State of balance.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Last season we were ranked 17th in the NFL in rushing attempts, this year we are ranked #2... are you really going to take that stance?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, we have run more plays than any other team, probably because of the no huddle.

    But it all boils down to passing nearly exactly the same number of times and running exactly 1.5 times more per quarter or 6 times a game.

    Bottom line: We are running 5% more this year than last, but we have run 5% more plays per game than last year.

    If you want to think of one play in 20 as a big increase in running, feel free. I'm glad you're happy with that because if the rest of us knew 1 play in 20 would allay all the endless hand wringing over the running game last year we would all have demanded it just for the peace it would have brought.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I have to go to the gym, feel free to pile on while I'm gone.

    I'm sure the rest of the pass happy contingent will as well.  I welcome your attempts at telling us why 2007 and this year's offense, both of which were balanced, is a result of Tom Brady just being dialed in while the running game plays no part in it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Enjoy your gym time wozzy. We'll try to go easy on you in your absence. I've got to head out to Hudson NY to fix a broken system. Whoopee. Crappy weather to boot. Procrastinating.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    wait a min... I was told that an extra 1-2 carries a quarter wouldn't make any difference and that .3ypc extra isn't a huge help that we need 1-2ypc more... and that the O would suffer if you took the ball out of Brady's hands instead of commiting to a running game esp if it didn't produce immediate results

    Are you telling me that balance is actually improving the team? BTW, you wouldn't happen to think that the extra .3ypc could be coming from commiting to the run and mixing up the play calling instead of being so predictable that last year even my mother knew when they were running do you?

    [/QUOTE]


    You weren't told any of that. So you are lying, as usual.

    You weren't told we needed 6 ypc.

    You weren't told there was any problem with running 1-2 times more a quarter.

    Ridley as lead back getting 4.6 ypc compared to Benny as lead back getting 3.7 ypc explains the modest increase in running frequency quite clearly.

    [/QUOTE]

    I love how you call me a liar yet lie right in the thread lol

     

    I never said 6ypc I said an extra 1-2ypc. What was it you were carrying on about last year that BJGE's 3.7ypc wasn't enough and that you needed 4.5-5. Well isn't that 1-2ypc more then previously?

    In this thread you asked how 1-2 extra carries a quarter affected anything so yeah... I don't think I need to explain that one.

    When you don't have a proper answer to defend yourself just call the other person a liar right?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again way to deflect from the obvious... The Bungles sux.  When Ridley gets traded to the Jaguars and has to run behind that horrid offensive line, lets make comparisons.  

    The thing you don't get, will never undertsnad is that football is a team sport.  To you quarterback play happens on an island, runningback play happens on an island, wide receiver play happens on an island... it's an affliction commonly referred to as "fantasy football-itis."  

    Too much Colin Cowherd, too much fantasy football stats... go watch some nameless highschool team play, watch how all of their players success or failure depends on the players and schemes around them.

    [/QUOTE]


    Wow, you are a trip.  Talk about team sport yet you sight the running game as the sole reason the Pats O has improved (slightly).  They were a top 2 O last year also.  So, they've catapulted to # 1, awesome!

    Again, you act as though they never ran the ball last year and any time it is even mentioned, you inflate like a Macey's Parade float.

    Please show us a comment made about anything other than the rushing attack last year was ineffecttive at times and not good enough to take the ball away from Brady.

    You B3tch and moan about them not using him more in the SB but your only expanation for that is the coaching.  ???

    The rest of us have maintained that the coaches know what they are doing and always try to put the team in a position to win.

    It's really very simple. you run more when it' working and pass more when it's not.

    Negative runs and putting your QB in a 3rd & 14, is ot a good thing.  Positive runs putting your Qb in a 3rd and 1, is.  Which would you chose if you were the coach?  Which would you chose if your possessions were limited and you could not afford to waste any?

    I say the coaches made the right decision last year.

      If you don't agree then let them know, maybe you can get an apprentice towel boy job, but I doubt it.

    How do you see the game plan shaping up against the 9'rs and Texans? 

    Do you think they'll run much?

    Do you even know that aside from Denver (#9), the Pats have been running against the bottom 10 run D's in the league?   That's the reality of it!

    The REAL test will come against the #'s 2,4,7.......coming up!

