what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    Also, I'd like to add, that these measurements do break one of my personal rules for looking at the run. They factor in long runs too heavily, and don't relieve the analysis from the effect of "short" running that is good.

    This pertains to "running when it matters." 

    Too many running games/backs are penalized because they take, and succeed in short-to-goal scenarios, and short-to-conversion scenarios. 

    If we look at straight rushing YPC, Ben Jarvus Green Ellis ran better in the Superbowl in 2011 than Blount did on Sunday: anyone with a pair of eyes knows that is nonsense. 

    But if you subtract Blount's ridiculous amount of attempts on 3rd and short and goal and short, and all the same for Green-Ellis, Blount roundly outperformed him. 

    I think that is on thing that really penalizes a "run first" offense: when you get a 3rd and 1 with the run it is difficult and really helps your team out, but in the grand scheme, it actually hurts you statistically. 

    I really don't care which team had a higher YPC on the run, rather, who had the higher YPC on early downs, and who did the best in situational running matter dramatically to me.

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    I am chuckling at the BBWs who saw how we won SBs, then switched to a Colts formula with the Goodell rules coming into play in 2006, and somehow the BBWs can't see as we ground and pount into a title game vs a Coltsesque style Defense in Denver.

    Absolutely priceless.

    The O Line, Brady and the D all good across all 3 phases, Brady doesn't throw any TDs, but somehow ZBellino and his crew are in here to tell the more educated fans, that somehow we're all wrong.

    I see.

    LMAO




    You're not educated, you're an imbecile.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    I am chuckling at the BBWs who saw how we won SBs, then switched to a Colts formula with the Goodell rules coming into play in 2006, and somehow the BBWs can't see as we ground and pount into a title game vs a Coltsesque style Defense in Denver.

    Absolutely priceless.

    The O Line, Brady and the D all good across all 3 phases, Brady doesn't throw any TDs, but somehow ZBellino and his crew are in here to tell the more educated fans, that somehow we're all wrong.

    I see.

    LMAO




    You're not educated, you're an imbecile.




    Yeah, I wonder how we'd factor in the loss against Baltimore last season when New England ran with Ridley all day, put up only 13 points and still found themselves scrambling for a win late in the game. 

    Personally, I thought it was a very "educational" game, re, running at all costs. I didn't see Ridley really helping the defense then. I also didn't see the defense helping the offense very much either (another playoff exit with 28 points allowed and zero turnovers created).

    The only formula in football is this: execute well and you will win more often than you lose. 

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Also, I'd like to add, that these measurements do break one of my personal rules for looking at the run. They factor in long runs too heavily, and don't relieve the analysis from the effect of "short" running that is good.

    This pertains to "running when it matters." 

    Too many running games/backs are penalized because they take, and succeed in short-to-goal scenarios, and short-to-conversion scenarios. 

    If we look at straight rushing YPC, Ben Jarvus Green Ellis ran better in the Superbowl in 2011 than Blount did on Sunday: anyone with a pair of eyes knows that is nonsense. 

    But if you subtract Blount's ridiculous amount of attempts on 3rd and short and goal and short, and all the same for Green-Ellis, Blount roundly outperformed him. 

    I think that is on thing that really penalizes a "run first" offense: when you get a 3rd and 1 with the run it is difficult and really helps your team out, but in the grand scheme, it actually hurts you statistically. 

    I really don't care which team had a higher YPC on the run, rather, who had the higher YPC on early downs, and who did the best in situational running matter dramatically to me.




    I have touched upon this before.

    A runner getting 12 yards on a 1st or second down run is nice, but that doesn't reflect the reality of the runners effectiveness compared to how his stats are showing effectiveness.

    It's the guy who consistently gets 5-6 yards that is more valuable than the guy who gets a 12 yarder then two 2 yarders.

    Those two yarders are mostly a wasted down since they do little to set up options tactically as the 4 downs progress. And the bread and butter of scoring is consistently putting yourself in good positions on 2nd and 3rd downs.

