you can't sling it. It's not more complicated than that. You can run the bejeesus out of the ball and play solid defense, but if your passing game is subpar, you can't win. 

    Anyway, it's my story and I'm sticking to it. Reasonable people can disagree and obviously many of you do. There are no reasonable Jets fans, so they have no credibility. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share