Run ratios for half a decade.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    While I agree there is situational relevance, there is what appears to be a strong correlation between the Pats pass-run ratio and their W-L record.

    I posted some time ago some stats from the last 3 years on this:  the closer the pats got to a 1:1 ratio, the closer they came to be undefeated. Once they got beyond 1.75:1, they were almost winless.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    While I agree there is situational relevance, there is what appears to be a strong correlation between the Pats pass-run ratio and their W-L record.

    I posted some time ago some stats from the last 3 years on this:  the closer the pats got to a 1:1 ratio, the closer they came to be undefeated. Once they got beyond 1.75:1, they were almost winless.




    Brady is deadly with the play action. No effective running game - no play action.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    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.



    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.

     



    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.




    It used to be 40 passes a game for him. He's just making this shyte up as he goes. It's all about being a liar in his case.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    While I agree there is situational relevance, there is what appears to be a strong correlation between the Pats pass-run ratio and their W-L record.

    I posted some time ago some stats from the last 3 years on this:  the closer the pats got to a 1:1 ratio, the closer they came to be undefeated. Once they got beyond 1.75:1, they were almost winless.




    As BB  has inferred, that number is affected greatly by the situation. It can't stand alone and be an accurate measure.

    As he also addressed, when you're winning by plenty, you run to kill clock, because the clock is your friend. When you are behind by plenty, you pass to catch up, because the clock is your enemy. Of course those tendencies are going to swing the W-L rate toward running, but it's not real, because your running more to kill clock when you're ahead; it's a situational skewing that has to do with the clock rather than successful strategy.

    And then of course if your running and passing are both being effective you will exhibit more balance.

    BB knows what he's doing.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    While I agree there is situational relevance, there is what appears to be a strong correlation between the Pats pass-run ratio and their W-L record.

    I posted some time ago some stats from the last 3 years on this:  the closer the pats got to a 1:1 ratio, the closer they came to be undefeated. Once they got beyond 1.75:1, they were almost winless.




    As BB  has inferred, that number is affected greatly by the situation. It can't stand alone and be an accurate measure.

    As he also addressed, when you're winning by plenty, you run to kill clock, because the clock is your friend. When you are behind by plenty, you pass to catch up, because the clock is your enemy. Of course those tendencies are going to swing the W-L rate toward running, but it's not real, because your running more to kill clock when you're ahead; it's a situational skewing that has to do with the clock rather than successful strategy.

    And then of course if your running and passing are both being effective you will exhibit more balance.

    BB knows what he's doing.



    Until this year how often have we been behind by "plenty"?

    When is the last time you watched a game and said, damn we should have thrown more!

    Be honest here.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    While I agree there is situational relevance, there is what appears to be a strong correlation between the Pats pass-run ratio and their W-L record.

    I posted some time ago some stats from the last 3 years on this:  the closer the pats got to a 1:1 ratio, the closer they came to be undefeated. Once they got beyond 1.75:1, they were almost winless.




    As BB  has inferred, that number is affected greatly by the situation. It can't stand alone and be an accurate measure.

    As he also addressed, when you're winning by plenty, you run to kill clock, because the clock is your friend. When you are behind by plenty, you pass to catch up, because the clock is your enemy. Of course those tendencies are going to swing the W-L rate toward running, but it's not real, because your running more to kill clock when you're ahead; it's a situational skewing that has to do with the clock rather than successful strategy.

    And then of course if your running and passing are both being effective you will exhibit more balance.

    BB knows what he's doing.



    Until this year how often have we been behind by "plenty"?

    When is the last time you watched a game and said, damn we should have thrown more!

    Be honest here.




    Not often. Otherwise our ratio might not be so similar to the league average.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    While I agree there is situational relevance, there is what appears to be a strong correlation between the Pats pass-run ratio and their W-L record.

    I posted some time ago some stats from the last 3 years on this:  the closer the pats got to a 1:1 ratio, the closer they came to be undefeated. Once they got beyond 1.75:1, they were almost winless.




    As BB  has inferred, that number is affected greatly by the situation. It can't stand alone and be an accurate measure.

    As he also addressed, when you're winning by plenty, you run to kill clock, because the clock is your friend. When you are behind by plenty, you pass to catch up, because the clock is your enemy. Of course those tendencies are going to swing the W-L rate toward running, but it's not real, because your running more to kill clock when you're ahead; it's a situational skewing that has to do with the clock rather than successful strategy.