    Until then, you might want to keep all that helium in the tank.  There is a national shortage you know.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    wait a min... I was told that an extra 1-2 carries a quarter wouldn't make any difference and that .3ypc extra isn't a huge help that we need 1-2ypc more... and that the O would suffer if you took the ball out of Brady's hands instead of commiting to a running game esp if it didn't produce immediate results

    Are you telling me that balance is actually improving the team? BTW, you wouldn't happen to think that the extra .3ypc could be coming from commiting to the run and mixing up the play calling instead of being so predictable that last year even my mother knew when they were running do you?

    [/QUOTE]


    You weren't told any of that. So you are lying, as usual.

    You weren't told we needed 6 ypc.

    You weren't told there was any problem with running 1-2 times more a quarter.

    Ridley as lead back getting 4.6 ypc compared to Benny as lead back getting 3.7 ypc explains the modest increase in running frequency quite clearly.

    [/QUOTE]

    I love how you call me a liar yet lie right in the thread lol

     

    I never said 6ypc I said an extra 1-2ypc.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well....

     

    They averaged 4 ypc last season. And TWO extra ypc on top of the 4 from last year equals SIX ypc, right?

     

    Busted.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    wait a min... I was told that an extra 1-2 carries a quarter wouldn't make any difference and that .3ypc extra isn't a huge help that we need 1-2ypc more... and that the O would suffer if you took the ball out of Brady's hands instead of commiting to a running game esp if it didn't produce immediate results

    Are you telling me that balance is actually improving the team? BTW, you wouldn't happen to think that the extra .3ypc could be coming from commiting to the run and mixing up the play calling instead of being so predictable that last year even my mother knew when they were running do you?

    [/QUOTE]


    You weren't told any of that. So you are lying, as usual.

    You weren't told we needed 6 ypc.

    You weren't told there was any problem with running 1-2 times more a quarter.

    Ridley as lead back getting 4.6 ypc compared to Benny as lead back getting 3.7 ypc explains the modest increase in running frequency quite clearly.

    [/QUOTE]

    I love how you call me a liar yet lie right in the thread lol

     

    I never said 6ypc I said an extra 1-2ypc. What was it you were carrying on about last year that BJGE's 3.7ypc wasn't enough and that you needed 4.5-5. Well isn't that 1-2ypc more then previously?

    In this thread you asked how 1-2 extra carries a quarter affected anything so yeah... I don't think I need to explain that one.

    When you don't have a proper answer to defend yourself just call the other person a liar right?

    [/QUOTE]


    I say a person is lying when they are lying. You were lying.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     What was it you were carrying on about last year that BJGE's 3.7ypc wasn't enough and that you needed 4.5-5. Well isn't that 1-2ypc more then previously?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No. 4.5 - 5 isn't 2 ypc more than 3.7.

    4.5 isn't even 1 ypc more than 3.7.

     

    What I was carrying on about last year was that Benny's 3.7 ypc was well below the NFL AVERAGE, not something you would actually want more of.

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    Yep everyone but you lies Babe, just keep on twisting your logic over and over until you make it sound right to you. You alway referred to BJGE as the lead back last year which he averaged 3.7ypc not 4 and you always said he was well below the league average and needed 4.5-5ypc to be affective but I'm sure you'll just say you meant to team average and not the individual runner, because you don't reference an individual runner ever (caugh BJGE threads weekly). You post data just vague enough that if someone calls you on it you can call them a liar and wessel your way into calling yourself right but all this is, is another way for you to back track and call yourself right again even though you fought so hard and so long about balance not being an issue. Next you'll proclaim that even though they are running it more and in more unpredictable manners that it's not balance because it's not a 50/50 split. Face it Babe, this team is much more balanced this year because they do have better backs, they commit to those backs even if it doesn't produce immediate results, and finally they mix up the play calling. All of which helps with the ypc average, the play action, and lastly Brady himself since he doesn't have to pass through double and triple teams consistently. You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yep everyone but you lies Babe, just keep on twisting your logic over and over until you make it sound right to you.

    [/QUOTE]

    More lies.

    Actually, it has been very few and far between that I have accused posters if lying. But I have said that of you several times.

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Next you'll proclaim that even though they are running it more and in more unpredictable manners that it's not balance because it's not a 50/50 split.

    [/QUOTE]

    More lies. Never implied any such thing.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along

    [/QUOTE]

    Look in the mirror. You're talking about yourself.

    A 1 play in 20 change to the running game is not a major adjustment.

    A nearly 25% improvement in the production of the lead back is substantial though.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Last season we were ranked 17th in the NFL in rushing attempts, this year we are ranked #2... are you really going to take that stance?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, we have run more plays than any other team, probably because of the no huddle.

    But it all boils down to passing nearly exactly the same number of times and running exactly 1.5 times more per quarter or 6 times a game.

    Bottom line: We are running 5% more this year than last, but we have run 5% more plays per game than last year.

    If you want to think of one play in 20 as a big increase in running, feel free. I'm glad you're happy with that because if the rest of us knew 1 play in 20 would allay all the endless hand wringing over the running game last year we would all have demanded it just for the peace it would have brought.

    [/QUOTE]

    We have run more offensive plays than any other team because our defense leads the NFL in takeaways, it's not a mystery.  

    Running game rests the defense, who have more energy to make plays; synchronicity, synergy, complimentary football, whatever you want to call it.

    Us being ranked 17th in rushing attempts last year vs being ranked 2nd like today or even tenth like 07' is a big difference in terms of balance, and despite your law of average stats that are misleading.

    I can't arugue about it though, I'm enjoying too much just watching it in realtime.

    If we continue being BALANCED in the playoffs and our D continues to mature, we'll go all the way.  Go Pats!

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

    Re: State of balance.

    If you can't see the difference in how teams play NE between this year and last you are daft. 

    Benny never threatened or concerned any defense NE ever presented him too. And he could never exploit the same seams that were there that Ridley and co explode into. 

    The addition of Lloyd, who draws attention at the edge, and Ridley who can actually take advantage of running behind these WR/TEs full time has made the offense more diverse.

    In the end, though, the team record is the same. The offensive scoring (minus defensive and special teams scores) is the same. 

    The benefit will be when NE matches up against teams that can control the middle of the field well, like the Giants, et al. So you can't really see the difference the added versatility makes. 

    Btw, Brady throws more TDs on play action every single season of his career. It's how this offense is structured. That stat is no big change at all. 

    Most importantly, because the whole argument was structured around the "defense" being better off because they ran more ... the defense is actually worse at this point than it was last season. 

    All in all, a nominal total impact. But one that might be felt depending on who NE draws down the road. 

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Last season we were ranked 17th in the NFL in rushing attempts, this year we are ranked #2... are you really going to take that stance?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, we have run more plays than any other team, probably because of the no huddle.

    But it all boils down to passing nearly exactly the same number of times and running exactly 1.5 times more per quarter or 6 times a game.

    Bottom line: We are running 5% more this year than last, but we have run 5% more plays per game than last year.

    If you want to think of one play in 20 as a big increase in running, feel free. I'm glad you're happy with that because if the rest of us knew 1 play in 20 would allay all the endless hand wringing over the running game last year we would all have demanded it just for the peace it would have brought.

    [/QUOTE]

    We have run more offensive plays than any other team because our defense leads the NFL in takeaways, it's not a mystery.  

    Running game rests the defense, who have more energy to make plays; synchronicity, synergy, complimentary football, whatever you want to call it.

    Us being ranked 17th in rushing attempts last year vs being ranked 2nd like today or even tenth like 07' is a big difference in terms of balance, and despite your law of average stats that are misleading.

    I can't arugue about it though, I'm enjoying too much just watching it in realtime.

    If we continue being BALANCED in the playoffs and our D continues to mature, we'll go all the way.  Go Pats!

    [/QUOTE]


    If you are happy with this as being more balanced then I am happy for you. I mean that. You were very troubled last year with the state of the run frequency.

    I just see it as the running being more effective so we are doing it a bit more. BB is doing just like he said he would do. If we were getting over 5 ypc I suspect he would run it even more.

    I am pleased as punch to be getting nearly 25% more production from our lead back. I have no complaint whatsoever that we are running 1 more time every 20 plays.

    My only concern is the same as last year. Give me good pass defense at the endgame.

    My   only   concern.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: State of balance.

    They're still allowing more ppg than they did last year so I wouldn't say the balance has been huge for the defense. Also, a lot of their turnovers this year have just been horrendous play by opposing QBs. I'm not playing debbie downer or hating on the defense, just calling it like I see it.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you can't see the difference in how teams play NE between this year and last you are daft. 

    Benny never threatened or concerned any defense NE ever presented him too. And he could never exploit the same seams that were there that Ridley and co explode into. 

    The addition of Lloyd, who draws attention at the edge, and Ridley who can actually take advantage of running behind these WR/TEs full time has made the offense more diverse.

    In the end, though, the team record is the same. The offensive scoring (minus defensive and special teams scores) is the same. 

    The benefit will be when NE matches up against teams that can control the middle of the field well, like the Giants, et al. So you can't really see the difference the added versatility makes. 

    Btw, Brady throws more TDs on play action every single season of his career. It's how this offense is structured. That stat is no big change at all. 

    Most importantly, because the whole argument was structured around the "defense" being better off because they ran more ... the defense is actually worse at this point than it was last season. 

    All in all, a nominal total impact. But one that might be felt depending on who NE draws down the road. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Absolutely right.  Their ability to run the ball and set up play action will pay dividends in the playoffs.  They will be harder to defend, and they will have a chance to win even if Brady isn't having his best day.  Of course the defense will have to do its part too...

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along

    [/QUOTE]

    Look in the mirror. You're talking about yourself.

    A 1 play in 20 change to the running game is not a major adjustment.

    A nearly 25% improvement in the production of the lead back is substantial though.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that goes without saying. 

    Who would seriously argue that if Ridley were creeping along with a 3.7 YPC that BB would be giving him extra carries?

    The fact that he earns carries makes that happen. I mean, really, there is actually a QUOTE from Bill HIMSELF discussing this. He says point blank .... we would have given more carries last season if the RBs were more productive with their carries.

    How is this even a debate?!??!?!?!

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How is this even a debate?!??!?!?!

    [/QUOTE]

    No one is actually debating this.  These are just jealous fans from other teams here to attack Brady and BB by pretending to be Pats fans with the following opinions:

    1.  The "BB sucks" crowd that say all the Pats success is due to Brady; and

    2.  The "Brady sucks" crowd that say all of Brady's success is due to BB.

    In the end it's probably just one guy with multiple fake accounts trying to prove that BB and Brady suck.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you can't see the difference in how teams play NE between this year and last you are daft. 

    Benny never threatened or concerned any defense NE ever presented him too. And he could never exploit the same seams that were there that Ridley and co explode into. 

    The addition of Lloyd, who draws attention at the edge, and Ridley who can actually take advantage of running behind these WR/TEs full time has made the offense more diverse.

    In the end, though, the team record is the same. The offensive scoring (minus defensive and special teams scores) is the same. 

    The benefit will be when NE matches up against teams that can control the middle of the field well, like the Giants, et al. So you can't really see the difference the added versatility makes. 

    Btw, Brady throws more TDs on play action every single season of his career. It's how this offense is structured. That stat is no big change at all. 

    Most importantly, because the whole argument was structured around the "defense" being better off because they ran more ... the defense is actually worse at this point than it was last season. 

    All in all, a nominal total impact. But one that might be felt depending on who NE draws down the road. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Always excellent insights Z. Hard to find anybody around here that understands the game as well as you do.

    With Ridley our run game is clearly a greater threat than it was with Benny. And that helps everything. But still, when the running is tough, we melt in the face of it. The consistency is still not there and when it's not, Brady has to carry the load. Against tough defenses that can focus on the pass because they have neutered the run, it is a tough chore even for him. If Lloyd were more of a consistent threat and/or we had another guy wide to be a threat, I think that would greatly help when we get in that predicament on offense.

    But then, when the going is tough having a tough as nails D can keep it safe. You're right again, our DPR is considerably worse than last season. The run D has been generally good, though has faltered a bit in recent games.

    If we can run when the going is tough and play pass D at the endgame we could win it all with relative ease. But those two important requirements have yet to be confirmed as likely.

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

    Re: State of balance.

