We are balanced.

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

    Good points all.

    But TrueChump has no interest in reality or facts. That's quite clear. He is only interested in his asinine agenda that we somehow are grossly out of wack with play balance. It's ludicrous.
     
  2. 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 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.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]


    I think BB was seeing exactly the same thing as you were. I'm sure he would have loved to be able to run for a few first downs at the end and win the SB that way rather than depending on that keystone cops defense to do it.
     
  3. 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 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.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]


    Sounds like it's the same guy who was praising the 1st round bust Meriweather. Grappling with these knuckleheads over every little player fetish they have gets tedious after a while.

    Did you see our resident madman Rusty says we are the same poster? Says the mods should have the cops should check us out. He says we are like Jeffery Dahlmer because we don't buy his rant that Brady is THE problem. LOL

     
  4. 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. : Help me out here. Help me to understand.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    In all honesty I just posted that picture to lighten up this thread which has been covering the same ground for the last 5 pages.

    I think my main objection to the people that call for running the ball more is that I think their interpretation of some of their evidence could use some more nuance.  I will concede that the 2004 team was lethal because of the running game, but Corey Dillon that year was easily the best back we've had here during BB's tenure and it is worth pointing out that in that SB NE forced 4 turnovers and had excellent field position for most of the game (both things did not happen in the most recent SB loss).

    I think the fact that NE won SB's in 2001 and 2003 has people remembering them as some sort of offensive juggernaut in the playoffs (particularly given the number of points scored in the 2003 SB) when that was not the case.  Yes they ran the ball a lot in the 2003 SB, but they passed it even more (which is why focusing on absolute numbers is silly)!  More importantly that game was essentially an outlier.  Look at the other games in the 2001 and 2003 postseasons.  In virtually every game NE's defense either forced a ton of turnovers or defensive TDs OR NE didn't score that many points.

    Another piece of evidence that is commonly thrown around are winning %'s with rushing yards gained or winning %'s when a certain number of passes are thrown etc.  I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that causality doesn't necessarily go in the direction people are implying with this argument.  Teams run more when it is working (which increases the chance of winning) or they have a big lead and are trying to run out the clock.  In addition teams throw more when they need to score quickly or are behind.  All it takes is one drive to really skew the ratios given the number of plays run in a game which is why it can be useful when looking at an individual game to not simply look at the breakdown in the aggregate after the fact.  BB and Brady might be 31-1 or whatever it is when a RB goes over 100, but that means they've won like 80 games where that didn't happen.

    Finally it isn't 2001 or 2003 anymore.  Tom Brady is much better QB than he was then.  The new contact rules make it a passing league more than ever.  So arguing the fact that Antowain Smith was a feature back as evidence that we should run more with BJGE is analyzing the team in a vacuum without considering the proper context.  The tradeoff isn't the same anymore. People keep saying that every successful coach knows that our playcalling is stupid.  Well the best coach in NFL history doesn't seem to think it is so obvious.  I happen to think if we had more talent at RB we would run it more and it would be to our benefit.  I guess only time will tell.


     
  5. 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. : 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.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]


    Watch? Yeah a bit but I think my long and successful coaching career would speak better about me than my viewership.

    I think you simply mistake what I meant by that.

    What I meant when i say "he won't make a lot of something out of nothing all on his own" is the rare play an "Elite" RB will make when they run right or left and it's nothing(the play is presumable dead, the other team blitzed into the running lanes etc) and can stop on a dime, completely turn around and out run the entire field of players all the way to the other side and turn it into a positive play. I am NOT talking about yards gained AFTER the back hits the hole on his own.

    There are VERY few RB's now as well as in the history of the league who can do that consistently. No one is gaining yards without blocking up front all on their own all day long.

