The final word on "balance".

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    Ummm..  the Pats lost in those two SBs and we can simply blame the TEAM as I do not think the TEAM is pointing fingers as much as the posters are in this back and forth discussion.  Rock will stick to his guns that the offense is most to blame, and ignoring the fact the Giants' D did play quite well, while the defense gave up the late score after holding the Giants to only 2 FGs up until the 3:47 mark of the game.   I do recall the OP was initially discussing how the Pats appeared to be more balanced this season and we have migrated to beating on the dead horse called:  "SBs 42 & 46"!  Happy New Year!

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

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



    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. 



    First I'd like to say I value your input here on this board and I generally agree with your viewpoints.

    This argument has all been rehashed over and over and neither side is going to give in. My opinion is that the Patriots were in control of the game early in the 3rd quarter when leading 17-9. Despite losing the time of possession battle, despite giving up long drives, the much maligned Patriots defense were holding a pretty good scoring offense to just field goals. In the end, the offense failed to put the game away as did the defense. The Giants simply made plays in crunch time while the Patriots did not.

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

    Re: The final word on

    Rock, time to put this string to bed as the ink in the history books is dry and the cows have come home!!  (-;

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    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!

     




    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.

     



    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!

     



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

     




    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!

     



    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. 



    You're delusional if you think any team can go into a SB thinking 18 or 19 points is enough to win in this and age.

    Hahaha. OK. That is exactly what the Giants' offense scored to win the Superbowl last year. 19 points (would have been 20 if they had kicked the extra point). You do realize that is the game we are talking about right now. The very latest Superbowl played. Last time I checked .... that is "this day and age."

    On top of that, that 19 points was a dominant performance. They scored those 19 without ever going 3 and out, without turning the ball over, and did it in just 8 drives. 

    And yeah, of course the modern NFL is easier to pass in ... that is why you pass the football more now than you did in the past. But pretending that defenses can't hold top offenses to less than 20 points flies in the face of fact. 

    Know more about football than me? Rusty, not that I give a rat's what you think, but you can't even get through that post without saying something that contradicts the basic reality of what you are talking about. 

    19 points isn't good enough ... except in the very game you are talking about. 

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Sorry Rusty, but if this thread is over it's because it's not worth arguing with someone who either makes things up, is uniformed, or just plain outright lies:

     



    Allowing 13 points and taking out Cruz, containing their run game is playing well. They played good. To claim "not well" is a trollesque assessment.

    Cruz had four receptions on four targets and one TD.  Not dominant maybe, but he certainly wasn't "taken out."  More to the point, the Giants had a 75% completion rate--Manning completed 30 passes to nine different receivers.  And in the run game, they averaged 4.1 ypc on 28 carries.   How is this "containing" the run?

    Their TEs did nothing as well (yes, I know they got hurt during the game) and Manningham did little before that play as well.

    Their TEs (Ballard, Pascoe) combined for 6 receptions! Maningham had five receptions.  Nicks had ten!  

    I'd say they executed BB's gameplan to the absolutely T, minus the good run game NY had going in the first half.

    Was the game plan to allow Eli Manning his best completion rate in two and a half years? 

    They adjusted and STARTED the whole momentum shift in the second half after our TD.

    How do you start a momentum shift by giving up a 10-play, 4:37 minute drive for a FG followed by a 9-play, 5:01 minute drive for another FG? Two long drives given up don't switch momentum in your favor!

     



    Your arguments are based on sand.  We point to real things--like Manning's 75% completion rate,  an average drive time for the Giants of over four and a half minutes, and the Giants' being able to score on half their drives.  These are real signs of defensive failures. Some vague and very shakey claims about "taking out Cruz" aren't real arguments or proof of anything.

    In your own words: EPIC FAIL. 

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In 2012 we ran 1.3 times more per quarter than in 2011, but we had 1.7 more plays per quarter than in 2011.

    We actually passed more in 2012 than 2011.

    In 2012 we ran 43% of the time. In 2011 we  ran 40% of the time.

    3% - That's once in every 34 plays.

    Our running was a little more effective so we ran a little more.

    So much for the myth that our balance dramatically changed.




    That the running was more effective does not negate the uptick in the running attempts. In fact, taking the increase in the TWO aspects - effectiveness AND attempts - is illustrative of more balance.

