This isn't balance.

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

    This isn't balance.

     

    That is the historical balance of the NFL. Going back some 30 years what we have done so far is not balanced. What we did last year was closer to balance. Not that I'm complaining. I didn't complain last year and I'm not complaining now. I don't pretend I know better how to run the team than BB. Let's just focus our understanding of what NFL balance actually is.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    I think you got the legend on that graph reversed.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    Gotta be one of the first graphs in history with the most recent data at the X-Y intersection.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    Ah didn't see that. Come on Babe!

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    I understand facts can be disturbing to some. When their erroneous notions are shattered, it can make some of them feel silly. They enter a denial state.

     

    But it's pretty clear the facts show for some 3 decades NFL teams have passed about 35 times a game and run about 27.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    31 teams don't win the Super Bowl every year... the ones that do typically can do it all.  Should we aspire to be mediocre, I say no.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In today's NFL, "balance" means running about 43% of the time and throwing 57%.  Very few teams are at 50-50.  The most "unbalanced" teams, run less than 40% of the time.  The Pats had the 20th highest rushing percentage last year. Twelve teams were less "balanced."

     

       

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    Half the people you meet are below average, (which this thread so obviously exemplifies) welcome to every day life.

    So if I'm in a boxing match and I'm a righty, then I should tie my left hand to my back, because I'm a righty after all and that's my strength?

    I love how you guys are trying to argue that being one dimensional is somehow better...

    Balance is what happens when the game is within reach, not what the winning team does when it pads it's stats in crunch time.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    I'll give you all the typical 24-48 hours required to craft a response that sounds logical...

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Half the people you meet are below average, (which this thread so obviously exemplifies) welcome to every day life.

    So if I'm in a boxing match and I'm a righty, then I should tie my left hand to my back, because I'm a righty after all and that's my strength?

    I love how you guys are trying to argue that being one dimensional is somehow better...

    Balance is what happens when the game is within reach, not what the winning team does when it pads it's stats in crunch time.




    You consider a 35/27 ratio "one dimensional"?

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    "I'll give you all the typical 24-48 hours required to craft a response that sounds logical..."

    Do you try to be insufferable or does it just come naturally to you? 

    That said this article

    http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/keeping-score-which-stats-can-predict-a-super-bowl-winner/

    supports your point of view to an extent, though having a great defense and not throwing interceptions are also key indicators of Super Bowl victory (once a team reaches the big game). 

    In short, balance - and less mistakes. The only danger I see from these stats is coming out with a conservative game plan whcih would be a mistake

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Half the people you meet are below average


    Depends on who you hang out with. 

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    So Wozzy, when a team passes 60.6% of the time and runs 39.4% of the time, do you consider that balanced or unbalanced?

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    "So Wozzy, when a team passes 60.6% of the time and runs 39.4% of the time, do you consider that balanced or unbalanced?"

    I'll bite=Unbalanced.  Like those here already have mentioned, "Balanced" in terms of this NFL Pass vs Run discussion, does NOT mean an exact 50-50 ratio.  I'd consider an attack to balanced IF it resulted in something within the range of 58% (highest point)- 52% (lowest ideal mark) - 42% (lowest mark)- 48% (highest point)= Pass vs Overall Run Attempts, split.  Add into this a DELIBERATE Dedication to begin FAR more Offensive sets with the QB under center in order to best not initially tip play direction at the onset, And that's all it would take for me to use the term: "Balance"...every time. 

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    How about we worry about what it takes to WIN GAMES and not what the exact percentages are for pass vs run.

    If it takes 70/30 pass to run one week to win...but the next week it takes the exact opposite to win....why does it matter? Why does anyone really care what the actual numbers are IF we are winning?

    You can argue until you're blue in the face about these silly run/pass ratios, but they don't mean squat if we lose. People have been beating this very dead horse forever, trying to blame our superbowl losses on this dumb stat, or a single missed play.

    Bottom line is that this ratio should change each and every week depending on who we play, and what it takes to win. The defense has to make just as many plays as the offense to win each week let alone the superbowl.

    Blaming one play, or blaming the defense or the offense is ridculous. Every single game we have ever lost in the last 30 years can be attributed to BOTH sides not making enough plays to win that day. Let the ratios argument go already...there's more to winning games than that one stupid stat.

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    Pretty much what Laz said. Why do people who argue against balance also say 50/50 split when it's not the case at all. Balance leads to unpredictability and better performance. Examples that aren't balanced but have 50/50 split are if the team runs the first 12 plays all runs the next 25 all passes and the final 13 all runs. That's 50/50 but not balance when it relates to football in any sense. That is not football balance, football balance is tossing in the run at unpredictable times to a point where teams can't count on passing the ball a vast majority of the time any given series. That does not require a perfect 50/50 spilt but closer to the league average  of 55:45 used in the right situations is considered balance.

