First Impressions 2 - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

patfanken · 08-21-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

There's my confusion with Ken's point, I had a different play in mind. Yes, he wasn't deep enough, but then I don't think he was intended to be. It looked like he was running under the zone coverage there and I think O'Connell or Hoyer or whichever was slow to check down to him and got him the ball to late for him to turn it upfield. And yes Ken, it's not like we haven't seen long term veterans execute it the same way.

Yeah, Box you could be right. It could have been the pass led him too much, and kept him from gaining the extra 2 yds. However one of my "many" pet peeves is 3rd an say 8 pass that 3 yds long. Drives me nuts.

patfanken · 08-21-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Still not worried about the offense at all. I still think this team's success and failures will rely mostly on the defensive side as it has pretty much since 2004. Every year since 2004 with the exception of 2006, all the biggest issues with this team was on the defensive side of the ball.

As for running the ball, this has always been a pass heavy team with very little balance of production except for 2004. Even with Weis, the mantra was the Pats' short passing game was their running game. The Pats rarely were high in the running category in the Brady era. Only in 2001 and 2004 were they up there.

As for the Pats becoming the Colts' offense, that is definitely far from the truth. First, the Colts do run the football. Other than the last few years, Marshall Faulk, Edgerinne James, and Joseph Addai were always near the top in running yards. Also, the Pats use the short passing game to suppliment the running game far more than the Colts. The Colts were not a pass happy offense either. They were a great offense and not much of a defense. They run the ball a lot.

You can't be more correct. I was just attempting to create an image. The sad fact is the we NOW run the ball with LESS authority than even the ***** Colts. How sad an image is THAT.

patfanken · 08-21-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Well, 2001 they were average. I overstated the strong. They were strong in the sense that they didn't suck. They were 13th in running with 1793 yards, 23rd in YPC with 3.8 YPC, and 7th in TDs with 15. The defense carried that team and the offense played efficent enough to not make mistakes and score enough to make it close. Do you want the Pats to go back to the passing offense of 2001.

I am not concerned about the offense. I will restate it. Only in 2004 did the Pats have a good running game. We won two Super Bowls with Antowain Smith running the ball. I don't know if we have an effective running game yet, but othewr than 2004 I don't really know if we had anything more than efficient enough.

BTW, the 2006 run offense had more yards (1969), more YPC (3.9), and TDs (20) than the 2001 run offense and we didn't win the Super Bowl. Why? Because the defense gave up 35 second half points to the Colts in the AFCC. That is why I am concerned about the defense and not the offense.

In 2001 and 2003 we were NOT a good running team, but we ran the ball with a PURPOSE. In BB's eyes it was the AMOUNT of rushes that were just as important as the results. He wanted 2 things from the running game. Don't lose yds, and make the 3rd and 2's. For the most part we did that. We also ran very aggressively and at the END of ball games ASmith was usually more effective than in the beginning of games. The pounding early in the game had taken its toll on the defense. And with the offense not being the juggernaut it is today, time of possession was key to winning close games.

I'm not saying we should give up on our passing offense. We are who we are. However those times we DO run the ball, I would just like to see up take it TO the defense, rather than finesse them

slash83 · 08-21-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patfanken

In 2001 and 2003 we were NOT a good running team, but we ran the ball with a PURPOSE. In BB's eyes it was the AMOUNT of rushes that were just as important as the results. He wanted 2 things from the running game. Don't lose yds, and make the 3rd and 2's. For the most part we did that. We also ran very aggressively and at the END of ball games ASmith was usually more effective than in the beginning of games. The pounding early in the game had taken its toll on the defense. And with the offense not being the juggernaut it is today, time of possession was key to winning close games.

I'm not saying we should give up on our passing offense. We are who we are. However those times we DO run the ball, I would just like to see up take it TO the defense, rather than finesse them

Good points, A.Smith was far from a game changing back, but what he did to effectively is ware down a defense with his pounding. This offense really doesn't need a game breaking RB, just enough of a running game to gain 2 3 or 4 ypc. Our play makers are on the outside, lets just run the ball with more physicality and purpose.

***Deus Irae*** · 08-21-2009, 04:56 PM

Last year's offense had more rushing yards than any Patriots team in the last 20 years.