    Also, consider this approach to statistics (one which I think is actually meaningful though in this case not the be all end all):  if we had 40% runs and 60% pass in 2011 as you indicate that is a delta of 20%. It also is reflected by saying we passed 50% more times than we ran in 2011. If the runs went up to 43% then the passing went down to 57%. That is a delta of 14% - down from 20%, a significant drop. It also means we passed just under 33% more than we ran - a drop from 50%. Also significant.  And this is not taking into account our effectiveness.

    Furthermore, it is significant that the Pats improved situationally - which is a critical element. We were very good on short yardage running and very good in red zone. That means we took advatage SUCCESSFULLY of having the run as a truly viable option situationally (sorry for the wording). ALso consider that in 3 and long you rarely run anyway, regardless of who you are (unless you are the Vikings perhaps).

    Another aspect that is overlooked is that BB has created a roster that can adjust to different opponenents and weather conditions. Some games we pass and never stop passing. But some games, like the win over Denver, we run a lot, successfully. That translates into a better record and into being able to make teams play more honest or take a larger risk.

    To sum it up, the Pats were more balance and so helped all aspects of offensive effectiveness (ie. helped the passing game and situationally) by a combination of more attempts and being more effective with those attempts, in being very successful when needing short yardage and in the red zone and in being able to aapt to the opponent, the opponent's packages and the weather.

    This my friends is the Final Word on balance, regardless of the thread's first post.

     



    That isn't even close to the final word. Just looking at the frequency outside of context only renders an opaque statistic. I doesn't matter what the 'delta' is, if it's derived from situations where the offense is compelled to run or pass. There is sooooo much data out there that simply blows away the stats people are posting on this thread. 

    Again, saying "we win whenever we pass X amount of times and run Y amount of times" is the most reductive way of lookng at it. Again, the *amount* of running has a terrible correalation to winning if you subtract the 4th quarter. Just like the amount (high) of passing has a terrible correalation to losing if you subtract the 4th quarter. Teams that win, and are winning run more late in the game just like teams that are losing pass more late in the game. 

    It's been covered, to death, by stats analysts.

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

    The only thing raw run to pass numbers like we have posted in this thread tell you is how often they are ahead. Saying that running causes winning is akin to saying winning causes winning, or that you should kneel on the ball as often as possible because the team with more kneel downs wins the ball game 95% of the time, or more ludicrously, that puddles cause rain because you always see puddles when there is rain.

    Run the numbers on the first two quarters, then the first three quarters, and ignore the 4th quarter, and you'll find out what just about every analyst already knows: abstract run/pass ratios tell you the story of how well the team executed all phases early in the game. That is all.

    Furthermore, 3% is statistically irrelevant over the course of an entire season. A much, much larger shift would be needed to indicate that the difference was more than situational, on a micro level. Better efficiency on 1st down, for instance, will always lead to more running. More games ending in a larger spread. More extremely short yardage plays that call for running.

    The best running indicator correalated to winning is the standard deviation of YPC, which still pales in comparison to the standard deviation of passing, as passing efficiency is the number one offensive statistic that correalates to winning .... yes it matters even more than turnovers.    




    I guess you jumped to some conclusions and put words in my mouth. I did not say that simply looking at numbers of runs and passes was the be all end all. In fact I said that the COMBINATION of more attempts and more effective running was indicative of a more balanced game. I went on to say that in some games we were able to favor the run to more efffectively influence a good outcome. I also said that we were more effective in short yardage and red zone.

    And standard deviation of ypc does not address effectiveness in 2, 3rd and 4th down running when the goal is a first down and not simply more yardage. Effeciveness of a running game is in achieving the goal - in some cases a first down, in some a touchdown, in some just getting as many yards as possible without tuirning the ball over.

    So my friend your analysis is effectively a bit simplistic. I also did not address the fumble issue but that was essentially because BB teams have staitisticlaly protected the ball even when our running game was suspect.

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100



    ZB, excellent post.

    "Passing is indeed far more important than running, and although offense appears more important than defense, they're equally important."

    Not trying to take anything out of context, but...



    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. 



    How well you play? Well, if you mean how well your line is blocking and runners are running verse the opponent that is fine. But if you are syaing simply if you pass well and are scoring then you can run on this opponent then you are essentially wrong.

    Balance in the sense it is meant here has to do with being able to put on the field a package, a group of players, who can match up well with the opponent and execute runs and passes. If you look at the Colts for example, they just do not have as good a running game as SF or the Patriots. And that is due to blocking and running. No mystery.

