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

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

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

    What?  I didn't say it... well I have for the past four or five years, but now somebody else is saying it.

    http://www.weei.com//sports/boston/football/patriots/mike-salk/2013/07/01/new-look-patriots-should-consider-return-ball-c

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

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

    I don't like the labeling of the offense and deciding how to attack a defense a head of time. This is a game planning offense and each week will be game planned depending on how the matchups stack. If the opponent is Buffaloe and they can be pushed around, I would assume the Pats go heavy run early. If the opponent is the Jets with a soft S tandem, I would assume a pass heavy early game. 

    I am in favor of once the team is ahead, to try and control the clock with the run. Keep the D off the field. 

    My concerns with a run heavy attack is Wendell and Connolly. I find both to be more effective pass blockers than run blockers. Connolly especially is not good at the point of attack. He does get out into space well when pulling...but perhaps this is where Cannon can be used.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

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

    If the Pats can create match up advantages either with the pass or with the run, they should use that advantage. No need to become a predictable ball control running offense negating the strengths of Brady, Gronk, Ballard and Vareen...

    BB is head and shoulders ahead of most every coach because of his ability to spot and take advantage of these match ups, as well as make in game adjustments to counter and advantages the other team may have found. Why take BB's greatest strength away with a one dimensional offense? 

    Let the opponent and the match ups against that opponent dictate what kind of offense the team plays.

     
  7. 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 Bustchise's comment:

    The morons who are proposing this "ball control offense" are completely ignorant to the clear advantage that points on the board gives to a defense and very frequently results in turnovers as the opposing offense becomes more predictable.  In addition, it is proven that teams that "establish the run" do not win.  Teams that are winning run to seal it.  If you can't run sucessfully when the other team knows you are going to do it, you are not a very good running team.   



    From 2001 through 2004, nobody cared how many points we won a game by, only that we won.  

    Only a moron could dismiss or be blind to how self destructive it is to your defense in having your offense go three and out over and over, to trot your defense out there again and again to wear down, so that by the fourth quarter they are gassed because your offense can't mount a time consuming, first down churning drive.

    Not to mention that teams have been game planning against us for the past few years as a pass first team, so much so that an opposing defensive coordinator called us "predictable."

    But hey, what do results matter, as long as you win your fantasy football league I guess that's all that matters...

     

     
  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 russgriswold's comment:

    Mike Salk stole my premise.  BB was leaning to the ball control style the day he walked from Welkie.  They'll be less shotgun, less passing and it will be back to the old days, which should strike fear into any NE opponent come January. Brady is a better QB playing that way.



    This has nothing to do with Welker, Weis used shotgun fairly heavily, the offensive coordinator is most heavily involved with this, while I agree Brady plays better this way I'd have to say so does every other QB in the history of the game.  

    A running game, unpredictability and balance are every QB's best friends...

     
  9. 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 rkarp's comment:

    If the Pats can create match up advantages either with the pass or with the run, they should use that advantage. No need to become a predictable ball control running offense negating the strengths of Brady, Gronk, Ballard and Vareen...

    BB is head and shoulders ahead of most every coach because of his ability to spot and take advantage of these match ups, as well as make in game adjustments to counter and advantages the other team may have found. Why take BB's greatest strength away with a one dimensional offense? 

    Let the opponent and the match ups against that opponent dictate what kind of offense the team plays.



    Asking the offense to move back to more parity in its play calling isn't taking away the strengths of anyone.  Tom Brady is the best play action QB in the game, it only helps him.  Gronk and Ballard are dangerous because they can mow people down run blocking but also catch passes over the top, it only helps them.  

    There are only two options outside of punting to move the ball upfield, running and passing, a 50/50 split is a sign of perfection.  Of course you game plan to each opposing team, but a great offense will dictate to the opposition what it will do, not the opposite, it controls the ball, the clock and has possession when time is winding down.  The Giants, Ravens and 49ers have wrestled the mantle of best ball control offenses from us, time we take it back...

    Because I miss the days of low scores and Super Bowl victories.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

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

    In response to russgriswold's comment:



    It proves there are more people out there like this/who are now seeing the light. We saw it and wanted it years ago, but many here didn't understand why it was necessary.

    Many games handed away later, and now we know it's needed.



    Why hasn't the head coach realized this and made the changes you suggest?  Is it because he's not very good at his job, or because you're wrong?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to Bustchise's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The morons who are proposing this "ball control offense" are completely ignorant to the clear advantage that points on the board gives to a defense and very frequently results in turnovers as the opposing offense becomes more predictable.  In addition, it is proven that teams that "establish the run" do not win.  Teams that are winning run to seal it.  If you can't run sucessfully when the other team knows you are going to do it, you are not a very good running team.   

     



    From 2001 through 2004, nobody cared how many points we won a game by, only that we won.  

     

    Only a moron could dismiss or be blind to how self destructive it is to your defense in having your offense go three and out over and over, to trot your defense out there again and again to wear down, so that by the fourth quarter they are gassed because your offense can't mount a time consuming, first down churning drive.

