Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

State of balance.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    All I know is we should cut Danny Woodhead and Shane Vareen asap as they average 3.7 ypc, which going by the logic of fans here means they SUK BAD.

    This year is proving that when you have the best QB in the game, you CAN in fact have a great run game as well. We have ran the ball about 60 times less then ALL of last year with 5 games to be played despite....wait for it.....only averaging .3 ypc more.

    I guess this is the type of increase in production Babe and 2 or 3 other guys say we needed in order to commit to running the football.

    We have the same 3 guys on the roster as we had last year. Bill Obrien (or coach Belichick if you are of the opinion that he calls all plays on both sides of the ball at all times) could have ran the ball this much last year....it just wasn't in the game plan.




    Absolutely no one is of this opinion; however, I am of the opinion that if something drastically needs to be changed, BB will step in. All plays at all times? Exaggerate much?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    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.




     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Well, as was stated over and over last season and this, if the running is more effective BB has said he will do it more. Common sense.

    This year's 11th best running is clearly more effective than last year's 24th best running, so we have done more of it, just like BB said we would.

    So we are running the ball 6 times more a game this year, or about 1-2 times more per quarter. The .3 ypc more we have gained this season has been effective enough to justify running it somewhat more.  Though it should be noted we are passing just as much as last season (~ 38 per game).




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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    More BB hatred from Babe, I could set my watch to it....

    Newsflash buddy, Michigan didn't win a national championship under Brady, in fact he was a part time starter... so hows he doing without Belichick?

     

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     


    Proving my point that you're a BB hating troll.  Probably the same person as Rusty. Can't wait for the ignore button to return.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    I guess that's what he did in Cleveland as well. Even though 75% of his staff went on to have very successful careers elsewhere. He just needs a bunch of yes men around him as you say who don't challenge his opinions. Even though he is famous for letting his coaches coach and implores them to challenge him at all times.

    The more I read your posts the more I realize you know very little about Bill Belichick, and the 1 thing I am sure of is that you are a Bill Belichick hater.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    is it "balance", like 50-50 - or is it more "unpredictability" of play calling; which may use different kinds of pass plays, run plays, play action...

    In addition, others have previously stated that the coaches have to exploit whatever defensive weaknesses are there and mis-matches - AND to be able to quickly change when they realize that whatever they were using doesn't work anymore.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    Balance doesn't always have to be a statistics argument.  Balance can = unpredictabiltiy in my mind.  The Pats run more to finish out games than they have over the past few years.  They can do so because they have the threat of a running game.  Look at the teams that have gone with small personnel to combat the pass based on past tendencies.  What have the Pats done?  Beat them at their own game, or run right over them.  At times when they need a run game to get a key first down, they have it.  This offense looks as potent as it did in '07 when Brady threw 50 TDs.  

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Nobody here will address why a 21 year old signal caller got the job first in 07' before many much older, more tenured coaches ahead of him...  could it be natural talent and attention to detail?  

     



    I've explained that a number of times. BB likes to promote inexperienced yes men instead of hiring the best in the game because they would rightly demand their share of power. BB is a bit paranoid from all indications.

    It's not like McD in general or BB as a HC have been other than a failure without Brady in the picture.

     



    More BB hatred from Babe, I could set my watch to it....

    Newsflash buddy, Michigan didn't win a national championship under Brady, in fact he was a part time starter... so hows he doing without Belichick?

     




    Wozzy,

    You seem like a pretty good guy and I've always enjoyed your posts, but I fear you have a pretty thick skull.

    In this thread, you talk a lot about changing sets; patterns of play calling; play action passing; proper personnel groupings; in short, a boatload of deceptive techniques aimed to disguise whether the offense intends to run or pass. The problem is that deceptive arguments tend to be subtle, and yours require the experience of having played football, particularly defensive football, to understand.

