We are balanced.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : The best is when they are embarassed and then dig themselves a deeper hole. It's funny, but also scary that it's to the point the mods should contact the local police after tracing each's IP address, because we may be looking at Jeffrey Dahmer type indidivuals. They'll walk around preacing 2+2 = 5 all day long reagrdless of how foolish they look. Prolate, Mt Hurl, Babe, etc. They're all the same person. BB is "a bad GM", "the cap doesn't matter", "the D is the worst in NFL history", etc, etc, etc...all those statements are devised to pretend Brady has no accountability and no responsibility for how he calls plays, audibles, throws, makes decisions, etc, during a game. We lost 2 SBs simply because our best player wasn't our best player. 
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    Jeffrey Dahmer? Seriously Rusty? I hope you're being sarcastic, because if you're honestly judging people who have a different opinion than you, and classifying them as serial killers, you've gone off the chain.



     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]Obviously, it's half joking, but look no further than this thread and you'll see some pretty psychotic behavior from Babe and Prolate, working as a tandem, where even others now are starting to see it. Dahmer started out just delusional at first, too. Then he grew into a complete psycho. Babe is well on his way in his Brady underoos in the basement, as is Prolate.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    If anyone knows about psychotic behaviour it would be you, Mr. Post 1,000 Times a Day . . . 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mybologna2. Show mybologna2's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

     Babe and Prolate are as unbalanced as the Pats play calling,I myself consider Dahmer had a little more going for himself,and just like the Pats he should have run more.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Hey Rusty, don't tell any of these trolls about the other forum you were just at. One named TBSHTB is one too many.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    "I notice you don't want to talk much about BJGE getting stuffed on 1st down late in the game to put the offense in a hole at a crucial time. Typica"

    Posts: 3807
    First: 5/29/2008
    Last: 2/22/2012


    I suppose you will now paint a picture for us on how any of the other NFL runningbacks would have dropped kicked 300 pound Canty right in the face after receiving the ball from Tom and looking up at the mammoth on top of him.

    Watch the play again, Canty blows by Mankins and Collinsworth calls him out on it. As most intelligent NFL fans know, when a RB gets hit in the backfield before even taking a step it is the offensive lines fault, and to take it even further I would say it is a direct result of our open book offense. When we subbed in Benny in a run formation with the sole intent of playing it safe we advertised our play. Now 3 yards would have been fine but Mankins got tossed.


    This is what most of us have been talking about for the past few years. Benny comes in and its a run or PA, or we audible him out wide and NEVER throw to him.

    You know what would have been a great play call in that situation? Running a draw to Benny again right after getting stuffed. The Giants subbed in the nickel package obviously knowing we would not run twice in a row. They never woould have expected that. I bet Benny would have gone for 5 plus yards(again) making an easier 3rd down conversion. Weiss would have called that play imo.

    Woody has fooled NOBODY on our draw play calls, just like he didn't fool the Jets in the playoffs, although he is a good pass catcher. My premise for as long as I can remember is to keep our lead back in the game more then we do. Run/Pass/PA/Screen out of the same formations to keep a defense guessing.

    Anyway this post isn't for Babe, as he is obviously not worth conversing with. It seems like most fans here understand that without a commitment to a running game our one dimensional offense has been unable to win the biggest games.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]"I notice you don't want to talk much about BJGE getting stuffed on 1st down late in the game to put the offense in a hole at a crucial time. Typica" BabeParilli Posts: 3807 First: 5/29/2008 Last: 2/22/2012 I suppose you will now paint a picture for us on how any of the other NFL runningbacks would have dropped kicked 300 pound Canty right in the face after receiving the ball from Tom and looking up at the mammoth on top of him. Watch the play again, Canty blows by Mankins and Collinsworth calls him out on it. As most intelligent NFL fans know, when a RB gets hit in the backfield before even taking a step it is the offensive lines fault, and to take it even further I would say it is a direct result of our open book offense . When we subbed in Benny in a run formation with the sole intent of playing it safe we advertised our play. Now 3 yards would have been fine but Mankins got tossed. This is what most of us have been talking about for the past few years. Benny comes in and its a run or PA, or we audible him out wide and NEVER throw to him. You know what would have been a great play call in that situation? Running a draw to Benny again right after getting stuffed. The Giants subbed in the nickel package obviously knowing we would not run twice in a row. They never woould have expected that. I bet Benny would have gone for 5 plus yards(again) making an easier 3rd down conversion. Weiss would have called that play imo. Woody has fooled NOBODY on our draw play calls, just like he didn't fool the Jets in the playoffs, although he is a good pass catcher. My premise for as long as I can remember is to keep our lead back in the game more then we do. Run/Pass/PA/Screen out of the same formations to keep a defense guessing. Anyway this post isn't for Babe, as he is obviously not worth conversing with. It seems like most fans here understand that without a commitment to a running game our one dimensional offense has been unable to win the biggest games.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Right,  anyone here that watched the Patriots this year knows what play they are going to run when they see who's out there. Maybe not every single play but at least 70 or 80 percent of the time. Imagine how much easier it is for a team like the Giants with 2 weeks to prepare for it. 

