Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    Why do these rankings matter? Wozzy was talking about how they did in respective SBs they won and lost. He knows what the D has been in regular season. The point he's been making is that their offensive performance in the SB in 2011 and 2007 were below their respective reg season norms.

     

    If you want to compare across years, compare the number of points the scored and gave up on the SBs they played.

    They gave up 17, 29 and 21 on the SBs they won.

    They gave up 17 and 19 on the SBs they lost - both on the good end of their range - despite the change in emphasis on rules that benefit the passing game.

    They scored 20, 32, 24 on the SBs they won.

    They scored 14 and 17 on the SBs they lost - both on the bad end of their range despite playing under rules emphasis that are supposed to benefit more the best-passing team in the league.

    Everyone understands there is a correlation between reg season performance and SB success. The correlations of every metric with SB success nowhere near 1. What happened in SB 42 and 46 are actually examples of correlations not explaining the outcomes. 



    it matters because the op is talking about ball control.  Ball control means that chances are, you're gonna score fewer points.  If one's team is going to score fewer points, one's defense had better be pretty good (meaning pts. against better be top 3).  In regards to Passing Defense Efficiency, if New England's Passing Defense Efficiency is not very good - it's going to likely result in higher points against.  Bottom line is that they can't get of the field; especially when it counts the most.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    I am very much at peace with knowing we won't win a SB unless we commit to a run, don't turn it over multiple times and for Brady to be better than he has been.

     

     



    I am very much at peace with knowing BB has already blown it and the mediocre team around Brady will not be dramatically upgraded before Tom goes off into the sunset.

     

     

    The Brady years have been squandered by far too many poor decisions at the top and we will enter into a mediocre period with our mediocre team once Brady is gone.

    And I will be here to say I told you so.

     



    Yes, BB as coach of the year, almost any year and the best drafts of any team in the last 3 years, equates to BB "blowing it". Also, when BB dealt for Moss and Welker, that was really a problem for Brady, too. Poor Tom.

     

    BB was the slam dunk executive of the year in 2010, too. Maybe he should change his titles with Caserio's just so he can get those awards, huh?

    Do you also blame BB for Brady going down in 2008, too? Hey, didn't that happen when he underthrew Moss the play earlier in the shotgun, he stepped into it and underthrew him again because he isn't a good deep ball thrower like he thinks he is? Funny. Seems like he got hurt within the very framework of what this article posted talks about. The KC Chiefs had no interesting in defending the run that day, because they knew where the balls were going.

     



    Interesting spin on history. Brady was injured because he thinks he is better than he is and stepped into a throw that he shouldn't have? 

    Are you sure it's not because someone blew a block and a defender lunged low into his knee? That is what I remember anyway. 

    Again, by implicating Brady in nearly every bad thing that happens to this team, you are also implicating your dreamboat BB. its called ultimate accountability. It starts and stops with bb.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

     

     The best thing that could happen to the Pats is for Bob Kraft to fire Bill Belichick and hire Mike Salk.

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I am very much at peace with knowing we won't win a SB unless we commit to a run, don't turn it over multiple times and for Brady to be better than he has been.

     

     

     

     



    I am very much at peace with knowing BB has already blown it and the mediocre team around Brady will not be dramatically upgraded before Tom goes off into the sunset.

     

     

     

     

    The Brady years have been squandered by far too many poor decisions at the top and we will enter into a mediocre period with our mediocre team once Brady is gone.

    And I will be here to say I told you so.

     

     

     



    Yes, BB as coach of the year, almost any year and the best drafts of any team in the last 3 years, equates to BB "blowing it". Also, when BB dealt for Moss and Welker, that was really a problem for Brady, too. Poor Tom.

     

     

     

    BB was the slam dunk executive of the year in 2010, too. Maybe he should change his titles with Caserio's just so he can get those awards, huh?

    Do you also blame BB for Brady going down in 2008, too? Hey, didn't that happen when he underthrew Moss the play earlier in the shotgun, he stepped into it and underthrew him again because he isn't a good deep ball thrower like he thinks he is? Funny. Seems like he got hurt within the very framework of what this article posted talks about. The KC Chiefs had no interesting in defending the run that day, because they knew where the balls were going.

     

     

     



    Interesting spin on history. Brady was injured because he thinks he is better than he is and stepped into a throw that he shouldn't have? 

     

     

    Are you sure it's not because someone blew a block and a defender lunged low into his knee? That is what I remember anyway. 

    Again, by implicating Brady in nearly every bad thing that happens to this team, you are also implicating your dreamboat BB. its called ultimate accountability. It starts and stops with bb.