    And then of course if your running and passing are both being effective you will exhibit more balance.

    BB knows what he's doing.



    Until this year how often have we been behind by "plenty"?

    When is the last time you watched a game and said, damn we should have thrown more!

    Be honest here.




    Not often. Otherwise our ratio might not be so similar to the league average.



    The league average is also 8-8 in the win loss column.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

    71 to 29 percent of yardage now comes through the air. wowser, I wonder how all those playoff teams knew we were going to pass?

    Hey how do these numbers factor into your 1 point whatever percent you posted?

    Be honest here...

    I will await the next series of......I think BB knows what he is doing, and you will say that as you have spent 16,000 of your 18,000 posts telling us BB doesn't know what he is doing when building a team( thats funny to look at in print isn't it?)

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

     

     

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

    71 to 29 percent of yardage now comes through the air. wowser, I wonder how all those playoff teams knew we were going to pass?

    Hey how do these numbers factor into your 1 point whatever percent you posted?

    Be honest here...

    I will await the next series of......I think BB knows what he is doing, and you will say that as you have spent 16,000 of your 18,000 posts telling us BB doesn't know what he is doing when building a team( thats funny to look at in print isn't it?)

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.



    I think that also has to take into account that Antwan Smith nor Corey Dillon have been running the ball. since 2007 its been Maroney, BJGE, Sammy Morris, & Woodhead.

    Since Ridely and BLount have arrived they have seemed to go under center more and run it more consistently

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

    71 to 29 percent of yardage now comes through the air. wowser, I wonder how all those playoff teams knew we were going to pass?

    Hey how do these numbers factor into your 1 point whatever percent you posted?

    Be honest here...

    I will await the next series of......I think BB knows what he is doing, and you will say that as you have spent 16,000 of your 18,000 posts telling us BB doesn't know what he is doing when building a team( thats funny to look at in print isn't it?)

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

     



    I think that also has to take into account that Antwan Smith nor Corey Dillon have been running the ball. since 2007 its been Maroney, BJGE, Sammy Morris, & Woodhead.

     

    Since Ridely and BLount have arrived they have seemed to go under center more and run it more consistently



    Oh, Joe. Tell me what you think about this...

    A. Smith career in N.E, 45 games 45 starts 2,781 yards on 721 carries, 3.8 ypc, 21 tds        5 fumbles lost

    BJGE in 2 years as a starter in N.E 32 games 1,675 yards on 410 carries, 4.1 ypc, 24 tds         0 fumbles lost 

    in 2008 we used a platoon, big time names like sammy morris, Lamont Jordan and Faulk together they had in 16 games 1,599 yards on 319 carries 5.0 ypc, 14 tds on the year and 1 fumble lost

    S. Ridley career in N.E 46 games 26 starts 2,477 yards on 555 carries, 4.5 ypc, 20 tds         5 fumbles lost

    We have always been able to run the ball, even with Maroney and Morris in 07 we had in

    16 games, 1,219 yards on 270 carries, 4.5 ypc, 9 tds and 0 fumbles

     

    So as you can see Joe, we have always been good at running the football, we have the best o line coach in NFL history.

     

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    I posted this on another thread, but here are the run-pass ratios for the seven seasons the Pats have made it to the AFC Championship game.  Despite what some think, Charlie Weis's 2001 playoff run was among our most pass-heavy postseasons, as was McDaniel's playoff run last year.  Bill O'Brien's run in 2011, was our third most run-heavy, with pass-run ratios nearly the same as Charlie Weis's 2003 run. 

    Not that pass-run ratios are very significant (Belichick explained this earlier this week), but regardless perceptions don't always match reality. 

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I posted this on another thread, but here are the run-pass ratios for the seven seasons the Pats have made it to the AFC Championship game.  Despite what some think, Charlie Weis's 2001 playoff run was among our most pass-heavy postseasons, as was McDaniel's playoff run last year.  Bill O'Brien's run in 2011, was our third most run-heavy, with pass-run ratios nearly the same as Charlie Weis's 2003 run. 

    Not that pass-run ratios are very significant (Belichick explained this earlier this week), but regardless perceptions don't always match reality. 