    You clearly have me mistaken for someone else for certain, regarding Meri, unless it was during a particular time Meri was the best option on the current active roster or something. I'd have to see what you are referring to to answer such accusations but since you don't seem too sure yourself I am not sure how to respond. Especially since I was not a fan when NE drafted Meri and have long since said he was dumb and always went for the blow up knock out hit instead of simply making a sure tackle. I also ripped Meri when he made the public comments about knowingly deciding to ignore his responsibilities and "try" some things out freelancing. As a coach I know first hand you can not have a player in your system that you can't TRUST. Also what I have said many times is that Meri was the best talent(athlete) that they had at safety at times but that anyone who has coached a significant amount of time KNOWS you would rather play with inferior talent that you trust to do what you want him to than an elite athlete you don't trust.

    I believe the guy I used to defend all the time for why BB used him was Sanders. For the reasons I mentioned above.

    Not sure what the Meri comment has to do with BJGE gaining 4.,4 yard avg in the SB, more than most of the RBs in recent years for other SB winners. That was the ONLY argument being discussed. Not bennies eliteness.

    So apparently you were upset by something i must of said to you one time and hoping to maybe feel better about that by jumping into our discussion? I don't know. I 1) think you just misunderstood the context of my something out of nothing comment, and 2) have me confused with someone else regarding Meri.

    But hopefully you feel better now. :)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: We are balanced. : In all honesty I just posted that picture to lighten up this thread which has been covering the same ground for the last 5 pages. I think my main objection to the people that call for running the ball more is that I think their interpretation of some of their evidence could use some more nuance.  I will concede that the 2004 team was lethal because of the running game, but Corey Dillon that year was easily the best back we've had here during BB's tenure and it is worth pointing out that in that SB NE forced 4 turnovers and had excellent field position for most of the game (both things did not happen in the most recent SB loss). I think the fact that NE won SB's in 2001 and 2003 has people remembering them as some sort of offensive juggernaut in the playoffs (particularly given the number of points scored in the 2003 SB) when that was not the case.  Yes they ran the ball a lot in the 2003 SB, but they passed it even more (which is why focusing on absolute numbers is silly)!  More importantly that game was essentially an outlier.  Look at the other games in the 2001 and 2003 postseasons.  In virtually every game NE's defense either forced a ton of turnovers or defensive TDs OR NE didn't score that many points. Another piece of evidence that is commonly thrown around are winning %'s with rushing yards gained or winning %'s when a certain number of passes are thrown etc.  I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that causality doesn't necessarily go in the direction people are implying with this argument.  Teams run more when it is working or they are winning and trying to run out the clock.  In addition teams throw more when they need to score quickly or are behind.  All it takes is one drive to really skew the ratios given the number of plays run in a game which is why it can be useful when looking at an individual game to not simply look at the breakdown in the aggregate after the fact.  BB and Brady might be 31-1 or whatever it is when a RB goes over 100, but that means they've won like 80 games where that didn't happen. Finally it isn't 2001 or 2003 anymore.  Tom Brady is much better QB than he was then.  The new contact rules make it a passing league more than ever.  So arguing the fact that Antowain Smith was a feature back as evidence that we should run more with BJGE is analyzing the team in a vacuum without considering the proper context.  The tradeoff isn't the same anymore. People keep saying that every successful coach knows that our playcalling is stupid.  Well the best coach in NFL history doesn't seem to think it is so obvious.  I happen to think if we had more talent at RB we would run it more and it would be to our benefit.  I guess only time will tell.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]

    Another intelligent post.  