     




    Umm, Brady had 6 seconds on that play.  Morris blocked Pollard into the turf. Pollard then sneakily lunged from ground level. But, the reason why Brady wound up and took forever to get rid of the ball with a horrendous trajectory on that ball to Moss, was because he missed it the play before. So, Brady wanted to be dramatic and do it again to be the hero. It's a problem. It's a major problem. 

     

    Think the 50th TD pass to Moss in Week 17 AND that play before. He underthrew Moss on that play before, too.

    Hmmmmmm.

    Sure, yes, it sure seems like Brady wants to make it about Brady and make a splashy play, quite possibly with Moss demanding the ball on back to back plays.  Hmm.

    Did I say "hmmm"?  LMAO

    Dude, just admit it. It's been disturbing to watch Brady chase big plays and/or stats. He's changed and it changed in 2007.   We've blown 2 SBs with this approach.



    Facts sprinkled in with supposition. If Brady wanted to make it about Brady and not be a team player, why doesn't bb trade him and start mallett? By your account, this has been going on for over 5 years. I would have thought bb learned his,lesson and moved on from Brady...yet he is still on the team?

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     The best thing that could happen to the Pats is for Bob Kraft to fire Bill Belichick and hire Mike Salk.

     

     




    You lose. No counter means you lose.  You clearly have no idea how our offense was run in the Weis years. LOL

     

    You prove it every time. You think Brady has to throw and throw and throw.  Ugh. Pink helmets like you are so awful.   Show up in a Brady jersey, don't talilgate, hope for a bad D to be in Foxborough and then act confused in January when Brady craps his pants trying to pretend it's September vs Jax.

    Give it up.  The time has come. It's ok to admit you're wrong and have been wrong. By your theory, you'd hope Welkie is still here with a 36 year old Moss and let's relive 2007, not caring why it failed. lmao

    Please try to learn concepts of the game. It won't hurt you. John Elway and Gomer sucked in the postseason because they thought it was about them. Ouch.  Hmm. Truth can hurt.


    No, no I'm in complete agreement.  Mike Salk knows way more about winning football than Bill Belichick.  

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    You know what else I really like about Mike Salk?    He says this:

     In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45.

     

    Yet in 2003, the Pats ran 473 times and passed 578 times in 1051 scrimmage plays for guess what? A 55/45 pass-run ratio.  I really like a guy who either can't get his facts straight or can't do basic math.  A guy like that would certainly outcoach Bill Belichick, I'm sure. 

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I am very much at peace with knowing we won't win a SB unless we commit to a run, don't turn it over multiple times and for Brady to be better than he has been.

     

     

     

     



    I am very much at peace with knowing BB has already blown it and the mediocre team around Brady will not be dramatically upgraded before Tom goes off into the sunset.

     

     

     

     

    The Brady years have been squandered by far too many poor decisions at the top and we will enter into a mediocre period with our mediocre team once Brady is gone.

    And I will be here to say I told you so.

     

     

     



    Yes, BB as coach of the year, almost any year and the best drafts of any team in the last 3 years, equates to BB "blowing it". Also, when BB dealt for Moss and Welker, that was really a problem for Brady, too. Poor Tom.

     

     

     

    BB was the slam dunk executive of the year in 2010, too. Maybe he should change his titles with Caserio's just so he can get those awards, huh?

    Do you also blame BB for Brady going down in 2008, too? Hey, didn't that happen when he underthrew Moss the play earlier in the shotgun, he stepped into it and underthrew him again because he isn't a good deep ball thrower like he thinks he is? Funny. Seems like he got hurt within the very framework of what this article posted talks about. The KC Chiefs had no interesting in defending the run that day, because they knew where the balls were going.

     

     

     



    Interesting spin on history. Brady was injured because he thinks he is better than he is and stepped into a throw that he shouldn't have? 

     

     

    Are you sure it's not because someone blew a block and a defender lunged low into his knee? That is what I remember anyway. 

    Again, by implicating Brady in nearly every bad thing that happens to this team, you are also implicating your dreamboat BB. its called ultimate accountability. It starts and stops with bb.

     




    Umm, Brady had 6 seconds on that play.  Morris blocked Pollard into the turf. Pollard then sneakily lunged from ground level. But, the reason why Brady wound up and took forever to get rid of the ball with a horrendous trajectory on that ball to Moss, was because he missed it the play before. So, Brady wanted to be dramatic and do it again to be the hero. It's a problem. It's a major problem. 

     

    Think the 50th TD pass to Moss in Week 17 AND that play before. He underthrew Moss on that play before, too.

    Hmmmmmm.

    Sure, yes, it sure seems like Brady wants to make it about Brady and make a splashy play, quite possibly with Moss demanding the ball on back to back plays.  Hmm.