    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

    Don't worry pro, I don't expect you to take this one head on.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I posted this on another thread, but here are the run-pass ratios for the seven seasons the Pats have made it to the AFC Championship game.  Despite what some think, Charlie Weis's 2001 playoff run was among our most pass-heavy postseasons, as was McDaniel's playoff run last year.  Bill O'Brien's run in 2011, was our third most run-heavy, with pass-run ratios nearly the same as Charlie Weis's 2003 run. 

    Not that pass-run ratios are very significant (Belichick explained this earlier this week), but regardless perceptions don't always match reality. 



    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

    Don't worry pro, I don't expect you to take this one head on.



    Well, some idiot journalist may have written that, but in 2003, we had 537 pass attempts plus 32 sacks for a total of 569 pass plays and 473 running plays.  That's a pass-run ratio of 54.6%-45.4%, but just believe whatever fits with your misconceptions. 

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:



    Oh, Joe. Tell me what you think about this...

    A. Smith career in N.E, 45 games 45 starts 2,781 yards on 721 carries, 3.8 ypc, 21 tds        5 fumbles lost

    BJGE in 2 years as a starter in N.E 32 games 1,675 yards on 410 carries, 4.1 ypc, 24 tds         0 fumbles lost 

    in 2008 we used a platoon, big time names like sammy morris, Lamont Jordan and Faulk together they had

    in 16 games 1,599 yards on 319 carries 5.0 ypc, 14 tds on the year and 1 fumble lost

    S. Ridley career in N.E 46 games 26 starts 2,477 yards on 555 carries, 4.5 ypc, 20 tds         5 fumbles lost

    We have always been able to run the ball, even with Maroney and Morris in 07 we had in

    16 games, 1,219 yards on 270 carries, 4.5 ypc, 9 tds and 0 fumbles

     

    So as you can see Joe, we have always been good at running the football, we have the best o line coach in NFL history.

     



    welp those stats dont lie.  too bad we get away from the run in the playoffs since 2007 if it was successful in the reg. season.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I posted this on another thread, but here are the run-pass ratios for the seven seasons the Pats have made it to the AFC Championship game.  Despite what some think, Charlie Weis's 2001 playoff run was among our most pass-heavy postseasons, as was McDaniel's playoff run last year.  Bill O'Brien's run in 2011, was our third most run-heavy, with pass-run ratios nearly the same as Charlie Weis's 2003 run. 

    Not that pass-run ratios are very significant (Belichick explained this earlier this week), but regardless perceptions don't always match reality. 



    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

    Don't worry pro, I don't expect you to take this one head on.



    Well, some idiot journalist may have written that, but in 2003, we had 537 pass attempts plus 32 sacks for a total of 569 pass plays and 473 running plays.  That's a pass-run ratio of 54.6%-45.4%, but just believe whatever fits with your misconceptions. 



    I guess you missed the part where it said, "NEARLY EVEN IN THE THREE SUPER BOWL SEASONS

    01, 03, and 04 the patriots had 1,474 passes to 1,470 rushes. oops

     


    You conveniently picked 03 when we had a completely worn out 32 year old Antowian Smith as our lead back, and we still ran him 26 times for 83 tough yards in the super bowl leading to the most points we scored in our super bowl hisory.

    Don't bother with the oh, that's because we had a big lead and the stats were skewed stuff. Our dynasty D gave up the lead in the 4rth qtr again, because as always we were playing the other best team in the league.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:



    Oh, Joe. Tell me what you think about this...

    A. Smith career in N.E, 45 games 45 starts 2,781 yards on 721 carries, 3.8 ypc, 21 tds        5 fumbles lost

    BJGE in 2 years as a starter in N.E 32 games 1,675 yards on 410 carries, 4.1 ypc, 24 tds         0 fumbles lost 

    in 2008 we used a platoon, big time names like sammy morris, Lamont Jordan and Faulk together they had

    in 16 games 1,599 yards on 319 carries 5.0 ypc, 14 tds on the year and 1 fumble lost

    S. Ridley career in N.E 46 games 26 starts 2,477 yards on 555 carries, 4.5 ypc, 20 tds         5 fumbles lost

    We have always been able to run the ball, even with Maroney and Morris in 07 we had in

    16 games, 1,219 yards on 270 carries, 4.5 ypc, 9 tds and 0 fumbles

     

    So as you can see Joe, we have always been good at running the football, we have the best o line coach in NFL history.

     



    welp those stats dont lie.  too bad we get away from the run in the playoffs since 2007 if it was successful in the reg. season.



    +1 Joe, +1!