     

    • BabeParilli
    • Posts: 9132
    • First: 05/29/2008
    • Last: 11/27/2012

     

    ^^^^ One of the "BB sucks" trolls

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

     

    • BabeParilli
    • Posts: 9132
    • First: 05/29/2008
    • Last: 11/27/2012

     

    ^^^^ One of the "BB sucks" trolls

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along

    [/QUOTE]

    Look in the mirror. You're talking about yourself.

    A 1 play in 20 change to the running game is not a major adjustment.

    A nearly 25% improvement in the production of the lead back is substantial though.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that goes without saying. 

    Who would seriously argue that if Ridley were creeping along with a 3.7 YPC that BB would be giving him extra carries?

    The fact that he earns carries makes that happen. I mean, really, there is actually a QUOTE from Bill HIMSELF discussing this. He says point blank .... we would have given more carries last season if the RBs were more productive with their carries.

    How is this even a debate?!??!?!?!

    [/QUOTE]


    It is a debate because people have notions chiseled in stone that 1000 tons of dynamite called facts and common sense cannot budge.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you can't see the difference in how teams play NE between this year and last you are daft. 

    Benny never threatened or concerned any defense NE ever presented him too. And he could never exploit the same seams that were there that Ridley and co explode into. 

    The addition of Lloyd, who draws attention at the edge, and Ridley who can actually take advantage of running behind these WR/TEs full time has made the offense more diverse.

    In the end, though, the team record is the same. The offensive scoring (minus defensive and special teams scores) is the same. 

    The benefit will be when NE matches up against teams that can control the middle of the field well, like the Giants, et al. So you can't really see the difference the added versatility makes. 

    Btw, Brady throws more TDs on play action every single season of his career. It's how this offense is structured. That stat is no big change at all. 

    Most importantly, because the whole argument was structured around the "defense" being better off because they ran more ... the defense is actually worse at this point than it was last season. 

    All in all, a nominal total impact. But one that might be felt depending on who NE draws down the road. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Always excellent insights Z. Hard to find anybody around here that understands the game as well as you do.

    With Ridley our run game is clearly a greater threat than it was with Benny. And that helps everything. But still, when the running is tough, we melt in the face of it. The consistency is still not there and when it's not, Brady has to carry the load. Against tough defenses that can focus on the pass because they have neutered the run, it is a tough chore even for him. If Lloyd were more of a consistent threat and/or we had another guy wide to be a threat, I think that would greatly help when we get in that predicament on offense.

    But then, when the going is tough having a tough as nails D can keep it safe. You're right again, our DPR is considerably worse than last season. The run D has been generally good, though has faltered a bit in recent games.

    If we can run when the going is tough and play pass D at the endgame we could win it all with relative ease. But those two important requirements have yet to be confirmed as likely.

    [/QUOTE]

    The run "D" has looked good in recent years because they score so often. No one runs the football, or really tries to, against New England unless they are sure that their defense can slow the Patriots down. 

    I too worry a little bit, because you are right ... when they NEED to run the football it's still spotty. It's better than last season though. I think they had one clock killing drive all last season, and that was out of the spread, with Woodhead running draws. 

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    • BabeParilli
    • Posts: 9132
    • First: 05/29/2008
    • Last: 11/27/2012

     

    ^^^^ One of the "BB sucks" trolls

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Mamma mia, another fake Rusty account it seems.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     You just don't want to admit you were wrong about balance and are now trying to spin it to make it seem like you were right all along

    [/QUOTE]

    Look in the mirror. You're talking about yourself.

    A 1 play in 20 change to the running game is not a major adjustment.

    A nearly 25% improvement in the production of the lead back is substantial though.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that goes without saying. 

    Who would seriously argue that if Ridley were creeping along with a 3.7 YPC that BB would be giving him extra carries?

    The fact that he earns carries makes that happen. I mean, really, there is actually a QUOTE from Bill HIMSELF discussing this. He says point blank .... we would have given more carries last season if the RBs were more productive with their carries.

    How is this even a debate?!??!?!?!

    [/QUOTE]


    It is a debate because people have notions chiseled in stone that 1000 tons of dynamite called facts and common sense cannot budge.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not even about facts or common sense. 

    Bill Belichik ANSWERED the QUESTION. To the MEDIA. It's out there. I'm not even going to look for it. 

    He literally was like "I haven't seen Corey Dillon out there."

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share