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

  1. This post has been removed.

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

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

    I don't get it, on the "Talib" thread everyone is extolling the virtues of the ball control offense the Giants used to beat us in the Super Bowl, yet on this thread from earlier the same posters rip into me for suggesting we go back to that style of play... hypocrisy, irony... these words come to mind.

     
  3. 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:

    I don't get it, on the "Talib" thread everyone is extolling the virtues of the ball control offense the Giants used to beat us in the Super Bowl, yet on this thread from earlier the same posters rip into me for suggesting we go back to that style of play... hypocrisy, irony... these words come to mind.




    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     
  4. 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:

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     

     

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  




    Why do you keep failing to realize we have to take chances and score more points because our D doesnt stop anyone at the end of games. BB has tried to outscore teams only AFTER his defense went into hiding. Its no coincidence. You are a smart guy, why do you keep this going? Slowing down the game and scoring less points when your D cant get off the field is a Disaster! Thats we took chances and Giants didnt because they HAD a defense that got off the field, giving them more time to waste clock. They didnt even care to score, just keep Brady off the field. Brilliant strategy. We couldnt play that game,. Didnt you notice we tried vs Bmore last year and didnt score squat? It takes BALL CONTROL DEFENSE to be able to play ball control offense.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

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

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     

     

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  

     




     

    Why do you keep failing to realize we have to take chances and score more points because our D doesnt stop anyone at the end of games. BB has tried to outscore teams only AFTER his defense went into hiding. Its no coincidence. You are a smart guy, why do you keep this going? Slowing down the game and scoring less points when your D cant get off the field is a Disaster! Thats we took chances and Giants didnt because they HAD a defense that got off the field, giving them more time to waste clock. They didnt even care to score, just keep Brady off the field. Brilliant strategy. We couldnt play that game,. Didnt you notice we tried vs Bmore last year and didnt score squat? It takes BALL CONTROL DEFENSE to be able to play ball control offense.



    The debate are getting old, the same people that talk about complentry football still want to just hang everything on the O. In that giants game If the Pats slowed the game down even more it would be playing into the giants hands.   I know a number of people played football here.

    A defenses only job really is to get the ball back to the offense. That is the mind set you have.....your not thinking about keeping them from scoring every play.... it is get the ball back to the O.  At both high school and college I have been in games where we had to stop the other O 5 or 6 times in a row before our O broke out. Never once when we allowed a bunch of first down were we happy... I know I was never a pro but 4 years at college and many more before that since I was 7, I would never look at what the Pats D put up in that game and say yah they did a good job....1st half they were ok... 2nd half they were completely dominated. 

    The offense had its fault but the giants D had something to do with it . TB didn't put his best game up and had turnovers but no one on the offense steped up to help him out.... running game stuffed in key spots, wr droping very catachable balls, line didn't block well at key moments... This was team loss and every part stunk.  When I have sat in film rooms after a game never once did my Coach  "say points is the only think that matter" as they broke down what we all did ... always the good , bad, and ugly. I'm sure there was more bad and ugly in all parts of the game.  Fan are the ones who make the clam more often then not a w is a w... behind closed doors also every coach I had would rather play to the best of our ability and lose a close one, then than we play like crap and get lucky.... I'm sure Rally could agree... I don't think it changes 180 at pro level.

     

     

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

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

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     

     

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  

     

     




     

     

    Why do you keep failing to realize we have to take chances and score more points because our D doesnt stop anyone at the end of games. BB has tried to outscore teams only AFTER his defense went into hiding. Its no coincidence. You are a smart guy, why do you keep this going? Slowing down the game and scoring less points when your D cant get off the field is a Disaster! Thats we took chances and Giants didnt because they HAD a defense that got off the field, giving them more time to waste clock. They didnt even care to score, just keep Brady off the field. Brilliant strategy. We couldnt play that game,. Didnt you notice we tried vs Bmore last year and didnt score squat? It takes BALL CONTROL DEFENSE to be able to play ball control offense.



