Run ratios for half a decade.

  1. 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:

     

    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.



    It's funny only if you don't realize that team building and head coaching are two distinctly different jobs.

    And you have told us what a great GM he is as 5000 of your 6000+ posts were proposing you know how to coach the team better than BB.

     

     
  2. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    [/QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]


    And the Bills ran more than anybody, but occupy the cellar of the division.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey Joe, 


    New England doesn't get away from the run in the playoffs ... except for Superbowl 42 when they were averageing 2.5 ypc and it wasn't as successful. 

    In decisive (SB win or playoff ending loss) games under Weiss they ran the ball 23 times to 30 pass attempts. Since Weiss, it's been 22 times to 30 pass attempts. 

    Don't let the snake oil of adding in the last few drives of playoff losses (like the 21 passes New England threw in the final 6 minutes of last season's loss to Baltimore) fool you. And don't let the snake oil of adding in the final drives against the Eagles (where they ran it 8 times to bring the the number of runs much higher) fool you. 

    Running more is a product of finishing a game with a lead ... not a necessary precursor of it. 

    New England runs more than enough ... injuries to key players (Gronkowski!!) and a subpar defense that doesn't create turnovers in the playoffs are much bigger factors deciding their exit than a run here or there. 

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think it's silly that having been presented with a clear and unambiguous explanation from Bill Belichick himself, the tactic is to resort to articles by journalists who have never, as far as I can tell, coached a football game, never mind won multiple Super Bowls!

    Sure Mike Reiss and some WEEI talk show host know more about football than Bill Belichick.  Okey dokey . . . 

     
  5. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think it's silly that having been presented with a clear and unambiguous explanation from Bill Belichick himself, the tactic is to resort to articles by journalists who have never, as far as I can tell, coached a football game, never mind won multiple Super Bowls!

    Sure Mike Reiss and some WEEI talk show host know more about football than Bill Belichick.  Okey dokey . . . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty sure everybody would agree that saying when you run 30 times you win is as dumb as rusty saying when you pass 40 times you lose. Time to kick that crutch out from under you. We are talking about 2 separate topics here. 

    But that won't stop you...

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    This has become the most idiotic discussion in the history of this board.

    It doesn't matter if it's obvious to the other team which type of play you are going to run. They will react accordingly so don't show them.

    Easy to say, hard to do.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Run ratios for half a decade.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    New England runs more than enough ... injuries to key players (Gronkowski!!) and a subpar defense that doesn't create turnovers in the playoffs are much bigger factors deciding their exit than a run here or there. 

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ Truth.

     

Share