    THe Real bottom line is in the quality and abilities of the players you put on the field and how well prepared they are. Not in ANY statistics. We are looking at statistics as a way of looking BACK and illustrating how the running game has made more of a difference this year than in the last few (or not).

    You have to match appropriate statistics to what you are hoping to reveal with them. In this case by illustrarting that the running game is improved to some significant degree one might be able to correlate that to future performance - though you might have heard that past performance does not guarantee future results. Still, past performance can indicate future potentials.

    Refocus your approach into a more practical application of analysis. I do this for a living and am very very good at it.

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100



    ZB, excellent post.

    "Passing is indeed far more important than running, and although offense appears more important than defense, they're equally important."

    Not trying to take anything out of context, but...



    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. 



    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.  




    I very much agree with your point about special teams

     
  • This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In 2012 we ran 1.3 times more per quarter than in 2011, but we had 1.7 more plays per quarter than in 2011.

    We actually passed more in 2012 than 2011.

    In 2012 we ran 43% of the time. In 2011 we  ran 40% of the time.

    3% - That's once in every 34 plays.

    Our running was a little more effective so we ran a little more.

    So much for the myth that our balance dramatically changed.




    That the running was more effective does not negate the uptick in the running attempts. In fact, taking the increase in the TWO aspects - effectiveness AND attempts - is illustrative of more balance.

    Also, consider this approach to statistics (one which I think is actually meaningful though in this case not the be all end all):  if we had 40% runs and 60% pass in 2011 as you indicate that is a delta of 20%. It also is reflected by saying we passed 50% more times than we ran in 2011. If the runs went up to 43% then the passing went down to 57%. That is a delta of 14% - down from 20%, a significant drop. It also means we passed just under 33% more than we ran - a drop from 50%. Also significant.  And this is not taking into account our effectiveness.

    Furthermore, it is significant that the Pats improved situationally - which is a critical element. We were very good on short yardage running and very good in red zone. That means we took advatage SUCCESSFULLY of having the run as a truly viable option situationally (sorry for the wording). ALso consider that in 3 and long you rarely run anyway, regardless of who you are (unless you are the Vikings perhaps).

    Another aspect that is overlooked is that BB has created a roster that can adjust to different opponenents and weather conditions. Some games we pass and never stop passing. But some games, like the win over Denver, we run a lot, successfully. That translates into a better record and into being able to make teams play more honest or take a larger risk.

    To sum it up, the Pats were more balance and so helped all aspects of offensive effectiveness (ie. helped the passing game and situationally) by a combination of more attempts and being more effective with those attempts, in being very successful when needing short yardage and in the red zone and in being able to aapt to the opponent, the opponent's packages and the weather.

    This my friends is the Final Word on balance, regardless of the thread's first post.

     



    That isn't even close to the final word. Just looking at the frequency outside of context only renders an opaque statistic. I doesn't matter what the 'delta' is, if it's derived from situations where the offense is compelled to run or pass. There is sooooo much data out there that simply blows away the stats people are posting on this thread. 

    Again, saying "we win whenever we pass X amount of times and run Y amount of times" is the most reductive way of lookng at it. Again, the *amount* of running has a terrible correalation to winning if you subtract the 4th quarter. Just like the amount (high) of passing has a terrible correalation to losing if you subtract the 4th quarter. Teams that win, and are winning run more late in the game just like teams that are losing pass more late in the game. 

    It's been covered, to death, by stats analysts.

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

    The only thing raw run to pass numbers like we have posted in this thread tell you is how often they are ahead. Saying that running causes winning is akin to saying winning causes winning, or that you should kneel on the ball as often as possible because the team with more kneel downs wins the ball game 95% of the time, or more ludicrously, that puddles cause rain because you always see puddles when there is rain.

    Run the numbers on the first two quarters, then the first three quarters, and ignore the 4th quarter, and you'll find out what just about every analyst already knows: abstract run/pass ratios tell you the story of how well the team executed all phases early in the game. That is all.

    Furthermore, 3% is statistically irrelevant over the course of an entire season. A much, much larger shift would be needed to indicate that the difference was more than situational, on a micro level. Better efficiency on 1st down, for instance, will always lead to more running. More games ending in a larger spread. More extremely short yardage plays that call for running.

    The best running indicator correalated to winning is the standard deviation of YPC, which still pales in comparison to the standard deviation of passing, as passing efficiency is the number one offensive statistic that correalates to winning .... yes it matters even more than turnovers.    