    Did I say "hmmm"?  LMAO

    Dude, just admit it. It's been disturbing to watch Brady chase big plays and/or stats. He's changed and it changed in 2007.   We've blown 2 SBs with this approach.

     

     



    Facts sprinkled in with supposition. If Brady wanted to make it about Brady and not be a team player, why doesn't bb trade him and start mallett? By your account, this has been going on for over 5 years. I would have thought bb learned his,lesson and moved on from Brady...yet he is still on the team?

     

     

     




    Good question. Probably because right now, Brady on his worst day is similar to Mallett. But, maybe we'll see things differently in the preseason. 

     

    The better question is, the obvious choice to start Brady remains, but why does Brady now where a ski mask in January and be worse in the postseason?

    Why is Brady more girly? 

    If BB traded Brady, he'd be maligned.  So, since he shouldn't do that, why isn't Brady held accountable?  2007 and his crappy postseasons have been going on for years and years, so what will Brady do differently now?

     




    Facts are, Brady is a much better QB than he was 10 yrs ago.

    Facts are, the Defense is much worse than it was 10 years ago.

    Facts are,  BB has fielded some of the worst pass D's in Patriots history.  In fact the 2011 D was the second worst!!!  Only the 72 Pat's pass D was (slightly) worse and they went 3-11.

    Only ONE The 2003 D, was very good  The rest were poor to absolutely the worst in the NFL

    Troy Aikman wasn't kidding when he said "worst defense to ever play in a SB" 

    That was the truth.

    Here are the facts:

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/new-englands-capital-f-fatal-flaw/7650/

    2011 D = Capital "F" for FATAL FLAW and FAILURE

     Like I've been telling you for two years.  NO QB in the NFL will ever win with that bad of a pass D.   It's just too hard to overcome and there's a 100% chance that the opposing D is better.  No one ever has and no one ever will!

    Numbers don't lie.  BB ='s bad pass D.  Fact! 

     

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    it matters because the op is talking about ball control.  Ball control means that chances are, you're gonna score fewer points.  If one's team is going to score fewer points, one's defense had better be pretty good (meaning pts. against better be top 3).  In regards to Passing Defense Efficiency, if New England's Passing Defense Efficiency is not very good - it's going to likely result in higher points against.  Bottom line is that they can't get of the field; especially when it counts the most.

    Ball control does not mean you'll score fewer points at all, that's your opinion.  The same style of offense can lead to a landslide of points, if the opposing team is hemorrhaging in the passing game then you'll keep passing and ringing up points.  

    In 2007 we we're balanced to start the season, most dangerous in the beginning when Randy Moss and the play action pass opened up more opportunities.  As that season went on we ran less and less, I suspect because Maroney was injured, and slowly we started to score less and less.

    You keep saying how the defense couldn't get off the field, the bottom line is the offense couldn't stay on the field, they either scored or punted, feast or famine... I contend the defense stayed on the field because the offense spent so much time on the sidelines and the defense wore down.

    "Per" or your convoluted passer ratings are garbage.  SeattlePat summed it up perfectly;

     "They gave up 17, 29 and 21 on the SBs they won.

    They gave up 17 and 19 on the SBs they lost - both on the good end of their range - despite the change in emphasis on rules that benefit the passing game.

    They scored 20, 32, 24 on the SBs they won.

    They scored 14 and 17 on the SBs they lost - both on the bad end of their range despite playing under rules emphasis that are supposed to benefit more the best-passing team in the league.

    Everyone understands there is a correlation between reg season performance and SB success. The correlations of every metric with SB success nowhere near 1. What happened in SB 42 and 46 are actually examples of correlations not explaining the outcomes."

    14 and 17 points scored by the Pat's O blows, it stinks, you can't blame the poor showing by the offense on the defense.

    The Pat's defense showed up, 17 and 19 points allowed are better than all of the Super Bowl totals but 2001.  They forced the Giant's to punt more than us and the Pat's offense did nothing, all the convoluted, arbitrary stats won't change or spit shine it into a diamond.

    Points scored vs points allowed... all these other stats tell a story but in relation to the final score are complete BS.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

     

     In a game with fewer than average possessions, the score will typicaly be lower than average. This makes the defense superficially look better and the offense superficially look worse. But it's really just the result of the game having fewer posssessions. With fewer possessions the offense can't score as much and the defense can't give up as much. 

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    There were an equal amount of possessions in the game in question, the Patriot's forced the Giants to punt more than the Giants did to the Pats, the fewer possessions argument is complete horse sht.  

    14 and 17 points scored sucks, explain that and we'll be able to move on, and do us all a favor, explain it so a twelve year old can understand it, don't provide us with advanced mathematics just explain why the offense couldn't score given they had or would have had more possessions than the Giants if they hadn't turned it over twice.