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]"I notice you don't want to talk much about BJGE getting stuffed on 1st down late in the game to put the offense in a hole at a crucial time. Typica" BabeParilli Posts: 3807 First: 5/29/2008 Last: 2/22/2012 I suppose you will now paint a picture for us on how any of the other NFL runningbacks would have dropped kicked 300 pound Canty right in the face after receiving the ball from Tom and looking up at the mammoth on top of him. Watch the play again, Canty blows by Mankins and Collinsworth calls him out on it. As most intelligent NFL fans know, when a RB gets hit in the backfield before even taking a step it is the offensive lines fault, and to take it even further I would say it is a direct result of our open book offense . When we subbed in Benny in a run formation with the sole intent of playing it safe we advertised our play. Now 3 yards would have been fine but Mankins got tossed. This is what most of us have been talking about for the past few years. Benny comes in and its a run or PA, or we audible him out wide and NEVER throw to him. You know what would have been a great play call in that situation? Running a draw to Benny again right after getting stuffed. The Giants subbed in the nickel package obviously knowing we would not run twice in a row. They never woould have expected that. I bet Benny would have gone for 5 plus yards(again) making an easier 3rd down conversion. Weiss would have called that play imo. Woody has fooled NOBODY on our draw play calls, just like he didn't fool the Jets in the playoffs, although he is a good pass catcher. My premise for as long as I can remember is to keep our lead back in the game more then we do. Run/Pass/PA/Screen out of the same formations to keep a defense guessing. Anyway this post isn't for Babe, as he is obviously not worth conversing with. It seems like most fans here understand that without a commitment to a running game our one dimensional offense has been unable to win the biggest games.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]


    "It seems like most fans here understand that without a commitment to a running game our one dimensional offense has been unable to win the biggest games."

    Most fans here? By that do you mean most of your ilk that are haunting this thread? Almost all of the reasonable fans gave up on trying to convince you knuckleheads long ago since facts go in one ear and out the other.

    The fact is we ran at the average rate for an NFL team. That makes you a fool for saying we didn't run enough. Live with it.


    Oh, and, Benny got stuffed. Make all the excuses you want but it won't change that fact. Why don't you tell us about his turf toe too?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  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]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : You're wasting your time with the psycho twins (Babe Parilli/Prolate).
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]


    He is. He has no facts to back up his idiocy. Pretty much the same as you.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : He is. He has no facts to back up his idiocy. Pretty much the same as you.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]



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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : "It seems like most fans here understand that without a commitment to a running game our one dimensional offense has been unable to win the biggest games." Most fans here? By that do you mean most of your ilk that are haunting this thread? Almost all of the reasonable fans gave up on trying to convince you knuckleheads long ago since facts go in one ear and out the other. The fact is we ran at the average rate for an NFL team. That makes you a fool for saying we didn't run enough. Live with it. Oh, and, Benny got stuffed. Make all the excuses you want but it won't change that fact. Why don't you tell us about his turf toe too?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    I would respond but what would be the point? You sir are a legend in your own mind, and nobody can take that away from you.
     
  15. 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. :
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]


    Help me out here. Help me to understand.