    I guess you jumped to some conclusions and put words in my mouth. I did not say that simply looking at numbers of runs and passes was the be all end all. In fact I said that the COMBINATION of more attempts and more effective running was indicative of a more balanced game. I went on to say that in some games we were able to favor the run to more efffectively influence a good outcome. I also said that we were more effective in short yardage and red zone.

    And standard deviation of ypc does not address effectiveness in 2, 3rd and 4th down running when the goal is a first down and not simply more yardage. Effeciveness of a running game is in achieving the goal - in some cases a first down, in some a touchdown, in some just getting as many yards as possible without tuirning the ball over.

    So my friend your analysis is effectively a bit simplistic. I also did not address the fumble issue but that was essentially because BB teams have staitisticlaly protected the ball even when our running game was suspect.

     



    That is really vague though. Sorry. The combination of more and more effective are really spoiled by a lot of noise. 

    1.) The Pats ran more total plays.

    2.) the majority of the extra running plays occured in the 4th quarter this season where they maintained a 4.4 ypc as opposed to a 3.6 last season. A larger YPC almost always yeilds more runs.

    My basic question is "what do you mean by balance?" 

    My discussion of standard deviation had to do with the fact that someone stated that balance, more of it, created more wins. In fact, New England was a hair (not statistically relevant IMO) more balanced this season, and lost more games. 

    Standard deviation of all carries minus the fourth quarter is a solid indicator of effectiveness. I understand what you mean about "goal line" exactly. But I think you also need to erase the longest run ... a guy can have one 22 yard scamper, and then follow it up with nine 2 yard runs, and "statistically" he has a 4.0 YPC. But in reality ... he has run like garbage. And he doesn't merit more carries. I think in the Superbowl this is exactly the case, with BJGE who had one long run, but outside of that had a dismal performance and really didn't merit more carries. 

    For the record, NE is ranked 16th in power running (short yardage for 1st down or TD) and were 17th last season. So that is basically a "wash" between the two seasons. But it's still a solid indiciator. Moreover, I was saying that running,and the amount of balance has a terrible "correalation to winning.'' Which is what I meant by final word. 

    It's this simple, and there are so many resources that show it. The team that runs more in the first half wins about 50% of the time. It's a coin flip. 

    The team that runs more in the whole game wins something closer to 75% of the time, iirc. 

    But when you factor that the team that runs more in the 4th (ie, the team with the lead) wins well into 90% then you have to say ... balance is a product of execution, not something that creates execution. 

     

     

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Sorry Rusty, but if this thread is over it's because it's not worth arguing with someone who either makes things up, is uniformed, or just plain outright lies:

     



    Allowing 13 points and taking out Cruz, containing their run game is playing well. They played good. To claim "not well" is a trollesque assessment.

    Cruz had four receptions on four targets and one TD.  Not dominant maybe, but he certainly wasn't "taken out."  More to the point, the Giants had a 75% completion rate--Manning completed 30 passes to nine different receivers.  And in the run game, they averaged 4.1 ypc on 28 carries.   How is this "containing" the run?

    Their TEs did nothing as well (yes, I know they got hurt during the game) and Manningham did little before that play as well.

    Their TEs (Ballard, Pascoe) combined for 6 receptions! Maningham had five receptions.  Nicks had ten!  

    I'd say they executed BB's gameplan to the absolutely T, minus the good run game NY had going in the first half.

    Was the game plan to allow Eli Manning his best completion rate in two and a half years? 

    They adjusted and STARTED the whole momentum shift in the second half after our TD.

    How do you start a momentum shift by giving up a 10-play, 4:37 minute drive for a FG followed by a 9-play, 5:01 minute drive for another FG? Two long drives given up don't switch momentum in your favor!

     



    Your arguments are based on sand.  We point to real things--like Manning's 75% completion rate,  an average drive time for the Giants of over four and a half minutes, and the Giants' being able to score on half their drives.  These are real signs of defensive failures. Some vague and very shakey claims about "containing Cruz" aren't real arguments or proof of anything.

    In your own words: EPIC FAIL. 



    If it's within the gameplan it is.  I'll take your horrendously WEAK retort as a full scale capitulation.

    Like I said above, your argument is like a Giants fan in SB 25 whining about Thurman Thomsas rusing for 125 yards, when BB's ganeplans was to ignore Thomas and take away Kelly's weapons.