     

     

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Also, I'd like to add, that these measurements do break one of my personal rules for looking at the run. They factor in long runs too heavily, and don't relieve the analysis from the effect of "short" running that is good.

    This pertains to "running when it matters." 

    Too many running games/backs are penalized because they take, and succeed in short-to-goal scenarios, and short-to-conversion scenarios. 

    If we look at straight rushing YPC, Ben Jarvus Green Ellis ran better in the Superbowl in 2011 than Blount did on Sunday: anyone with a pair of eyes knows that is nonsense. 

    But if you subtract Blount's ridiculous amount of attempts on 3rd and short and goal and short, and all the same for Green-Ellis, Blount roundly outperformed him. 

    I think that is on thing that really penalizes a "run first" offense: when you get a 3rd and 1 with the run it is difficult and really helps your team out, but in the grand scheme, it actually hurts you statistically. 

    I really don't care which team had a higher YPC on the run, rather, who had the higher YPC on early downs, and who did the best in situational running matter dramatically to me.




    I have touched upon this before.

    A runner getting 12 yards on a 1st or second down run is nice, but that doesn't reflect the reality of the runners effectiveness compared to how his stats are showing effectiveness.

    It's the guy who consistently gets 5-6 yards that is more valuable than the guy who gets a 12 yarder then two 2 yarders.

    Those two yarders are mostly a wasted down since they do little to set up options tactically as the 4 downs progress. And the bread and butter of scoring is consistently putting yourself in good positions on 2nd and 3rd downs.

     

     



    Yeah, the ideal RB gets his blocked yardage, plus 1.1+ yards on the second level. He always, must, have a high success rate (gets the yardage needed). 

    The least important stat is how many yards he gets at the third level. 

    I've always found it odd that people will complain all day long about a couple sacks, and gripe about how the defense "saw it coming," but won't make a single mention when a running game produces four runs for negative yardage. 

    The effect is exactly the same. It's lost yardage. But one is always, on this forum, listed as a clear indicator that the other team "knew what was coming" and the other is at best not mentioned, at worst glossed over as a cost of doing business. 

    Odd.

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Also, I'd like to add, that these measurements do break one of my personal rules for looking at the run. They factor in long runs too heavily, and don't relieve the analysis from the effect of "short" running that is good.

    This pertains to "running when it matters." 

    Too many running games/backs are penalized because they take, and succeed in short-to-goal scenarios, and short-to-conversion scenarios. 

    If we look at straight rushing YPC, Ben Jarvus Green Ellis ran better in the Superbowl in 2011 than Blount did on Sunday: anyone with a pair of eyes knows that is nonsense. 

    But if you subtract Blount's ridiculous amount of attempts on 3rd and short and goal and short, and all the same for Green-Ellis, Blount roundly outperformed him. 

    I think that is on thing that really penalizes a "run first" offense: when you get a 3rd and 1 with the run it is difficult and really helps your team out, but in the grand scheme, it actually hurts you statistically. 

    I really don't care which team had a higher YPC on the run, rather, who had the higher YPC on early downs, and who did the best in situational running matter dramatically to me.



    Wow, you really do try hard. bjge picked up 3, 1st downs on short yardage situations in the SB,(30% of his carries were tough short yardage carries and he converted all of them)he wasn't stopped once in short yardage. 100% conversion rate.

    Blount picked up 3 1st downs in short yardage situations, but was stone walled 2 times as well, resulting in punts Then in the 4rth his 2nd down carry for minus 3 yards resulted in Bradys 3rd and 10 sack fumble. 

    This is what prompted articles written citing  that N.E's "commitment to running" after being held to just over 3 ypc in the 1st half paid off in the long run as they finally broke a 73 yarder and 30 yarder in the 4rth qtr.

    Would we have kept running like this after that 1st half production in years past? I think we all know the answer. 

