unmentioned element of run game

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

    unmentioned element of run game

    Along with Shalise Manza Young's article today on the balance that the effective running game has brought to the Patriots offense, there have been innumerable posts on the forum regarding the much improved running game.  However, one point that has seemingly been overlooked in some instances is how the running game contributes to the defense. 

    Along with the balance that the running game provides and how it makes the passing game so much more effective, it also runs the clock and the sustained drives that ensue and the mounting time-of-possession keep the defense on the sidelines for longer stretches thus keeping the defense, particularly the big guys, fresher for the 4th Q.

    I'm almost certain that Wilfork, Brace, Love, Nink, Spikes, and Mayo absolutely love what the big uglies on the offensive line and Ridley, Bolden, and Woodhead are accomplishing on offense.  (I omitted Chandler Jones name intentionally, not that he is unappreciative, but I believe that with his non-stop motor he could remain on the field for the entire game and still be fresh in the 4th Q.)

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Very good point but not overlooked. This was discussed in depth last off-season as a beneficial side effect. Those pro-balance saw it only as a benefit, those pro-passing said it wouldn't affect the D at all because the D would still give up quick scores regardless of rest. Honestly I think we covered ever aspect twelve ways to sunday on the subject and those people won't leave their camps even after BB came out speaking about balance and why he wanted it and it's benefits.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    We have talked about that a few times here. Very good point and thanks for mentioning the article, I'll have to check it out.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Sort of a slam dunk.. when you run the ball and eat clock, less time for the defense to be on the field and less time for the opponent to score.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Not discussed. The offense staying on the field longer per posessetion gives the defense time to look at what the other team is doing on offense then plan and put in adjustments.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Good thread with a well made point.  Gotta love that ground game.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    It may shock some but there are actually other good teams, QBs and coaches in the NFL.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to Mighty2013's comment:

    Right, it's not like a certain poster has made 10,000 posts over the past 3 years reiterating this point every minute every day ...




    Aren't you a Jets troll?

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    yes, the more time the offense spends on the field, the less time the defense spends on the field.  Now, on the other hand.....if the defense can get more 3 and outs....it gives the offense more opportunities to score. Oh, one potential bad thing about taking longer to score - is potentially fewer offensive possessions. So, it's unlikely that this Offense will outscore 2007s team.


    Ying and yang.  Hopefully, the D; especially the secondary - will get better as the season goes on. The verdict is still out on the secondary...

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    All true. However, we're starting to see the flip side of this: the O'line running out of gas now.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    The two teams that went to the super bowl in 2011 had below average times of posession. Because two things happen at the same time that obviously does not prove cause or effect. First downs and the prevention of them determines time of posession along with turnovers. We know that this was not a true correlation of success in 2011 because both super bowl teams were below average in time of posession in 2011. The best running team in the NFL last year was also below average in time of posession (Denver), and they had a good defense. In 2009 the Patriots were great in time of posession but nobody claims that was a great defense. Or are you? Time of posession is a contributor to winning most likely, but other factors are clearly more important. Defensive backs blowing coverage in the first quarter could not possible be because of time of posession problems. The Pats had a huge lead and were dominating time of posession yet Bronco recievers were still wide open.  Teams that run well have an advantage for TOP for obvious reasons but great running teams have not been winning superbowls that much lately (unless they have a very good passing attack). The last time a top 5 rushing attempt team made the super bowl it was the 2006 Bears. They had a great defense but were middling in time of posession.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to jri37's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    Not discussed. The offense staying on the field longer per posessetion gives the defense time to look at what the other team is doing on offense then plan and put in adjustments.



    I like the commitment to the run  when the oppotunity presents itself. My only concern with the D is thier inability to get off the field on 3rd down on a more consistent basis.



    agreed and agreed. 

    started a thread this week about us being 25th last week.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to PatsFanInOz's comment:

    All true. However, we're starting to see the flip side of this: the O'line running out of gas now.



    actually pass blocking takes A LOT MORE energy than run blocking.

    some contend that the speed of our o and the increased downs harms the o line. that is debatable and hard to prove.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to PatsFanInOz's comment:

    All true. However, we're starting to see the flip side of this: the O'line running out of gas now.




    as Bred said it's harder to pass block because you need to use all your strength to prevent from moving backwards then it is to run block because you attack gain moment and exert less energy.

    Additionally the reason the OL ran out of gas is because of the speed of the no huddle and the frequency they used it. They are still in the feeling out stages of the no huddle at that speed and will find a good balance. Once they do they will score at will but if they run it to many times and to quickly in frequency then of course the OL is going to get winded

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Keeping the defense off the field is a good thing, but so far through the first five games of the season, the Pats' offensive drives have been averaging 2:40 minutes, exactly the same as through the first five games of last year.  The real change is that defensive stands have dropped from an average of 2:44 minutes to 2:15 minutes.  This begs the question of whether the TOP difference (which is averaging about 2 minutes better this year) is the result of the offense's play or the defense's.

     

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Keeping the defense off the field is a good thing, but so far through the first five games of the season, the Pats' offensive drives have been averaging 2:40 minutes, exactly the same as through the first five games of last year.  The real change is that defensive stands have dropped from an average of 2:44 minutes to 2:15 minutes.  This begs the question of whether the TOP difference (which is averaging about 2 minutes better this year) is the result of the offense's play or the defense's.

     

     




    I'm not sure you can rely on those ToP numbers on O right now though. The Pats have been running the no huddle quicker then ever before with a higher frequency so that drops their ToP per series number. However, they have also had long drawn out plays that bring the number back up and help to close out games at times. True the O is on the field for the same amount of time but if say the D is only given on average 4 mins (ST's and stoppages in game included) on every down as compared to being given say 2.5mins on one drive then 6.5mins the next drive that those longer breaks worked in with the shorter breaks can actually keep them fresher then a sustained amount of time after every break. I link it to if you need 45s to catch your breath but you are only given 30s consistently then you'll never catch your breath. However, if you are given 10s one time and 50s another time then you don't build up that lack of rest and can actually catch your breath every so often

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    The two teams that went to the super bowl in 2011 had below average times of posession. Because two things happen at the same time that obviously does not prove cause or effect. First downs and the prevention of them determines time of posession along with turnovers. We know that this was not a true correlation of success in 2011 because both super bowl teams were below average in time of posession in 2011. The best running team in the NFL last year was also below average in time of posession (Denver), and they had a good defense. In 2009 the Patriots were great in time of posession but nobody claims that was a great defense. Or are you? Time of posession is a contributor to winning most likely, but other factors are clearly more important. Defensive backs blowing coverage in the first quarter could not possible be because of time of posession problems. The Pats had a huge lead and were dominating time of posession yet Bronco recievers were still wide open.  Teams that run well have an advantage for TOP for obvious reasons but great running teams have not been winning superbowls that much lately (unless they have a very good passing attack). The last time a top 5 rushing attempt team made the super bowl it was the 2006 Bears. They had a great defense but were middling in time of posession.




    This is far too intelligent to fly around here.

    You WILL become assimilated by the BDC Borg and you WILL love 1970s football.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    The two teams that went to the super bowl in 2011 had below average times of posession. Because two things happen at the same time that obviously does not prove cause or effect. First downs and the prevention of them determines time of posession along with turnovers. We know that this was not a true correlation of success in 2011 because both super bowl teams were below average in time of posession in 2011. The best running team in the NFL last year was also below average in time of posession (Denver), and they had a good defense. In 2009 the Patriots were great in time of posession but nobody claims that was a great defense. Or are you? Time of posession is a contributor to winning most likely, but other factors are clearly more important. Defensive backs blowing coverage in the first quarter could not possible be because of time of posession problems. The Pats had a huge lead and were dominating time of posession yet Bronco recievers were still wide open.  Teams that run well have an advantage for TOP for obvious reasons but great running teams have not been winning superbowls that much lately (unless they have a very good passing attack). The last time a top 5 rushing attempt team made the super bowl it was the 2006 Bears. They had a great defense but were middling in time of posession.




    We don't need to be a 'great' running team. We need to good enough to keep defenses guessing on third and short ( 3 to 1 yards), enable the play action and work the clock in the 4th quarter.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    I may be old-school, but there is nothing better than kicking the cr*p out of your opponent by jamming the ball right down their throats with a potent running game (this, coming from a former fullback myself). It sets the tone of a tough, brutalizing team that other teams hate to face. Games can be taken over and monopolized with long drives that just demoralize opponents.

    With all that TB and other QB's have accomplished in the last 10 to 15 years with unprecedented passing statistics, an effective running game to me, IMO, is still more impressive.

     

    Go Pats 

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to LittleTimmy31's comment:

    I may be old-school, but there is nothing better than kicking the cr*p out of your opponent by jamming the ball right down their throats with a potent running game (this, coming from a former fullback myself). It sets the tone of a tough, brutalizing team that other teams hate to face. Games can be taken over and monopolized with long drives that just demoralize opponents.

    With all that TB and other QB's have accomplished in the last 10 to 15 years with unprecedented passing statistics, an effective running game to me, IMO, is still more impressive.

     

    Go Pats 

     



    Real world logic; rare air.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to bobbysu's comment:

    Mark Schlereth said on radio that when they got Davis, it felt good beating up on the other guys, instead of getting beat up. Another element, psychological.



    That's how I always viewed Ridley, Brady's Terrell Davis. Just because you can throw it 200 times doesn't mean you should, throwing it comes with more risks as the game goes on. If you're up by 25, you have to give up the ball to the RB and have him seal the game. 

     

    Waitiing to pass it to Welker on 3 & short is a bad idea because then defenses swarm him and Brady gets lost. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share