    Oh yeah and the game clock stops on an incomplete pass, it keeps moving on a run as long as you stay inbounds... what is so difficult about that to understand?

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    Or here, this will be fun, lets make a flow chart so everyone can see it for themselves:  

    Super Bowl scores              

    Patriots      -     Opponents     

    2001:  20 points   -       17 points    = WIN

    2003:  32 points   -       29 points    = WIN   (some killer defense there)

    2004:  24 points   -       21 points    = WIN

    2007:  14 points   -       17 points    = LOSS

    2011:  17 points   -       21 points    = LOSS  

    See, we didn't need the double, top secret decoder ring to decipher the numbers, they're right there for all to see.    

    I mean just looking at that right there, who suxed eggs in the last two Super Bowls, the offense or defense?  Nevermind that 2007 -2011 represents the newer, pass happy, bloated scores NFL...

    I guess those "ball control" offenses will be remembered for their high scores and this newer pass happy offense will be known for... er well... choking when it mattered most and blaming the defense?

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Ball control does not mean you'll score fewer points at all, that's your opinion.  The same style of offense can lead to a landslide of points, if the opposing team is hemorrhaging in the passing game then you'll keep passing and ringing up points.  



    Wozzy, in this thread, weren't you saying that ball control meant that the opponents would have fewer possessions - and therefore, wouldn't score as many points? Wouldn't the same be true if the Patriots had fewer possessions?

    I'm all for having a good mix of plays, whether it be pass, run, play actions, hurry up, screens, ect. Nothing wrong with keeping opposing defenses confused. Ball Control is something that the Patriots haven't done well since the mid 2000s. And, yes, IMO - the defense has to be up to the task; especially Pass Defense Efficiency - because that is our weakest area on defense until proven otherwise.  Please don't tell me there is zero relationship between Pass Defense Efficiency and points given up per game.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Or here, this will be fun, lets make a flow chart so everyone can see it for themselves:  

    Super Bowl scores              

    Patriots      -     Opponents     

    2001:  20 points   -       17 points    = WIN

    2003:  32 points   -       29 points    = WIN   (some killer defense there)

    2004:  24 points   -       21 points    = WIN

    2007:  14 points   -       17 points    = LOSS

    2011:  17 points   -       21 points    = LOSS  

    See, we didn't need the double, top secret decoder ring to decipher the numbers, they're right there for all to see.    

    I mean just looking at that right there, who suxed eggs in the last two Super Bowls, the offense or defense?  Nevermind that 2007 -2011 represents the newer, pass happy, bloated scores NFL...

    I guess those "ball control" offenses will be remembered for their high scores and this newer pass happy offense will be known for... er well... choking when it mattered most and blaming the defense?

     



    The Patriots offense scored 13 points in 2001. 

     

    Do you agree or disagree?

     

     



    Well, yes, and no...lol Laughing

     

    On paper, yeah, it looks like the last 2 SB losses we can "blame" the offense because they didn't score many points and the defense did "great" because they kept the score close.

    One of the things I've said is that winning a SB not only takes a good game plan and execution, but it's also about a lil luck AND WHO THEY'RE MATCHED UP AGAINST. The Giants team that beat the Patriots had a similar makeup as the Patriots of 2001-2004. They had a pass rush and pass coverage that was just good enough to mess with Brady and the offense. Some fans totally discredit the Giants team like they didn't even show up.  I don't think many fans have had faith in the defense's ability to make timely stops when it mattered most.

    The 2001-2004 Patriots did score more points in the playoffs, and let up more points in the playoffs - but they were able to either keep the game close and score on final possessions or made timely stops when needed.

    So, basically what I'm saying is that the defense has to improve this year - so that we can match up against teams with better defenses should the Patriot's offense sputter in the Big Game again. If the Patriots meet up against an offensive minded team - then the Patriots have a good chance in beating those kinds of teams; even with a "weak" pass rush and pass coverage.

    But hey, the defense appears to get better, and am hoping they improve enough come playoff time this year.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    You know what else I really like about Mike Salk?    He says this:

     In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45.

     

    Yet in 2003, the Pats ran 473 times and passed 578 times in 1051 scrimmage plays for guess what? A 55/45 pass-run ratio.  I really like a guy who either can't get his facts straight or can't do basic math.  A guy like that would certainly outcoach Bill Belichick, I'm sure. 

     

     



    Really, terrible writing there. A terrible article based on a complete falsity.

     

    My brain is literally going to explode if I have to hear about running resting a defense. 

    when you run the GAME CLOCK keeps going .... but the REAL WORLD clock keeps running whether you are passing or running. 

