Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....
posted at 2/13/2012 6:59 AM EST
In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that....
" Both teams were typically running about 40% of the time or about 4 runs per 10-play drive. To say the Giants won the game because they ran more just isn't true ." No both teams were not running 40% of the time. The Giants were. We ran 29% of the time. 17 runs out of 58 plays. They ran 27 out of 67. The 10 more runs they had would take off at least 30 seconds per play wouldn't you say. Probably more since as you said they were trying to slow things down(we were not). So 10 runs at 30 seconds is 300 seconds or......5 minutes of clock that there offense was on the field. Imagine if we had used that type of plan. The Giants would have had less opportunities in the 4rth qtr and had less time to win the game. We were terrible at using the clock on offense and it is a direct result of refusing to run the football. Add to that our lead back was running well with a 4.4 ave and it is mind blowing. And yes I will say that Belichick or whoever is responsible for instituting a game plan that calls for 90 pass atts to 35 rushing atts in 2 Super Bowl losses which results in 15.5 ppg is absolutely wrong.
Posted by TrueChamp
Champ, read what I said. I excluded the Pats 57 minute drive at the end of the game because of course that was all passing of necessity and I excluded the Giants kneel down drive at the end of the second half because that really isn't a drive. When you make those adjustments, the Pats had 33 pass plays and 19 runs (17 if you want to exclude the reverses that Welker ran). The Giants had 40 pass play and 27 runs (26 if you exclude the Ware run). 19 divided by 52 = 36.5%. 27 divided by 67 = 40.3%. Look at the drive charts: both teams were calling about 4 runs in 10 plays. The difference was not great. Sure, throw in the 8 passes Brady made in the last 57 second drive and the Pats passing percentage goes way up. But those 57 seconds are not representative of the rest of the game.
What you fail to see is that the run actually hurt two key drives for the Pats in the second half. The Pats had two great drives right before the half and coming out of the half in the third quarter. Both resulted in TDs. On their second drive of the second half, though, they went to a run formation and handed off to BJGE. They got two yards on first down. That drive ended up with a three and out, because the second down throw to BJGE was incomplete and with third and eight, the Giants D was able to tee up on Brady and sack him (should they have run there?). And on their second to last drive they were moving the ball quite well till they handed off to BJGE on first down and got -1 yards. The next play was the Welker pass. Should they have handed it off a second time to Benny there?
If you're going to claim running would have improved things--point to the places where they should have run more. I'll give you running rather than throwing on the Pats first offensive play. But look at each drive after that:
Drive 2--they started with a hand off to Benny for -1. They ran 4 times in 10 plays. Where else should they have run?
Drive 3--It was a three and out. Incompletion on first down was no better than the Benny -1 on first down in the previous drive. They then ran Welker for 3 yards on second down. Then they pretty much had to throw. Are you arguing that they should have run on first down there? Or third?
Drives 4 and 5--both TD drives. I assume you're not going to argue with the playcalling in those? They ran 7 times in 22 plays in those two drives, lower than you'd like. But are you complaining? Those were their two most successful drives.
Drive 6--Another three and out started with a hand off to BJGE for two yards. You think they should have run on second down there?
Drive 7--They had run with BJGE on 2 of 4 plays when Brady threw the interception on play 5. Maybe there they should have run on the fifth play . . . but balance wasn't the problem on that drive.
Drive 8--They run 3 times in 11 plays. They are moving the ball well despite starting at their own 8 yard line. On first and ten from the Giants' 43 they hand off to BJGE for -1. That sets in motion the Welker incompletion. Should they have run on second and 11 instead of passed there?
Drive 9--it was 57 seconds to end of game--of course they threw on every down.
So tell me where the extra run plays should have come in?
Now I'm not claiming that things like the safety and interception and an incompletion on first down were irrelevant. Those were problems too. All I'm saying is that the run isn't the panacea you seem to think it is. The Giants maintained TOP mostly by throwing. Completions in-bounds eat up clock just as well as running plays. They had a 75% completion rate on 40 passes, thanks to their own good play and our defense's inability to stop their passing game. That's a ton of time taken off the clock. The reality is that the Pats have two major problems: (1) they lack diversity on offense, not because of poor play calling, but because of a lack of great talent at RB and WR (other than the slot) and (2) they have fewer drives than ideal and often start with poor field position because our defense allows other teams to eat clock and accumulate yards.
I'm all for a better running game--but that means getting better running talent. It also means getting receivers who can stretch the field enough to pull safeties back from the LOS. The play calling isn't the problem. BB is a very good game planner. The problem is a lack of talent. In fact, rather than looking at BB as a failure for losing the Super Bowl, you should be looking at him as a genius for getting this team to the Super Bowl given the limited talent it has. Great game planning is what got us as far as we did get. Handing the ball to BJGE over and over would have gotten us to 8 and 8 at best.