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I posted this on another thread, but here are the run-pass ratios for the seven seasons the Pats have made it to the AFC Championship game.  Despite what some think, Charlie Weis's 2001 playoff run was among our most pass-heavy postseasons, as was McDaniel's playoff run last year.  Bill O'Brien's run in 2011, was our third most run-heavy, with pass-run ratios nearly the same as Charlie Weis's 2003 run. 

    Not that pass-run ratios are very significant (Belichick explained this earlier this week), but regardless perceptions don't always match reality. 

     



    "In fact, the Pats' pass-run ratio was nearly even in the three Super Bowl seasons – 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. Since 2004, it has risen to 55/45. The same is true for the percentage of yards gained through the air rather than via the run. That climbed from a 64/46 split to 71-29."

     

     

    Don't worry pro, I don't expect you to take this one head on.



    Well, some idiot journalist may have written that, but in 2003, we had 537 pass attempts plus 32 sacks for a total of 569 pass plays and 473 running plays.  That's a pass-run ratio of 54.6%-45.4%, but just believe whatever fits with your misconceptions. 



    I guess you missed the part where it said, "NEARLY EVEN IN THE THREE SUPER BOWL SEASONS

    01, 03, and 04 the patriots had 1,474 passes to 1,470 rushes. oops

     


    You conveniently picked 03 when we had a completely worn out 32 year old Antowian Smith as our lead back, and we still ran him 26 times for 83 tough yards in the super bowl leading to the most points we scored in our super bowl hisory.

    Don't bother with the oh, that's because we had a big lead and the stats were skewed stuff. Our dynasty D gave up the lead in the 4rth qtr again, because as always we were playing the other best team in the league.




    So your genius journalist (in this the WEEI talk show host who knows more about football than Bill Belichick?) is averaging data across three seasons and that's supposed to mean something?    In case you haven't noticed, the Lombardi is given annually, not every three years . . . 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    So your genius journalist (in this the WEEI talk show host who knows more about football than Bill Belichick?) is averaging data across three seasons and that's supposed to mean something?    In case you haven't noticed, the Lombardi is given annually, not every three years . .

     

     

    ^THERE IT IS. The guy thinks he knows more then BB because he posted actual statistics of our super bowl years. No opinions, no cherry picking like you did with the 1 super bowl year where we had an old slow back wayyyy worse then BJGE but still gave him 26 carries in the SB against a D line that was very similar to the N.Y Giiants in 2011.

     

    We call that that the nail in the coffin. When all other arguments have failed one falls back on attacking the opponent with personal slants in order to denegrate his or her's credibilty. This tactic is often used in presidential debates...smear campaigns.

    I guess you have no choice.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    So your genius journalist (in this the WEEI talk show host who knows more about football than Bill Belichick?) is averaging data across three seasons and that's supposed to mean something?    In case you haven't noticed, the Lombardi is given annually, not every three years . .

     

     

    ^THERE IT IS. The guy thinks he knows more then BB because he posted actual statistics of our super bowl years. No opinions, no cherry picking like you did with the 1 super bowl year where we had an old slow back wayyyy worse then BJGE but still gave him 26 carries in the SB against a D line that was very similar to the N.Y Giiants in 2011.

     

    We call that that the nail in the coffin. When all other arguments have failed one falls back on attacking the opponent with personal slants in order to denegrate his or her's credibilty. This tactic is often used in presidential debates...smear campaigns.

    I guess you have no choice.



    You're the guy who thinks he knows more than Belichick.  I'm trying to tell you I think Belichick knows what he's doing.  You're the one who keeps saying he isn't running enough.  Belichick just said this week that run-pass ratios aren't significant.  But you keep trying to say otherwise.   It's you who thinks he knows more than Belichick, not me. 

     

     
  • 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:

     


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



    yes and no, 1st down and less then 3 to go passing it 3 times most likely not the best idea. Abandoning the run because it isn't as effective as you hope right out the gate also bad. 2 or 3 series in a row with the vast majority being pass and letting the D sit in money formations then that is bad. Running every first or in downs with less than 3 to go or pass it 80% of time with more than 5 yrds to go (except 1st down) and being predictable that's bad. I haven't seen much of that this year (a couple times but not many). Under OB we saw it a lot. Like I said my mother could guess OBs calls and would yell at the TV, "watch he's going to run it. Why don't they try one of those door thingies (screens)' or "Woodhead gets those all the time why don't they let him try for once instead of throwing it everytime" (on 3rd downs with 5 yrds to go). There are no set stats that will tell you but watching the game and the flow of the game it's fairly easy to see if their is balance or not. Put it this way, if it's predictable to us then the other team knows it too. Name of the game is keep them guess, makes both aspects of O better.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    So your genius journalist (in this the WEEI talk show host who knows more about football than Bill Belichick?) is averaging data across three seasons and that's supposed to mean something?    In case you haven't noticed, the Lombardi is given annually, not every three years . .