    Between every single down roughly 35-45 seconds of REAL LIFE time passes whether it's an incomplete pass, a complete pass, or a run.

    Anyone saying otherwise is trying to BEND PHYSICAL LAWS as much as they are trying to deliberately misrepresent something for the sake of an argument.  

    After that ... it's the usual Boston.com fodder from the same folks: when the offense scores, it's barely mentioned. when they don't it's them messing up ... but never the opponents playing well.

    When the defense plays poorly (because they never really play well in the post-season) it's  the offense really at fault. Then applaud their mediocrity ...



    The whole article shows that Salk really knows little about football.  That's what prompted me to respond sarcastically.  It wasn't even worth refuting some of his points they were so off base. 

    While I don't have any problem at all with a "ball control" style of offense if you've got the personnel to pull it off on offense and your defense is good enough to keep games close, I don't think that ball control is necessary to win or the only way to win or, more to the point, a way the Pats could have won over the past few years.  

    I don't understand why people can't simply acknowledge how brilliant BB is as a coach and instead want to moan about his approach to offense (an approach that has produced some of the most productive offenses in NFL history!).  The hurry-up approach he (and his OCs) developed over the past few years is a brilliant strategic solution to the problem of winning when a team has a great QB, good to great slot receivers and TEs, weak outside receivers, average running ability, and a weak pass defense.  BB understands the make-up of his team, where it is strong and where it is weak, and he creates an overall approach that works given those strengths and weaknesses.  It's pure genius.  

    The past few years, BB has developed a hurry up approach not because he's been mesmerized by Chip Kelly or forgotten football fundamentals or isn't as smart about football as Rusty and Mike Salk. He's developed it because it works well with the personnel he has had on the team.  Now the personnel is changing and we may see something different on offense this year.  But the change will not be driven by BB having some kind of epiphany where he suddenly realizes he's been misguided for a decade and designing the offense all wrong . . . it will be driven because of differences in personnel that require a different approach.  In my opinion, BB has done not only the right things--but actually brilliantly good things--over the past decade.  That includes his use of the shotgun, the pass-heavy offense.  I believe he will continue to be brilliant next year--and the offense he designs will be an effective one for the personnel he has, just as it has been in the past.  Will it be more ball control this year?  Maybe, but I'm sure BB himself isn't 100% sure yet.  He'll see what kind of talent he has in camp and preseason and make his adjustments then. 

     

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    Salk added the three seasons together and got those percentages, we were 8th, 12th and 5th in rushing attempts, are we really going pretend like we didn't see the difference in this offense we've been watching for the past five years which, when put under pressure couldn't convert a single down vs the Weis offenses who won three Super Bowls in the waning seconds by executing under duress.

    You can nit pick every little minute of statistics and cherry pick the ones you like, tailor it to fit your argument, but the proof is in the results.  2001-2004 we were clutch, we played a ball control offense as EVERY PROFESSIONAL, former coach, announcer, sports pundit or casual blogger will attest to.  

    I mean it seems like now you guys are arguing whether we ran this style of offense in the winning days... weren't you there, didn't you watch the games, go check Wikpedia for cripessakes! That's what our offense was famous for, please don't try to rewrite history, I own the DVD.

    This isn't an argument about whether those early defenses were better, obviously they were.

    But what you guys are saying is that in the last two Super Bowls we lost because the defense wasn't good enough, that the offense's style of play has no bearing on the defense or special teams and that they showed up and did their job on the last two Super Bowl Sundays which is garbage.  

    We were a finesse offense, great in the regular season but a liability in the playoffs.  You have to be able to win ugly in the playoffs, we couldn't...

    We haven't been good enough on offense or defense, but they don't hand out Super Bowl trophies for your regular season record or how points you rang up against the Bengals. And all three phases of the game work in tandem so a quick strike, feast or famine offense that can't score or stay on the field has a direct effect on field position, times clock and most importantly the offense and special teams.  We haven't been able to sustain that for three playoff games in a row, perfect execution in the passing game isn't easy and the opposing team, if physical enough can throw off finesse; see Rams 2001 Super Bowl and both Pats/Giants Super Bowls for good examples.

    Pretending like that had no bearing on the Super Bowl results is nonsensical or you've put blinders on because you prefer a wide open offensive attack over the slower, plodding offensive style that we used to use.  Tell us how that's been working out for you?  

    One thing Salk was right about, we became the Peyton Manning Colts, the single team we used to laugh at and know we would beat them by outmuscling them.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    Good thread with lots of interesting points. Here's my two cents and what I'm struggling with. The idea that a ball control style offense is a cure for offensive woes seems illogical to me.

    The point of offense is to score as much as possible. That only changes situationally, like protecting a lead and chewing clock. But that necessitates getting the lead in the first place.

