Stats the correlate well with scoring

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

     

    How would you qauntify that wozzy? Sounds like a cut and paste job. Give me more credit than that.

    Why dont you write to BB and ask him why he doesnt run more in the postseason so we can all celebrate another title?

    You guys always have a problem when fans question Bills GM skills but when Someone calls you out for questioning his coaching you guys backpedal..... smh

    You cant have it both ways.

     



    BB has made a concentrated effort to improve the running game both in personnel and persistence of play calling.  This is obvious unless you're wearing blinders.  

     

    Winning Super Bowl rings isn't as easy as running or passing more.  Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter.  Scoring points in the regular season is an indicator of nothing, as proven by my first post in this thread.  

    If a team can power run over an opponent, then the need to pass heavily becomes moot.  Pass heavy teams only thrive in the modern age because of yellow flags.  

    This thread is ridiculous in that it is merely an attempt to be divisive and support an age old argument that's been thoroughly dismissed too many times to mention.  Running is unimportant is this threads underlying message, that message is complete and utter horsesht.

    Balance matters.  A physically overpowering offense is better than a finesse only offense, this has the weight of historical fact behind it.  This axe has already been ground into a fine sharpened edge and is now bludgeoning you.



    So you reshashed the same ish we already know but didnt answer my question. Its all nice that BB got Blount but other than that, what measures were made to improve the run game? I dont see him picking up big mammoth lineman that can maul so the fact remains the strenght of this team is passing and thats why BB has pass oriented linemena who struggle to push D lineman in the playoffs and why Blount only carried a few times vs denver and hit the bench.

    Again, I think most casual fans know running, and defense wins, but without the D, the running is futile and pointless at best. This team is STILL NOT built to run and Thats why its innefective in playoffs. So like I said, Talk to Bill about WHY he doesnt run more. We always have a balanced reg. season ratio by years end due to all the blowouts we have but when playoffs come, if the Run isnt working, BB is going Full Pass Mode....Do you understand WHY?  I dont think you do. Rusty, Tex, and esp. you have a hard time with context, situations,etc. YOu think the same 60 year old rule of run first applies no matter what and thats silly

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

     

     


    Woz, I think you're being a bit harsh on this one....any attempt to take understanding on a deeper level, a level below the pure observational level and/or gut feeling is always useful...that's what Prolate has done here...he's not trying to say it's the only factor, or the most important factor, he's merely saying it IS a factor, and he's got the stats to prove it...it's a valid discussion and the points he makes are equally valid...he also allows room for others to make their own equally valid observations...no harm, no foul...anything that increases the general understanding of the game is a good thing...I'd love to see the impact of the running game as an indicator of Off. prowess  and game outcome....

     



    It's a veiled shot at some posters here who think that balance matters in an attempt to launch another argument.  

     

    The two best teams in the NFL last season were the Seahawks and 49ers, they were 1 and 2 respectively in post season rushing attempts.  

    Laughable...



    Well You forgot to mention that they were # 1 and # 2 in DEFENSE too, Thats kind of important....lol @ you. Frank Gore and M.Lynch..... or Ridley??   How about QBs who can extend plays on both those teams too making their rushing stats better than teams who have sitting ducks like Brady who dont run?

    Man you are not as smart as you try to portray here and you think you are bludgeoning me?? LMAO!   Just like Rusty, you never have any rebuttals. Just the same copy and paste regurgitated stuff that isnt saying anything.

    You are so simple minded that you think the simple answer to our problems is running more and a guy that has coached for 30 years disagress but we should listen to YOU? 

     

    WOW

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    This thread is not about Defense.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to crazy-world-of-troybrown's comment:

    This thread is not about Defense.




    Umm, they kind of go hand in hand though. If defense wasnt a factor, wouldnt every offense score every time and it would come down to who had the ball last?

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Regular season stats are almost worthless in the playoffs, It's like Top hitters batting against B pitchers too often. 

    Last year our center was ok in some games, but was mauled against Denver, He is a little small. not that the rest of the Oline did much, but they aren't small either. It's too bad coz he was decent 2yrs ago, 

    I didn't see any great running by the top teams, nor too much more in passing Either. But we have to do a lot better than what we did agaist the donkeys.

    Almost evry game last year was very close, We got by on grit and coaching. We have to be better in 2014

     

     

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    The point of this thread is, simply, to try to understand the game better. 

    One assumption I make when analyzing what happens in football games is that the professional coaches know more than I do.  I especially believe that Bill Belichick knows more than just about anybody when it comes to football, and that the people he employs--offensive coordinators, assistant coaches, quarterbacks, anyone involved in offensive strategy, game planning, or play calling-- are either doing what Bill Belichick thinks is right or are not going to be with the team long.

    Given that assumption, when fans, sportswriters, or anyone else claim the Pats are running the offense wrong, I'm skeptical.  My instinct is to look more closely and try to understand why what many think is wrong must be right. My basic premise is that if Bill Belichick is doing it (or allowing it to continue) it must be right.

    Back in 2009, I went through a period where I thought much like Wozzy, TrueChamp, and Rusty that the Pats were passing too much, in shotgun too much, etc.  Then I read a post by ZBellino that really clicked with me.  I can't remember Z's exact words but his basic point was that teams could (and often did) control the clock and sustain drives better passing than running.  First downs were critical to sustaining drives and passing was typically required to get them.  This made me want to look more closely at some of the old cliches and examine the statistical data more rigourously.

    Well, that ongoing examination continues to lead me to the conclusion that ZBellino was right--and that the coaching staffs of the Patriots and most other NFL teams aren't all suffering from collective idiocy when they pass close to 60% of the time, which is where the NFL average is now approaching. Sustaining drives is critical if you are going to score, and while the run has an important role to play (I'm not denying that), efficient passing is at least as critical, and passing about 55% to 60% of the time (if you do it well) is smart offensive football. Furthermore, "running more," which is frequently cited as the panacea to all offensive problems is not really the magic potion many perceive it as. Certainly running well is important, and it pairs well with a strong defense, but it just isn't the best way to increase scoring if that's your challenge.  To do that, you need to get better at passing.  And if you can't get better at passing, then you better be really good at defense.  Getting better at the run may help a bit, but unless you have a superb running game, don't expect it to carry you far unless it's complemented by a very strong defense. 

    Anyway, I'm sure some will stick to the time honored cliches and continue to moan about the Pats' playcalling or their decision to let Blount walk for low money or their use of the shotgun or their apparent lack of commitment to the run. But as for me, I'm starting to understand just how smart Bill Belichick is and why what he's done with the offensive strategy makes perfect sense even if it hasn't produced a Super Bowl win since 2004. Ten thousand posts in (this is number ten thousand) I continue to be amazed at just how lucky we are to have a coach as brilliant as Belichick--not just on defense, but on offense . . . and, of course, since it's Belichick and no phase of the game is ever ignored, on special teams too.

    In all three phases, absolute brilliance. Criticize if you want. But if you want to understand the game deeply, assume Belichick is right and expend your energy trying to figure out why.

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The point of this thread is, simply, to try to understand the game better. 

    One assumption I make when analyzing what happens in football games is that the professional coaches know more than I do.  I especially believe that Bill Belichick knows more than just about anybody when it comes to football, and that the people he employs--offensive coordinators, assistant coaches, quarterbacks, anyone involved in offensive strategy, game planning, or play calling-- are either doing what Bill Belichick thinks is right or are not going to be with the team long.

    Given that assumption, when fans, sportswriters, or anyone else claim the Pats are running the offense wrong, I'm skeptical.  My instinct is to look more closely and try to understand why what many think is wrong must be right. My basic premise is that if Bill Belichick is doing it (or allowing it to continue) it must be right.

    Back in 2009, I went through a period where I thought much like Wozzy, TrueChamp, and Rusty that the Pats were passing too much, in shotgun too much, etc.  Then I read a post by ZBellino that really clicked with me.  I can't remember Z's exact words but his basic point was that teams could (and often did) control the clock and sustain drives better passing than running.  First downs were critical to sustaining drives and passing was typically required to get them.  This made me want to look more closely at some of the old cliches and exam the statistical data more rigourously.

    Well, that ongoing examination continues to lead me to the conclusion that ZBellino was right--and that the coaching staffs of the Patriots and most other NFL teams aren't all suffering from collective idiocy when they pass close to 60% of the time, which is where the NFL average now is approaching. Sustaining drives is critical if you are going to score, and while the run has an important role to play (I'm not denying that), efficient passing is at least as critical, and passing about 55% to 60% of the time (if you do it well) is smart offensive football. Furthermore, "running more," which is frequently cited as the panacea to all offensive problems is not really the magic potion many perceive it as. Certainly running well is important, and it pairs well with a strong defense, but it just isn't the best way to increase scoring if that's your challenge.  To do that, you need to get better at passing.  And if you can't get better at passing, then you better be really good at defense.  Getting better at the run may help a bit, but unless you have a superb running game, don't expect it to carry you far unless it's complemented by a very strong defense. 

    Anyway, I'm sure some will stick to the time honored cliches and continue to moan about the Pats' playcalling or their decision to let Blount walk for low money or their use of the shotgun or their apparent lack of commitment to the run. But as for me, I'm starting to understand just how smart Bill Belichick is and why what he's done with the offensive strategy makes perfect sense even if it hasn't produced a Super Bowl win since 2004. Ten thousand posts in (this is number ten thousand) I continue to be amazed at just how lucky we are to have a coach as brilliant as Belichick--not just on defense, but on offense . . . and, of course, since it's Belichick and no phase of the game is ever ignored, on special teams too.

    In all three phases, absolute brilliance. Criticize if you want. But if you want to understand the game deeply, assume Belichick is right and expend your energy trying to figure out why.

     

     




    A worthy post for #10,000.   Congrats on the milestone.

     

    I'd only quibble that while BB has focused more and progressed more as an "offensive mind", he may have assumed he'd be able to make filet mignon out of ground beef on the defensive side of the ball.