    The debate are getting old, the same people that talk about complentry football still want to just hang everything on the O. In that giants game If the Pats slowed the game down even more it would be playing into the giants hands.   I know a number of people played football here.

     

    A defenses only job really is to get the ball back to the offense. That is the mind set you have.....your not thinking about keeping them from scoring every play.... it is get the ball back to the O.  At both high school and college I have been in games where we had to stop the other O 5 or 6 times in a row before our O broke out. Never once when we allowed a bunch of first down were we happy... I know I was never a pro but 4 years at college and many more before that since I was 7, I would never look at what the Pats D put up in that game and say yah they did a good job....1st half they were ok... 2nd half they were completely dominated. 

    The offense had its fault but the giants D had something to do with it . TB didn't put his best game up and had turnovers but no one on the offense steped up to help him out.... running game stuffed in key spots, wr droping very catachable balls, line didn't block well at key moments... This was team loss and every part stunk.  When I have sat in film rooms after a game never once did my Coach  "say points is the only think that matter" as they broke down what we all did ... always the good , bad, and ugly. I'm sure there was more bad and ugly in all parts of the game.  Fan are the ones who make the clam more often then not a w is a w... behind closed doors also every coach I had would rather play to the best of our ability and lose a close one, then than we play like crap and get lucky.... I'm sure Rally could agree... I don't think it changes 180 at pro level.

     

     




     

    agreed. i was just making the point to wozzy that in 07 we stil had a decent defense so it was different,. in the 2011 SB, we had no business trying to slow the game down and our lack of posessions is what hurt our offense. between 01-04, we didnt have a  perfect offense, in fact they went three and out a lot ,but the Defense was there to give them more chances. 07 and 11 defenes were very diff. units. sure, we didnt need to run up the scores in 07, but we could so we did. I didnt like it then and i wouldnt like it now, but u still need a better D to play that style of game

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     

     

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  



    ball control offenses only work when the defense can control the opposition's offense. 

     
  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 UD6's comment:

     

    ball control offenses only work when the defense can control the opposition's offense. 

    This is an opinion not a fact, moreover as Rusty points out, the score is an indicator that the defense did it's job.  I would counter that a ball control offense strengthens a defense because they spend less time on the field, stay fresh and can attack.  The again I wouldn't expect a Colt's fan to understand, this is how we beat down Payaton Manning's Colts teams year after year...

     
  10. 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:

     

    It's just so simple but they refuse to learn. 2007's offense destroyed our own fans' ability to understand the basic concepts of winning football.

    Add on the fact our D benefits from those longer drives with more rest, more time to fix things and adjust, etc, and our approach is clearly superior and what the goal should be. 



    The irony is that 2007 was the ultimate ball control offense until it broke down at the end of the season.

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

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

     

    ball control offenses only work when the defense can control the opposition's offense. 

     

     

    This is an opinion not a fact, moreover as Rusty points out, the score is an indicator that the defense did it's job.  I would counter that a ball control offense strengthens a defense because they spend less time on the field, stay fresh and can attack.  The again I wouldn't expect a Colt's fan to understand, this is how we beat down Payaton Manning's Colts teams year after year...




     

    and yet you cant understand teams wanting to do that to Brady and having success with it? The defense didnt do its job. Who cares how many points they gave up if they allowed the Gaints to hold the ball. If a team has the ball for 40 minutes and only scores 6 points, and you have a potent offense, you really think thats a win for the D? The mere fact they let the Giants eat up the clock was enough. This is what you and rusty dont understand. Points allowed is only part of it. Why do the Gaints need to score 30 when they know mathematically Brady can only score so much with limited posessions? We know the Giants have a better D so all they have to do is ensure they get a few stops where we dont score and the loss TOP takes care of the rest. Eli went against a 29 ranked pass D. Brady went up against a top pass rushing unit.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

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

    Come on Wozzy, let. it. go.

    Honestly, who the f cares what Babe, Pezz, and other fans think? BB runs the team not them. Clearly you folks have some kind of a problem with the way he runs his team.