    A person says, "We need balance. We don't run enough".


    I inform them:

    Fact - We run as much as the average NFL team.

    Fact - We pass 4 times a game more than the average NFL team.

    (we have 4 more plays a game than the average NFL team)


    They say, "We need balance. We don't run enough".


    I've had conversations like that before. But those were with insane people.
     
  16. 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. : I would respond but what would be the point? You sir are a legend in your own mind, and nobody can take that away from you.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Suit yourself. Response would be pointless anyway if you're going to cherry pick your facts as usual.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Help me out here. Help me to understand. A person says, "We need balance. We don't run enough". I inform them: Fact - We run as much as the average NFL team. Fact - We pass 4 times a game more than the average NFL team. (we have 4 more plays a game than the average NFL team) They say, "We need balance. We don't run enough". I've had conversations like that before. But those were with insane people.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Ahh shucks 1 more time....

    Babe is 138 passing attempts to 55 runs balanced?

    That is what we did in our last 3 losses to the Giants, 2 of those unfortunately for us Patriot fans were in Super Bowl Championships.

    Trying to dumb down an argument by saying one of the best offense's in NFL history runs to the average for the regular season makes you look..well dumb. '

    I am not trying to insult you as you feel the need to do to other fans but it is what it is.

    Is 90 passing attempts to 34 rushing attempts in our 2 losses to the Giants in the Super Bowls balanced?

    Now answer my 2 questions, but you will not be able to answer without attempting to tear down our lead back, or telling me that I am blasting BB, which you are in fact the king of on this forum.



    BTW your thread title says "We are balanced"


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Where do I come up with this stuff?

    It's obvious. Obvious?

    Faulk has a better career yards per carry than BJGE. You think Kevin should have been a featured runner on a high level team? LOL so funny. You have A.D.D. right? Not making fun of it but seriously do you ever stay on point? What do other non starting SB running backs have to do with your assertion that BJGE doesn't deserve to be the starting back on a championship team? OK I will entertain your distraction technique. First Faulk's avg is comparing apples to oranges as he isn't a starting RB and isn't generally classified or grouped together statistically with the starting RB's cause the cutoff is usually at least 100 rush Att's a season. Second Faulks numbers are in large part a product of "how" and "when" he was utilized during the times when he was still young and viable but that's a discussion for another day. Lets try to stay focused shall we. I know it at least appears sometimes difficult for you.

    Hell, Maroney averaged more per carry than him. My word. Sheesh. Well considering again you try to take a left turn from the discussion and I assume trying to bring up current, in this state in time, lifetime avg differences. I will again entertain your distraction. What is the difference? 1/10th of 1 yard? Between a guys who's finished and another who isn't? OK back on point since we are talking about starting in a championship and Maroney had his chance in 2007. He had a 2.6 yard avg. Just a reminder BJGE had a 4.4 avg in his opportunity in the biggest game of the NFL stage each season.

    20 guys ran the ball at least as many times as him this year and every one of them had more per carry. 32 teams and its a league of parity so even in a down year for him statistically he still rushed for a better avg than 12 other starts. Plus we already established he performed better in the SB in avg than the two RB's for the winning team. Yet you still want to throw out meaning less examples from a lot of runners not on championship teams. Are you trying to change your assertion or argument? Expand it maybe cause your statement didn't hold up?

    He was injured this year? Brady is injured every year. I don't see excuses for him because of that. Isn't that exactly what you are doing right now by bringing it up? ..and how don't you see it? ALL most people talked about was how Brady wasn't the same in the SB after re aggravating his injury. ..and if people weren't making excuses for him due to injury while all the post season reports of in season injuries he was dealing with, every year? Why not just keep it quiet all the way?

    He got caught from behind on that run because of Mankins? Are you going to subtract his runs that spring from a great block? He's SLOW. No why should I? ...but I am also not holding it against ANY back, elite or not when they get dragged down behind the line of scrimmage because one of their linemen whiffed on his block. I fail to see the logic in your statement as any sort of counter argument. Still hoping something sticks to the wall? He still had a 4.4 yard avg in the SB even with losing ONE yard on that play.