     
  7. 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. : In all honesty I just posted that picture to lighten up this thread which has been covering the same ground for the last 5 pages. I think my main objection to the people that call for running the ball more is that I think their interpretation of some of their evidence could use some more nuance.  I will concede that the 2004 team was lethal because of the running game, but Corey Dillon that year was easily the best back we've had here during BB's tenure and it is worth pointing out that in that SB NE forced 4 turnovers and had excellent field position for most of the game (both things did not happen in the most recent SB loss). I think the fact that NE won SB's in 2001 and 2003 has people remembering them as some sort of offensive juggernaut in the playoffs (particularly given the number of points scored in the 2003 SB) when that was not the case.  Yes they ran the ball a lot in the 2003 SB, but they passed it even more (which is why focusing on absolute numbers is silly)!  More importantly that game was essentially an outlier.  Look at the other games in the 2001 and 2003 postseasons.  In virtually every game NE's defense either forced a ton of turnovers or defensive TDs OR NE didn't score that many points. Another piece of evidence that is commonly thrown around are winning %'s with rushing yards gained or winning %'s when a certain number of passes are thrown etc.  I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that causality doesn't necessarily go in the direction people are implying with this argument.  Teams run more when it is working (which increases the chance of winning) or they have a big lead and are trying to run out the clock.  In addition teams throw more when they need to score quickly or are behind.  All it takes is one drive to really skew the ratios given the number of plays run in a game which is why it can be useful when looking at an individual game to not simply look at the breakdown in the aggregate after the fact.  BB and Brady might be 31-1 or whatever it is when a RB goes over 100, but that means they've won like 80 games where that didn't happen. Finally it isn't 2001 or 2003 anymore.  Tom Brady is much better QB than he was then.  The new contact rules make it a passing league more than ever.  So arguing the fact that Antowain Smith was a feature back as evidence that we should run more with BJGE is analyzing the team in a vacuum without considering the proper context.  The tradeoff isn't the same anymore. People keep saying that every successful coach knows that our playcalling is stupid.  Well the best coach in NFL history doesn't seem to think it is so obvious.  I happen to think if we had more talent at RB we would run it more and it would be to our benefit.  I guess only time will tell.
    Posted by pcmIV[/QUOTE]

    Very nice post but be prepared to get punched in the face a few times! LOL
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    You guys are hilarious. Most of what has been said was said with the agenda of excusing our offense from scoring 15.5 ppg int he last 2 SB's. Excusing our offense for passing 90 to 35 runs in our last 2 SB's.

    To counter my saying our offense is one dimensional and is the reason it has not worked well in the biggest games you whittle it down to me against BB?

    To say we must use the run game enough otherwise BB would have fixed it is a terrible way to debate. I could use that too and say, well you guys are all wrong about our defense because if it was broke then BB would fix it, so obviously our defense is great. See how that works?

    I have pointed out we do not have balance in our SB's and is a main contributor to scoring 15.5 ppg, well Parelli suggests that we are in fact a balanced team in the regular season, so why have we gone away from that supposed balance on the biggest stage?

    Others suggest that we do not have enough talent? Well we have running back who has 1,700 rushing yards and 23 tds in the last 2 seasons. We have 2 pro bowl guards. This RB had averaged over 4.5 ypc against the Giants twice and the Ravens in the post season yet only gets 10 carries per game?

    How is that a talent deficiency?

    I realize none of you are going to concede a point as you have invested too much time on your stance, but don't be cheap and try and say I have not provided facts. The facts are there, you just won't let them stand in your way.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]WHat PCMIV fails to realize is, Brady is more spoiled now than he was from 2001-2004 which in turn has caused less running, more of an addiction to passing and from an ideological standpoint is a WORSE QB than he was then, as proven in the recent playoff games, the AFC title game and the SB. Even if Gronk makes that catch on one foot and NE scores 30 seconds to a minute later, the deep pass in a 17-12 lead in the 4th, totally undermines the concept for a need of a 5+ minute drive there. It's just assinine to pretend Brady is a better QB from a management standpoint than what he was under Weis. Assinine. 
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    Unless you have concrete proof that Brady is actively calling plays, and checking to pass plays at the line of scrimmage, your argument has no merit.

    Brady certainly has made some questionable decisions in recent playoff games, and I think he's trying to do too much, but that's completely unrelated to the run-pass ratio of this team. In fact, the few times Brady has checked to a different play, I've always heard something like this: "Gold (something)". I've heard "Gold Gutter", "Gold forty-two", etc. And every single time, they've run the ball.