     
  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 wozzy's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     

     

     

     

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  




    Really?  I didn't realize that the Giant's offense also played defense against Brady and the offense. I'd hate to see what would have happened if the Giant's defense showed up that game.....oh, wait...they did.

     

    Hmmmm......

     
  14. 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 CaptainZdeno33's comment:

    Come on Wozzy, let. it. go.

    Honestly, who the f cares what Babe, Pezz, and other fans think? BB runs the team not them. Clearly you folks have some kind of a problem with the way he runs his team.



    I don't have a problem at all with BB, it's bad enough defenders are paid less, fined for $ more and generally maligned. When someone points out an absurdity like the defense was to blame for either/both of the losses to the Giants Super Bowls and the offense is absolved, that's a problem.  

    The defense was average, they played average, but the finesse offense against the best defenses was our undoing.  

    All three phases need to improve, this year I believe it will, just goes to show how difficult it is to win that hardware.

     
  15. 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:


    The irony is that 2007 was the ultimate ball control offense until it broke down at the end of the season.



    yep, but why is that? it couldn't have been because of the giants defense, no way. That's impossible.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

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

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

     

    ball control offenses only work when the defense can control the opposition's offense. 

     

     

    This is an opinion not a fact, moreover as Rusty points out, the score is an indicator that the defense did it's job.  I would counter that a ball control offense strengthens a defense because they spend less time on the field, stay fresh and can attack.  The again I wouldn't expect a Colt's fan to understand, this is how we beat down Payaton Manning's Colts teams year after year...



    It wasn't meant as a sleight and there are plenty of examples that run counter to my statement, but I stand by it.  Generally speaking, if a defense can't control the opposition's offense, then that team's offense is likely going to have to play a brand of football beyond "ball control".  They are going to have to score of be left behind. 

    And yes as an Indy fan, I did experience it.  Your defense, always held the colts offense in check.  That allowed the pats offense to dictate their own pace. 

     
  17. 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 UD6's comment:


    It wasn't meant as a sleight and there are plenty of examples that run counter to my statement, but I stand by it.  Generally speaking, if a defense can't control the opposition's offense, then that team's offense is likely going to have to play a brand of football beyond "ball control".  They are going to have to score of be left behind. 

     

    And yes as an Indy fan, I did experience it.  Your defense, always held the colts offense in check.  That allowed the pats offense to dictate their own pace. 



    ahhh, the good old days.....lol
    The Colts had their share of wins vs. Patriots after our defense changed...

     
  18. 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 UD6's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    was it the Giant's ball control offense or due to the Giant's defense shutting down the Patriots offense.  Seems to me like it was the latter. Coughlin and the Giants executed their game plan...and took the Patriot's offense out of their comfort zone.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    It was the Giant's ball control offense, the style we won three championships with and should have  run ourselves.  They ran more, they didn't take dumb chances, they didn't turn it over twice.

    Again in 2007 the Patriots led the NFL in average time per drive 3:07 minutes, we were second in time of possession.  Like it or not we were a ball control offense in 07' and it didn't mean we scored less points, it meant we were balanced.  

     

     

     



    ball control offenses only work when the defense can control the opposition's offense. 

     

     

     

     

     



    Umm, SB 46 is proof positive of that:

     

     

    1st half: Giants 7 points

    2nd half: Giants 6 points

    We ended up throwing a dumb INT early in the 4th on 1st down and then we targeted WRs and TEs too much in the 4th, one being a clock stopping Welker 2nd down drop with under 5 minutes left.

    You tell me how that is ball control by our offense AFTER our D was quite good in the second half.

    We shut down their run and took the game from them, allowing our offense 4 drives in the 4th to not turn it over via ball control or just kick a FG after eating clock to get into FG range.

    Just on ONE of those drives! Just one!

    1. Avoid any turnovers in that last qtr. FAIL

    2. Eat clock and just get a FG. FAIL

    We didn't play ball control, so we lost. We tried to score quickly and lacked execution in doing so.