    His plan WORKED! Their Run D was purposely scale back for the betterment of the team to work their gameplan and what they believed would help win them the game. Again, BB's genius is totally lost on half baked fans like you.  You just don't get it and it's disturbing that you refuse to learn the game.

    Why not just sit home and watch highlights of Brady's passes if that's all you're interested in?

    BB's old SB 25 D had warts all over the place, but they worked the gameplan to a T. As did this one, but some guy named Tom Brady and a very uneven day at the office which totally compromise the likelihood of a SB victory.

    Plain and simple.

    You aren't a better defensive gameplanner than BB, Prolate. It's very arrogant that you think you are.



    Oh boy . . . talk about a complete collapse into babble.  It's clear the facts have overhelmed you completely.  It's like Carthage crushed by the Romans . . .  

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100



    ZB, excellent post.

    "Passing is indeed far more important than running, and although offense appears more important than defense, they're equally important."

    Not trying to take anything out of context, but...



    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. 



    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.  




    What? Our STs minus Edelman's injury, a lack of a great kick returner, and Gostkowski's kicks, is good.

    Our coverage units are very good, as is the tackling. Cole was a great add.  Rivera and Koutivides are also good in that area, as is Tracey White (he's been injured a bit this year, however).  Slater is going to his second straight Pro Bowl and deservedly so.

    We focus too much on our finesse offense failing in the postseason and WHY it does? Really, Z?

    It's an offensive era and you want to not focus on why we lost SB 42 and 46?

    LOL!

    I'd say you're trying like hell to continue to deflect and deflect poorly.



    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 again agree with your points here. But not 100%. IT does not take into account critical moments in a game. When a game is played out and you look back you find that not all plays are of equal import. You dont know that before any one snap but ultimately some plays turn out to be more critical. SO for example, if an offense if very efficient but when the game is on the line they are not they stand to lose big games. Historically that was called choking. But it is not merely anecdotal. The "drop" by Welker (or not so good pass by BRady, your choice) could have come close to icing the game. But that one inablity to make a play cost them. The D still had to fold to lose. But the point is that looking at game statistics without some statistical context leaves some issues hidden.

    I suspect that when EVERYTHING is said we will not be far apart on this thing but there does seem to be some differences on how to apply statistics here.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: The final word on

    i see this years offense as being more balanced because they are able to win games running the ball. they are using the run to close out games more and teams respect our running game. the play action works better because of it. if a defense knows you're going to throw every down they have a good chance of making the stop, no matter how good the passing game is. we have also run many more offensive plays this year. the percentages may be similar but just watching a game you can see the difference in how the running game is used. this years offense is better and built to play against any defense. 

    our defense is much better too... we are going all the way

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: The final word on

    ......and Crusty is a Jester was spends 24 hours a day trolling this board looking for Arguments and making a fool of himself.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: The final word on

    Amazing how you turned that post into a Brady bash. Go job leon.  I'd prefer if you addressed me as Mighty Tcal.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100



    ZB, excellent post.

    "Passing is indeed far more important than running, and although offense appears more important than defense, they're equally important."

    Not trying to take anything out of context, but...



    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. 



    How well you play? Well, if you mean how well your line is blocking and runners are running verse the opponent that is fine. But if you are syaing simply if you pass well and are scoring then you can run on this opponent then you are essentially wrong.

    Balance in the sense it is meant here has to do with being able to put on the field a package, a group of players, who can match up well with the opponent and execute runs and passes. If you look at the Colts for example, they just do not have as good a running game as SF or the Patriots. And that is due to blocking and running. No mystery.


    Thanks for responding. 

    No. What I am saying is this:

    1.) That in "real practice" decisions are made about play calling based on the situation (down/distance/score). Decisions about "balance" aren't purely abstract, but practical and provisional. A playcaller doesn't open a playbook of 100+ plays and pick them at random. They are sorted by down and distance. Obviously, there are less running plays in later downs and longer distances than there are on shorter distances. Obviously as well, there are less running plays in 2 minute offenses that teams run late and behind. Thus ... 

    2.) How well you execute your running and passing on 1st down and in the first 2-3 quarters is an amazing indicator of whether or not you will have a chance to run more, (ie., be more balanced) in the fourth quarter. 

    3.) The Patriots were more efficient in the fourth quarter running, and thus they ran more in the 4th quarter. The Patriots were *much* more efficient (+ .6 YPC) on first down running than they were last season. 