    He sure as hell isn't good enough to take touches away from Gronk, Welker or Hernandez. We ran at the frequency of the league average. Giving more touches to him would be stupid. And that's why BB hasn't. Sure BB has! You said so yourself AND I agree. ANY time BJGE gets a rushing ATT he's taking a touch away from someone else on the offense. He had 181 of this season and over 220 last season and would have had more this season if healthy. There were 12 teams with winning records this season. The avg rushing ATT's by the winning teams(No one cares about the losers or 500's) was the same "exact" number as what NE had for rushing ATT's for the season. I think it was 438  for the 12 team avg but don't quote me on it. However the the avg % of rushing ATT's to total plays attempted for those same 12 teams was 44% runs. NE only had 42% runs. It's only 2% different, irrelevant to me. I've never been on this thread disputing the balance thing. Not once. I frankly do not have a problem with that, "on average". At times sure. My problem is with how they utilize the RB's and when. I would also argue that there were a few instances, I think 2 regular season games, they played bad situational football by not utilizing the run  late in games while ahead and made the game much more difficult on themselves to win by putting a weak defense on the field while at the same time giving the other teams offense more time on the clock AND time outs because they were throwing it. BB also gave BJGE far more chances than any other player to run the ball in both of the 2 biggest games(AFC championship AND SB).

    Ridley and Woodhead combined outgained him by 125 yards in 17 less carries. Proving what exactly? Other than you are comparing apples and oranges again to form some sort of counter argument that escapes me. Woodhead falls into the same discussion that I spoke of back when I spoke of Faulk. He benefits from the same scenarios as Faulk used to. Is it going to be a straight run, a delayed draw, is he staying in for blitz pickup, is he running a screen, is he chipping on someone then going out into a downfield or flat pattern? Faulk and Woodheads avg benefit greatly by "how" they are utilized. Again though you are comparing guys who have less than 100 Att's to guys that are carrying the load as the starter. I have no beef with any of the three and wanted to see more Ridley and Vereen also. Ridley however got fumblitis heading into the post season. None of this however has anything to do with your assertion than BJGE isn't capable of being a starter for a championship team. He succeeded in the SB with the opportunities that were afforded to him more than most of the recent other RB's who were starting on the SB winners. Again, try to stay on point. ...and yet even with this off base distraction of a statement who did BB give the majority of the rushing attempts to in the AFC championship game and SB? Oh yes that would be BJGE.

    I never said he sux. I said he's nothing special. I think the evidence shows that. Pure filler and not somebody you count on when the chips are down. We use him only because we don't have anybody good as of now. Maybe Ridley will gain BB's confidence. I never said you said he sux. You called him a scrub and said he was unworthy or being the starter for a SB champion. I simply pointed out the facts do not suggest he's a scrub but a starter and one capable of starting for a SB team. Even while not being "special". Not many are. Who said you are suppose to count on him when the chips are down? Brady's your best player and a QB. The QB throws the ball. You throw the ball when you are down. You are down when you are trying to come from behind. Stay with me it's pretty simple logic. What people HAVE suggested however is that perhaps its not a bad thing to give him or another running back the chance to be counted on when the chips are UP and leading in the 4th qaurter. Especially mid to late 4th Qtr.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    I know this will most certainly all be lost on you Babe but hey maybe someone else will enjoy it.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    Why has New England gone away from the running game? The Patriots are 1-2 in their past three games. A major reason is New England is averaging just 83.3 rushing yards in those contests. The Patriots are a capable running team but they have gone away from that balanced attack. They have become more predictable and allowed defenders to easily drop in coverage. That has led to an usually high amount of turnovers from Brady.

    I agree with this which was written before the 2nd Jets game. The Patriots ran the ball 28 times and won that game in NY 37-16.  

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Again, some actual facts rather than assertions.  Below are the passing and rushing percentages for each team last year.  I've recalcuated these numbers to include sacks as passing attempts (I hadn't realized previously that the NFL's official statistics don't count sacks as passing attempts).  You can see that the Patriots rank 20th in the percentage they run at 40.5%.  Nineteen teams run more frequently than they do, twelve teams run less frequently. The average for all teams is 42.9% (median of 42.2%).  For the Pats to run the average amount, they would have to change between one and two passing plays per game to runs.  In other words, when you look at the actual plays run over the season, the Pats are pretty close to average when it comes to pass-run ratio.  