    Take play action passing for example. It is not for everyone. To do it effectively requires A) a smart QB (see the end of this paragraph) with excellent hands and a quick release; B) an offensive line that is good enough to give the QB an extra split-second of protection time (since the QB's vision is initially turned from the line); C) strong, athletic tight ends that are equally effective in both the run and the pass; and D) receivers that can run quick, precise routes. For a team armed with such weapons, play action puts enormous pressure on the opposing safeties, because if they cheat forward on the run, they are liable to get burned deep, whereas if they cheat backward on the pass, they expose holes in the seams and flats. A smart QB, in play action, must scan the defensive personnel grouping as it relates to size, speed, formation and intent, and decide from amongst the called play, and a couple of audible options, which play the offense should run. Of course, if, when the offense takes the line of scrimmage, it is unaware of which play will be run, it follows that the D must also be unaware. An excellent play action offense is one that can either run or pass successfully with the exact same personnel grouping on the field.

    However, if an offense does not have the prerequisite skills (A-D) for play action, then it is more likely that out of the shotgun or spread, it will pass more often than not...whereas with its QB under center, it will run more times than not. In such cases, the defense can take a few more chances/risks, and while the offense may still be talented enough to succeed (even when the D guesses correctly), those successful plays will not be as successful as they would have been had they fooled the defense.

    With these things in mind, the question becomes whether a team like the Patriots possesses the necessary arsenal (A-D) to run play action, and in so doing, deny the defense the ability to cheat on a play. If the offensive coordiator is certain that he does, it would seem that healthy doses of play action would be the smart thing to do.

    But "smart" is sort of a relative term. See, Wozz, I used to have a cat; a black tabby named Athena . She was sleek and muscular, sorta like a baby panther, but had the sweetest disposition in the world. Above all, she was loyal; if I were a serial killer who shot fifteen strangers on the subway home, she would still hop in my lap and nuzzle my chest and purr like I was the greatest dude ever. So one night, I hear some talking head from PETA spouting off about how incredibly smart animals are. At first I rolled my eyes at his pandering to pet owners, but after giving it careful thought, I figured a cat as awesome as mine has to be smart! And since I have always harbored a love for mathematics, I thought to myself, "Hmm...I think I'll teach Athena some calculus."

    Well, anyone who has ever trained animals knows that aversion therapy and reward systems offer the best results. But since there was no way I would ever give Athena an electric shock, I decided the better method would be to withhold dinner and treats until she picked up some elemantary theory. To my surprise, it didn't go well. I tried to explain to her that differential calculus was simply the math of motion and change, but all she would ever do is yawn and scratch around her bowl. So I tried a different tack; scrap the nebulous theory and, instead, focus on set formulae she could master. I started off with the most simple of simple: the derivative of e to the x, which--as everyone knows--is e to the x, dx. But the darn cat just gave me this vacant look!

    It was thus that I realized PETA wasn't worth its weight in shiyit--and that my adorable cat was dumb as a log. Pizzed off, I took the thing to the shelter to have it euthanized, but when I arrived at the counter, she nuzzled her little nose against my cheek and...well...tearfully, I just couldn't push myself to get some training vet to give her the needle. Back home, I apologized to her profusely. I realized that the problem was with me--and I promised her I would never again subject her to the curse of high expectation.

    Which brings me back to Wozzy and football. See, Wozz, when you explain how and why the subtle intricacies of play action lead to a more productive offense, and Babe responds with, I don't see how running the ball 1-2 times more prevents interceptions, well...I'm kind of taken back to the image of Athena scratching at her bowl. And I find myself thinking, "When will it dawn on this thick-headed Wozzy that trying to explain football to Babe is like trying to explain calculus to a cat?" Better to simply sit back and enjoy the lovable Internet bundle of fur, who, while not understanding a thing you say, is unrepentant in his Patriot loyalty.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: State of balance.

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     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



    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.



    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?!??!?!?!




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



    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."




    This is what I don't get about these posters....They put all the blame on O'Brien for not running the ball more. Ultimately its BB's call! Why continue to ignore this?




    BB is no the OC, so you're wrong.  He can stop what he doesn't like or interject, sure. But, he doesn't call the plays. The OC does.

    Now, BB as a defensive coach, is more heavily involved with the D, yes. We see it plenty on the sidelines every game.

     



    Thats the point I was trying to make. If it was such a problem and indeed cost them a Super Bowl as many here claim then why didn't he step in? I don't want to hear the he doesn't micro manage argument, it was the SB.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts