We are balanced.

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

    We are balanced.

    We actually ran more times than the NFL average for the season.

    We passed 4 more times a game than the NFL average (we had 4 more plays a game than the average).

    So what is this baloney about not being balanced? We're close to being as balanced as most of the NFL.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    its because in two huge losses to the giants they have had 90 pass plays to 35 run plays....thats not gonna cut it
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^What he said... so why did they stop the balance when it was working?  This just proves they lose when they are not playing balanced. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]We actually ran more times than the NFL average for the season. We passed 4 more times a game than the NFL average (we had 4 more plays a game than the average). So what is this baloney about not being balanced? We're close to being as balanced as most of the NFL.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]


    Hey Chief explain to us how it was the defense's fault that we passed 90-35 runs in our last 2 Sb defeats.

    Then tell us we are balanced.

    Actually don't say anything at all.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    Then agains I have given you what you are looking for....a response.

    Your welcome.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]its because in two huge losses to the giants they have had 90 pass plays to 35 run plays....thats not gonna cut it
    Posted by redsoxfan94[/QUOTE]


    Yup, and also 35 passes to 12 run plays against the Steelers, another loss!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1guy1sharp. Show 1guy1sharp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In response to "Re: We are balanced.": [QUOTE]In Response to We are balanced. : Hey Chief explain to us how it was the defense's fault that we passed 90-35 runs in our last 2 Sb defeats. Then tell us we are balanced. Actually don't say anything at all. Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE] Hey chief explain to us again how good the defense was. The defense that had the lead with a few minutes to go in the SB. We would be SB champs right now if they made one stop. Bottom line , even though the offense wasn't great , they put this team in position to win. I agree that both sides need to tweaked a little bit. You guys on this forum defending the defense sound like jet fans defending Sancheeze. Everybody in the world can see they need big help but you.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: We are balanced.": Hey chief explain to us again how good the defense was. The defense that had the lead with a few minutes to go in the SB. We would be SB champs right now if they made one stop. Bottom line , even though the offense wasn't great , they put this team in position to win. I agree that both sides need to tweaked a little bit. You guys on this forum defending the defense sound like jet fans defending Sancheeze. Everybody in the world can see they need big help but you.
    Posted by 1guy1sharp[/QUOTE]

    the defense allowed one td in the first half and it was off of the brady safety....and only allowed two field goals in the 2nd half before the giants final drive.....bottom line is, the defense played good enough to win, the offense didnt....14 points and 17 points in two super bowls will most likely result in losses no matter how good your defense is....
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]its because in two huge losses to the giants they have had 90 pass plays to 35 run plays....thats not gonna cut it
    Posted by redsoxfan94[/QUOTE]


    We ran the ball 24 times in the Giants' loss during the season. The league average is 27 a game. No big discrepancy there. Three attempts.

    In the SB we ran it 8 times less than the average. But then, our last drive didn't allow for any runs because of the clock.

    That doesn't seem crazy out of whack.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    The Patriots run so much because they are always miles ahead in the fourth quarter and they just want to eat the clock and not throw ints.  Also because opponents are leaving their nickel defenses in on third and inches, because if the Patriots get the first down they're coming out throwing on first and 10 with a hurryup. 

    It's a passing offense being dared to run.  No problem.  But if Brady reinjures his shoulder it's not a balanced offense.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    Pissing contest? 

    Buffalo Doritos or Spicy Nacho?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]^^^^^^^^^^^^^What he said... so why did they stop the balance when it was working?  This just proves they lose when they are not playing balanced. 
    Posted by Getzo[/QUOTE]

    It doesn't prove that. In 7 of our wins we had less rushing yards than our average.

    In two of our 3 losses we ran within a few yards of our average.

    There is no correlation between our rushing yards and losing or winning.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : It doesn't prove that. In 7 of our wins we had less rushing yards than our average. In two of our 3 losses we ran within a few yards of our average. There is no correlation between our rushing yards and losing or winning.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    There's a study by Football Outsiders that says just that. There are alot of interesting studies, this is just one conclusion concerning running the ball.

    You run when you win, not win when you run.

    The first article ever written for Football Outsiders was devoted to debunking the myth of "establishing the run." There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game. Just running the ball is not going to help a team score; it has to run successfully.

    There are two reasons why nearly every beat writer and television analyst still repeats the tired oldschool mantra that "establishing the run" is the secret to winning football games. The first problem is confusing cause and effect. There are exceptions, usually when the opponent is strong in every area except run defense, like last year's New Orleans Saints. However, in general, winning teams have a lot of carries because their running backs are running out the clock at the end of wins, not because they are running wild early in games.