    I just can't get past the 2-way player Troy Brown, the turnstyle of personnel in the secondary, UDFAs in the trenches, yada, yada, yada.   Sometimes when everyone tells you that you're the smartest guy in the room, maybe, just maybe, you want to show them they're right - and you try to do more with less.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     

    I


    A worthy post for #10,000.   Congrats on the milestone.

     

    I'd only quibble that while BB has focused more and progressed more as an "offensive mind", he may have assumed he'd be able to make filet mignon out of ground beef on the defensive side of the ball.

    I just can't get past the 2-way player Troy Brown, the turnstyle of personnel in the secondary, UDFAs in the trenches, yada, yada, yada.   Sometimes when everyone tells you that you're the smartest guy in the room, maybe, just maybe, you want to show them they're right - and you try to do more with less.

     



    Thanks Catfish.  Not sure 10,000 posts is something to celebrate or just be embarassed about . . . my wife would be horrified . . . all those wasted hours . . . it's almost Rustyesque.  Smile

     

     

    I guess I should qualify what I said.  In my opinion, Belichick is brilliant as a coach.  Like you, I find myself a bit less certain about his personnel decisions.  I'm really of two minds when it comes to what the Pats do with personnel.  On the positive side, I think they do a great job of focusing on team orientation, versatility, fit, smarts, value--all the things that allow them to build an excellent team, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  But on the negative side, I see a bit of a devaluation of the importance of individual talent, some odd over-evaluations of mediocre players, and maybe a few too many gambles on players who drop in draft position or price because of age, injury, or character concerns.  I'm sure some of the strategy is influenced by the Pats' persistently low draft position. When you aren't picking high, you need to be more aggressive and try to find undervalued players to keep up with teams that have better odds than you do because they are picking higher.  At the same time, too many of these "value" picks end up busts and you have to wonder whether it would be better to sometimes bundle a few picks and trade up for better odds rather than trading down to increase the number of dice rolls. Honestly, I can't decide.  I see both sides, but don't have the data to really make a firm decision. Call me wishy-washy (as TrueChamp has), but I see no reason to rush to conclusions when I don't have the necessary information to find the right conclusion. 

    I do wonder, as you do, whether BB gets a little too over-confident in his ability to coach-up anyone.  I also wonder if his ability to see both the flaws in good players and the strengths in mediocre ones makes it harder for him to judge talent.  Does he over analyze things and get so focused on the trees that he doesn't always see the forest? I guess I could quibble with some of the things he does on the personnel side, but over all it's hard to complain.  The results are what they are . . . and they're damn good. 

    I'll add that in all the debates about what has kept the Pats from winning a championship since 2004 despite their stellar regular season record, I consistently say that it's gaps in talent and failures in execution.  A lot of people seem to think it's play calling or offensive strategy.  I think that's bunk.  The secondary has been demonstrably bad, we've had incomplete receiving talent (especially given injuries), and the line play (both O and D) has been spotty. The point of this thread was to show how the stats support the idea that efficiency in the passing game is what most strongly correlates with scoring.  That's true on offense.  But it's also true on defense--since a defense that allows its opponent to pass efficiently tends to give up lots of points. If you look at the Pats' playoff losses, the Pats' biggest problems have been inability to get the passing game working on offense and inability to defend against their opponents' passing games. The running game also is sometimes a problem (can't run well, get run against), but mostly the issues are with passing offense and passing defense.  And the reason they have issues in those areas is obvious: weak talent in the secondary, and a receiving corp that lacks diversity and has, unfortunately, suffered from key injuries in many playoff games. Maybe that talent gap is just what good teams end up with because of their low draft picks, but there's no reason to pretend that the talent gaps don't exist.  They do and they hurt us. 

    Fortunately, I think movement recently is very much in the right direction.  I said that last year, and I really like what I'm seeing so far this offseason. 

     

     

     

     

      

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    test

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    I guess that's why the 15.5 ppg we scored in our last 6 playoff losses hasn't quite cut the mustard. Scoring more = winning more.

    Real innovative notion.

     




    And another thing ...

    The study Prolate conducted was to find the variable (stat) that most closely correlated to Scoring.  "Winning" was not part of the study. 

    Nice try.




    Funny, our D had 3 turnovers in those last 6 playoff losses. The average NFL defense gets around 10 turnovers in 6 games. That doesn't even come close to cutting the mustard.

    How many more points would we have scored if the D got even an average number of turnovers?




    Typical Babe idiocy. The offense scores a whopping 3 points in 3 quarters and it's because the defense didn't force turnovers.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    The point of this thread is, simply, to try to understand the game better. 

    One assumption I make when analyzing what happens in football games is that the professional coaches know more than I do.  I especially believe that Bill Belichick knows more than just about anybody when it comes to football, and that the people he employs--offensive coordinators, assistant coaches, quarterbacks, anyone involved in offensive strategy, game planning, or play calling-- are either doing what Bill Belichick thinks is right or are not going to be with the team long.

    Given that assumption, when fans, sportswriters, or anyone else claim the Pats are running the offense wrong, I'm skeptical.  My instinct is to look more closely and try to understand why what many think is wrong must be right. My basic premise is that if Bill Belichick is doing it (or allowing it to continue) it must be right.

    Back in 2009, I went through a period where I thought much like Wozzy, TrueChamp, and Rusty that the Pats were passing too much, in shotgun too much, etc.  Then I read a post by ZBellino that really clicked with me.  I can't remember Z's exact words but his basic point was that teams could (and often did) control the clock and sustain drives better passing than running.  First downs were critical to sustaining drives and passing was typically required to get them.  This made me want to look more closely at some of the old cliches and examine the statistical data more rigourously.

    Well, that ongoing examination continues to lead me to the conclusion that ZBellino was right--and that the coaching staffs of the Patriots and most other NFL teams aren't all suffering from collective idiocy when they pass close to 60% of the time, which is where the NFL average is now approaching. Sustaining drives is critical if you are going to score, and while the run has an important role to play (I'm not denying that), efficient passing is at least as critical, and passing about 55% to 60% of the time (if you do it well) is smart offensive football. Furthermore, "running more," which is frequently cited as the panacea to all offensive problems is not really the magic potion many perceive it as. Certainly running well is important, and it pairs well with a strong defense, but it just isn't the best way to increase scoring if that's your challenge.  To do that, you need to get better at passing.  And if you can't get better at passing, then you better be really good at defense.  Getting better at the run may help a bit, but unless you have a superb running game, don't expect it to carry you far unless it's complemented by a very strong defense. 

    Anyway, I'm sure some will stick to the time honored cliches and continue to moan about the Pats' playcalling or their decision to let Blount walk for low money or their use of the shotgun or their apparent lack of commitment to the run. But as for me, I'm starting to understand just how smart Bill Belichick is and why what he's done with the offensive strategy makes perfect sense even if it hasn't produced a Super Bowl win since 2004. Ten thousand posts in (this is number ten thousand) I continue to be amazed at just how lucky we are to have a coach as brilliant as Belichick--not just on defense, but on offense . . . and, of course, since it's Belichick and no phase of the game is ever ignored, on special teams too.

    In all three phases, absolute brilliance. Criticize if you want. But if you want to understand the game deeply, assume Belichick is right and expend your energy trying to figure out why.

     




    BRAVO!  You see your humility payed off. Now you are on the right side and dont have to look dumb like posters still clinging to the "notion" that we ran the ball more in the dynasty years and all we have to do is get back to it and we are fine. In Reality, EVEN in 2001 when Brady was a 1st year guy and Unproven, we Passed the ball ALL OVER (52 passes to 30 runs) the Field IN the Playoffs IN a Blizzard so this "notion" that all we did was run between 01-04 is also a fallacy that needs to be put to bed. In 2001 when Brady went down vs Pittsburgh, Did Drew just come in and hand off? No, he needed to make throws to win that game and he did. We ran more in general BECAUSE we had a dominating D that got us all the ball back. IN the past 7 years BB has fielded teams that have been tops in the league in turnover diff. IN REGULAR SEASON but during that time the postseason Turnovers have been basically non existent and its why you cant BB to sit there and keep running into a wall while the other team pulls away.

    Unlesss BB overhauls the line in the draft with massive guys that can run Block, it will continue to be Bradys arm in the playoffs...as it should be because thats the strength of the team and we havent went into postseason with a great D since 2007 and they were old.

     

    Seems that chump,wozzy and the others are running out of ammo... 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The point of this thread is, simply, to try to understand the game better. 

    One assumption I make when analyzing what happens in football games is that the professional coaches know more than I do.  I especially believe that Bill Belichick knows more than just about anybody when it comes to football, and that the people he employs--offensive coordinators, assistant coaches, quarterbacks, anyone involved in offensive strategy, game planning, or play calling-- are either doing what Bill Belichick thinks is right or are not going to be with the team long.

    Given that assumption, when fans, sportswriters, or anyone else claim the Pats are running the offense wrong, I'm skeptical.  My instinct is to look more closely and try to understand why what many think is wrong must be right. My basic premise is that if Bill Belichick is doing it (or allowing it to continue) it must be right.

    Back in 2009, I went through a period where I thought much like Wozzy, TrueChamp, and Rusty that the Pats were passing too much, in shotgun too much, etc.  Then I read a post by ZBellino that really clicked with me.  I can't remember Z's exact words but his basic point was that teams could (and often did) control the clock and sustain drives better passing than running.  First downs were critical to sustaining drives and passing was typically required to get them.  This made me want to look more closely at some of the old cliches and examine the statistical data more rigourously.

    Well, that ongoing examination continues to lead me to the conclusion that ZBellino was right--and that the coaching staffs of the Patriots and most other NFL teams aren't all suffering from collective idiocy when they pass close to 60% of the time, which is where the NFL average is now approaching. Sustaining drives is critical if you are going to score, and while the run has an important role to play (I'm not denying that), efficient passing is at least as critical, and passing about 55% to 60% of the time (if you do it well) is smart offensive football. Furthermore, "running more," which is frequently cited as the panacea to all offensive problems is not really the magic potion many perceive it as. Certainly running well is important, and it pairs well with a strong defense, but it just isn't the best way to increase scoring if that's your challenge.  To do that, you need to get better at passing.  And if you can't get better at passing, then you better be really good at defense.  Getting better at the run may help a bit, but unless you have a superb running game, don't expect it to carry you far unless it's complemented by a very strong defense. 

    Anyway, I'm sure some will stick to the time honored cliches and continue to moan about the Pats' playcalling or their decision to let Blount walk for low money or their use of the shotgun or their apparent lack of commitment to the run. But as for me, I'm starting to understand just how smart Bill Belichick is and why what he's done with the offensive strategy makes perfect sense even if it hasn't produced a Super Bowl win since 2004. Ten thousand posts in (this is number ten thousand) I continue to be amazed at just how lucky we are to have a coach as brilliant as Belichick--not just on defense, but on offense . . . and, of course, since it's Belichick and no phase of the game is ever ignored, on special teams too.

    In all three phases, absolute brilliance. Criticize if you want. But if you want to understand the game deeply, assume Belichick is right and expend your energy trying to figure out why.

     

     




    BRAVO!  You see your humility payed off. Now you are on the right side and dont have to look dumb like posters still clinging to the "notion" that we ran the ball more in the dynasty years and all we have to do is get back to it and we are fine. In Reality, EVEN in 2001 when Brady was a 1st year guy and Unproven, we Passed the ball ALL OVER (52 passes to 30 runs) the Field IN the Playoffs IN a Blizzard so this "notion" that all we did was run between 01-04 is also a fallacy that needs to be put to bed. In 2001 when Brady went down vs Pittsburgh, Did Drew just come in and hand off? No, he needed to make throws to win that game and he did. We ran more in general BECAUSE we had a dominating D that got us all the ball back. IN the past 7 years BB has fielded teams that have been tops in the league in turnover diff. IN REGULAR SEASON but during that time the postseason Turnovers have been basically non existent and its why you cant BB to sit there and keep running into a wall while the other team pulls away.

     

    Unlesss BB overhauls the line in the draft with massive guys that can run Block, it will continue to be Bradys arm in the playoffs...as it should be because thats the strength of the team and we havent went into postseason with a great D since 2007 and they were old.

     

    Seems that chump,wozzy and the others are running out of ammo... 




    I have never read a bad post from Wozzy. Not that I recall. I may not agree spot on with him but his posts are solid.

    As for relying on Brady's arm.. fine. He is a HOF QB in his play right now. But we dont give him enough time to pass against the best pass rushing teams in the playoffs. ANd we dont dominate either in the run game or even in short yardage run game against the best Ds in the playoffs. And the reason for both is not the RBs at all (though give me Corey Dillon, PLEASE). It is the O line. Perhaps Wendell is better than I think but I am not happy with him as the starting C. ANd not so thrilled with Connolly as starting G (though perhaps with a very good C he would look better). So I would love to see us get a blue chip C and or RG. Not to the extent of ignoring the D but I dont want the  O to be man handled once again at the line of scrimmage when we are in the playoffs agaisnt a very good D.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    SO here is a "STAT" that correlates to scoring:

    - the best O lines correlate to more points whether you are apassing ro a running team. The best O lines correlatte to scoring in the red zone.. and to scoring in the playoffs.

    So get the best O line you can. And since we have TB and some good RBs and some guys to throw to we should be pretty good.. if we have a dominant O line. Get a blue chip C and a possibly a blue chip G. And a TE who is on the field who can block like Coates or Daniel Graham... Gronk will do IF he is on the field. Otherwise we need another TE as well who can make those blocks.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring


    Here is a fact.

    In our last 6 playoff losses we have passed the football 285 times, ran 64 runs with our " power back", and 47 runs with our "scat back" or 3rd down back(usually the woodhead,  faulk or vareen draws out of the gun and such).

    So, 285 passes to 111 runs but almost half of those runs coming from more of a finesse passing formation. This lead to 15.5 points scored per game in our last 6 playoff exits, 2 being for super bowl championships,  and 2 more for afc championships.  No team has scored less then 15 points and won a superbowl since the 73 Dolphins right? 

    So here is my question based on the factual pass run stats I posted above....

    If passing more and running less correlates to scoring more then why are we scoring less? Because we are passing more and running way less. 

    Some clown said our defense not getting a turnover is the key to us scoring more???. Huh?

    What about winning the turnover battle? You know, not turning the ball over while passing a 3-1 ratio against the run? Perhaps by using the same  ball control balanced game plans most teams use against us we could give our defense better T.O. P and field position? Instead of stalling out for entire 2nd halves of super bowls and afc championship games. Which is what has actually happened for the last 7 years.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    Wozzy and Champ both make logical flaws.  

    • Wozzy is suggesting that because high-scoring offenses (most of which are high scoring because they are good passing teams) lost in the playoffs, running is essential to winning in the playoffs.  Actually having a decent defense is essential to winning.  Most of those high-scoring teams had mediocre defenses and lost to good defensive teams in the playoffs. And the teams that beat them also often had good offenses as well as better defenses.  Take for example the Miami-49ers match-up he includes on his list.  That Montana-led 49ers team didn't score as many points as Marino-led Miami that year, but its offense was darn good--both in run and pass--and it was a much, much better defensive team than Miami was.  Miami's passing game wasn't a liability for Miami--in fact, it was probably the only reason Miami got so far that season. Take away the passing game, make Miami run more, and the team may simply have missed the playoffs. Miami's loss suggests that a team with a good offense and defense is likely to beat a team with a top-scoring offense and a mediocre defense.  It doesn't prove that running the ball wins and passing loses. 
    • Champ continues to simply repeat run-pass ratios and make the illogical conclusion that that the high pass percentage is why the Pats lost their Super Bowls.  The conclusion, however, doesn't necessarily follow.  It's quite possible that if the Pats had run more, the score would have been even worse for the Pats. Before you can draw the conclusion Champ does, you have to rule out the (statistically likely) possibility that running more would have actually reduced the score rather than raised it.  Champ can't do that. 

    Wozzy and Champ both have been highly critical of the Pats' offensive approach in recent years because they feel the Pats don't run enough.  Maybe they really understand football better than Bill Belichick.  But as I said above, I start from the assumption that Belichick knows football better than anyone and does the right thing almost all the time.  So if Belichick is allowing run-pass ratios like he has, I want to understand why, because I assume it's the right thing to do.  Having looked carefully at the data, I think I understand why he manages games the way he does.  The Pats' offense would be helped by a better run game--but even more it would be helped by a more effective playoff passing game.  And of course, a better defense would also help make the team more competitive. The one old football cliche I think actually does hold to a large is degree is that "defense wins championships."  Not always, of course, but given a match-up between a great offensive team with a lesser defense and a great defensive team with a lesser offense, I think the defensive team has a great chance of winning. And I certainly would favour a team that is good in both defense and offense over one that is great on one side of the ball and weak on the other. 

    Above, both TripleOG and Portfolio suggest that a better O line woud help--both in running and in pass protection.  I agree with this, though I don't think the O line is the sole weakness in our offense.  In recent years, the Pats' offense seems to be very different with Gronk in and with Gronk out.  Gronk is an excellent blocker (who improves the line play) and an excellent receiver.  We saw this not just in the playoffs in 2011 and 2012, but during the regular season last year.  When Gronk was playing, our offense had elite results.  When he was out, the offense was just average. It's amazing to me that one player who is not a QB can have such a profound effect on the way the whole offense performs, but since Gronk first got hurt in the playoffs in 2011, the difference in the offense when he's in and when he's out has been starkly obvious. Improving the O line will help with the run and pass blocking, but I strongly believe the Pats also have to do something to improve their TE/WR/RB/FB mix so that when Gronk is out the offense doesn't freeze up.

    Maybe more than improving the offense, though, the Pats need a stronger defense.  I think they made significant progress that way last year (before all the injuries decimated their defense) and I think the progress is continuing this offseason.  A great defensive team doesn't need to score as much and therefore can do what Seattle and SF do (as TripleOG points out above): run a lot.  If you have a great defense, you can play a more conservative offense.  I will point out, though, that both Seattle and SF had very efficient passing games last year (Seattle averaged 7.0 yards per pass play--sixth in the league--while SF averaged 6.5 yards per pass play--tenth in the league; the Pats, by comparison, were 15th in the league with 6.1 yards per pass play). By that measure (which correlates strongly with scoring), Seattle and SF were both better passing teams than the Pats. 

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    Here is a fact.

    In our last 6 playoff losses we have passed the football 285 times, ran 64 runs with our " power back", and 47 runs with our "scat back" or 3rd down back(usually the woodhead,  faulk or vareen draws out of the gun and such).

    So, 285 passes to 111 runs but almost half of those runs coming from more of a finesse passing formation. This lead to 15.5 points scored per game in our last 6 playoff exits, 2 being for super bowl championships,  and 2 more for afc championships.  No team has scored less then 15 points and won a superbowl since the 73 Dolphins right? 

    So here is my question based on the factual pass run stats I posted above....

    If passing more and running less correlates to scoring more then why are we scoring less? Because we are passing more and running way less. 

    Some clown said our defense not getting a turnover is the key to us scoring more???. Huh?

    What about winning the turnover battle? You know, not turning the ball over while passing a 3-1 ratio against the run? Perhaps by using the same  ball control balanced game plans most teams use against us we could give our defense better T.O. P and field position? Instead of stalling out for entire 2nd halves of super bowls and afc championship games. Which is what has actually happened for the last 7 years.




    Try to understand as it's been explained 1000 times.

    You cannot run a ball control O if you don't have a ball control, D.

    There's this thing called time.

    An average game consist of 12 possessions @ 5 minutes for the O & the D. (BOTH)

    If the D is on the field for 4.5 of those 5 minutes it doesn't leave much time for the O.  Anything over .5 minutes for the O reduces possessions.  Get it?

    This is why BB incorporated a quick strike O.  The D has had problem getting off the field for YEARS!

    And yes, TO's are very important.  Puts the O in a better position to score.  Reduces the time the D is on the field and increases possessions.

    This is not hard.

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    BRAVO!  You see your humility payed off. Now you are on the right side and dont have to look dumb like posters still clinging to the "notion" that we ran the ball more in the dynasty years and all we have to do is get back to it and we are fine.

    In Reality, EVEN in 2001 when Brady was a 1st year guy and Unproven, we Passed the ball ALL OVER (52 passes to 30 runs) the Field IN the Playoffs IN a Blizzard so this "notion" that all we did was run between 01-04 is also a fallacy that needs to be put to bed.

    Seems that chump,wozzy and the others are running out of ammo... 



    In 2001 we ranked 8th in the NFL in rushing attempts per game. We ranked 2nd in post season rushing attempts.

    2003 we ranked 12th in rushing attempts because Antwoine Smith sat for the first half of the regular season, we ranked 2nd in postseason rushing attempts behind the Panthers who also happened to play in the Super Bowl.  We rushed more then they did coincidently and won that game.

    2004 we ranked 5th in the entire NFL in rushing attempts, we led the post season in rushing attempts.

    30 rushing attempts a game is enough to rank a team top five in rushing attempts every season for at least the past 20 years.  You should really consider not talking before reading some very basic stats.  

    Saying we should run more isn't the same as saying pass less, that's just you being misleading.      

    In the last Super Bowl we scored on the first drive of the 2nd half using the no huddle, we didn't score for the remainder of the game, that suxs.  I don't have to count the rushing attempts or passing attempts to know they suxed.  But I guess you guys are right, passing more leads to more scoring... what a joke.

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    Here is a fact.

    In our last 6 playoff losses we have passed the football 285 times, ran 64 runs with our " power back", and 47 runs with our "scat back" or 3rd down back(usually the woodhead,  faulk or vareen draws out of the gun and such).

    So, 285 passes to 111 runs but almost half of those runs coming from more of a finesse passing formation. This lead to 15.5 points scored per game in our last 6 playoff exits, 2 being for super bowl championships,  and 2 more for afc championships.  No team has scored less then 15 points and won a superbowl since the 73 Dolphins right? 

    So here is my question based on the factual pass run stats I posted above....

    If passing more and running less correlates to scoring more then why are we scoring less? Because we are passing more and running way less. 

    Some clown said our defense not getting a turnover is the key to us scoring more???. Huh?

    What about winning the turnover battle? You know, not turning the ball over while passing a 3-1 ratio against the run? Perhaps by using the same  ball control balanced game plans most teams use against us we could give our defense better T.O. P and field position? Instead of stalling out for entire 2nd halves of super bowls and afc championship games. Which is what has actually happened for the last 7 years.



    Because our D doesnt get off the field. Stop putting your brain through un neccessary pain trying to figure this out.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Because our D doesnt get off the field. Stop putting your brain through un neccessary pain trying to figure this out.



    The D let up the fewest points of all our Super Bowls since 2001.

    The D made the Giants punt the ball more than we did.

    The D wasn't the reason our offense turned the ball over twice.

    The D doesn't play offense and isn't responsible for scoring.

    Repeating yourself ad nauseam doesn't make you correct, it makes you look like a stubborn fool who simply can't refute the facts I just posted above.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    Seems that chump,wozzy and the others are running out of ammo... 



    Say something once, why say it again.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    Here is a fact.

    In our last 6 playoff losses we have passed the football 285 times, ran 64 runs with our " power back", and 47 runs with our "scat back" or 3rd down back(usually the woodhead,  faulk or vareen draws out of the gun and such).

    So, 285 passes to 111 runs but almost half of those runs coming from more of a finesse passing formation. This lead to 15.5 points scored per game in our last 6 playoff exits, 2 being for super bowl championships,  and 2 more for afc championships.  No team has scored less then 15 points and won a superbowl since the 73 Dolphins right? 

    So here is my question based on the factual pass run stats I posted above....

    If passing more and running less correlates to scoring more then why are we scoring less? Because we are passing more and running way less. 

    Some clown said our defense not getting a turnover is the key to us scoring more???. Huh?

    What about winning the turnover battle? You know, not turning the ball over while passing a 3-1 ratio against the run? Perhaps by using the same  ball control balanced game plans most teams use against us we could give our defense better T.O. P and field position? Instead of stalling out for entire 2nd halves of super bowls and afc championship games. Which is what has actually happened for the last 7 years.



    I'm assuming the comment I put in bold was directed toward me.

    Prolate's thread was about scoring, not winning.

    You introduced the gem that scoring more = winning.   How's that working out for Denver by the way?

    So, although you may not have grasped the purpose, Prolate did some nice work in trying to establish factors which could be attributed to scoring more points.   Quantifiable factors mind you - not some knee jerk, seat of the pants, finger in the air, guesstimate.

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

    Now, what's really laughable is this latest post of yours says "What about winning the turnover battle?".    Please explain how we can win the turnover battle without forcing a single turnover from the opposing team (as has been the case in the last 4 playoff exits).   I patiently await your reply   (this should be great).

    (My apologies to Prolate for veering off topic here.)

     

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    Because our D doesnt get off the field. Stop putting your brain through un neccessary pain trying to figure this out.

     



    The D let up the fewest points of all our Super Bowls since 2001.

     

    The D made the Giants punt the ball more than we did.

    The D wasn't the reason our offense turned the ball over twice.

    The D doesn't play offense and isn't responsible for scoring.

    Repeating yourself ad nauseam doesn't make you correct, it makes you look like a stubborn fool who simply can't refute the facts I just posted above.




    Chump pointed out the last 6 playoff losses, not the SB. Although the Pats D never had a 3 and out in 2011 SB. Not sure how that helps the offense at all. Either way, it all comes back to the fact that our Defense, in the last SB was not championship Caliber at all. We got there on Bradys arm and his arm almost one it all if not for Wes' Drop and Justins Tucks Hit that injured Bradys shoulder. Before the Hit, he had broke a record for most completions in a row.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    Here is a fact.

    In our last 6 playoff losses we have passed the football 285 times, ran 64 runs with our " power back", and 47 runs with our "scat back" or 3rd down back(usually the woodhead,  faulk or vareen draws out of the gun and such).

    So, 285 passes to 111 runs but almost half of those runs coming from more of a finesse passing formation. This lead to 15.5 points scored per game in our last 6 playoff exits, 2 being for super bowl championships,  and 2 more for afc championships.  No team has scored less then 15 points and won a superbowl since the 73 Dolphins right? 

    So here is my question based on the factual pass run stats I posted above....

    If passing more and running less correlates to scoring more then why are we scoring less? Because we are passing more and running way less. 

    Some clown said our defense not getting a turnover is the key to us scoring more???. Huh?

    What about winning the turnover battle? You know, not turning the ball over while passing a 3-1 ratio against the run? Perhaps by using the same  ball control balanced game plans most teams use against us we could give our defense better T.O. P and field position? Instead of stalling out for entire 2nd halves of super bowls and afc championship games. Which is what has actually happened for the last 7 years.



    I'm assuming the comment I put in bold was directed toward me.

    Prolate's thread was about scoring, not winning.

    You introduced the gem that scoring more = winning.   How's that working out for Denver by the way?

    So, although you may not have grasped the purpose, Prolate did some nice work in trying to establish factors which could be attributed to scoring more points.   Quantifiable factors mind you - not some knee jerk, seat of the pants, finger in the air, guesstimate.

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

    Now, what's really laughable is this latest post of yours says "What about winning the turnover battle?".    Please explain how we can win the turnover battle without forcing a single turnover from the opposing team (as has been the case in the last 4 playoff exits).   I patiently await your reply   (this should be great).

    (My apologies to Prolate for veering off topic here.) 



    The underlying theme of this thread is that running more does not lead to more scoring so the obvious assertion must be that passing more must lead to more scoring right?  I think Truechamp and the O'Brien years have thrown that dumb idea out the window.  This thread was a cheap shot, that's all.  

    We won Super Bowls from 2001-2004 and power running was a big reason why, we haven't since that time having become a pass happy, finesse offense; there's nothing else to say on this topic because it's been beaten to death.  I don't care how much we score, we've led the league in regular season scoring for years now and where has it gotten us?  

    I care about Super Bowl wins. Stats are for losers anyhow and "scoring" in particular is the draw for fantasy football enthusiasts.  Only in fantasy land does scoring a lot make you the champ. 

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

     

    I countered your off-topic post by pointing out that a better correlation to winning is the turnover battle, not the total points scored.

     


    Does anybody alive agree with the above statement?

    Winning the turnover battle is always important to winning, but scoring more points then the other team is how you actually win games.

    Total points scored > winning turnover battle.

    To answer your question, You can win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over to the other team. If you don't lose the turnover battle, then you????

    Here is an arbitrary stat I will throw out there. Teams that pass more turn the ball over more. See 285 pass attempts to 111 rush attempts(only 64 power runs. Real smash mouth hey) in 6 straight playoff losses in a row dating back to the year 2007. 15.5 ppg scored. We turned the ball over more then the other team in all of those games.

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

    Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    The D let up the fewest points of all our Super Bowls since 2001.

    The D made the Giants punt the ball more than we did.

    The D wasn't the reason our offense turned the ball over twice.

    The D doesn't play offense and isn't responsible for scoring.



    Chump pointed out the last 6 playoff losses, not the SB. Although the Pats D never had a 3 and out in 2011 SB. Not sure how that helps the offense at all. Either way, it all comes back to the fact that our Defense, in the last SB was not championship Caliber at all. We got there on Bradys arm and his arm almost one it all if not for Wes' Drop and Justins Tucks Hit that injured Bradys shoulder. Before the Hit, he had broke a record for most completions in a row.



    Refute the facts ^ don't ignore them, pull up another argument (3 and outs?) and hope they go away.

 
Sections
Shortcuts

Share