    And to you point. Take away Blounts 3 separate two yard tds and his late 73 yarder and 30 yarder which were results of the very commitment to the run many of us have asked for, and you are left with 19 carries for 57 yards. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    About the same thing it means that New England is 5-0 when Brady throws three or more touchdowns. Like passing attempts , rushing attempts and most isolated statistics it‘s meaningless. The only numbers that actually correlate with winning are efficiency stats for a team. You can't tie success to one player, position, or phase of the game.

     




    Disagree.    It definitely points to a specific formula that has helped win playoff games.  A 2 yard rushing touchdown is more of a correlation to victory than a 2 yard passing TD , I would surmise.   But I do agree that it is a weird stat.  Meaning Brady wins games.  period.  All types of games.  But looking at the entire body of work,  The GAME MANAGER Brady closes the deal better than the FANTASY STAT Brady.

     

     




     

    Actually, there isn't much to disagree about. Those correlations have already been figured. Running touchdowns correlate with winning at .41 and passing touchdowns at .55. All in all, the difference isn't pronounced, as both are close to .5 and neither is that far in the grand scheme, from the other. But it is sufficient enough to say that running touchdowns are not more valuable than passing touchdowns. In fact, most running statistics do not correlate with winning at all. Rushing attempts, ironically, are among the lowest across studies. Peaking at the .5 area in some measures, and faling way off the charts at .18. 

    There really are no "individual" stats that correlate with winning at all. In fact, even passer rating, which is a very high correlation, needs to be "adjusted" in studies to take into account sacks before it starts really working at .8 or higher.

    The only "blanket" statistics that show winning are things that are obvious, like TD/Dr and Points/Dr. And if one correlates more with winning it's this: the team that passes better wins the majority of the time, while the team that runs better wins in a coin toss. 




    Its an interesting argument...   Since there are all the underlying layers in football ,  many of which are psychological.  the point I was surmising which would be a difficult stat to pin down was the 2 -3 yard rushing touchdown vs. the 2-3 yard passing TD.  running it in implies winning the line of scrimmage which if statistically could be measured  in a game (offensive/defensive  hog index combined  perhaps  ---chff.com) would likely correlate around 63-67% to winning.  better than the .5 number which makes it  statistically relevant.

     



    Yes! 

    Runing and winning at the LOS are huge partners. But running is a signal that you are winning the battles.

    The one thing running does better than passing is protecting the football. If a team is winning the running battle through the first few quarters it can be a signal that they are winning that battle. 

    Also, if a team has a high "HOG" index they are also winning the passing battle typically as well. 

    My point, never, has been that teams shouldn't run if they can, just that teams shouldn't keep running at a high rate if they cannot. Who wants to see runs in 3rd and 8 scenarios? And that Bill Belichick always wants to run first, but hasn't been afforded the luxury. 

    I think one thing, which correlations can't explain well, is the "strategic" importance of being able to run when the other team knows you are going to run. 

    While there isn't a strong correlation to winning Time-of-possession, there is a strong correlation with winning points per possession. Running at the end of games, with a lead, can "freeze" the number of chances an opponent has to raise their overall score. 

    It would be really difficult to track. Most of the game is decided by then, and you already have a winner and loser slated because of the score. But being able to move the ball effectively on the ground late in the game can eat the remaining clock up. 

    This isn't the same as running during a game, which really doesn't chew up much more clock than passing: in those scenarios, you are best off doing whatever gets field position and first downs, because sustained drives give you a better chance at having long drives (contrasting the 2011 Patriots who had a higher TOP per drive than the 2001 and 2003 Pats and an equal TOP per drive to the 2004 Pats is a good example). 

    But concerted running, late in the game, converting a 3rd and 4 with a run that everyone knows is coming, is a huge strategic advantage that cannot be measured. 

     




    I follw what you are saying but  the idea that a team can throw all game and then run at the end is not a good strategy.  The running game is important the entire game.  Not on 3rd and 8 but in avoiding 3rd and 8.   Also you need to establish a rythym with the blocking and the schemes.  YOu need to tailor your personnel to commit to this.  YOu need to wear down the DLs and make them defend the run.  All of this is good strategic football IMO.    YOU need to be good at it like you say.  Win those battles .  avoid the holding calls.  Padding the numbers at the end of the game is just gravy.  I think it represents more than that ... getting back to the trench warfare correlation.

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to 83's comment:

    Means you dont need TB. 

    Mark Sanchez could win with this team.

     

    Peyton 6-0 in rematches. What does that mean?

     



    You'll have to define what you mean by "rematch".

    Brady and Manning have played against each other 14 times, which means there are technically 13 rematches.

    Peyton's record in those rematches is 4-9.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    I am chuckling at the BBWs who saw how we won SBs, then switched to a Colts formula with the Goodell rules coming into play in 2006, and somehow the BBWs can't see as we ground and pount into a title game vs a Coltsesque style Defense in Denver.

    Absolutely priceless.

    The O Line, Brady and the D all good across all 3 phases, Brady doesn't throw any TDs, but somehow ZBellino and his crew are in here to tell the more educated fans, that somehow we're all wrong.

    I see.

    LMAO




    You're not educated, you're an imbecile.




    Yeah, I wonder how we'd factor in the loss against Baltimore last season when New England ran with Ridley all day, put up only 13 points and still found themselves scrambling for a win late in the game. 

    Personally, I thought it was a very "educational" game, re, running at all costs. I didn't see Ridley really helping the defense then. I also didn't see the defense helping the offense very much either (another playoff exit with 28 points allowed and zero turnovers created).

    The only formula in football is this: execute well and you will win more often than you lose. 



    Whats funny is that our balanced 1st half game plan resulted in a 13 to 7 lead at half time.  Lets look at what actually happened in the 2nd half.

    We came out and held baltimore to a punt, great time to start putting the game away...but

    We pass out of running formation for 6 yards,  run ridley for 5 yards 1st down. SG, 5 yards, SG 24 yards, SG incomplete, SG woodhead B.S draw play for 2 yards, SG incomplete PUNT. 5 pases 2 runs only 1 power carry and it was a 5 yard 1st down.

    Baltimore comes back and scores a td. Enter typical game plan when a game is close...

    SG

    SG

    SG

    SG punt.

    Now have 9 SG passes to 2 runs with only 1 being a power run. Ate up about 4 minutes of game clock in 2 drives, 2 crucial game defining fails right when baltimore just started to exploit our defense absent talib. Would have been nice to commit to run and run time off, give our D a chance to rest after the last let down.

    Baltimore scores another td. We realize our D has just been gutted twice and our offense didnt help by putting them right back on the field. We need to run the ball, we do.

    Rid for 9

    Rid short yardage stopped

    Rid short yardage succesful( hey make sure you factor his short yardage success into his ypc like you do with blount)

    Brady pass

    Rid runs out of the gun and unfortunately Bernard Pollard ends our season for the 4rth time in as many years. 

    Balance gave us a 13-7 half time lead. 9 pass to 2 run punt back to back failed drives was the 3rd qtr momentum killer that lost us the game. 

    But that won't stop you.

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

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    It means nothing.



    Wait. A team wins four playoff games when their qb doesnt even throw a td and it means nothing? I mean, obviously there isn't a correlation of winning between the 2, much like running 30x a game wasn't a magical formula for being 9-0, but it is very, very difficult to win 1 playoff game. When your team wins four of them without even throwing a td pass, then it certainly means something. It means they are pretty darn good!

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: what does it mean we are 4-0 when TB has ZERO TDs in PLAYOFF games?

    In response to 83's comment:

    Means you dont need TB. 

    Mark Sanchez could win with this team.

     

    Peyton 6-0 in rematches. What does that mean?

     



    No it means when Tom threw them close to the endzone he didn't become a stats punk and ran it when it was smart too.  Also Tom was un defeated in post season play once so all things come to an end!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share