In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:

Passing efficiently. Not passing more. The "more or less" argument is useless. The amount (within reason) you do either or the other is insignificant. Every analysis indicates that efficiency wins ... a.k.a., execution. 

What the writer is saying, in context there, is that passing efficiency matters much more than running efficiency, and as he says elsewhere, amount of balance doesn't mean much.

At the end of the day, almost every game plan, up until there is a decisive lead one way or the other, is about the same. It's the execution up front that decides what options you have down the road. This works on the micro (efficiency on 1st down) and macro (efficiency in the 1st quarter) levels. 

How well you play decides how much you can run. And it should because the cheif attributes of running the football are shortening the end of a game (not getting your defense rest, so let's not even bring that up ... the "real world clock" keeps running after an incomplete pass even if the game clock stops), protecting the football (in most scenarios, the best QB/Os can be just as protective as a running back per play), and fooling the defense into thinking you want to run it again. Last is it's ability to score or gain yardage, because the best RB has a worse YPC than the worse QB's YPA. 

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

Disagree.  The elite pass rusher, CB and WR the Pats don't need?  These are high draft picks.  Yep, I think the Pats are lucky to have the OTs and QB that are also perferable high picks or core picks.  The issues debated on the team have to do with these core picks. 

The Pats have done well playing at the level they play at year in and year out.  It will be a while before we see this again in the FA era.  Nobody does it like the Pats. 

This post has been removed.

In response to zbellino's comment:

I would add, too, that passing efficiency (to be valid) also needs to remove late game/ last ditch attempts to be valid, because otherwise, again it's a zero sum game. Late passing is inefficient passing. You are throwing risky passes because you have to. 

The only indicator I've seen that is inelastically tied to winning over 4 quarters is "scoreability/bendability" which measures redzone offense (NE is 1st) defense (NE is 12th) and special teams net yards (NE is 27th).

Football is a three phase game ... too much attention is paid to what the offense does on this forum. For instance, I've been critical of special teams for three years (especially in the playoffs) and NE has done little to improve it.  

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

That's because you are wrong. NE's offense was incredibly efficient in SB 46. The points per drive would have been 1st in the NFL over a complete season, and was better than their average. Unfortunately, the defense had a points per drive that would have ranked 28th. And the special teams did nothing. 

Bottom line. The scoreboard is meaningless unless you count efficiency. The offense was very efficient, in fact it was the second most efficient Superbowl performance they've ever had, the defense .... well it basically got b1otchslapped by the Giants' offense in the second worse points-per-drive they've ever had. 

Era doesn't matter ... efficiency rankings rate you against current competition. We aren't comparing the Patriots to the 60's Packers. We are comparing them to the teams they play against now, on a level playing field. A first ranked offense is still the best, and a 32nd ranked defense is still the worst ... regardless of era. 

You can point to anecdotal evidence, and make hindsight predictions, but it doesn't erase that fact. One unit had great efficiency, another had terrible efficiency. In any era. 

I wouldn't call an offense that was held scoreless the final 26:20 of a game incredibly efficient. 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to digger0862's comment:

Ok. But I would call their 2.2 ppd in the game on par with what GB acheived this season, and would have been good for top ten in the NFL. 

26 minutes, again, is an arbitrary anecdotal number. First, it was 21 minutes, because again, the Giants controlled the ball as they did all day: effortlessly. 

Second. There were only 2 "real" drives in that span. The Giants, well, controlled the ball. 

If you wanted more points in that game, the offense could have been a little more efficient, but in reality, more chances with that rate of efficiency would have been fine. 

End of the day ... the defense gave up just shy of 2.4 points per possesion. That would be dead last in the league. The Giants dominated them, converted on 3rd downs, didn't go 3 and out once, they had a 1.00 drive success rating. If you have a 1.00 DSR, you win every single game. 

If you are complaining that the offense didn't show up in the 4th .... take a look at a defense that didn't show up for the entire game. 

In response to RockScully's comment:

Did you just say the scoreboard doesn't matter? Also, did you just say NE's D allowing 13 points, with NE mounting 4 final drives to ice the game, was "bitchslapped" by a stalled Giants offense in the second half?

Umm, please don't insult the non-Ballwashers intelligence. The Giants DID NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF but kick two FGs.   It was 10-9 at halftime.

I would call our 2nd half offense a total and utter failure with a long, long stretch of time, with repeated chances to simply just get a FG and/or not turn it over. They failed on both counts.

Period.

That was the worst game I've ever seen our team play with a lead with our D playing well.

You're just embarrassing yourself. You're like Prolate. You're both intelligent, but you try to get cute in this odd adult male fantasy defense of Brady on the internet, and you just won't stop with it.

Get over it. He and the offense CHOKED it down after a nice 17-9 lead that dwindled to a 2 point lead with everyone waiting AGAIN for them to do something with the ball!

 

[/QUOTE]

I don't think the offense played very well in the Super Bowl, but if there's any white washing going on, it's your absolute refusal to put any blame whatsoever on a defense that performed pretty poorly. You consistently refuse to acknowledge that the D gave up a TD to the Giants on a drive that begain with 3:47 left in the game (see bold text above, where you completely ignore the TD). Sorry, Rusty, but this is complete and utter dishonesty . . . you call others liars all the time, but you've repeated this blatant lie over and over.  How do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you continually evade the truth?

The fact is the Giants had four drives in the second half and scored on three of them!  A defense that gives up scores on 75% of drives is pathetic.  And the one drive that didn't result in a score was a 10 play drive of almost 5 minutes--a huge clock eater at a key time in the game.  The defense was a disaster in the second half and every bit as responsible for the loss as the offense.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

The Manningham catch wasn't a big play?  Oh wait, you still seem to be forgetting that play happened.  Once again, you fail to acknowledge the existence of the second TD the Giants scored. 

Please . . . if you're going to make an argument that you want anyone to respect, at least get the basic facts right.  

Your mendacity is really over the top. 

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Two FGs allowed in the second half for 6 points in a SB is "pathetic"?  They allowed 13 points with NE having 4 drives in the 4th qtr, waiting on them to do anything! Anything!  They couldn't get a FG!  That's absolutely and utterly pathetic!

Are you insane?

Look at the scores of the last 5, 6 or 7 SBs since Goodell took over.

Every winning team scored over 20 points except for which one? THe Giants in SB 42!  Why is that, Prolate?

A record setting offense barely eeks out 14 points then. That's acceptabel to you?  They choked!  Choked! Not the D, the offense!

 

[/QUOTE]

It wasn't two field goals.  It was two field goals and one touchdown on four drives.  Please don't be such a child.  

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

Prior to NY's last TD, NE's D held them to 1 TD in the first half and 2 FGs. Yes, that's what happened.

All of a sudden you morons think 18 or 19 points wins SBs. lol!

 

[/QUOTE]

Which equals 20 points. Divide that by the small number of times NY had valid, scoreable possessions, and it's a terrible performance. It would be good for dead last among NFL defenses. 

Did you just start watching the Pats or the NFL?

The New England Patriots won SB36 with just 13 points of offense on an awesome INT TD by Ty Law. The Giants, Steelers, Pats, and Rams have all won Superbowls with total scores of 21 points or less. And that is just the last 13 years or so. 

18 or 19 points can do it if it's scored efficiently and it doesn't take 15 drives for those points, and if you have a defense that can actually play. 

I'm not denying the offense could have played better.  I'm just saying the defense didn't play very well either.  That's the fact.  They allowed the Giants too many long drives . . . and they allowed the Giants to score on 50% of their eight drives (not counting the kneel down at the end of the first half as a drive). This is not great defense.  Could the offense have scored more points?  Sure--they needed at least one more drive to result in points to win the game, and they weren't very good in the second half after their first TD drive to open the half.  But, that doesn't relieve the defense of responsibility for its own failings.  The defense was poor too--and especially so in the second half.   

 

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to RockScully's comment:

It isn't about assigning blame. It's about understanding why the team lost and what needs to change to make the team a winning team.  Anyone with a brain knows that improving the D was essential to making the Pats a true champioinship team.  This isn't to say there wasn't also a need to create more diversity in the offense . . . but let's not pretend like the defense last year was good enough.  It wasn't. 

It's seems like an oversimplification, but you engineer an offense to exploit the opposing defense. You run against a team with great run D, you could easily end up in a tight TOP/field position game (Bitchburgh or Baltimore losses). My primary concern is that opposing Ds must want to keep Brady off the field and pressure Brady up the middle (or ideally all over the place keeping him off balance and with the unenviable task of trying to establish any offense). As I have said all along you have to run effectively. This does not mean that you have to run 30 pass plays and 30 run plays, but that you can read the vulnerable areas of a defense enough to know that you can run that trap and get 5+ yards. An example of this in the passing game is using screens to Woodhead to counter the blitz and have the D overpursue and the O Line mashing opposing LBs downfield....boom 12 yard gain. Saying you can't win without balance  or a great running game is an oversimplification because you play the defense in front of you not statistical data. The truth is the Giants D starting showing up mid-way through the 3rd quarter in the SB and the offense never really made the effective adjustments to combat the giants D. Whether they should have ran the ball or passed the ball is moot; IMHO if you can't make those in-game adjustments you will inevitably lose; just as when you make the in game adjustments that function correctly you win.

The good news is both the running game and the defense are better this year than last year.  I hate it when an offense becomes one dimensional because it's far to easy for a defense to adjust because of the predictability; this can happen just as easily when you run the spread all the time as when you run the single-back formation and ground and pound. You play the personel you have; the Pats have Tom Brady and the Vikes have Adrian Peterson guess who gets the ball in crunch time?

Effective QB play is needed in the playoffs. If this wasn't the case then no one would be talking about how great Brady, Brees, Manning, and Rodgers are, they would be discussing all the SBs Peterson, Tomlinson, Foster, and Ray Rice won. The last time I can think of when effective QB play was not really needed was the Steelers 1st SB with Roethlisburger and he had the benefit of having a great D. Run the ball effectively enough to not become predictable, but play to your offense's strengths. The Pats O, like any other O, tries to run plays that will work. There is no magical formula. If you know that the trap will work (and has worked) against the goal line D then you run that play in the red zone.