How'd the Super Bowl parade work out for New England?

***mgteich*** · 08-21-2009, 05:14 PM

By your logic, if we had beaten the giants, our 2007 running game would have been fine.

The reality is that the running game is better than 2007 and our receivers are as good. We had the best offense in the history of the NFL in 2007. We were a top offense last year, even without Brady. Let's focus on the defense. We are NOT going to miss winning the SB because of the "weak" running corps of Taylor, Maroney and Faulk (and Morris). We are a PASSING team. We are not a running team. To be a running team takes a lot more than attitude, it take changing or OL and having a FB.

We have a 20% chance at the SB, the best in the league. What is needed for ultimate success is health and production from our secondary and linebackers. IMHO, these three issues have been our problems since the 2005 Super Bowl; four seasons, three problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

Let me get this straight: the Pats were rarely strong in the running game except for in 2 of their 3 SB-winning years, so therefore it's not an area of concern? I would argue that it's a strong justification for a power running game. The only other year that we run the SB we had a suffocating defense. I don't want a version of the 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 Patriots. The only years that count for me are the ones in which we took it all home, and I think we need an effective running game if we are going to do that this year. As of right now, I don't think we've shown that we have an effective running game.

***TruthSeeker*** · 08-21-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

I'd personally be happy to go back to Tom Brady being more of a "ball control" QB and "game manager" instead of throwing up Peytonesque numbers if it means more SBs. The track record of pass-heavy teams winning SBs is not particularly strong. I would like to see more balance on offense and more physicality and aggressiveness on both sides of the ball. An effective running game is key to this. We had a reasonably effective running game last year - not up to 2004, but overally pretty solid. We seem to be going backwards so far in preseason. I know it's early, but I'd like to see more evidence that we are committed to running the ball effectively as a basic part of our offensive scheme (not just dinks and dunks).

And I agree with the previous poster that the problems that have prevented the Patriots from winning it all have had a lot more to do with the defense than the running game.

***mayoclinic*** · 08-21-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

By your logic, if we had beaten the giants, our 2007 running game would have been fine.

The reality is that the running game is better than 2007 and our receivers are as good. We had the best offense in the history of the NFL in 2007. We were a top offense last year, even without Brady. Let's focus on the defense. We are NOT going to miss winning the SB because of the "weak" running corps of Taylor, Maroney and Faulk (and Morris). We are a PASSING team. We are not a running team. To be a running team takes a lot more than attitude, it take changing or OL and having a FB.

We have a 20% chance at the SB, the best in the league. What is needed for ultimate success is health and production from our secondary and linebackers. IMHO, these three issues have been our problems since the 2005 Super Bowl; four seasons, three problems.

No, I'm not saying that. I've always felt that 2007 was an unbalanced team.

I don't want us to be a "run first" team. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't have focused on the defense during the offseason - I was one of the people clamoring most strongly for that.

I think BB has given a lot of attention to the defense, and we have much more speed and athleticism than in the past. It will take time for the defense to gel, but I'm cautiously optimistic that our D will come together to be one of the better ones we have had - not up to 2003, but possibly up to 2004. We have the best front 7 ever with the additions of Brace and Pryor, more athleticism and depth in the secondary than we have had since 2003-2004, and at least two studs at LB in Thomas and Mayo, with potentially a third in Burgess if he reverts to 2005-2006 form. We also have more depth and flexibility than we have had in some time. It will take time for the defense to gel - time for new vets to learn the system, time for talented rookies to get comfortable, and time for a bunch of new players to learn how to work together. The preseason doesn't worry me too much. But by midseason I expect that we should see a much better defensive team than any in the past 4 years, or I will be very disappointed.

I'm not suggesting that we become a run-first team like Pittsburgh or the Giants. But we need to be able to run effectively, and we have done so in the past. The 2004 team had a terrific running game with similar OL personnel. The running game in 2008 (with identical personnel) was certainly adequate - not up to 2004, but solid, and, as you say, stronger than in 2007. My only concern is that with the return of TB we return to a grossly unbalanced passing attack and move away from the running game altogether. So far, I haven't seen much of a commitment to running the ball. Hopefully that's just a function of the preseason. But I would like to see more of an effort to run than I have seen so far.

If you look at the SBs since 2001, the winning teams passed on average 52% of all plays (278/534) vs. 72% for losing teams (361/499). The Pats SB teams of 2001, 2003, and 2004 passed 54% (29/54), 58% (48/83) and 56%(35/63) of the time, vs. 77% passing (53/69) for the losing 2007 team. In the 3 SBs that we won our opponents passed 68% (47/69, 2001), 70% (37/53, 2003) and 76% (55/72, 2004) of the time, whereas in 2007 the Giants passed for 57% (33:58) of their plays. The supposedly "pass happy" Indianapolis Colts actually rushed more than they passed in winning the SB in 2006 (39 passes, 42 rushes, 48%). Not once did the winning team have a higher % of passing plays than the losing team.

I'm not saying that the running game is the problem. But a pass-happy mentality does not translate into SBs, and that is a fact. We have to be able to balance a prolific passing offense with a capable running game, or the statistics say that we won't be taking home SB trophy #4.

***Deus Irae*** · 08-21-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

No, I'm not saying that. I've always felt that 2007 was an unbalanced team.

I don't want us to be a "run first" team. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't have focused on the defense during the offseason - I was one of the people clamoring most strongly for that.

I think BB has given a lot of attention to the defense, and we have much more speed and athleticism than in the past. It will take time for the defense to gel, but I'm cautiously optimistic that our D will come together to be one of the better ones we have had - not up to 2003, but possibly up to 2004. We have the best front 7 ever with the additions of Brace and Pryor, more athleticism and depth in the secondary than we have had since 2003-2004, and at least two studs at LB in Thomas and Mayo, with potentially a third in Burgess if he reverts to 2005-2006 form. We also have more depth and flexibility than we have had in some time. It will take time for the defense to gel - time for new vets to learn the system, time for talented rookies to get comfortable, and time for a bunch of new players to learn how to work together. The preseason doesn't worry me too much. But by midseason I expect that we should see a much better defensive team than any in the past 4 years, or I will be very disappointed.

I'm not suggesting that we become a run-first team like Pittsburgh or the Giants. But we need to be able to run effectively, and we have done so in the past. The 2004 team had a terrific running game with similar OL personnel. The running game in 2008 (with identical personnel) was certainly adequate - not up to 2004, but solid, and, as you say, stronger than in 2007. My only concern is that with the return of TB we return to a grossly unbalanced passing attack and move away from the running game altogether. So far, I haven't seen much of a commitment to running the ball. Hopefully that's just a function of the preseason. But I would like to see more of an effort to run than I have seen so far.

If you look at the SBs since 2001, the winning teams passed on average 52% of all plays (278/534) vs. 72% for losing teams (361/499). The Pats SB teams of 2001, 2003, and 2004 passed 54% (29/54), 58% (48/83) and 56%(35/63) of the time, vs. 77% passing (53/69) for the losing 2007 team. In the 3 SBs that we won our opponents passed 68% (47/69, 2001), 70% (37/53, 2003) and 76% (55/72, 2004) of the time, whereas in 2007 the Giants passed for 57% (33:58) of their plays. The supposedly "pass happy" Indianapolis Colts actually rushed more than they passed in winning the SB in 2006 (39 passes, 42 rushes, 48%). Not once did the winning team have a higher % of passing plays than the losing team.

I'm not saying that the running game is the problem. But a pass-happy mentality does not translate into SBs, and that is a fact. We have to be able to balance a prolific passing offense with a capable running game, or the statistics say that we won't be taking home SB trophy #4.

1.) Teams losing pass more to get back into the game.

2.) Teams winning run more to kill clock

That leads to your percentages.

3.) The 2007 Patriots came within 3 minutes of being undefeated. They lost the Super Bowl to a hot team, having lost the starting right guard to injury (and the next season showed how important he was to the running game), having a starting QB that was limited by a bad ankle, having its 3rd down back get dinged up and having tight end injury problems.

chillinvillin · 08-21-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

I do want to point out that the Refs blew the call on one of Alexander's tackles. He tackled Brian Leonard and stripped him of the ball prior to Leonard landing on the ground. Yet they still gave the ball back to the Bengals..

It was one of the good plays that Alexander made..

Just remember, all refs in the league are tuttored by peyton manning and recieve bonuses from the whole colts organization