    4.) Saying that running 3% more running plays = such a dramatic uptick in overall efficiency (.5 YPC) when the cause is obvious (his name is Ridley and he was more efficient behind this line last year too, but didn't get enough carries) is simply incorrect. Thus ...

    5.) Saying that simple running more creates better execution is putting the cart before the horse.

    In the end the NFL is about talent and execution. Game planning is a small part. Give me the guys who execute a vanilla game plan perfectly over guys who have a great game plan but bungle it up every time.  

    Lastly ... the NFL has been inverted for decades. Despite popular belief, passing has been setting up running since the 80s with the dawn of the west coast offense and run  and shoot offenses. 

    NE does this on a weekly basis. Gronk and Hern open up the seams of the defense ... New England runs at those seams. The more effectively NE runs at those seams, the more effectively they can PA pass. Vice versa. It's synergy. 

    This was not my point but passing more efficiently over that time span (1-3 quarters) has a better corealation to scoring and winning. So in essence you could say that it DOES give you a chance to pass your way into running more. 

     

     

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

    Re: The final word on

    This was never solely a statistical argument, but it has morphed into one.  If you're making it solely a run vs. pass % argument, you're only looking at half the story. 

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100



    ZB, excellent post.

    "Passing is indeed far more important than running, and although offense appears more important than defense, they're equally important."

    Not trying to take anything out of context, but...



    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. 



    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.  




    What? Our STs minus Edelman's injury, a lack of a great kick returner, and Gostkowski's kicks, is good.

    Our coverage units are very good, as is the tackling. Cole was a great add.  Rivera and Koutivides are also good in that area, as is Tracey White (he's been injured a bit this year, however).  Slater is going to his second straight Pro Bowl and deservedly so.

    We focus too much on our finesse offense failing in the postseason and WHY it does? Really, Z?

    It's an offensive era and you want to not focus on why we lost SB 42 and 46?

    LOL!

    I'd say you're trying like hell to continue to deflect and deflect poorly.



    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 again agree with your points here. But not 100%. IT does not take into account critical moments in a game. When a game is played out and you look back you find that not all plays are of equal import. You dont know that before any one snap but ultimately some plays turn out to be more critical. SO for example, if an offense if very efficient but when the game is on the line they are not they stand to lose big games. Historically that was called choking. But it is not merely anecdotal. The "drop" by Welker (or not so good pass by BRady, your choice) could have come close to icing the game. But that one inablity to make a play cost them. The D still had to fold to lose. But the point is that looking at game statistics without some statistical context leaves some issues hidden.

    I suspect that when EVERYTHING is said we will not be far apart on this thing but there does seem to be some differences on how to apply statistics here.

     



    I agree 100%. Like I said in another post, the only statistical measure I accept as inelastically correalated to winning is Scoreability/Bendability which measures Offense/Defense Redzone + Special Teams net yards. 

    That specifically measures the "situational football" you are talking about, and is basically quarter independent. The team that does that best wins something like 85% of the games. 

    3rd down success, btw, is also inelastic, but is a weaker correalation than S/B metrics. Still it's a very strong 70% iirc. Much stronger than "running more" which is basically a coin flip when you subtract "running with the lead in the 4th quarter."

    In "practical" terms, because we want to talk this way, practicing and perfecting your third down play package will yield more benefits than simply handing the ball off more, or blitzing more, or whatever you hear armchair coaches say on a forum. 

    In short, it's not what you call during the game ... but how you execute.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In 2012 we ran 1.3 times more per quarter than in 2011, but we had 1.7 more plays per quarter than in 2011.

    We actually passed more in 2012 than 2011.

    In 2012 we ran 43% of the time. In 2011 we  ran 40% of the time.

    3% - That's once in every 34 plays.

    Our running was a little more effective so we ran a little more.

    So much for the myth that our balance dramatically changed.




    That the running was more effective does not negate the uptick in the running attempts. In fact, taking the increase in the TWO aspects - effectiveness AND attempts - is illustrative of more balance.

    Also, consider this approach to statistics (one which I think is actually meaningful though in this case not the be all end all):  if we had 40% runs and 60% pass in 2011 as you indicate that is a delta of 20%. It also is reflected by saying we passed 50% more times than we ran in 2011. If the runs went up to 43% then the passing went down to 57%. That is a delta of 14% - down from 20%, a significant drop. It also means we passed just under 33% more than we ran - a drop from 50%. Also significant.  And this is not taking into account our effectiveness.