    End of story.  What is the dfference between SB 42 and SB 46? Not much! Our offense sucked in each.  Each was nowhere near a run first, ball control style with a lead. 

    They tried to throw more and more instead.  That's not ball control. It's very tough to do that, unless you're executing perfectly OR you are plaing a crappy D. No one plays a crappy D in the postseason.

    I fully realize your agenda, like our board trolls is to bash meanie BB and give the nice guy Brady a pass in this as a way for you to subtly deflect away from your own Gomer Manning's AWFUL postsesons himself from 2002-2005, but that won't work.

     

     




    God, are you insane?

     

    12 points in the second half.  12 not 6, you manipulative troll. 

    12 points on 4 possessions is a 75% scoring rate.  Good grief.

    4 possessions in the 4th?  Try 2, liar.

    Everything you just said is false.  How on earth? 

    For someone with a photographic memory, you should at least try and remember to take the lens off.

    Get this through your thick skull.  You can't play ball control on offense if your D can't get off the field.  PERIOD, AND THERE IS NO DEBATING THIS..  NONE!

    STOP, JUST STOP!

    Seriously, your personality is that of a rabid Chihuahua intent on destroying its own tail.  Your powers of observation are akin to those of a bird that keeps slamming into a picture window trying to get that other bird it keeps seeing.

      You are walking, talking proof that you don't have to be sentient to survive.  You are, at varying times, tedious, boring, and even occasionally earth shatteringly hilarious in your idiocy, routinely childish, moronic, pathetic, wretched, disgusting,  pitiful, bigoted, socially re-tarded and a LIAR!

    I feel debased just for knowing you exist, and will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you.

    The IQ of the entire state of Ma, increased when you left.

      Now please just Shut up and go away before you achieve the retribution your behavior merits.

    Thank you for your kind attention to and expected cooperation in this matter.

    Sincerely,

    The honest people of this World



       

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

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

     




    God, are you insane?

     

    12 points in the second half.  12 not 6, you manipulative troll. 

    12 points on 4 possessions is a 75% scoring rate.  Good grief.

    4 possessions in the 4th?  Try 2, liar.

    Everything you just said is false.  How on earth? 

    For someone with a photographic memory, you should at least try and remember to take the lens off.

    Get this through your thick skull.  You can't play ball control on offense if your D can't get off the field.  PERIOD, AND THERE IS NO DEBATING THIS..  NONE!

    STOP, JUST STOP!

    Seriously, your personality is that of a rabid Chihuahua intent on destroying its own tail.  Your powers of observation are akin to those of a bird that keeps slamming into a picture window trying to get that other bird it keeps seeing.

      You are walking, talking proof that you don't have to be sentient to survive.  You are, at varying times, tedious, boring, and even occasionally earth shatteringly hilarious in your idiocy, routinely childish, moronic, pathetic, wretched, disgusting,  pitiful, bigoted, socially re-tarded and a LIAR!

    I feel debased just for knowing you exist, and will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you.

    The IQ of the entire state of Ma, increased when you left.

      Now please just Shut up and go away before you achieve the retribution your behavior merits.

    Thank you for your kind attention to and expected cooperation in this matter.

    Sincerely,

    The honest people of this World



       

    [/QUOTE]

    tell us how you really feel...

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

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

    Ball control works really well when you have a good defense and a good run game.  When you've got an explosive passing offense and a poor defense that is prone to giving up big pass plays and quick scores, ball control doesn't make a lot of sense. 

    Wozzy, I know you like physical, "smashmouth" football--running the ball, 3-4 defense--all things that favour size and power over speed and "finesse."  There's nothing wrong with this kind of football and it's the style BB has for much of the past used.  But the team we've had for the past half decade or so just hasn't been built for that style of play.  

    Let's just look at some critical numbers that tell the whole story . . .

     

    In 2012, the defense gave up 37 TDs and in 2011 39; this compares with 27 in 2004 and just 21 in 2003.  When your defense gives up between 10 and 18 extra TDs per year, you can't be too conservative on offense.  