        PASSING ATTEMPTS  SACKS  RUSHING ATTEMPTS  PASSING % RUSHING %  
    Denver Broncos 429 42 546 46.3% 53.7%  
    Houston Texans 467 33 546 47.8% 52.2%  
    San Francisco 49ers 451 44 498 49.8% 50.2%  
    Jacksonville Jaguars 469 44 489 51.2% 48.8%  
    Kansas City Chiefs 500 34 487 52.3% 47.7%  
    Miami Dolphins 469 52 469 52.6% 47.4%  
    Chicago Bears 473 49 456 53.4% 46.6%  
     8  Oakland Raiders 524 25 466 54.1% 45.9%  
    Cincinnati Bengals 535 25 455 55.2% 44.8%  
    10  Carolina Panthers 519 35 445 55.5% 44.5%  
       11  Minnesota Vikings 510 49 448 55.5% 44.5%  
    12  Baltimore Ravens 544 33 459 55.7% 44.3%  
    13  Seattle Seahawks 509 50 444 55.7% 44.3%  
    14  Philadelphia Eagles 554 32 450 56.6% 43.4%  
    15  New York Jets 547 40 443 57.0% 43.0%  
    16  Pittsburgh Steelers 539 42 434 57.2% 42.8%  
      17  Atlanta Falcons 594 26 453 57.8% 42.2%  
    18  San Diego Chargers 582 30 436 58.4% 41.6%  
    19  Cleveland Browns 570 39 415 59.5% 40.5%  
    20  New England Patriots 612 32 438 59.5% 40.5%  
    21  St. Louis Rams 549 55 409 59.6% 40.4%  
    22  Indianapolis Colts 534 35 382 59.8% 40.2%  
    23  Dallas Cowboys 570 39 408 59.9% 40.1%  
    24  New York Giants 589 28 411 60.0% 40.0%  
    25  Green Bay Packers 552 41 395 60.0% 40.0%  
    26  Buffalo Bills 578 23 391 60.6% 39.4%  
    27  Arizona Cardinals 550 54 389 60.8% 39.2%  
    28  Washington Redskins 591 41 400 61.2% 38.8%  
    29  New Orleans Saints 662 24 431 61.4% 38.6%  
    30  Tennessee Titans 584 24 376 61.8% 38.2%  
    31  Tampa Bay Buccaneers 588 32 346 64.2% 35.8%  
    32  Detroit Lions 666 36 356 66.4% 33.6%  
                   
        AVERAGE   57.1% 42.9%  
        MEDIAN   57.8% 42.2%  
     
  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]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Ahh shucks 1 more time.... Babe is 138 passing attempts to 55 runs balanced? That is what we did in our last 3 losses to the Giants, 2 of those unfortunately for us Patriot fans were in Super Bowl Championships. Trying to dumb down an argument by saying one of the best offense's in NFL history runs to the average for the regular season makes you look..well dumb. ' I am not trying to insult you as you feel the need to do to other fans but it is what it is. Is 90 passing attempts to 34 rushing attempts in our 2 losses to the Giants in the Super Bowls balanced? Now answer my 2 questions, but you will not be able to answer without attempting to tear down our lead back, or telling me that I am blasting BB, which you are in fact the king of on this forum. BTW your thread title says "We are balanced"
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Based on the NFL norm these days of about a 60/40 Pass/Run ratio neither of those cases you cite are balanced by that standard.

    The point of the thread is that overall we have reasonable balance compared to the NFL norm. You're the one who keeps bringing specific games into the conversation, not me.

    Unlike yourself I don't try to disguise my critique of BB. If I were like you I would say he was a great GM then just criticize his moves as GM.

    Also, I am unlike yourself because I don't try to disguise it when I make disparaging observations about a poster.

    Neither am I "tearing down" our lead back. I have noted facts that show he is nothing special.
     
