Re: Stats the correlate well with scoring
posted at 4/3/2014 4:54 PM EDT
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.