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

  1. 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.

     
  2. 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.

     
  3. 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? 

     

     
  4. 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.

     

     
  5. 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.

     
  6. 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 russgriswold's comment:

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    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.

     

     




    "Talent distribution"? What was wrong with it in 2007 or 2010?

     

    What was wrong with it in 2011? 

    2012? These offenses that ranked #1 all year, were lacking talent distribution?

    Did our SB Ds make stops at the end of SB 36 and 38? NOPE. Nope, no they didnt. They were gassed in domes, too. Like I said before, every SB D with under 5 minutes to go is gassed in a dome.  It's worse playing in a dome than outdoors. All the heat is trapped in.

    To hold the Ds feet to the fire after holding to 13 points with our own offense disappearing for a quarter and a half, is really ridiculous.



    I think the issue with talent distribution is that one aspect of the offense, relating to the passing game, was so good that in the regular season they could rack up points and wins but in the playoffs they weren't built to be more balanced, when it became more critical.

    As far as the offense not performing when they needed to I'm agreeing with you. All I'm saying is that became critical because the margin for error wasn't there. Yes, I expect the defense was gassed but that can't be solely the fault of the offense. sure the offense could have and should have helped more. No argument there, but the defense has to help themselves as well.

    If the defense makes a couple stops earlier in the game they're less gassed in crunch time and a couple extra possessions on offense maybe gets them the margin of error they needed.

     
  7. 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 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.



    good post

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

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

    the biggest myth is that it was soley Brady's fault.  What a joke on so many levels....lol

    especially coming from sources that claim high IQs.  So much for IQ tests.

     
  9. 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 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. 

     

     

     




    WHo cares how quick NY scored on their last drive?  The D is gassed. The Giants D was gassed. Their QB hit his WRs, ours didn't. 

     

    The Pats D held all game to 13 points!   We had FOUR drives for our own offense wasted in order for it to "complement" what our good defense did in the second half in particular.

    1 TD and 2 FGs allowed????????????????????

    How was that not a perfect game for our offense to not use ball control ourselves? They crapped their pants, dude. Crapped em good.

    1 INT, two other short drives with punts and another punt because Welker and Brady choked on 2nd down.

    FAIL

    Defense>Offense in SB 46.

    Plain and simple.




    Did you just ask "who care how fast the D gave up the game LOSING drive", with the lead?

    Well I'm pretty sure your BF BB cares.

    I'm pretty sure Bob Kraft cares

    I'm pretty sure both the Pat's offense and defense and the whole team, cares.

    And I'm pretty sure EVERY FAN of the Pats cares.

    In fact, the only people in the world that didn't hold their breath and watch in horror as the D gave up the game losing drive with seconds left in the game (twice), were NON-FANS or were betting AGAINST the Pats.!

    Are you a NON-FAN?  Did you make money on their loss?  Has to be one of the two.

    Wait!  There is one more option.  It's called mental illness.

     
  10. 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 russgriswold's comment:

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to stegall85's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     

     




    "Talent distribution"? What was wrong with it in 2007 or 2010?

     

     

     

    What was wrong with it in 2011? 

    2012? These offenses that ranked #1 all year, were lacking talent distribution?

    Did our SB Ds make stops at the end of SB 36 and 38? NOPE. Nope, no they didnt. They were gassed in domes, too. Like I said before, every SB D with under 5 minutes to go is gassed in a dome.  It's worse playing in a dome than outdoors. All the heat is trapped in.

    To hold the Ds feet to the fire after holding to 13 points with our own offense disappearing for a quarter and a half, is really ridiculous.

     

     



    I think the issue with talent distribution is that one aspect of the offense, relating to the passing game, was so good that in the regular season they could rack up points and wins but in the playoffs they weren't built to be more balanced, when it became more critical.

     

     

    As far as the offense not performing when they needed to I'm agreeing with you. All I'm saying is that became critical because the margin for error wasn't there. Yes, I expect the defense was gassed but that can't be solely the fault of the offense. sure the offense could have and should have helped more. No argument there, but the defense has to help themselves as well.

    If the defense makes a couple stops earlier in the game they're less gassed in crunch time and a couple extra possessions on offense maybe gets them the margin of error they needed.

     




    Yes, but when it's 17-9, 17-12 or 17-15, at that point, no one cares what happened in the first half. The D allowed 1 TD in the first half anyway!  1 TD? This is that bad?

     

    So, when ti's 17-15 and you have a chance to kill clock, get a TD or FG, or just not turn it over, our offense blew 4 drives to do that AFTER the DE held to two FGs in the second half.

    If the best the opponent can do is kick two FGs, there is no way an offense like ours, evern without Gronk, should be crapping themselves like that.

    It's the decision to throw that many times, with some incompletions and/OR INTs mixed in which stops the clock.  If we had run it 3 straight times one 1 of the 4 drives and went three and out, say where Brady throws that INT, we win the SB.  Think about that. 

    This is about clock management. That's what it is about. We can all look back at plays earlier in the game, like Safety or the fumbles that bounced wrong, but the focus is in the critical part of the game, where our offense literally chokes it down. 
     

    Brady prefers the shotgun and wants to throw. This has really hurt our team in these games. Ball control comes from balance in offense and chooses not to use that balance.



    I think we're actually not in disagreement in any significant way. I agree with needing more balance on offense, I just think better defense will help with allowing for that. I agree the playcalling, certainly in hindsight didn't help. Although simply having better execution, like WW squeezing that ball, would have negated the problem too.

    Like you, I was dissappointed in the offense because I expected more from them. As I said earlier, I do think the defense outplayed expectations. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have rather seen an extra play or two from them, so that this discussion could have been in the wake of a victory instead of a loss. Expecting an extra play or two from that defense may not have been realistic.

    That's where I see room for optimism as I think this year's defensive unit will be better.

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

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

    The statistical analysis is interesting, but at the end not very satisfying. Here's some numbers: In 2001 the Patriots were decidely lousy offensively (19th) and defensively (24th) on a yardage basis.  They were outrushed by their opponent by 500 yards and by 0.5 yards per carry (4.3 to 3.8), not insignificant differences.

    St. Louis (1st offensively by a wide margin and 3rd defensively) was clearly a better team, no matter how you want to look at it.  Marshal Faulk, Kurt Warner, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, all basically at the peak of their games. New England had nobody in that class. Brady was a rookie game manager; Antowain Smith, Troy Brown, David Patten, JR Redmond, Jermaine Wiggins, those guys wouldn't have made the Rams roster.

    What's the point? It's that winning a Super Bowl is a largely random occurrence. And the best team rarely wins.

    Yes, you need to have the personnel/coaching, etc. to put yourself in a position to win, i.e., to make the playoffs. The Patriots do this year in and year out as well as any team. Said another way, they give themselves a chance to be Super Bowl champion every year since 2001, excepting 2002 and 2008. 

    But at least in this Millennium it is inescapable that with the exception of 2004 and 2009, the best football team in the land did not win the Super Bowl. Every year but those two it was a team that got hot and then got very lucky.  Defenses sometimes win championships, sometimes it's offenses, see the 2009 Saints, 2006 Colts, sometimes it's just a freak occurrence, see the 2011 Giants (9-7 with the 32nd ranked rushing game and 27th ranked defense that allowed more points than they scored).

    But it's always the team that's playing best in the playoffs and that gets the breaks, doesn't matter how they got there. So, for the current Pats, I truly don't care if they run more this year (they ran plenty last year), I do hope the defense gets more pressure on the QB, but mostly, I hope Gronk is healthy in January, don't care much about what he does before that or if he even plays more than a few tune-up games. That seems to be the key the last couple of years.

     

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

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


    It would be nice to have a ball controlled offense, but you need a couple of things to make that happen...1. Drive blocking line 2. runners that will get the job done (hopefully we have that) 3. A defense that will keep opposing teams from controlling the clock and scoring (we don't have that as far as I know).

    I think people that just say..."we have to pound the ball and control the clock", don't have a clue. It takes time to build your team like this, you have to draft linemen that can move a pile...you can't just sit there and hope pass blocking linemen can pound it straight ahead on third and three's. If you're a running team you will have to hand it off on third and three's...not just the second and five's (after Brady hit Welker for 5). You will have to run it on first down, and not for two yards either. You better be ready to except (and be prepared for an offense that won't be putting up 35 points a game). You better be ready for drive killing holding calls. And you had better be ready for the fact that you are not always going to win the time of possesion or field position game either, because as soon as your running game has a bad week (and it will) you'll be punting...a lot. And your defense will be playing with the wonderful feeling of knowing our offense will not be putting up points and pressuring the hell out of the other team's defense - they may on some weeks, but there will be no more no huddle, quick points, three touchdowns in a quarter football. This will be a grind, a fight.

    Hey, I'd love to see it. I just don't think we are built for it and I don't think they have tried to build something like that either, and how could we? We've spent the last 5 years trying to find corners and safeties - our resources have gone into the never ending attempt to make our defense at least average - it's taken a long time...it's taken a lot of money...and it still may not be done. It's like the Big Dig. 

     
  13. 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 pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    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. 

     

     

     

     

     

     




    WHo cares how quick NY scored on their last drive?  The D is gassed. The Giants D was gassed. Their QB hit his WRs, ours didn't. 

     

     

     

     

    The Pats D held all game to 13 points!   We had FOUR drives for our own offense wasted in order for it to "complement" what our good defense did in the second half in particular.

    1 TD and 2 FGs allowed????????????????????

    How was that not a perfect game for our offense to not use ball control ourselves? They crapped their pants, dude. Crapped em good.

    1 INT, two other short drives with punts and another punt because Welker and Brady choked on 2nd down.

    FAIL

    Defense>Offense in SB 46.

    Plain and simple.

     

     

     




    Did you just ask "who care how fast the D gave up the game LOSING drive", with the lead?

     

     

     

    Well I'm pretty sure your BF BB cares.

    I'm pretty sure Bob Kraft cares

    I'm pretty sure both the Pat's offense and defense and the whole team, cares.

    And I'm pretty sure EVERY FAN of the Pats cares.

    In fact, the only people in the world that didn't hold their breath and watch in horror as the D gave up the game losing drive with seconds left in the game (twice), were NON-FANS or were betting AGAINST the Pats.!

    Are you a NON-FAN?  Did you make money on their loss?  Has to be one of the two.

    Wait!  There is one more option.  It's called mental illness.

     

     




    Actually, I almost turned it off when Brady threw the INT to start the 4th on 1st down. Almost did it again when he threw high to his buddy, Welkie.

     

     

    THAT is the horror. 20+ million dollars or All Pro play playing like hacks in a Pop Warner game.

     

     




    You probably should have turned it off then but then you would have missed the last bone crushing drive where TB left the field with the lead and the D lost the game.  (IN BOTH SB's)

     

    Did you enjoy that last drive?

    Like I said, NON-FAN, betting to lose or mental illness.  Which is it?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

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

    You know . . .   there's a reason "balance" was the first thing Mr. Myagi taught Daniel-san.

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!



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

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

    Name the last successful "ball control offense" in the NFL. By successful, I mean to win a SB.

    I'll wait...

     

     
  16. 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:

    ^What a maroon. The guy applies an over-analyzed statistical analysis that adds up to absolutely NOTHING.

    If your 20 mil per QB and best WR are choking it down over and over, none of what you just posted, matters.

    Apparently, you do need a secret decoder ring.