    Again, blame Brady for his bad decisions, and tendency to try to do too much recently (although this occurs rarely), but absolutely don't blame him for the number of times we run or pass the ball during a given game. That blame should fall squarely on Bill O'Brien's shoulders.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]WHat PCMIV fails to realize is, Brady is more spoiled now than he was from 2001-2004 which in turn has caused less running, more of an addiction to passing and from an ideological standpoint is a WORSE QB than he was then, as proven in the recent playoff games, the AFC title game and the SB. Even if Gronk makes that catch on one foot and NE scores 30 seconds to a minute later, the deep pass in a 17-12 lead in the 4th, totally undermines the concept for a need of a 5+ minute drive there. It's just assinine to pretend Brady is a better QB from a management standpoint than what he was under Weis. Assinine. 
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    This is the worst argument ever presented imo. For your theaory to hold water we would have to KNOW that Tom Brady is exactly opposite of everything we have come to KNOW about him for the past 11 years.

    He is a team first leader, and the best QB we could possibly have. When asked to sum up his 3 SB championships in 1 reason Bill Belichick had 2 words to say....Tom Brady.

    Your theory is that Brady has morphed into complete idiot since then who walks around telling coaches what to do and stamoing his feet in protest if he doesn;t get his way.

    Again such a horrific argument imo.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  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]You guys are hilarious. Most of what has been said was said with the agenda of excusing our offense from scoring 15.5 ppg int he last 2 SB's. Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    No.  The offense should have scored more points in both SBs.  What we disagree on is how much that was a result of the playcalling and how "obvious" it is that the O would have scored more if they had run the ball more.

    [QUOTE] To counter my saying our offense is one dimensional and is the reason it has not worked well in the biggest games you whittle it down to me against BB? To say we must use the run game enough otherwise BB would have fixed it is a terrible way to debate. I could use that too and say, well you guys are all wrong about our defense because if it was broke then BB would fix it, so obviously our defense is great. See how that works? Posted by TrueChamp [/QUOTE]

    The only reason anyone brings up the point about BB is because you and others continously use phrases such as "every great coach knows we need to run more to be successful" or "anyone who understands basic football agrees with me" to further your argument.  Referencing BB is just to point out how stupid that argument is.  Your comment about "fixing the defense" is not a relevant comparison.  To the extent there are issues on D they are issues of personnel not scheme.

    [QUOTE]Parelli suggests that we are in fact a balanced team in the regular season, so why have we gone away from that supposed balance on the biggest stage? Posted by TrueChamp [/QUOTE]

    I have already pointed out how one drive can skew the stats dramatically and that you forget what the offense was like in the 2001 and 2003 playoffs.  Just looking at # of carries and points (and only referencing ONE GAME) is a highly simplistic view of the world.  Running the ball was not a panacea that you make it out to be.

    [QUOTE] Others suggest that we do not have enough talent? Well we have running back who has 1,700 rushing yards and 23 tds in the last 2 seasons . We have 2 pro bowl guards. This RB had averaged over 4.5 ypc against the Giants twice and the Ravens in the post season yet only gets 10 carries per game ? How is that a talent deficiency? I realize none of you are going to concede a point as you have invested too much time on your stance, but don't be cheap and try and say I have not provided facts. The facts are there, you just won't let them stand in your way.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Despite the needs on defense BB chose to spend 2 of the first 4 picks from last years draft on RBs.  Some ringing endorsement of BJGE.  In addition you ignore the point I made about the tradeoff and analyzing the team in a vacuum.  The issue at hand isn't the facts, but rather how those facts are interpreted.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. 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. : Watch? Yeah a bit but I think my long and successful coaching career would speak better about me than my viewership. I think you simply mistake what I meant by that. What I meant when i say "he won't make a lot of something out of nothing all on his own" is the rare play an "Elite" RB will make when they run right or left and it's nothing(the play is presumable dead, the other team blitzed into the running lanes etc) and can stop on a dime, completely turn around and out run the entire field of players all the way to the other side and turn it into a positive play. I am NOT talking about yards gained AFTER the back hits the hole on his own. There are VERY few RB's now as well as in the history of the league who can do that consistently. No one is gaining yards without blocking up front all on their own all day long. You clearly have me mistaken for someone else for certain, regarding Meri, unless it was during a particular time Meri was the best option on the current active roster or something. I'd have to see what you are referring to to answer such accusations but since you don't seem too sure yourself I am not sure how to respond. Especially since I was not a fan when NE drafted Meri and have long since said he was dumb and always went for the blow up knock out hit instead of simply making a sure tackle. I also ripped Meri when he made the public comments about knowingly deciding to ignore his responsibilities and "try" some things out freelancing. As a coach I know first hand you can not have a player in your system that you can't TRUST. Also what I have said many times is that Meri was the best talent(athlete) that they had at safety at times but that anyone who has coached a significant amount of time KNOWS you would rather play with inferior talent that you trust to do what you want him to than an elite athlete you don't trust. I believe the guy I used to defend all the time for why BB used him was Sanders. For the reasons I mentioned above. Not sure what the Meri comment has to do with BJGE gaining 4.,4 yard avg in the SB, more than most of the RBs in recent years for other SB winners. That was the ONLY argument being discussed. Not bennies eliteness. So apparently you were upset by something i must of said to you one time and hoping to maybe feel better about that by jumping into our discussion? I don't know. I 1) think you just misunderstood the context of my something out of nothing comment, and 2) have me confused with someone else regarding Meri. But hopefully you feel better now. :)
    Posted by Low-FB-IQ[/QUOTE]

    Ok I do feel better now:)

    It must of been someone else that kept throwing that crap out there that Merriweather was the third best safety in the AFC based off of some web site...I thought it was you, but if you say it wasn't then fine.

    The reason why I mentioned Merriweather was because sometimes people just see the Patriot's uniform and defend the living day lights out of a player, I get the same feeling with Benny. I jumped into the conversation because I got the feeling that this was what was happening and I thought it would be fun to express an opinion/get into the raging debate.

    This is what I see with Benny (and if you're a coach you probably noticed it too). If he runs off tackle to the left the entire defense knows he doesn't have the ability to cut back or the speed to stretch it outside - so what I notice is that there is a tremendous ally for him to run in, but he can't because he can't make that cut without losing his speed (he's not quick or fast enough). In my opinion there are many backs that can do this and he is not one of them...it kills us.
     
    Benny is a guy that is so limited in what he can do that it limits your options on offense. You want to run a delay or draw? Forget it. Toss sweep? You see what happens. Screens? Nope. Swing passes? If he catches it he'll be stopped right where he stands.  I know he's smart, runs low and follows his blocks and like any running back will look decent when he gets going, but unless he gets a lot of help he can't get going.

    I think Benny, an inexperienced Ridley, a hurt Vareen, and a small Woodhead are the reasons why we pass so much. I don't think it's because Brady is a tyrant that is running this team...I think THAT is why we're slightly unbalanced. You mentioned runners winning Super Bowls and gave their numbers - what was Benny's numbers in this Super Bowl? What was the defense like for the teams you mentioned? How young were the receivers those teams had?

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Champ,

    I agree we are often one-dimensional on offense, though when I look at the actual drives in the Super Bowl I don't think we were quite as one-dimensional as you imply.  (You still haven't gone through the drives one-by-one to explain where we didn't use Benny enough.)

    I think the reason we are somewhat one-dimensional at times is not because of poor game planning or poor play calling but simply because the talent we have on both offense and defense tends to push us toward a type of game planning that (1) relies heavily on a hurry-up pass-first offense (because this is what we're best at with our current group of players), that (2) does not use a ton of power formation runs (because our backs aren't great for that in large doses), and (3) that is geared to score lots of points  (because our defense is unreliable and we need to assume that we have to score a lot to win).  In other words, the talent we have tends to push us toward the slightly (though not excessively) pass-heavy game plans the coaches have adopted. 

    Given the weakness of our defense and the lack of diversity in our offensive skill positions, I think the coaches did a marvelous job with the game planning and play calling all year to get us where we ended up.  And I think they called a pretty good game overall in the Super Bowl.  The Giants were just better, and our weaknesses (on both defense and offense) came back to bite us.  But it was still a solid (if not perfect) coaching effort.

    You seem to be saying that the game planning or play calling lost the game (which does imply--whatever you say--that you don't think the coach did a good job).  I say no, the coach did a good job, it's just that we have gaps in talent that are hard to overcome and we couldn't overcome them in the Super Bowl against a more balanced Giants team, which also had a very good game plan. 

    That's just the way it is.  The better team won.  It happens all the time.  I think now, it's time to move on. 


     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]How is having a beastly blocker in Gronk, a Tackle that can be used as a blocking TE in Solder with Vollmer in the SB, "leaning towards a hurry up offense"? That's such excuse-ridden ridiculousness (as usual from you).  Utter trash with the logic.  This team is loaded on offense!  Loaded!  You'd have some argument with an old Kyle Brady and the 2007 WR choices than you did this year or last, simpleton. Good grief.  Give it up!  You would have been asked to leave a History 101 course at a community college in Alabama with that kind of logic. Pathetic!
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    the injury to gronk really made it so that it would make more sense to run the ball more
     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]How is having a beastly blocker in Gronk, a Tackle that can be used as a blocking TE in Solder with Vollmer in the SB, "leaning towards a hurry up offense"? That's such excuse-ridden ridiculousness (as usual from you).  Utter trash with the logic.  This team is loaded on offense!  Loaded!  You'd have some argument with an old Kyle Brady and the 2007 WR choices than you did this year or last, simpleton. Good grief.  Give it up!  You would have been asked to leave a History 101 course at a community college in Alabama with that kind of logic. Pathetic!
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]


    Did you watch any of the games this year?  Hurry up was their most effective weapon all year.  They used it to prevent defenses from making substitutions and to make it more difficult for defenses to adjust their schemes to our changing formations.  It was a way of allowing us to win with the same four receivers on the field all the time.  


     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Balanced or not I think that we can at least agree that it wasn't enough to beat the Giants. A "high powered" offense should be able to put up more than 17 points. The defense held the Giants to near their season average but the offense was well below it. To blame the loss all on the defense is ridiculous.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]Uhhhhhh, yeah, I watched the games and was in on here after Week 2 warning that you can't use a hurry up as a base offense and expect to win anything against a good D. Remember, Prolate?  lmao Name me one SB wnning team that used a hurry up as the base fo their offense: Go ahead. You'll slither away from this challenge, because there is no team that's ever done it. The closest example would be the run and shoot Bills of the early 90s, but what did they do? The hurry up is a wrinkle, and a great one for this team, but it's only a wrinkle. We just proved it cannot sustain over 4 qtrs against man coverage.  When will we learn it doesn't work? I have no idea how your arrogance gets by Vertigo here asking me if I watched the games thus year. I was the one warning of the dangers with it, and why a suprise with it out of a lockout in Week 1 meant nothing, you arrogant low life.  I have been right across the board on literally every concept, good and bad, with this team for 2 years. Meanwhile, we have Brady Ballwashers sucking their thumbs looking at stats and bashing BB's ingenius rebuild. You're a disgrace. Just because you have more knowledgable and more intelligent football fans teaching you something, you can't accept it. It's disgusting. You must have been a piece of work in the classroom.
    Posted by RustyGriswold[/QUOTE]

    You really are a complete and utter fool, aren't you?  Just because something hasn't happened before is not proof that it can't happen.  Your arguments are riddled with the most elementary logical fallacies.  