     

    The 2004 offense scored 44 TDs and the 2003 just 32 TDs.  You put those offenses on a team that gives up 37 or 39 TDs a season and you're going to lose a lot of games.  Fortunately, our pass-heavy 2011 offense was able to score 57 TDs, while our 2012 offense scored 59.

     

    Those numbers (on offense and defense) explain exactly why BB has done what he's done on offense.  It's just smart, complementary footabll.  If your defense is giving up nearly 40 TDs a season, you better score a lot more than 40 TDs yourself if you plan to finish in position to win a first round playoff bye. Running an offense that scores 30 to 40 TEs per season isn't the way to do that. 

     

     

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Ball control works really well when you have a good defense and a good run game.  When you've got an explosive passing offense and a poor defense that is prone to giving up big pass plays and quick scores, ball control doesn't make a lot of sense. 

    Wozzy, I know you like physical, "smashmouth" football--running the ball, 3-4 defense--all things that favour size and power over speed and "finesse."  There's nothing wrong with this kind of football and it's the style BB has for much of the past used.  But the team we've had for the past half decade or so just hasn't been built for that style of play.  

    Let's just look at some critical numbers that tell the whole story . . .

     

    In 2012, the defense gave up 37 TDs and in 2011 39; this compares with 27 in 2004 and just 21 in 2003.  When your defense gives up between 10 and 18 extra TDs per year, you can't be too conservative on offense.  

     

    The 2004 offense scored 44 TDs and the 2003 just 32 TDs.  You put those offenses on a team that gives up 37 or 39 TDs a game and you're going to lose a lot of games.  Fortunately, our pass-heavy 2011 offense was able to score 57 TDs, while our 2012 offense scored 59.

     

    Those numbers (on offense and defense) explain exactly why BB has done what he's done on offense.  It's just smart, complementary footabll.  If your defense is giving up nearly 40 TDs a season, you better score a lot more than 40 TDs yourself if you plan to finish in position to win a first round playoff bye. Running an offense that scores 30 to 40 TEs per season isn't the way to do that. 

     

     



    If you give up 37-39 TDs a game you are in serious trouble, ;-)
    Sorry, could'nt resist.

    I believe we will see a D this season that will allow the O to be more about ball control, should they choose to go that direction. But honestly I think the O will do what they have done for the last couple of seasons. Score early and often, and then take it from there.

     
  22. 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 DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Ball control works really well when you have a good defense and a good run game.  When you've got an explosive passing offense and a poor defense that is prone to giving up big pass plays and quick scores, ball control doesn't make a lot of sense. 

    Wozzy, I know you like physical, "smashmouth" football--running the ball, 3-4 defense--all things that favour size and power over speed and "finesse."  There's nothing wrong with this kind of football and it's the style BB has for much of the past used.  But the team we've had for the past half decade or so just hasn't been built for that style of play.  

    Let's just look at some critical numbers that tell the whole story . . .

     

    In 2012, the defense gave up 37 TDs and in 2011 39; this compares with 27 in 2004 and just 21 in 2003.  When your defense gives up between 10 and 18 extra TDs per year, you can't be too conservative on offense.  

     

    The 2004 offense scored 44 TDs and the 2003 just 32 TDs.  You put those offenses on a team that gives up 37 or 39 TDs a game and you're going to lose a lot of games.  Fortunately, our pass-heavy 2011 offense was able to score 57 TDs, while our 2012 offense scored 59.

     

    Those numbers (on offense and defense) explain exactly why BB has done what he's done on offense.  It's just smart, complementary footabll.  If your defense is giving up nearly 40 TDs a season, you better score a lot more than 40 TDs yourself if you plan to finish in position to win a first round playoff bye. Running an offense that scores 30 to 40 TEs per season isn't the way to do that. 

     

     

     



    If you give up 37-39 TDs a game you are in serious trouble, ;-)
    Sorry, could'nt resist.

     

    I believe we will see a D this season that will allow the O to be more about ball control, should they choose to go that direction. But honestly I think the O will do what they have done for the last couple of seasons. Score early and often, and then take it from there.