  22. 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. : I know this will most certainly all be lost on you Babe but hey maybe someone else will enjoy it.
    Posted by Low-FB-IQ[/QUOTE]


    You're right. I have absolutely no interest in any of that gibberish of yours. Spin yourself into the ground if you like. If you want me to agree he is in the bottom third of NFL backs, sure, I'll go for that.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : Where do you come up with this stuff? BJGE may not be an Elite RB but not sure there are but "maybe" a handful at best in the NFL. He is not a home run threat and he won't make a lot of something out of nothing all on his own. True, that's not his game. However. Not a starter on a championship caliber team by any means? Seriously? Let's just look at SB performances by starting RB's on championship teams in recent history and a couple Pats SB winners. 2011 for the losing Pats BJGE ran for a 4.4 yard avg. (only 10 carries) 2011 SB winning Giants - Neither Jacobs(3.9) OR Bradhshaw(4.1) ran better 2010 SB winning Packers - Starks had a 4.7 avg, slightly better 2009 SB winning Saints - Pierre Thomas had a 3.3 avg 2008 SB winning Steelers - Fast Willie Parker only a 2.8 avg 2004 SB winning Pats - Dillon a 4.2 yard avg (18 carries) 2003 SB winning Pats - A. Smith a 3.2 yard avg (26 carries) 2001 SB winning Pats - A. Smith a 5.1 yard avg (18 carries) Hmm seems he did himself just fine in performance in the big game compared to plenty of other starting RB's for championship teams. ...and most, not all, of them were given a lot more opportunity to assert themselves too. Are you honestly going to sit there with your rose colored Brady goggles on(no I don't blame Brady) and try to say BJGE failed in a big moment cause he was dragged down from behind the line of scrimmage for a ONE yard loss when Mankins got b!tch slapped and tossed aside like a rag doll by Canty? Again, seriously? You love Brady , I love Brady, but he's not flashy. He's efficient and ridiculously accurate and most often a smart decision maker. He's not throwing on the run or taking off and picking up yards with his legs and not particularly great at throwing the ball "very" deep accurately and consistently. He does the important things that matter well and does them consistently. So why the hate for BJGE. He's not Elite and not flashy but very efficient when healthy and most often gets the yards he's suppose to get. Same type deal. In 2011 while suffering turf toe for half the season and only having a 3.7 avg with a drop in total att's Football Outsiders actually still had the following rankings for him. A "down" year. DYAR 18th (total value of the RB) DVOA 18th (value of the RB per play) Success Rate 6th at 54% (how successful they are are getting the yards they are suppose to get on a given play) so on a bad year he still ranks in the middle of the whole league for value to the offense and 6th in the whole league for percentage of the time he is successful in picking up the yards needed. How does that not qualify for being even remotely capable of being a starting RB for a championship team? A championship team isn't going to have the #1 player at every position across the board. In contrast lets look at 2010. A good and healthy year for BJGE. Football Outsiders had him ranked DYAR 3rd (total value of the RB) DVOA 2nd (value of the RB per play) Success Rate 2nd at 57% (how successful they are are getting the yards they are suppose to get on a given play) Yeah 3rd, 2nd, and 2nd yup he's a scrub. I mean you started this whole thread based on the offense being balanced. Well if it's balanced then BJGE deserve a fair share of the success for the offense and teams success even if he doesn't get every carry. Only logical AND supports your thread. You get so hell bent on defending your positions half the time you just start throwing crazy stuff against the wall that ends up contradicting your own position at times.
    Posted by Low-FB-IQ[/QUOTE]

    You say it yourself, BJGE is not a guy that will make yards on his own - you watch football right? I hate to break it to you, but running backs need to make yards on their own, otherwise the play would have to be perfectly blocked for it to succeed...doesn't happen very often. This is probably why a first ballot Hall of Fame coach has decided it may be in the best interest of the team to put the ball in the air...via Brady's arm/hand...than to have Benny carry it.

    Aren't you the same guy that was telling the world that Brandon Merriweather was the third best safety in the AFC based off meaningless statistics from some web site? Is Benny going to be your new binky now? Perhaps after he goes elsewhere and dons a different uniform and churns out 600 yard per year seasons you'll understand why Belichick has decided you can't just hand it off to Benny to win football games.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: We are balanced.