    To me, the merit of a ball control offense is directly related to the performance of the defense. If your defense is strong then you're less concerned about having to score as frequently and possibly as quickly as you can, because you are confident the defense will get itself off the field and not give up points.

    A team with a shut down defense has more flexibility to run whatever offense it wants because less is at stake with each offensive possession. The Pats haven't had that luxury lately as they've needed to capitalize on each offensive possession, lacking a shut down defense.

    I certainly agree with the idea of good offensive balance, but not for the purpose of controlling the ball, but rather being less predictable, for the purpose of scoring more points against the better defenses.

    The better the Pats defense becomes, the more they can run a ball control offense to their benefit. Lately, the only real benefit to ball control offense for the Pats would be to protect a vulnerable defense by keeping them off the field. That's somewhat counterintuitive though because nothing protects a vulnerable defense more than scoring points.

    I think we'll see good balance this year from the Pats offense. Not to cure offensive woes but rather because I think the defense will be better.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    Here are the rush and pass percentages by year for all of BB's career at the Pats, listed from highest rushing percentage to lowest. 

    Stats like this obviously don't tell the whole story because there are different types of runs from different types of formations.  But in terms of just the balance between rush and pass, there's been quite a bit of variation from year to year.  I think the balance mostly depends on three factors: First and most importantly, it has to do with the talent on offense.  If we have poor receivers, poor QBs, or good RBs we'll run more.  If we have good receivers, poor RBs, and a good QB we'll pass more.  Second, it has to do with game situations.  Obviously, BB adjusts his run-pass mix and play calling based on the team he's playing, the particular match-ups in the game, and the particular situation the team is in (down-distance-time-score).  Lastly, BB probably takes into consideration his defense's abilities. A strong defense does allow you to run more, since it tends to keep the game lower scoring, while a weaker defense often requires a higher scoring offense, which tends to require more passing. 

     

      YEAR   ATT RUSH     ATT PASS         SACKS       PCT RUSH      PCT PASS

    2004       524             485                  26               50.6%            49.4%

    2006       499             527                  29               47.3%            52.7%

    2001       473             482                  46               47.3%            52.7%

    2008       513             534                  48               46.8%            53.2%

    2010       454             507                  25               46.0%            54.0%

    2003       473             537                  32               45.4%            54.6%

    2012       523             641                  27               43.9%            56.1%

    2009       466             592                  18               43.3%            56.7%

    2007       451             586                  21               42.6%            57.4%

    2005       439             564                  28               42.6%           57.4%

    2000       424             565                  48               40.9%            59.1%

    2011       438             612                  32               40.5%            59.5%

    2002       395             605                  31               38.3%             61.7%

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to stegall85's comment:

    Good thread with lots of interesting points. Here's my two cents and what I'm struggling with. The idea that a ball control style offense is a cure for offensive woes seems illogical to me.

    The point of offense is to score as much as possible. That only changes situationally, like protecting a lead and chewing clock. But that necessitates getting the lead in the first place.

    To me, the merit of a ball control offense is directly related to the performance of the defense. If your defense is strong then you're less concerned about having to score as frequently and possibly as quickly as you can, because you are confident the defense will get itself off the field and not give up points.

    A team with a shut down defense has more flexibility to run whatever offense it wants because less is at stake with each offensive possession. The Pats haven't had that luxury lately as they've needed to capitalize on each offensive possession, lacking a shut down defense.

    I certainly agree with the idea of good offensive balance, but not for the purpose of controlling the ball, but rather being less predictable, for the purpose of scoring more points against the better defenses.

    The better the Pats defense becomes, the more they can run a ball control offense to their benefit. Lately, the only real benefit to ball control offense for the Pats would be to protect a vulnerable defense by keeping them off the field. That's somewhat counterintuitive though because nothing protects a vulnerable defense more than scoring points.

    I think we'll see good balance this year from the Pats offense. Not to cure offensive woes but rather because I think the defense will be better.



    There seems to be a myth floating around here that a "control" game is a low scoring game.  You want to be able to play both styles and those early Pat's teams certainly did, Weis was the first to put Brady in an empty backfield and they rang up some points.  

    But you want to be able to play that ball control, physical, high efficiency playoff style of football because the playoffs are in December, there may be snow but more importantly because being bigger and stronger than your opponent actually matters.  You can win with both styles, but you have to be able to play physical in the playoffs and that means pounding the rock.

    The play that defined that last playoff loss to the Ravens for me was Ridley getting knocked out, they wanted it more, they played a more balanced attack offensively, heavily worked the short side of the field in the passing game but took some shots deep, but at the end of the day they were just tougher mentally and physically.  

    I think we've slowly been headed back in this direction anyway, but having another media member point out the obvious to me was refreshing.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    I think it's ultimately about the effect each of offense and defense have on each other. To me, any style of offense, in terms of analyzing it's benefit to the team overall has to factor in what level of performance the defense can provide.

    An offense going 3 and out hurts any defense but it hurts a shut down defense less because they're less vulnerable.

    The point about all 3 phases having to help each other is ultimately what it's about. It certainly seems that recently the Pats have been focussed on scoring as much as possible and seemingly feeling that their better chance to do that is through the air. That would seem personnel driven, both in terms of what they have on offense and what they have on defense.

    I think we're going to see a noticeably upgraded defense this year with the spin off benefits that will provide to offensive game planning.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

     

    Being able to play ball control when you have the lead is definitely something you want to be able to do.  But it does require a complementary defense.  If your defense is prone to giving up quick scores (like the last Giants drive in SB 46), you take a lot of risk trying to run the clock out in a close game because you can't be sure you can stop a quick scoring drive by your opponents.  Back in 2003 and 2004 when the Pats had great defenses, you'd often see BB run a lot in the second half to simply run out the clock.  But at the time, the defense was very reliable.  Since that time, the defense has slowly deteriorated making a ball control offensive strategy much more risky.  When you see your defense just self-destruct (for instance, like it did against Dan Orlovsky a few years ago) you just can't run the clock out.  You need to score and score a lot.  And that requires a more explosive offensive strategy than ground and pound. 

     

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    I think it's ultimately about the effect each of offense and defense have on each other. To me, any style of offense, in terms of analyzing it's benefit to the team overall has to factor in what level of performance the defense can provide.

    An offense going 3 and out hurts any defense but it hurts a shut down defense less because they're less vulnerable.

    The point about all 3 phases having to help each other is ultimately what it's about. It certainly seems that recently the Pats have been focussed on scoring as much as possible and seemingly feeling that their better chance to do that is through the air. That would seem personnel driven, both in terms of what they have on offense and what they have on defense.

    I think we're going to see a noticeably upgraded defense this year with the spin off benefits that will provide to offensive game planning.

     


    I agree the defense is improving, has improved enough this year to health provided be dominant

    But the defense played good enough to win in those Super Bowls and the offense shrank.  

    It's hard if not impossible to win with that wide open style, it happened once with the Saints/Colts in 2010, but both had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and both played in domes... we don't have that luxury.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Being able to play ball control when you have the lead is definitely something you want to be able to do.  But it does require a complementary defense.  If your defense is prone to giving up quick scores (like the last Giants drive in SB 46), you take a lot of risk trying to run the clock out in a close game because you can't be sure you can stop a quick scoring drive by your opponents.  Back in 2003 and 2004 when the Pats had great defenses, you'd often see BB run a lot in the second half to simply run out the clock.  But at the time, the defense was very reliable.  Since that time, the defense has slowly deteriorated making a ball control offensive strategy much more risky.  When you see your defense just self-destruct (for instance, like it did against Dan Orlovsky a few years ago) you just can't run the clock out.  You need to score and score a lot.  And that requires a more explosive offensive strategy than ground and pound. 

     

     



    I agree, we're largely saying the same thing. I do think that it's personnel driven. For a team like the Vikings for example, they have a better chance to score by running the ball than passing because of the relative talent distribution on offense.

    I like where the Pats are at in their personnel at RB and o-line and I think they can now succeed with more of a ground and pound type of offense where maybe run sets up pass more than the reverse or at least more balance.

    More critically though I'm quite optimistic, perhaps too much but we'll see, about where the defense is heading.

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Salk added the three seasons together and got those percentages

     

    If he did that, Wozzy, he did his math wrong, because when you add the three seasons together you get a rushing percentage of 47.8% for the three winning Super Bowl seasons, not 49.5%.  


    It is possible to get to 49.4% for those three years if you don't count sacks as pass plays. The only way I get 49.5% is if I calculate the rushing percentage for 2001 while disregarding completely the 46 sacks Brady took. But it seems like those 46 plays are significant, no? 

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from stegall85. Show stegall85's posts

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    I think it's ultimately about the effect each of offense and defense have on each other. To me, any style of offense, in terms of analyzing it's benefit to the team overall has to factor in what level of performance the defense can provide.

    An offense going 3 and out hurts any defense but it hurts a shut down defense less because they're less vulnerable.

    The point about all 3 phases having to help each other is ultimately what it's about. It certainly seems that recently the Pats have been focussed on scoring as much as possible and seemingly feeling that their better chance to do that is through the air. That would seem personnel driven, both in terms of what they have on offense and what they have on defense.

