In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to TrueChamp's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to TripleOG's comment:
You also highlighted what I mentioned. 1st play of the game was incomplete pass to Maroney and then.... Maroney ran off a 9 yard run, followed by a 5 yard run which resulted in a 1st down. The next 9 out of 11 plays were passes, most of them incomplete. Like I said I believe Maroney was not a great back but when teams are putting THAT much emphasis on Brady there will be lanes if you know how to run and that sequence goes against your argument and clearly shows them going away from something that worked early. 9 and 5 yard runs followed by 9 passes out of 11 plays. Thats the Chit fans are talking about
Remember, though, that was one of their two TD drives and it ate a lot of clock, so all those passes didn't hurt. That was their first drive. The next two drives both tried to establish the run early and both stalled out in large part because the running plays ended up getting nothing on early downs. The third drive started with only 1:47 left in the half, so it had to be a pass-heavy drive because of time. Even with that drive, though, they went to Maroney early and lost 3 yards. They also tried a run with Faulk, but it was called back because of a holding penalty.
I believe Weiss would have recognized the D line salivating at the mouth and not caring about the run and made the run part of the plan. Succes or not, RUn early in the game to settle down the rush. The 1st drive shows they didnt. Once you ran the majority of plays on 1st drive, they would have had to switch up but since we passed more, we played into their hands and failed...but no I dont equate more running = win but I dont agree the run was a failure either. Were the runs predictable? maybe but it seems they went away quite early when they could have established something.
You can't ignore, though, that the next two drives both featured the run early and both stalled. If the run isn't working, you can't establish much, because you end up punting too fast.
Neither passing or rushing was very effective in that game. But if you take a gander at ProFootball Reference, the pass was actually MORE effective than the rush as expressed in Expected Points. And the offense, again, was better than the defense as well in Expected Points. People have imaginations on them ... but taken as a whole, the NYG dominated both phases at the line.
Running more might well have hurt the final score as opposed to helping it, at least if we use prior success in various sitautions throughout the game as a predictor.
Good call Z. As evidenced, we should have taken the 135 passes to 55 rushes in the 3 losses in a row to the giants, and thrown that plan out the window. Since pro football reference clearly shows us, the pass was more effective them the run, so out of those 190 plays we used, we should have thrown like 160 or 170 times and ran 30 or even 20 times.....I mean heck, the results couldn't have gotten any worse, 3 losses and 2 of them were super bowls. Maybe even pass 190 times and rush zero??? Right?
Well, if you have a shallow conception of running and passing you might look at it that way. The NFL doesn't work the way you seem to think it does though, as I've said before.
The game plan isn't to throw the ball X amount of times or run the ball X amount of times. But when you are down late in the game three times in a row ... you are basically forced to pass to extend the game and give yourself a maximum number of chances to score. Also, when you don't run successfully on first down and second down, you force yourself to throw more passes on third down to make up the yardage.
I beleive, most losses NE sustains feature something close to a 55/45 pass/run ratio until the third quarter. After that, the final few drives decide what the final ratio looks like. Last week was a very typical look. Sure they threw the balkl 55 times ... but 32 of those passes came on three final drives. Prior too that I think the ratio was something like 23/20 pass run. That works out to something like 53% passing, when they had such luxury of time. That is HARDLY abandoning the run, or not sticking with the run. They ran until it DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO RUN ANYMORE. No team is going to be handing the ball off with three minutes left on the clock unless they have a lead.
Perhaps, especially in the last contest, if NE had passed more frequently early on they would have had greater success and wouldn't have been left scrambling later on trying to catch up to the Giants?
The final ratio could have been the same, or may have even shown more running plays ... but those plays would have come AFTER they had built a lead big enough to run the clock on top of.
Lastly, the numbers you are citing are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.
If you take any three losses by any one team, it's highly likely they will have many more passes than runs. In fact, it would be odd if they didn't. Again, teams that don't play well for the first three quarters are usually forced into passing almost exclusively for the last quarter.
So ... here are three completely arbitray slices of football life. The first is the r/p ratio from the losses by the NYG this season.
Those games featured 128 passes to just 46 runs.
OR how about, arbitrarily selected again, the first three losses by the Ravens this season.
Those games featured 137 passes and only 63 runs.
Did the Giants and Ravens just throw their Superbowl winning game plans ... (The Super Duper Secret of Sucess: JUST RUN DUMMY! by TC, Rusty, et al) ... out the window? Did they forget how to put together a game plan? Why oh why would they forget the secret? Did McDaniels sneak into their office and replace HIS game plan with theirs?
Or, can you, at long, long last finally admit that I have a valid point and that run/pass numbers are always situationally decided?
I await your answer.
Of course they are situationally decided, and when you let the other team dictate your actions and force you out of balance and back into the same corner over and over then I am sorry but you are getting out coached and outplayed.
Stop trying to belittle what I have said. Im not saying, "you have to run X amount of times" although I believe in a game like the 2011 super bowl if we allowed our lead back to get 20 carries at his 4.4 ypc average in that game then we would have used more clock and not allowed the gints time enough to come back.. if you want to talk play by play,... .instead of throwing a 50 yard pass down field to a hobbled TE who couldn't even win a battle against the defensive linemen covering him downfield, perhaps we could have kept giving the ball to our power back who just ripped off runs of 5 yards and 7 yards before the costly turnover.....but we didn't and we lost a golden opportunity to help put the giants away. It goes hand in hand with what our offensive philosophy has been since the 2007 season.
I am saying that throwing it 2.5 times more then you run no matter if that was the game plan or not, has not worked for our offense. It made us one dimensional, and allowed playoff defenses to flat out stop us for most of the game...and let's not pretend like we were losing over half the time in any of those games, on the contrary we were winning over half the time.
Trying to defend an offense that played about 75% below their average I terms of not only points, but 1st downs is ridiculous. 90 passes to 35 rushes in 2 super bowl losses where you scored 14 and 17 points is inexcusable, no matter which you slice it.