    I knew I'd make that typo Smile

    I think you're right.  BB is going to continue to try to score as much as possible early in games.  If we see more ball control it will probably come late in the game, assuming the defense has gotten better at holding leads.

     

     
  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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Ball control works really well when you have a good defense and a good run game.  When you've got an explosive passing offense and a poor defense that is prone to giving up big pass plays and quick scores, ball control doesn't make a lot of sense. 

    Wozzy, I know you like physical, "smashmouth" football--running the ball, 3-4 defense--all things that favour size and power over speed and "finesse."  There's nothing wrong with this kind of football and it's the style BB has for much of the past used.  But the team we've had for the past half decade or so just hasn't been built for that style of play.  

    Let's just look at some critical numbers that tell the whole story . . .

     

    In 2012, the defense gave up 37 TDs and in 2011 39; this compares with 27 in 2004 and just 21 in 2003.  When your defense gives up between 10 and 18 extra TDs per year, you can't be too conservative on offense.  

     

    The 2004 offense scored 44 TDs and the 2003 just 32 TDs.  You put those offenses on a team that gives up 37 or 39 TDs a season and you're going to lose a lot of games.  Fortunately, our pass-heavy 2011 offense was able to score 57 TDs, while our 2012 offense scored 59.

     

    Those numbers (on offense and defense) explain exactly why BB has done what he's done on offense.  It's just smart, complementary footabll.  If your defense is giving up nearly 40 TDs a season, you better score a lot more than 40 TDs yourself if you plan to finish in position to win a first round playoff bye. Running an offense that scores 30 to 40 TEs per season isn't the way to do that. 

     

     



    Scoring league wide has increased dramatically in the last ten years due to an excess of penalties, we all know that.  That being said where teams rank in relation to the rest of the league is the only barometer we can use to make a judgment.  

    The 2011 defense wasn't good especially early on, but the patchwork unit that BB put together with duct tape and glue worked well enough to win.  

    I'm not here arguing that the defense was good, only that the offense while explosive could also be negated by the physical play of a talented opposing defense and that more than just the defensive unit needs to improve.  

    We have to be able to play finesse if need be, but more importantly we need to be able to lower our heads and smash an opponent in the mouth with a slow, grind it out, clock controlling type offense that is necessary to win in the playoffs... we haven't had that and still don't.  

    The Ravens knocking Stevan Ridley out was symbolic of how they beat us, they just physically beat us up, that is an element of football that some here take too lightly.  Bigger and stronger actually matters...

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

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


    and, doesn't it matter how the defense plays?

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

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

    Scoring league wide has increased dramatically in the last ten years due to an excess of penalties, we all know that.  That being said where teams rank in relation to the rest of the league is the only barometer we can use to make a judgment.

     

    Wow Wozzy!  When did you turn into Rusty?

    Points per game have NOT increased significantly or at all. 

    Neither have first downs. Neither have TD's.

    LY points per game were 22.8, 1in 2002, they were 21.7.   1 point per team.

    This fluctuates yearly.

     Passing, First downs in 2012 were 19.8 and in 2002 they were 19.0   less than 1 FD per team

    Td's in 2012 were 1.5 and in 2002 were 1.4 per team per game.   (.1 )increase in TD's

    *******NOTICE: 1.5 passing TD's per team in an average 12 possession game.*********

    That falls to 1.12 TD's in an 8 possession game.  Get it?

    Points per game were actually higher in the 60's and 40's than they are now.

    The lowest decade for points per game in recent history were in the 70's where rushing attempts were higher.  about 34-5 in  '70's and 27 in 2012.., per team.  Rushing=less pts.

    Passing attempts and yards per game have shown an increase as yards per play have also increased,  but have had little effect on points per game.

    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/team_stats.htm

    "The worse New England has gotten on defense, the better Brady has been forced to become -- with 109 touchdowns, 20 interceptions and a 39-9 record the past three seasons. "

    CLARK JUDGE______7/13/13_____________________________________
                                  
                             

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share