    If you look at the last Super Bowl on a drive-by-drive basis it's hard to make the claim that we were unbalanced, didn't establish the run, or didn't try to utlize Benny.  Here's how Benny and Woody were utilized on each drive:

    Drive 1. Single play, ending in safety.  The one play was a play action pass, with Benny in the backfield. 

    Drive 2. Nine plays, ending in field goal. This drive featured Benny. Benny ran three times and caught one pass, so he got the ball on 4 of 9 plays. There was also a Welker run (reverse).

    Drive 3. Three and out.  Woodhead was the featured back on this drive.  He ran once (on second down).

    Drive 4. 14 plays for TD. This drive featured Woodhead as well.  Woody ran 4 times and caught 4 passes. 

    Drive 5. 8 plays for TD. This drive used both backs.  Benny caught a pass and ran twice.  Woody ran once. 

    Drive 6. Three and out. Benny runs for 2 yards on first down.

    Drive 7. Five plays, interception. Benny runs for 2 plays. 

    Drive 8. 11 plays, punt.  Benny runs twice, Woody runs once and catches one pass. Another Welker reverse as well. This drive moved from the Pats' 8 to their 43, until Benny ran for -1 on first down, setting up the infamous Welker and Branch passes.  This was actually the Pats longest drive, with TOP of 5:38.

    Drive 9.  Eight plays, all passes.  With 57 seconds left, this had to be all passing.  Nearly one-fifth of Brady's passes were on this drive.  Take away this drive and the run-pass balance looks a lot closer to the normal 40-60 ratio. 

    Champ keeps throwing out that statistic about run-pass ratio over two Super Bowls, but it's meaningless.  You need to look at what actually happened in the game--and when you look at the last game we were pretty balanced up to the last drive.  Yeah, a last minute desperation drive that is all passes will skew the statistics.  But on a drive-by-drive basis, the Pats utilized the backs quite a bit in this year's Super Bowl. 


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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]If you look at the last Super Bowl on a drive-by-drive basis it's hard to make the claim that we were unbalanced, didn't establish the run, or didn't try to utlize Benny.  Here's how Benny and Woody were utilized on each drive: Drive 1. Single play, ending in safety.  The one play was a play action pass, with Benny in the backfield.  Drive 2. Nine plays, ending in field goal. This drive featured Benny. Benny ran three times and caught one pass, so he got the ball on 4 of 9 plays. There was also a Welker run (reverse). Drive 3. Three and out.  Woodhead was the featured back on this drive.  He ran once (on second down). Drive 4. 14 plays for TD. This drive featured Woodhead as well.  Woody ran 4 times and caught 4 passes.  Drive 5. 8 plays for TD. This drive used both backs.  Benny caught a pass and ran twice.  Woody ran once.  Drive 6. Three and out. Benny runs for 2 yards on first down. Drive 7. Five plays, interception. Benny runs for 2 plays.  Drive 8. 11 plays, punt.  Benny runs twice, Woody runs once and catches one pass. Another Welker reverse as well. This drive moved from the Pats' 8 to their 43, until Benny ran for -1 on first down, setting up the infamous Welker and Branch passes.  This was actually the Pats longest drive, with TOP of 5:38. Drive 9.  Eight plays, all passes.  With 57 seconds left, this had to be all passing.  Nearly one-fifth of Brady's passes were on this drive.  Take away this drive and the run-pass balance looks a lot closer to the normal 40-60 ratio.  Champ keeps throwing out that statistic about run-pass ratio over two Super Bowls, but it's meaningless.  You need to look at what actually happened in the game--and when you look at the last game we were pretty balanced up to the last drive.  Yeah, a last minute desperation drive that is all passes will skew the statistics.  But on a drive-by-drive basis, the Pats utilized the backs quite a bit in this year's Super Bowl. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    I agree, I watched the game and in all honesty it looked like they tried to run and it just wasn't happening. It actually looked to me like the running game slowed the the effectiveness of the offense down. I think it's obvious that if they had a back that could get yards on his own, they would give the ball to him more often. They don't.
     

Share