    I think we're going to see a noticeably upgraded defense this year with the spin off benefits that will provide to offensive game planning.

     


    I agree the defense is improving, has improved enough this year to health provided be dominant

    But the defense played good enough to win in those Super Bowls and the offense shrank.  

    It's hard if not impossible to win with that wide open style, it happened once with the Saints/Colts in 2010, but both had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and both played in domes... we don't have that luxury.



    I understand the point about the defense playing well enough in the sense of how many points they gave up relative to how many the offense could usually be counted on to provide.

    The problem was that the usual wasn't happening in terms of offensive production and yet the Pats still held late leads, which the defense couldn't hold.

    These things are always circular. I agree that the defense outplayed expectations while the offense did not meet expectations, but the reality remains that even one extra stop by the defense may have been enough to provide a victory.

    Your point about the wide open style not seeming to work is vaild except I think it's often just a function of talent distribution. The high powered offensive teams are usually lacking in good defenses. If you ever get a team with both a great defense and high powered offense then I expect the wide open style would be fine. Tough to have both with the salary cap.

     

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

    Re: Pats should consider a return to a ball control offense...

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Salk added the three seasons together and got those percentages, we were 8th, 12th and 5th in rushing attempts, are we really going pretend like we didn't see the difference in this offense we've been watching for the past five years which, when put under pressure couldn't convert a single down vs the Weis offenses who won three Super Bowls in the waning seconds by executing under duress.

    You can nit pick every little minute of statistics and cherry pick the ones you like, tailor it to fit your argument, but the proof is in the results.  2001-2004 we were clutch, we played a ball control offense as EVERY PROFESSIONAL, former coach, announcer, sports pundit or casual blogger will attest to.  

    I mean it seems like now you guys are arguing whether we ran this style of offense in the winning days... weren't you there, didn't you watch the games, go check Wikpedia for cripessakes! That's what our offense was famous for, please don't try to rewrite history, I own the DVD.

    This isn't an argument about whether those early defenses were better, obviously they were.

    But what you guys are saying is that in the last two Super Bowls we lost because the defense wasn't good enough, that the offense's style of play has no bearing on the defense or special teams and that they showed up and did their job on the last two Super Bowl Sundays and that's garbage.  

    We were a finesse offense, great in the regular season but a liability in the playoffs.  You have to be able to win ugly in the playoffs, we couldn't...

    We haven't been good enough on offense or defense, but they don't hand out Super Bowl trophies for your regular season record or how points you rang up against the Bengals. And all three phases of the game work in tandem so a quick strike, feast or famine offense that can't score or stay on the field has a direct effect on field position, times clock and most importantly the offense and special teams.  We haven't been able to sustain that for three playoff games in a row, perfect execution in the passing game isn't easy and the opposing team, if physical enough can throw off finesse; see Rams 2001 Super Bowl and both Pats/Giants Super Bowls for good examples.

    Pretending like that had no bearing on the Super Bowl results is nonsensical or you've put blinders on because you prefer a wide open offensive attack over the slower, plodding offensive style that we used to use.  Tell us how that's been working out for you?




    It's funny that you recognize that all phases of the game should work in tandem but fail to recognize that when a D can't get off the field (which was pretty much decided in the FIRST possession in BOTH SB's) that you better have an offense that can score with a quick strike.

    Again, NO TEAM SCORES ON every possession.  You are playing out of your mind or playing a bad D if you are scoring on 50% of them as most teams only score on a third of them.

    Let's look at this in simple  terms and SIMPLE math.  One quarter =15 minutes.

    If the first defensive (half possession) takes 5 minutes (and it was much more) and then the O takes the field and also takes 5 minutes and the D takes the fileld again for another 5, basically what you have is 1 1/2 possessions per quarter and 6 per game. (5+5)+5=15= 1.5 possessions per quarter

    In contrast, if the D takes 5 minutes and the O takes 2 1/2 minutes, you have increased to 8 possessions per game..  (5 + 2.5) + (5 + 2.5) =15  2 possessions per quarter.

    This is what happened.

    You have no choice other than quick strike if your D is averaging nearly 5 minutes pp.

    NO CHOICE!

    An average game will go more like this,   (2.5+2.5)+(2.5+2.5)+(2.5+2.5)=15 minutes and 3 possessions per quarter and 12 possessions per game.  Those are average time of possessions.

    You don't see the problem?  The D HAS TO DECREASE THEIR ToP IN ORDER FOR THE O TO INCREASE THEIRS. 

    You don't want less possessions, you want more, as possessions = ability to score..

    The O's Top was not the problem they were actually a little better than the average @ 2.75pp.  The D's inability to get off the field robbed it's own offense of 4 possessions.

    Plain and simple!  No secret decoder ring needed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts