Run ratios for half a decade.

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

    Run ratios for half a decade.

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's what you do with the runs though. It's yds per carry that make the running game effective. If you RBs are ineffective then all you got is Mom's Maberly...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's what you do with the runs though. It's yds per carry that make the running game effective. If you RBs are ineffective then all you got is Mom's Maberly...

    [/QUOTE]

    I could not find Moms Maberly YPC.  Who did he play for?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's what you do with the runs though. It's yds per carry that make the running game effective. If you RBs are ineffective then all you got is Mom's Maberly...

    [/QUOTE]

    I could not find Moms Maberly YPC.  Who did he play for?

    [/QUOTE]

    she split time with Memphis Minnie

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to 42AND46's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's what you do with the runs though. It's yds per carry that make the running game effective. If you RBs are ineffective then all you got is Mom's Maberly...

    [/QUOTE]

    I could not find Moms Maberly YPC.  Who did he play for?

    [/QUOTE]

    she split time with Memphis Minnie

    [/QUOTE]

    I thought she took over for Marion Motley?

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's what you do with the runs though. It's yds per carry that make the running game effective. If you RBs are ineffective then all you got is Mom's Maberly...

    [/QUOTE]

    Pats were pretty effective.

    2013: 4.4 ypc

    2012: 4.2

    2011: 4.0 

    2010: 4.3

    2009: 4.1

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    Thats very effective in the NFL.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sigh, there are some who think it's a straight ratio but the straight ratio doesn't tell the tale. It's all about situational running, when it's run, how it's run, does it set up the pass, does the pass set it up. Balance isn't a straight ratio of runs but a total of how the O is run. For example a team runs 60 plays. The first 15 plays is runs, the final 15 plays is runs and the middle 30 is passing. The ratio says 50/50 but it's completely out of balance. This is why I hate statistics as an engineer. Marketers and lawyers use statistics because you can mold them in any way to make your case. You have to examine the variables behind those statistics to see where the numbers come from and at times the run game was forgotten for big chunks of the game and the D was able to drop into nickel. Now this year that hasn't been the case. I think they've mixed it up well depending on opponent and have become less predictable since when OB called the game (seriously OB had an O that my mother guessed what they were going to do, completely predictable). That will serve us much better moving forward esp since Brady lacks the receiving threats he had in the past.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    The whole stupidty of this argument.

    It not about freaking ratio numbers. It's about how and when you use the run and pass and how they compliment each other and keep the opponent's D from cheating towards one or the other.

    This is why I'm always harping about the play action. It could go either way. I have nothing against passing what I hate is obvious passing formations when the play doesn't call for one.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's what you do with the runs though. It's yds per carry that make the running game effective. If you RBs are ineffective then all you got is Mom's Maberly...

    [/QUOTE]

    Pats were pretty effective.

    2013: 4.4 ypc

    2012: 4.2

    2011: 4.0 

    2010: 4.3

    2009: 4.1

    [/QUOTE]


    The league average for each year was; compared to the Pats...

    2013,  - .2

    2012, - .1

    2011, + .3

    2010, - .1

    2009, +.1

     

    Looks like a wash over the 5 years compared to the league average. You consider "average" as effective running?

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     



    Sigh, there are some who think it's a straight ratio but the straight ratio doesn't tell the tale. It's all about situational running, when it's run, how it's run, does it set up the pass, does the pass set it up. Balance isn't a straight ratio of runs but a total of how the O is run. For example a team runs 60 plays. The first 15 plays is runs, the final 15 plays is runs and the middle 30 is passing. The ratio says 50/50 but it's completely out of balance. This is why I hate statistics as an engineer. Marketers and lawyers use statistics because you can mold them in any way to make your case. You have to examine the variables behind those statistics to see where the numbers come from and at times the run game was forgotten for big chunks of the game and the D was able to drop into nickel. Now this year that hasn't been the case. I think they've mixed it up well depending on opponent and have become less predictable since when OB called the game (seriously OB had an O that my mother guessed what they were going to do, completely predictable). That will serve us much better moving forward esp since Brady lacks the receiving threats he had in the past.

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe and deadhead don't get beyond this number is greater than or equal to that number or the simple fact that a good running game sets up the play action which was Brady's bread and butter during the SB winning seasons.

    Once again the key is formations that don't telegraph to the defense what you're going to do and that allow Brady to go either way with audibles when he's lined up and has a chance to look at what how the opponent's D is aligned before the snap. I like the idea of putting Vereen in the RB position and handing off to him sometimes or either have him come out of the backfield for a pass or move to a receiver position as late as possible. That has to give defenses fits.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sigh, there are some who think it's a straight ratio but the straight ratio doesn't tell the tale. It's all about situational running, when it's run, how it's run, does it set up the pass, does the pass set it up. Balance isn't a straight ratio of runs but a total of how the O is run. For example a team runs 60 plays. The first 15 plays is runs, the final 15 plays is runs and the middle 30 is passing. The ratio says 50/50 but it's completely out of balance. This is why I hate statistics as an engineer. Marketers and lawyers use statistics because you can mold them in any way to make your case. You have to examine the variables behind those statistics to see where the numbers come from and at times the run game was forgotten for big chunks of the game and the D was able to drop into nickel. Now this year that hasn't been the case. I think they've mixed it up well depending on opponent and have become less predictable since when OB called the game (seriously OB had an O that my mother guessed what they were going to do, completely predictable). That will serve us much better moving forward esp since Brady lacks the receiving threats he had in the past.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Babe and deadhead don't get beyond this number is greater than or equal to that number or the simple fact that a good running game sets up the play action which was Brady's bread and butter during the SB winning seasons.

    Once again the key is formations that don't telegraph to the defense what you're going to do and that allow Brady to go either way with audibles when he's lined up and has a chance to look at what how the opponent's D is aligned before the snap. I like the idea of putting Vereen in the RB position and handing off to him sometimes or either have him come out of the backfield for a pass or move to a receiver position as late as possible. That has to give defenses fits.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why did you say I don't get it?  Babe doesn't get it.

    I was the one talking about this here for over 2 years now.

    [/QUOTE]


    You're throwing numbers back and forth with him. Just use logic instead and he'll go into rage mode and put you on ignore. Or he'll resort to his standard 'Brady is a HofF QB' rant as if that makes the opponents fall to the feild and give up playing.

    Ok I'll admit there is some enjoyment in enraging him. His Brady never made a mistake in his life act is annoying.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The whole stupidty of this argument.

    It not about freaking ratio numbers. It's about how and when you use the run and pass and how they compliment each other and keep the opponent's D from cheating towards one or the other.

    This is why I'm always harping about the play action. It could go either way. I have nothing against passing what I hate is obvious passing formations when the play doesn't call for one.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. It's not totals or total ratios, it;s the timing, the when, the hows you use the run and achieve balance with the pass.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Right, PINOCCHIO, it's when. That way nobody can nail you to the wall for stupid statements because there is no way in hell that can be proven or disproven.

     

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Some people here just don't get it.  Deception in sports is a huge element.  Does a pitcher give tells as to which pitch is coming?  If they want to stay in the majors, they won't.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Right, Megatool, BB just doesn't get that deception is part of football. Great point, imbecile.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    WE may have beat the past into oblivion with this run analysis

    But have you been reading some of these columns about this team now?

    TB talks about running, Vareen talkes about being tough and physical, that the team is physical. . We have seen a lot of running lately with Blount and Ridley. Our Oline has been run blocking very well. We have two decent run blocking TE's.

    I think BB has decided that this team is going to be physical. WE will see the run, Tb likes the run. We are going to see a versatile attack. And Indie cannot stop it and Denver cannot stop it.

    I am just going to sit back and watch - these games are going to be fun. And I cannot believe I am saying that with all of the players we have lost

    If we get to the SB- 3 of the 4 teams are tuff run D's = then i may be worried

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    WE may have beat the past into oblivion with this run analysis

    But have you been reading some of these columns about this team now?

    TB talks about running, Vareen talkes about being tough and physical, that the team is physical. . We have seen a lot of running lately with Blount and Ridley. Our Oline has been run blocking very well. We have two decent run blocking TE's.

    I think BB has decided that this team is going to be physical. WE will see the run, Tb likes the run. We are going to see a versatile attack. And Indie cannot stop it and Denver cannot stop it.

    I am just going to sit back and watch - these games are going to be fun. And I cannot believe I am saying that with all of the players we have lost

    If we get to the SB- 3 of the 4 teams are tuff run D's = then i may be worried

     




    Brady has to enjoy the fact that the opponent has to respect the run instead of trying to snap him in half with blitzes every play.

     

    Actually forget respect. I want them to fear the run.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.


    Its all about how we run it. Effectively first. and that starts with going under center and pounding the ball correctly to set up the PA pass. running consistently out of the gun is not the option the YPC isnt as good that way and the PA isnt set up at all. now a good run in the gun here and there is good but the effective consistent running needs to start under center with the heavy game.

    we have stuck to the heavy run this season and it has helped with the passing growing pains and now we need to stick to the heavy dose of Blount and Ridley IF IF IF its effective. if we are getting 2 YPC its pointless and throwing bubble screens will be better as a 'running type game'.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Its all about how we run it. Effectively first. and that starts with going under center and pounding the ball correctly to set up the PA pass. running consistently out of the gun is not the option the YPC isnt as good that way and the PA isnt set up at all. now a good run in the gun here and there is good but the effective consistent running needs to start under center with the heavy game.

    we have stuck to the heavy run this season and it has helped with the passing growing pains and now we need to stick to the heavy dose of Blount and Ridley IF IF IF its effective. if we are getting 2 YPC its pointless and throwing bubble screens will be better as a 'running type game'.

    [/QUOTE]


    Stick is word. I've seen too many games where the run wassn't effective a couple of times early so it got completely abandoned for the rest of the game. This may be partly due to the O line spending too much time working on pass blocking and not enough on run blocking schemes. That seems to have changed. When the O line gets those complicated run blocking schemes working it's a thing of beauty. Then you not only force the opponent to pull closer to the box but their DBs get a face full of Ridley and Blount which can't help them chase receivers downfield the next play..

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    Stick is word. I've seen too many games where the run wassn't effective a couple of times early so it got completely abandoned for the rest of the game. This may be partly due to the O line spending too much time working on pass blocking and not enough on run blocking schemes. That seems to have changed. When the O line gets those complicated run blocking schemes working it's a thing of beauty. Then you not only force the opponent to pull closer to the box but their DBs get a face full of Ridley and Blount which can't help them chase receivers downfield the next play..

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah agree. if the run doesnt work early I don't mind trying to throw it the next few drives but we still do need to try and run it eventually.

    if the run gets taken away early hopefully the pass can be successful so it can eventually open up the run again.

    like you said, need to stick to it at times and yes the blocking is key to effectiveness

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    Stick is word. I've seen too many games where the run wassn't effective a couple of times early so it got completely abandoned for the rest of the game. This may be partly due to the O line spending too much time working on pass blocking and not enough on run blocking schemes. That seems to have changed. When the O line gets those complicated run blocking schemes working it's a thing of beauty. Then you not only force the opponent to pull closer to the box but their DBs get a face full of Ridley and Blount which can't help them chase receivers downfield the next play..

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah agree. if the run doesnt work early I don't mind trying to throw it the next few drives but we still do need to try and run it eventually.

    if the run gets taken away early hopefully the pass can be successful so it can eventually open up the run again.

    like you said, need to stick to it at times and yes the blocking is key to effectiveness

    [/QUOTE]

    For the first time in ages we have a real lead blocking FB too. Always nice to have someone to clean up the hole and nail a LB before the ball carrier goes through especially down by the goal line.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our team has a pass/run ratio over the last 5 years that is in keeping with league norms for the most part.

     

    pass/run

     

    2009 - Pats, 1.27/1 - League, 1.20/1

    2010 - Pats, 1.11/1 - League, 1.23/1

    2011 - Pats, 1.39/1 - League, 1.24/1

    2012 - Pats, 1.22/1 - League, 1.27/1

    2013 - Pats, 1.33/1 - League, 1.3/1

     

    The worst deviation was in 2011 at .15 over the league ratio. That's only 12% more than the league average. It adds up to about 2 plays a game from the league norm ratio for that worst year.

     

    (As an example for comparison's sake, selected at random, the 1995 League had a 1.26/1 ratio.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sigh, there are some who think it's a straight ratio but the straight ratio doesn't tell the tale. It's all about situational running, when it's run, how it's run, does it set up the pass, does the pass set it up. Balance isn't a straight ratio of runs but a total of how the O is run. For example a team runs 60 plays. The first 15 plays is runs, the final 15 plays is runs and the middle 30 is passing. The ratio says 50/50 but it's completely out of balance. This is why I hate statistics as an engineer. Marketers and lawyers use statistics because you can mold them in any way to make your case. You have to examine the variables behind those statistics to see where the numbers come from and at times the run game was forgotten for big chunks of the game and the D was able to drop into nickel. Now this year that hasn't been the case. I think they've mixed it up well depending on opponent and have become less predictable since when OB called the game (seriously OB had an O that my mother guessed what they were going to do, completely predictable). That will serve us much better moving forward esp since Brady lacks the receiving threats he had in the past.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah. But there is no easy way to analyze the pass/run from series to series and form a coherent conclusion.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    Stick is word. I've seen too many games where the run wassn't effective a couple of times early so it got completely abandoned for the rest of the game. This may be partly due to the O line spending too much time working on pass blocking and not enough on run blocking schemes. That seems to have changed. When the O line gets those complicated run blocking schemes working it's a thing of beauty. Then you not only force the opponent to pull closer to the box but their DBs get a face full of Ridley and Blount which can't help them chase receivers downfield the next play..

    [/QUOTE]

    yeah agree. if the run doesnt work early I don't mind trying to throw it the next few drives but we still do need to try and run it eventually.

    if the run gets taken away early hopefully the pass can be successful so it can eventually open up the run again.

    like you said, need to stick to it at times and yes the blocking is key to effectiveness

    [/QUOTE]

    I just posted these facts to show that our overall balance has been typical. It seems some have questioned that.


    I don't know that the team has ever just abandoned the run unless the scenario dictated it.

    Call me crazy, but I'm thinking the best coach in the game knows what he's doing.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The whole stupidty of this argument.

    It not about freaking ratio numbers. It's about how and when you use the run and pass and how they compliment each other and keep the opponent's D from cheating towards one or the other.

    This is why I'm always harping about the play action. It could go either way. I have nothing against passing what I hate is obvious passing formations when the play doesn't call for one.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. It's not totals or total ratios, it;s the timing, the when, the hows you use the run and achieve balance with the pass.

    Some people here just don't get it.  Deception in sports is a huge element.  Does a pitcher give tells as to which pitch is coming?  If they want to stay in the majors, they won't.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, let's understand what you're saying here.  When it comes to passing, it is the all important 35 ppg.  When it comes to running it's where, when & how far?  

    What an idiot you are.

     

Share