    Also given the trends in the rules it's no shock that previously it favored the run and now it favors the pass. No one is questioning that there should be more passes then runs but what that difference is does make a huge difference whether you like to admit it or not. If you have any question about it look at the Pats win % when they throw the ball >60% of time verses <60% of the time and it's astounding. Even more amazing is that in at least half of the games they lost throwing the ball >60% of the time they were either within 1 score or had the lead going into the 4th so they didn't pass the ball more often because they needed to play catch up.

    But, unlike Babe, I don't general question BB's coaching ability. Appearently BB prefers balance too:

    By ESPN Field Yates

     

    Taken from today's conference call with Bill Belichick:

    On how important balance is to an offense
    "I think it's a great way to play, because it just forces the defense to have to react and cover everything. Defensively, that's where you want them, you want them to think about all their responsibilities: outside runs, inside runs, deep passes, short passes, screen passes, misdirection plays, inside routes, outside routes, inside receivers, outside receivers. Just to have good balance keeps them from ganging up on one thing. If you can do that, then it opens up a lot of other things. As an example, like on the touchdown pass to [Rob] Gronkowski [in Week 4], it's so hard to get a player like that that open on a drop-back pass. The defenders see the pass and they go to match their coverage and take their guy, but when you can have a run action that draws the defenders up, you get a guy behind them like Rob did on that play. A big part of that play was the play action, and the run threat that we had presented in the game had caused the linebackers to displace a little bit and we were able to get behind them, so the running game helps the passing game, the passing game helps the running game. Throwing to the receivers helps the tight end, throwing to the tight ends helps the receivers, throwing to the receivers helps the backs. It just all creates spacing and forces the defense to handle the whole field, and I think that just gives the offense good opportunities. I think that's a good way to be able to attack offensively. Sometimes a defense will be intent in taking a certain aspect of your game away, and say, 'OK, we're not going to let you beat us with this, so we're going to give you that,' you have to be able to do that."

     

    btw Babe:

    "But it's pretty clear the facts show for some 3 decades NFL teams have passed about 35 times a game and run about 27."

    learn what a decade is. According to your chart the 35 pass to 27 run started around 1990 and your chart goes to 2010 which is 2 decades not 3

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    "Pretty much what Laz said. Why do people who argue against balance also say 50/50 split when it's not the case at all. Balance leads to unpredictability and better performance."

    Correct...we're discussing The NFL greater gameplay, and not the precise poundage of provolone in one's deli counter order.  Balance as it relates here, Means "NOT a significant degree of IN-balance in one's game sets." 

    And tanbass...soryy ta tell'ya- It affects everything.  It affects how well you play in the 2nd half, It affects your ability to finish off an opponent and seal a win late in a game, It affects the other team's menatlity and number of chances in total drives AND the length of span in between their own Offensive drives during any given contest AND therefore also the mentality and degrees of BOTH urgency AND "looseness/hotness" (vs. "being iced on the sidelines for a long time") once the opposing O gets their chance to get back on the field of play, It affects your D through this, AND through the ability to extend your will upon the opposing side with long extended TOP drives, affording them greater rest, and greater abilities to make the greatest amount AND degrees of in-game adjustments when it's their turn to take the field again.

    It is MUCH more than the simplistic multi-dimensional covertness of not tipping one's Offensive hat at the onset towards the probability of what the play and/or greater play-direction will in most probability be prior to the snap, come the actual snap of the ball (which some insanely still can't come to the most basic of basic terms with...unbelievably).

    It...Affects...EVERY-thing. 

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:

    And tanbass...soryy ta tell'ya- It affects everything.  It...Affects...EVERY-thing. 




    You keep worrying about those numbers of pass vs run....and I'll worry about winning. Nuff said. The only thing it effect is the people on this board who feel the need to beat this dead horse day after day...month after month.

    The numbers don't mean sh!t. The adjustmenst to what is working at the given moment is what matters. Anyone with half a brain knows you need to be good at both to be versatile enough to switch over to whatever the other team is giving you. The actual ratio numbers don't mean jack.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

    btw Babe:

    "But it's pretty clear the facts show for some 3 decades NFL teams have passed about 35 times a game and run about 27."

    learn what a decade is. According to your chart the 35 pass to 27 run started around 1990 and your chart goes to 2010 which is 2 decades not 3




    You can disagree with the facts presented without the condescending attack on my intelligence, can't you?

    I stated "passed about 35 times a game and run about 27". The chart shows the divergence toward passing more occurring around 1982. Going to 2012, that's 3 decades.

    Using the term "about" is appropriate for the trend of the graph. The fact the numbers in a specific year may have actually been 35/30 is moot to the point I made, just as the fact in certain specific years where passing exceeded 35 times a game is moot to the general point I was making.

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:

    "So Wozzy, when a team passes 60.6% of the time and runs 39.4% of the time, do you consider that balanced or unbalanced?"

    I'll bite=Unbalanced.  Like those here already have mentioned, "Balanced" in terms of this NFL Pass vs Run discussion, does NOT mean an exact 50-50 ratio.  I'd consider an attack to balanced IF it resulted in something within the range of 58% (highest point)- 52% (lowest ideal mark) - 42% (lowest mark)- 48% (highest point)= Pass vs Overall Run Attempts, split.  Add into this a DELIBERATE Dedication to begin FAR more Offensive sets with the QB under center in order to best not initially tip play direction at the onset, And that's all it would take for me to use the term: "Balance"...every time. 



    Laz, you got the bigger Kahunas I guess, because Wozzy is apparently still taking his 24-48 hours to craft an answer.  Those percentages were the pass-run percentages for the Giants in the Super Bowl game.  They ran 71 offensive plays:  43 were pass plays (40 attempts, 3 sacks) and 28 were runs (generously including Manning's kneel down at the half as a run).  The resulting pecentages (60.6-39.4) are roughly the same as the Giants 60-40 pass-run percentages all season.  This notion, then, that the Giants reverted to a more balanced attack in the Super Bowl is complete bunk.  The Giant's pass-run ratio in the Super Bowl was almost identical to their overall pass-run ratio for the season.  And it was a 60-40 ratio which most of the posters who are praising the Giants' approach would consider grossly unbalanced, because 60-40 is even (a little) less balanced than the Pats' 2011 season pass-run ratio of 59.5-40.5.  

    Now in fairness to Wozzy, you can say that the Giants ran a bit more in the first half to "establish the run," but even there the breakdown (not including the kneel down to end the half) was 56%-44% in favour of passing.  The Pats in the Super Bowl passed well above 60% of the time, but I don't think that was because the game plan was designed to pass that much--I think it was because they were not executing well and finding themselves in a lot of second or third and long situations.  Plus they had to execute hurry-up drives at the end of each half, which always results in higher passing percentages. 

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    In response to LazarusintheSanatorium's comment:

    And tanbass...soryy ta tell'ya- It affects everything.  It...Affects...EVERY-thing. 




    You keep worrying about those numbers of pass vs run....and I'll worry about winning. Nuff said. The only thing it effect is the people on this board who feel the need to beat this dead horse day after day...month after month.

    The numbers don't mean sh!t. The adjustmenst to what is working at the given moment is what matters. Anyone with half a brain knows you need to be good at both to be versatile enough to switch over to whatever the other team is giving you. The actual ratio numbers don't mean jack.




    You are correct. As BB has said, he runs more if it's working. That's why I don't criticize him if he runs more, or if he runs less.

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    Few teams are game planning to pass 60% or more of the time.  Generally when teams pass that much it's because they are behind late in the game.  It's therefore not at all a surprise that high pass percentages tend to correlate with losses.  When you're behind late in the game, you tend to pass a lot.  However, this doesn't mean that high pass ratios necessary cause the loss.  (Correlation does not prove causation.)  They are, in fact, more symptoms of being behind than the reason for being behind. 

     

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

     

    btw Babe:

    "But it's pretty clear the facts show for some 3 decades NFL teams have passed about 35 times a game and run about 27."

    learn what a decade is. According to your chart the 35 pass to 27 run started around 1990 and your chart goes to 2010 which is 2 decades not 3




    You can disagree with the facts presented without the condescending attack on my intelligence, can't you?

    I stated "passed about 35 times a game and run about 27". The chart shows the divergence toward passing more occurring around 1982. Going to 2012, that's 3 decades.

    Using the term "about" is appropriate for the trend of the graph. The fact the numbers in a specific year may have actually been 35/30 is moot to the point I made, just as the fact in certain specific years where passing exceeded 35 times a game is moot to the general point I was making.

     




    Hey you tend to say "WRONG" in caps at people this is just doing the same thing without being as rude as saying wrong in caps

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

    Re: This isn't balance.

    There is only one retort to babe's notion that balance isn't important, and that the Pats (despite what most sane fans have realized and what all talking heads have just recently started harping on) are actually a balanced team. That response is...

    When logic and proportion
    Have fallen sloppy dead
    And the White Knight is talking backwards
    And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
    Remember what the doormouse said;
    "Feed YOUR HEAD, FEED YOUR HEAD, FEED YOUR HEAD......."

     

    Your welcome.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share