    Furthermore, it is significant that the Pats improved situationally - which is a critical element. We were very good on short yardage running and very good in red zone. That means we took advatage SUCCESSFULLY of having the run as a truly viable option situationally (sorry for the wording). ALso consider that in 3 and long you rarely run anyway, regardless of who you are (unless you are the Vikings perhaps).

    Another aspect that is overlooked is that BB has created a roster that can adjust to different opponenents and weather conditions. Some games we pass and never stop passing. But some games, like the win over Denver, we run a lot, successfully. That translates into a better record and into being able to make teams play more honest or take a larger risk.

    To sum it up, the Pats were more balance and so helped all aspects of offensive effectiveness (ie. helped the passing game and situationally) by a combination of more attempts and being more effective with those attempts, in being very successful when needing short yardage and in the red zone and in being able to aapt to the opponent, the opponent's packages and the weather.

    This my friends is the Final Word on balance, regardless of the thread's first post.

     



    That isn't even close to the final word. Just looking at the frequency outside of context only renders an opaque statistic. I doesn't matter what the 'delta' is, if it's derived from situations where the offense is compelled to run or pass. There is sooooo much data out there that simply blows away the stats people are posting on this thread. 

    Again, saying "we win whenever we pass X amount of times and run Y amount of times" is the most reductive way of lookng at it. Again, the *amount* of running has a terrible correalation to winning if you subtract the 4th quarter. Just like the amount (high) of passing has a terrible correalation to losing if you subtract the 4th quarter. Teams that win, and are winning run more late in the game just like teams that are losing pass more late in the game. 

    It's been covered, to death, by stats analysts.

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

    The only thing raw run to pass numbers like we have posted in this thread tell you is how often they are ahead. Saying that running causes winning is akin to saying winning causes winning, or that you should kneel on the ball as often as possible because the team with more kneel downs wins the ball game 95% of the time, or more ludicrously, that puddles cause rain because you always see puddles when there is rain.

    Run the numbers on the first two quarters, then the first three quarters, and ignore the 4th quarter, and you'll find out what just about every analyst already knows: abstract run/pass ratios tell you the story of how well the team executed all phases early in the game. That is all.

    Furthermore, 3% is statistically irrelevant over the course of an entire season. A much, much larger shift would be needed to indicate that the difference was more than situational, on a micro level. Better efficiency on 1st down, for instance, will always lead to more running. More games ending in a larger spread. More extremely short yardage plays that call for running.

    The best running indicator correalated to winning is the standard deviation of YPC, which still pales in comparison to the standard deviation of passing, as passing efficiency is the number one offensive statistic that correalates to winning .... yes it matters even more than turnovers.    




    I guess you jumped to some conclusions and put words in my mouth. I did not say that simply looking at numbers of runs and passes was the be all end all. In fact I said that the COMBINATION of more attempts and more effective running was indicative of a more balanced game. I went on to say that in some games we were able to favor the run to more efffectively influence a good outcome. I also said that we were more effective in short yardage and red zone.

    And standard deviation of ypc does not address effectiveness in 2, 3rd and 4th down running when the goal is a first down and not simply more yardage. Effeciveness of a running game is in achieving the goal - in some cases a first down, in some a touchdown, in some just getting as many yards as possible without tuirning the ball over.

    So my friend your analysis is effectively a bit simplistic. I also did not address the fumble issue but that was essentially because BB teams have staitisticlaly protected the ball even when our running game was suspect.

     



    That is really vague though. Sorry. The combination of more and more effective are really spoiled by a lot of noise. 

    1.) The Pats ran more total plays.

    2.) the majority of the extra running plays occured in the 4th quarter this season where they maintained a 4.4 ypc as opposed to a 3.6 last season. A larger YPC almost always yeilds more runs.

    My basic question is "what do you mean by balance?" 

    My discussion of standard deviation had to do with the fact that someone stated that balance, more of it, created more wins. In fact, New England was a hair (not statistically relevant IMO) more balanced this season, and lost more games. 

    Standard deviation of all carries minus the fourth quarter is a solid indicator of effectiveness. I understand what you mean about "goal line" exactly. But I think you also need to erase the longest run ... a guy can have one 22 yard scamper, and then follow it up with nine 2 yard runs, and "statistically" he has a 4.0 YPC. But in reality ... he has run like garbage. And he doesn't merit more carries. I think in the Superbowl this is exactly the case, with BJGE who had one long run, but outside of that had a dismal performance and really didn't merit more carries. 

    For the record, NE is ranked 16th in power running (short yardage for 1st down or TD) and were 17th last season. So that is basically a "wash" between the two seasons. But it's still a solid indiciator. Moreover, I was saying that running,and the amount of balance has a terrible "correalation to winning.'' Which is what I meant by final word. 

    It's this simple, and there are so many resources that show it. The team that runs more in the first half wins about 50% of the time. It's a coin flip. 

    The team that runs more in the whole game wins something closer to 75% of the time, iirc. 

    But when you factor that the team that runs more in the 4th (ie, the team with the lead) wins well into 90% then you have to say ... balance is a product of execution, not something that creates execution. 

     

     




    OK - we are starting to get on the same page but we are not there yet. The point is NOT in how many runs versus how many passes. And if you look at runs in the fourth quarter there is a key aspect you want to ascertain - that is, was the team able to successfully run the ball, maintain possession and either score to win,m score to ice or simply run the clock out. If the answer was that they were able to successfully employ the running game in that situation then it is illustrating that they have the players to execute versus that opponent.

    So - success running the ball in the fourth quarter IS important. It can even be CRITICAL. It means that with the game on the line - either in holding a lead or jut holding on to the ball and keeping the opponent off the field - you were able to DICTATE the outcome.

    The example of 4th quarter, or short yardage or red zone effectiveness - as well as 1st and 2nd and 3rd and long effectiveness, is in trying to determine whether your team can DICTATE the game... the result. A great running team versus a D that just cannot stop them is correlated to a high percentage chance of winning. If you can convert first downs, score in the red zone or just churn out a high percentage of 6-9 yard runs on first or second down you can significantly improve your effectiveness per drive as well as your ability to do it when the game is finally on the line.

    Again, what we are REALLY hoping to do is not look back! WHat we are really hoping to do is see whether the talent and execution is there for one team to dictate to another.

    We see poor pass Ds go up against average passing games and fail. ANd we can predict this to some degree. More accurately the better the pass O and more specifically the better the O match ups. For example, an O with good deep WRs and a QB who is accurate deep has a better mathcup when the D does not have the ability to pressure and/or does not have the secondary to matchup to speed and/or size etc.

    Same for run offense and run defense. Sometimes it can come down to the most simple things. Size for example. In the Raiders Vikings SB after the 1976 season (Pats got robbed and hsould have been there) the Raiders O line was SOOOO much bigger than the Viking front 4 and front 7 that they just out muscled them . Sometimes it is in a single weak link in the D like a mismatch in setting the edge where the current O has the quality of players to take advantage but some other opponents did not. Just looking at statistics blindly, even good ones, can miss the truth behind their value.

    So bringing this back together... attempts and ratios are meaningless really. What is meaningful is effectiveness. Efficiency, however that is defined, is not always the measure of effectiveness we want. Sometimes it is.

    In the case of the Patriots what we have is:

    (1) a solid group of FIVE o lineman on the field at all times (starters and backups over a 16 game season as injuries are always a factor at different points of the year)

    (2) Good blocking TEs - and more than one.

    (3) Reasonablly good blocking from H back types - an improvement over most WRs as blockers especially against players other than CBs

    (4) Depth and versatility at RB: strength, speed, good instincts, power, etc.

    (5) While the O line is not the msot dominating run blocking unit and none of the RBs are in the top 4 runners in the league both the blocking and the runnning is strong and versatile so that the O can attack a weakness either inside or outside. The weakness might be due to the package the opponent puts on the field or due to simply having pne or more players that do not match up well with their counterpart or that the D player(s) are not very good or that the opponent is forced to play without an injured player(s).

    The result is that BB and McD and TB can take advantage of an opponents weakness.

    ANother illustrative point regarding effectiveness of running - you might recall a recent game where TB ran for 5 yards on FIRST DOWN. While no one will say TB is a great running QB he was bale to take advantage of a defensive oversight and make a good play. That is not something you can count on happening any time soon. But being able to see the weakness, whether it is in the D alignment or personnel or match ups, is the first requirement. The second is being bale to act successfully on your assessment. The Pats do that and have those players to make it happen.

    The statistics help to illustarte that. And what we are looking at is not simply a factor of a successful passing game making the running game successful. If that were the case this team would not be a better running team than 2007. But the CERTAINLY are.

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share