    The second problem is history. Most of the current crop of NFL analysts came of age or actually played the game during the 1970s. They believe that the run-heavy game of that decade is how football is meant to be, and today's pass-first game is an aberration. As we addressed in an essay in Pro Football Prospectus 2007 about the history of NFL stats, it was actually the game of the 1970s that was the aberration. The seventies were far more slanted towards the run than any era since the arrival of Paul Brown, Otto Graham, and the Cleveland Browns in 1946. Optimal strategies from 1974 are not optimal strategies for today's game.

    A sister statement to "you have to establish the run" is "team X is 5-1 when running back John Doe runs for at least 100 yards." Unless John Doe is ripping off six-yard gains Chris Johnson-style, the team isn't winning because of his 100-yard games. He's putting up 100-yard games because his team is winning.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : There's a study by Football Outsiders that says just that. There are alot of interesting studies, this is just one conclusion concerning running the ball. You run when you win, not win when you run. The first article ever written for Football Outsiders was devoted to debunking the myth of "establishing the run." There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game. Just running the ball is not going to help a team score; it has to run successfully. There are two reasons why nearly every beat writer and television analyst still repeats the tired oldschool mantra that "establishing the run" is the secret to winning football games. The first problem is confusing cause and effect. There are exceptions, usually when the opponent is strong in every area except run defense, like last year's New Orleans Saints. However, in general, winning teams have a lot of carries because their running backs are running out the clock at the end of wins, not because they are running wild early in games. The second problem is history. Most of the current crop of NFL analysts came of age or actually played the game during the 1970s. They believe that the run-heavy game of that decade is how football is meant to be, and today's pass-first game is an aberration. As we addressed in an essay in Pro Football Prospectus 2007 about the history of NFL stats, it was actually the game of the 1970s that was the aberration. The seventies were far more slanted towards the run than any era since the arrival of Paul Brown, Otto Graham, and the Cleveland Browns in 1946. Optimal strategies from 1974 are not optimal strategies for today's game. A sister statement to "you have to establish the run" is "team X is 5-1 when running back John Doe runs for at least 100 yards." Unless John Doe is ripping off six-yard gains Chris Johnson-style, the team isn't winning because of his 100-yard games. He's putting up 100-yard games because his team is winning. The Establishment Clause , July 2003
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]


    Very good. You're on a roll lately.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    The Patriots were a couple of plays away from being celebrated as the best team in the NFL. They must have done something right.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    or they had an easy schedule at the end of the regular, beat one team they should beat, and got really lucky to get to the SB.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    ALL:

    Curious-  Anyone else get stomach pains upon reading any (All) of Parilli's posts when they purport to offer some accurately conclusive take on some (All) given subject(s)?  I do...but I'm cursed with this whole "vailidity" ideal on matters.  Sorta svx really...

    Alright, babe's argument holds water IF and Only IF you prescribe to the assumption that in any given game and for any given team, Each and always- For EVERY single team, and for Every single game, each team is allocated the EXACT same number of Offensive Plays...  ALL of them, Like I said: Say it's 45 Offensive Plays Total (for instance).  For babe's thesis to hold even moderate value, it would have to mean that every single week, ALL year long, The New England Patriots are allotted the exact number of Offensive Plays each and every time...  But not just that...nope:  Likewise, Every OTHER team is ALSO allotted no more and no less...every week, and every team, and all year long...

    Good theory, huh?

    Fact is, it would be 1 thing IF just the theory was garbage, and thus, the "objective" numbers offered, were therefore unfitting towards the greater thesis...  But sadly no, this isn't enough...Because WAY, way, wayyyy more often than not, Babe doesn't even grant you the actual same numbers that he's referencing...  Yea.  

    Here goes:

    Indeed, 1/10th of what he's initially offering as factual evidence, IS actually true- Which is, THAT during the 2011 Regular Season, NE was ranked dead middle really, In Overall Rushing Attempts per any single game average:  27.4 Attempts Per Game here on the running front=17th outta 32 Teams.  So...by this rationale, NE therefore must make it up PRECISELY in terms of their Passing Attempts per game, right?  Yup...NE's 15th then- Gotta even out precisely that way...  Ahhh, no- In 2011, NE ranked 3rd overall in Passing Attempts per game, with 38.2 Passing Attempts Per Game (Regular Season).

    38.2 Passing Attempts Average (3rd Most- Det & NO @ 41.6 & 41.4 <Att/G />)
    27.4 Rushing Attempts Average (17th Most out of 32 teams).

    2012 Loss to The New York Giants on Superbowl Sunday, Numbers:

    41 Passing Attempts
    19 Rushing Attempts

    2012 Regular Season Loss to Pittsburgh

    50 Passing Attempts
    23 Rushing Attempts

    2012 Regular Season Loss to New York Giants

    49 Passing Attempts
    24 Rushing Attempts

    2012 Regular Season Loss to Buffalo

    45 Passing Attempts
    26 Rushing Attempts
        
    2007 Superbowl Loss to New York Giants

    48 Passing Attempts
    16 Rushing Attempts


    ~~~

    of note: He WILL try to garnish this with some number, category, ranking, average, and/or stat...  Understand- Either the crediblity of the stat WILL be ENTIRELY unfitting (see also- Fox News), OR He will provide you with made up numbers in order to- well...pfff, just sad really.  But make no mistake, They'll either be angled to fit his need, as he "overlooked" an actually fitting determiner statistic, OR he'll just add/subtract whatever he wants in an attempt to forcefully make his point..."Valid" (i.e. look them up yourselves...every time).  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]ALL : Curious-  Anyone else get stomach pains upon reading any (All) of Parilli's posts when they purport to offer some accurately conclusive take on some (All) given subject(s)?  I do...but I'm cursed with this whole "vailidity" ideal on matters.  Sorta svx really... Alright, babe's argument holds water IF and Only IF you prescribe to the assumption that in any given game and for any given team, Each and always- For EVERY single team, and for Every single game, each team is allocated the EXACT same number of Offensive Plays...  ALL of them, Like I said: Say it's 45 Offensive Plays Total (for instance).  For babe's thesis to hold even moderate value, it would have to mean that every single week, ALL year long, The New England Patriots are allotted the exact number of Offensive Plays each and every time...  But not just that...nope:  Likewise, Every OTHER team is ALSO allotted no more and no less...every week, and every team, and all year long... Good theory, huh? Fact is, it would be 1 thing IF just the theory was garbage, and thus, the "objective" numbers offered, were therefore unfitting towards the greater thesis...  But sadly no, this isn't enough...Because WAY, way, wayyyy more often than not, Babe doesn't even grant you the actual same numbers that he's referencing...  Yea.   Here goes: Indeed, 1/10th of what he's initially offering as factual evidence, IS actually true- Which is, THAT during the 2011 Regular Season, NE was ranked dead middle really, In Overall Rushing Attempts per any single game average:  27.4 Attempts Per Game here on the running front=17th outta 32 Teams.  So...by this rationale, NE therefore must make it up PRECISELY in terms of their Passing Attempts per game, right?  Yup...NE's 15th then- Gotta even out precisely that way...  Ahhh, no- In 2011, NE ranked 3rd overall in Passing Attempts per game, with 38.2 Passing Attempts Per Game (Regular Season). 38.2 Passing Attempts Average (3rd Most- Det & NO @ 41.6 & 41.4 <Att/G />) 27.4 Rushing Attempts Average (17th Most out of 32 teams). 2012 Loss to The New York Giants on Superbowl Sunday, Numbers: 41 Passing Attempts 19 Rushing Attempts 2012 Regular Season Loss to Pittsburgh 50 Passing Attempts 23 Rushing Attempts 2012 Regular Season Loss to New York Giants 49 Passing Attempts 24 Rushing Attempts 2012 Regular Season Loss to Buffalo 45 Passing Attempts 26 Rushing Attempts      2007 Superbowl Loss to New York Giants 48 Passing Attempts 16 Rushing Attempts ~~~ of note: He WILL try to garnish this with some number, category, ranking, average, and/or stat...  Understand- Either the crediblity of the stat WILL be ENTIRELY unfitting (see also- Fox News), OR He will provide you with made up numbers in order to- well...pfff, just sad really.  But make no mistake, They'll either be angled to fit his need, as he "overlooked" an actually fitting determiner statistic, OR he'll just add/subtract whatever he wants in an attempt to forcefully make his point..."Valid" (i.e. look them up yourselves...every time).  
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    E'gad, you are an insufferable bag of wind.

    I was pretty straightforward.

    We run about the same number of times per game as the league average.

    We have 4 plays a game more than the league average.

    We pass 4 times a game more than the league average.