    It's not about statistics at all, though.  Pezz's analysis is simply about the mathematical relationship between drive time and number of possessions.  He's spot on in this analysis.  Only the math challenged think it's hocus pocus.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

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


    You could make the argument that New Jersey (blue) had something of a ball-control attack, and that was only two years ago.

     

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!



     
  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 Muzwell's comment:

    Name the last successful "ball control offense" in the NFL. By successful, I mean to win a SB.

    I'll wait...

     



    The Ravens averaged 34.8 rushing attempts per game in the playoffs, the entire NFL regular season leader was Seattle with 33.5 attempts per game.  

    The Ravens won with the #1 attempts at running and ranked 7th in the playoffs for passes attempted a game, I'd say they turned the switch when the playoffs started and played a smashmouth style.

    The only other team that was close was the 49ers, what a surprise, the other Super Bowl participant...

     
  19. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

    It's not about statistics at all, though.  Pezz's analysis is simply about the mathematical relationship between drive time and number of possessions.  He's spot on in this analysis.  Only the math challenged think it's hocus pocus.

    Yeah you guys can't add, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...

     
  20. 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 Muzwell's comment:

    Name the last successful "ball control offense" in the NFL. By successful, I mean to win a SB.

    I'll wait...

     



    2004 New England Patriots?

     
  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:

     

    Yeah you guys can't add, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...

     



    yes, it had nothing to do with playing against a team that was well matched against the Patriots.  Let's go ahead and discredit the Giants. They didn't show up and play the game. They didn't get any pressure on Brady and they couldn't cover.

     

     
  22. 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 p-mike's comment:


    You could make the argument that New Jersey (blue) had something of a ball-control attack, and that was only two years ago.

     

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!





    nah, that would make some look foolish. Beside the Giants apparrently had nothing to do with the two SB losses. You ,see........it was all Brady's fault.

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    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

     



    Certainly hard to argue against this idea considering its past successes. But the over all game has become more sophisitcated year over year since the PATS subscribed to the "ball control" formula. 
    I do not see major issues in the area of skill position players on the offense despite player losses. The Pats still have more than enough talent to compensate. Small, but committed tweaks to the offense should suffice.  Moving toward a more balanced attack is the right thing to do, but not a full on regression to the "ball control" style. Working in more run, with a greater use of the screen packages, like we use to employ back in the "good old days" is the way to go. Our defense will prove to be a strength this season, and we will not run into the same issue with death by the big play nearly as often as we've seen lately. We weren't far off last season, and we are certainly more balanced O to D this season. No need to completely overhaul styles on either side of the ball.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

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

    Two things here:

    1) Nothing personal against "numbers guys," but I tend to agree that you can tailor a statistic to make whatever point you like and . . .

     

    2) Isn't it great to have Rusty back in his original incarnation?

     

    Cool

     

     

    Now you listen here! He's not the Messiah . . .   he's a very naughty boy!



     
  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:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    It's not about statistics at all, though.  Pezz's analysis is simply about the mathematical relationship between drive time and number of possessions.  He's spot on in this analysis.  Only the math challenged think it's hocus pocus.

     

     

    Yeah you guys can't add, the Patriot's offense scored less then the three previous Super Bowls and the defense held to the lowest of the three Super Bowl totals.  It doesn't take Albert Einstein...




    It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that in the previous SB's the Pats were NOT hampered by low possessions ( because of horrendous D's) and had plenty of them to try and score.  That also allowed for more diversity on offense because they had MORE TIME to operate.

    It also tells a tale that the 2011 offense was more efficient in scoring 17 points in 8 possessions than they were in scoring 17 points in 12 possessions.

    It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that lower possession games are most likely going to yield less points for the O & D.

    19 points in a 8 possession game does not = 19 points in a 12 possession game because the D would have to make 4 more STOPS to achieve the same score.  Since they barely made 4 stops in the entire game, I find that scenario highly unlikely.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share