    Not to mention that teams have been game planning against us for the past few years as a pass first team, so much so that an opposing defensive coordinator called us "predictable."

    But hey, what do results matter, as long as you win your fantasy football league I guess that's all that matters...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, giving up some long drives late is fine if the offense is able to put scores in return.

    The much heralded D of 2001 gave up 3 points in the first three quarters then could not stop a nose bleed in the fourth. Rams scored 14 on that Q. 

    vs. CAR, NWE gave up 10 points in the first 3 then gave up 19 in the last quarter. 

    Pats still won because despite those offenses being not as prolific as current day Pats, they found ways to show up big when pressure was on - i.e., when their D finally caved.

    Oh yeah, even those  top-ranked Ds eventually caved in the fourth. But I guess nobody remembers those parts of those games. 

    vs. PHI, it was slightly different. Bottomline is Pats scored the most points in the fourth, to put the game away. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. 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 Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    Why hasn't the head coach realized this and made the changes you suggest?  Is it because he's not very good at his job, or because you're wrong?



    Because despite many fans need for instant gratification on this site, not every off season goes as planned, some free agents choose not to sign here, Red Bryant and others come to mind.  Draft picks either get hurt, are already chosen when the pick comes in or get arrested for homicide.  

    It takes time to build up one side of the ball after you've had to blow it up, you win with what you've got.  But its apparent with the acquisition of more tightends, fullbacks and physical receivers that this has been a work in progress for at least a few years.

    Don't you choose to side with the opposite of whatever Rusty says just because he annoys you, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy.

     

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

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


    If we assume that the Patriots are loaded on offense, and still can't stop opponents on D when it counts.....then "ball control offense" doesn't work.

    Right now, Patriots have to score a ton....and pray the opposing team doesn't just come back, or the opposition doesn't have the ball for last offensive possession and score, or the the Patriots can actually come back on the last offensive possession and actually score because the defense couldn't hold up on their end.

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

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

    Actually a ball control offense with a defense that led the NFL in takeaways works just fine, there's nothing to support that notion.  The proof is 2001-2004.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  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 wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

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

    In response to MelWitt's comment:


    If you can pick up three first downs running in the second half when you have a lead, you can easily chew up 3 to 5 minutes per possession...



    You can also keep the play clock moving, an incomplete pass stops the clock.  

    Not to mention that a 3rd and one is a lot easier to convert after a run or two, rather trying to convert a 3rd and long from two incomplete passes.  Tom Brady can QB sneak for a yard every single time....

     
  21. 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:

    Actually a ball control offense with a defense that led the NFL in takeaways works just fine, there's nothing to support that notion.  The proof is 2001-2004.



    a defense that was also pretty bad in regards to passing yards given. Granted the 2012 Passing D efficiency improved in 2012, but was pretty bad in 2011. It take so much more to winning a SB than a good takeaway/giveaway ratio.

    This ain't mama's 2001-2004 Patriots no mo

     
  22. 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:

     

    a defense that was also pretty bad in regards to passing yards given. Granted the 2012 Passing D efficiency improved in 2012, but was pretty bad in 2011. It take so much more to winning a SB than a good takeaway/giveaway ratio.

    This ain't mama's 2001-2004 Patriots no mo



    Longer time consuming drives for the Patriot offense leaves less time and fewer possessions for the opposition, especially if our defense can get a turnover or two, the opposing team doesn't lose as much as run out of time.  A coach isn't simply playing against the opposition, they're playing the game clock as well.

     
  23. 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 russgriswold's comment:

    Brady thinks it's mostly about him and his arm, and it's cost the team. Unfortunate, but the truth.

    It's been brutal to watch Brady morph into that same mold.

    This is all just silly supposition on your part, you have zero proof of any of this.  The offense turned this way because of changes in coaching, coordinator and personnel... this soap opera is all in your head.  

    Brady has been the model of a team player since he arrived and nothing has changed.

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

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

    Horses for courses.

    You must have the personnel to support the objective.  I'm pretty sure BB would have continued to stress a run-focused ball control offense if he had personnel to achieve that objective.  When the personnel was lacking in the run game the Pats employed a short passing, pass-focused ball control offense.

    The jury is still out with me as to whether the RBs can consistently pick up the required gains on first, second, and third downs to get back to a run-focused offense.

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to russgriswold's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Brady thinks it's mostly about him and his arm, and it's cost the team. Unfortunate, but the truth.

    It's been brutal to watch Brady morph into that same mold.

     

     

    This is all just silly supposition on your part, you have zero proof of any of this.  The offense turned this way because of changes in coaching, coordinator and personnel... this soap opera is all in your head.  

    Brady has been the model of a team player since he arrived and nothing has changed.

    [/QUOTE]


    +1. I have no doubt that Brady has a say in the offense (he's a future HOF QB), but it's not just him. BB, McDaniels, and Brady as a unit can work to change this offense to something that will work in big games against tough defenses.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share