    Which is why you tend to resort to ad hominems.  Easier to hurl insults than to actually construct a sound argument, isn't it, Cassandra?

    Did you even go to college?  I'm surprised they let such simpletons in.  I guess it's just another sign of the decline of US civilization.  


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

    Re: We are balanced.

    Please stop feeding to the trolls... 

    They're using an age old technique called circular logic, it's incredibly popular in the political forum. The purpose is not to convince you of anything but rather to frustrate and instigate, to lead you around by the nose and lead you back to their flawed argument.

    By feeding the trolls you're encouraging them, they love it when their threads gather a lot of attention.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are balanced.

    In Response to Re: We are balanced.:
    [QUOTE]Champ, I agree we are often one-dimensional on offense, though when I look at the actual drives in the Super Bowl I don't think we were quite as one-dimensional as you imply.  (You still haven't gone through the drives one-by-one to explain where we didn't use Benny enough.)

    Response..Pro he ran the ball 10 times to 41 passes. I could go drive by drive and say here and there but it is the basic premise that the run sets up the pass. Even Antowain with 26 carries for 83 yards WORKED. Please tell me what you think would have happened if BJGE got say 20 carries? Is it reasonable to suggest that we would have used more clock, is it reasonable to suggest at 4.4 ypc he would have been effective?


     
    I think the reason we are somewhat one-dimensional at times is not because of poor game planning or poor play calling but simply because the talent we have on both offense and defense tends to push us toward a type of game planning

    Response...We are more talented then in 01-04 on offense. To me this how you have dismissed what I have said. We don't run because of talent, but our running back was effective, so how is that possible?

    that (1) relies heavily on a hurry-up pass-first offense (because this is what we're best at with our current group of players), that (2) does not use a ton of power formation runs (because our backs aren't great for that in large doses), and (3) that is geared to score lots of points  (because our defense is unreliable and we need to assume that we have to score a lot to win).  In other words, the talent we have tends to push us toward the slightly (though not excessively) pass-heavy game plans the coaches have adopted.  Given the weakness of our defense and the lack of diversity in our offensive skill positions, I think the coaches did a marvelous job with the game planning and play calling all year to get us where we ended up.  And I think they called a pretty good game overall in the Super Bowl.  The Giants were just better, and our weaknesses (on both defense and offense)

    Response...I guess the Giants have been better the last 3 games we played them? There is no reason to debate why we lost, we will just chalk it up to the fact they are a better team? No, I don't believe that. We had a better offense, a better defense in ppg allowed,and forced turnovers. They just had the better game plan that day, and that is what this discussion is about.

     came back to bite us.  But it was still a solid (if not perfect) coaching effort. You seem to be saying that the game planning or play calling lost the game (which does imply--whatever you say--that you don't think the coach did a good job).

    Response... I think BB is the best coach in NFL history, but it takes a coaching staff to be successful and when we only score 14 and 17 points in our last 2 SB's after scoring 35 ppg in the season, and we use the same plan every time then yes I do not think the "coaching staff" did its job. I have no problem saying that.


     I say no, the coach did a good job, it's just that we have gaps in talent that are hard to overcome and we couldn't overcome them in the Super Bowl against a more balanced Giants team, which also had a very good game plan.

    Response...Thank you. We both agree on why we lost. It was a better balanced team who had a better game plan. You just think it was lack of talent. I think a talented player like Benny who ran effectively the entire game (until Chris Canty met him behind the LOS) could have helped us win by getting more then 10 carries.

    We could have been the team with the balance, but our game plan did not allow for it....again.


      That's just the way it is.  The better team won.  It happens all the time.  I think now, it's time to move on. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]
     

Share