    So, in essence, those 4 extra plays a game we have, we pass. Otherwise we are the league average.


    Do you think BB is a nut case for giving the 4 extra plays a game over the league average to Brady the highest rated passer in the AFC instead of BJGE and his 3.7 yac?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]2012 Loss to The New York Giants on Superbowl Sunday, Numbers:

    41 Passing Attempts
    19 Rushing Attempts

    2012 Regular Season Loss to Pittsburgh

    50 Passing Attempts
    23 Rushing Attempts

    2012 Regular Season Loss to New York Giants

    49 Passing Attempts
    24 Rushing Attempts

    2012 Regular Season Loss to Buffalo

    45 Passing Attempts
    26 Rushing Attempts
        
    2007 Superbowl Loss to New York Giants

    48 Passing Attempts
    16 Rushing Attempts
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    Alrighty then. Time to up the meds in the sanatorium I guess.

    In the "2012 Regular Season Loss to Pittsburgh" (which was actually in 2011)....

    The STEELERS had "50 Passing Attempts" and "23 Rushing Attempts", NOT THE PATS.

    I guess if somebody needs to have the numbers they post checked, IT'S YOU.




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

    Re: We are balanced.

    This forum is where I get all the stats I need for anything football.....great!
    This forum is where I get all the History i need for what game and how..great!

    The Pats need is a RB to put fear into a DC. It's all about who is running, Not how many times you run. Give the Pats a MJD, a Ray Rice, a Darren Sproles, a Matt Forte etc.  The D will need much more than a casual spy to stop him.
    They may stop him but they will pay the price with a guy like Brady and Co. Then we are balanced....

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]This forum is where I get all the stats I need for anything football.....great! This forum is where I get all the History i need for what game and how..great! The Pats need is a RB to put fear into a DC. It's all about who is running, Not how many times you run. Give the Pats a MJD, a Ray Rice, a Darren Sproles, a Matt Forte etc.  The D will need much more than a casual spy to stop him. They may stop him but they will pay the price with a guy like Brady and Co. Then we are balanced....
    Posted by palookaski[/QUOTE]


    Are you saying opposing Ds don't fear BJGE and his 3.7 yards a carry?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    I wonder why BB didn't want to run more.

    2011 BJGE combined for Bills, Steelers and Giants losses = 2.9 yac.

    2012 SB loss. Pats RBs = 3.6 yac.

    2008 SB loss. Pats RBs = 2.6 yac.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Are you saying opposing Ds don't fear BJGE and his 3.7 yards a carry?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Yes, he is North and South only and the Ds will give him that on choice of downs but on 3rd and short they shut him down easily but more than likely Pats field position the D's willingly give it up to him to prevent a big play that he will hardly ever make. I'm in transit back from Europe now...answer later.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]I wonder why BB didn't want to run more. 2011 BJGE combined for Bills, Steelers and Giants losses = 2.9 yac. 2012 SB loss. Pats RBs = 3.6 yac. 2008 SB loss. Pats RBs = 2.6 yac.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    One clarification, since you are openly critical of others mis statements.
    Your above stated averages are YAC which is Yards After Contact which will be well below average yards per carry. Did you intend to misrepresent yards after contact to minimise average yards per carry to be deceptive. Because a YAC average for a between the Tackles RB with no lead FB  at 2.9 is not all that bad. The point at which contact is initiated is the responsibility of the OL's blocking ability. To tell you the truth more than half of the success of the running game is a reflection of the blocking ability of the offensive line for at least the first five yards and the TE's and WR's further down field. With the way the OL had to deal new and injured players this year it is of little supprise that they were not more successfull. Of course I am shure that you do relize the running game has no chance of any success if the OL can not effectively open holes and block down field to open up the play. No one expects any RB to play supperman and run into solid walls and break through unassisted. Before you compare stats for RB's compare the blocking schemes that are successfully preformed to supliment them. Vollmer hurt all year, Soldier rookie with no training camp,Waters new to system with no training camp,Connoly press into playing out of possition at center with the early season injury to Koppen, and Cannon comeing in mid season as a rookie to try to play back up at tackle. And if you remember last years OL it was no better. 
    So before anyone jumps on any one about BJGE's stats think about the foundation of blocking skills he had to work with. His success is tyed to the OL in the same way Brady gets killed if the OL does not do their job.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    That's not a good argument when everyone knows the LEAGUE is unbalanced. Missed everyone calling it a "passing league" did you?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share