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

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

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

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    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.


    shootz, we all do

    I agree that the Patriots are going to try to score whenever possible. I don't think that has ever changed.  In 2007, early on, the Patriots were scoring early and often - I'm guessing that most of the rushing yards were accumulated AFTER we had a significant lead. In addition, folks say we dominated time of possession. That may be true, but put it in the proper context (which is a different context to ball control from 2001-2004) - If the Patriots are playing with a huge lead, IT FORCES THE OPPONENT TO GO TO THE PASS TO TRY TO CATCH UP - thereby increasing the risk of going three and outs, mistakes, and possibly turnovers. Opponents sure aren't going to ground and pound being so far behind.

    The defense from 2001-2004 kept the Patriots in many a game, giving the Patriots  the chance of winning close games.  Remember that? When we used to win the close games? Not any moooore.

  2. 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:





    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...


    For the record, Wozzy, the average NFL offense scored 33.8 TDs in 2003, 35.9 in 2004, 35.8 in 2011, and 35.9 in 2012.  You could maybe argue that there has been a slight increasing trend in offensive TDs over the past decade, but the increase is pretty small, maybe one or two TDs per season for the average team.  That tiny increase doesn't really explain the 10 to 18 TD difference in TDs given up by the 2003 and 2004 defenses when compared with the 2011 and 2012 defenses.  That big a difference is a function of the declining quality of the defense, not any general league trend toward more scoring.   

    I do, however, agree that being more physical at times would help this offense.  It starts with the line, which lacks real maulers other than Mankins, and continues with the smaller backs and receivers we've had. Most of our players are space players, not power players.