     

     

    ^THERE IT IS. The guy thinks he knows more then BB because he posted actual statistics of our super bowl years. No opinions, no cherry picking like you did with the 1 super bowl year where we had an old slow back wayyyy worse then BJGE but still gave him 26 carries in the SB against a D line that was very similar to the N.Y Giiants in 2011.

     

    We call that that the nail in the coffin. When all other arguments have failed one falls back on attacking the opponent with personal slants in order to denegrate his or her's credibilty. This tactic is often used in presidential debates...smear campaigns.

    I guess you have no choice.



    You're the guy who thinks he knows more than Belichick.  I'm trying to tell you I think Belichick knows what he's doing.  You're the one who keeps saying he isn't running enough.  Belichick just said this week that run-pass ratios aren't significant.  But you keep trying to say otherwise.   It's you who thinks he knows more than Belichick, not me. 

     



     When all other arguments have failed one falls back on attacking the opponent with personal slants in order to denegrate his or her's credibilty.


    Where in that interview did he say balance is not important?

    I must have missed it.

    I don't care about exact run pass ratios like 30 rushes = 9-0 which is actually what the question was about.

    I care that we are no longer a one dimensional offense like we were for the majority of Obriens years, and even though it still rears its ugly head in a few big moments, I think we are back on track! 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     


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



    yes and no, 1st down and less then 3 to go passing it 3 times most likely not the best idea. Abandoning the run because it isn't as effective as you hope right out the gate also bad. 2 or 3 series in a row with the vast majority being pass and letting the D sit in money formations then that is bad. Running every first or in downs with less than 3 to go or pass it 80% of time with more than 5 yrds to go (except 1st down) and being predictable that's bad. I haven't seen much of that this year (a couple times but not many). Under OB we saw it a lot. Like I said my mother could guess OBs calls and would yell at the TV, "watch he's going to run it. Why don't they try one of those door thingies (screens)' or "Woodhead gets those all the time why don't they let him try for once instead of throwing it everytime" (on 3rd downs with 5 yrds to go). There are no set stats that will tell you but watching the game and the flow of the game it's fairly easy to see if their is balance or not. Put it this way, if it's predictable to us then the other team knows it too. Name of the game is keep them guess, makes both aspects of O better.



    Great post eng. Well said, and hopefully more effective then what I've been saying...at least to my friends babe and prolate.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

     

    Please re-read Champ more carefully . . .

    Q: You're 9-0 when you rush 30 or more times in a game. What do you make of that statistic? 

    BB: I'm sure a lot of those rushes came when we were ahead so it's easy when you're ahead in the fourth quarter to want to run the ball. The problem is getting to that point. I don't think that statistic is that significant. What's significant is how you get the lead to put yourself in that situation in the game. Anytime you get 12, 14 carries in the fourth quarter, that's going to get you up to 30 rushes normally. 

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off. 

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     RESONSE: OK I'm reading, looks like the question was exactly what I said it was. 30 rushes = 9-0. Btw as I stated it's never been about that...but I know that won't stop you from saying it anyway.

    Please re-read Champ more carefully . . .

    Q: You're 9-0 when you rush 30 or more times in a game. What do you make of that statistic? 

    BB: I'm sure a lot of those rushes came when we were ahead so it's easy when you're ahead in the fourth quarter to want to run the ball. The problem is getting to that point. I don't think that statistic is that significant. What's significant is how you get the lead to put yourself in that situation in the game. Anytime you get 12, 14 carries in the fourth quarter, that's going to get you up to 30 rushes normally. 

    Q: There were a couple games and situations where you guys persevered with the run even though you were behind and it paid off. 

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.




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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    I love that we had to start numerous new threads to hide the original thread about running where all the originators of these new threads got owned by two reporters who had to the temerity to write articles within 24 hours that support that these new threads are garbage.

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share