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.

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

But the only difference between the 2007 team and the 2001, 2003, & 2004 team is how much time the offense had left to work with after the defense surrendered/endangered the lead in the SB. Seriously, for all the talk of the defensive-oriented Patriots of the first half of this century, Brady & co. rescued the D in 2 out 3 SB victories, and in the other (v Eagles), the D still was gassed in the 4th and almost gave it up. What I'm getting at is that the makeup for those SB winning teams is severely skewed. They were not power running teams and they were not defensive juggernauts.

As for the running game, give me the team that scores more points. The 2007 team was a play or two away from being the greatest team of all-time. I understand the notion of a balanced offense - that I want - but Brady airing it to Moss & working underneath w Welker is the most efficient way to win. Go back and rewatch some of those 01, 03, 04 DVDs and see how much more often Brady unleashes the ball then you may remember. If it weren't for weather and the sloppy field, Brady's #'s would've been better year in and year out.

Originally Posted by mgteich

Scoring the most points leads to victory, really it does. Seriously, I have no problem with the 2007 offense, the best that the patriots (or perhaps anyone else) has ever fielded.

We need to have a better and healthier defense than 2007. I ma not yet convinced. I am not at all convinced that Brace and Pryor will make the difference as you indicate.

You assert that we have the best depth ever at corner. Perhaps, perhaps not. We certainly don't have the best starters ever.

In the end, we need to see what we get out of the linebackers and the corners.

And finally, whenever our defense slips, it will be up to the best offense ever to win the game.

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

Outscoring the opponent obviously leads to victory, but scoring the "most" points? I'm not sure what that means.

Here's the list of AFC and NFC teams scoring the most points in the past 10 years:

2008 - San Diego (439), New Orleans (463)
2007 - NE (589*), Dallas (455)
2006 - San Diego (492), Chicago (427)
2005 - Indanapolis (439), Seattle (452)
2004 - Indianapolis (522), Green Bay (424)
2003 - Kansas City (484), St. Louis (447)
2002 - Kansas City (467), New Orleans (432)
2001 - Indianapolis (413), St. Louis (503)
2000 - Denver (485*), St. Louis (540)
1999 - Indianapolis (423), St. Louis (526+)
1998 - Denver (501+), Minnesota (556*)

Only in 1998 and 1999 did teams who lead their conference in points win the SB. Only 5 out of 22 teams leading their conferences in that 11 year period even made the SB (Denver winning in 1998 and the Rams in 1999, and the Rams losing in 2001, Chicago in 2006, and NE in 2007). The two teams who set all time scoring records (Atlanta in 1998 and NE in 2007) didn't win the SB. So over the past 11 years, scoring the most points in your division only leads to the Super Bowl about 23% of the time.

What is ironic to me is that we first rose to prominence by beating on of the all time great offensive juggernuts, the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams in 2001 by playing hard-nosed defense and smart, ball-control offense. The Rams were succeeded by the Indianapolis Colts as the most prolific offense in the NFL, and we consistently had the Colts' number using the same kind of approach - smart, tough-nosed opportunistic football. Now we've become those teams, and we've come close but no cigar. Sorry, but I'll take the good old days.

Of course we need to have a better and healthier defense. I'll I've said is that we've added a necessary infusion of youth, speed, and talent. The results haven't showed yet, and it's too soon to tell if they will. I'm not convinced that ANY of the new guys will be the answer at their respective position, though I think several show promise. I'm hopeful, but I certainly don't have a crystal ball, and the defense may not gel. BUT if it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that the "best offense ever" won't be enough to "rescue us" to the extent of winning the SB. History says we need more than that.

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

Originally Posted by robertweathers

Couldn't agree more, patfranken. Throw in 3GTG 1, 2 and 3. Look back at all those playoff games (especially vs the Raiders, Colts, Rams) where A. Smith didnt ring up a ton of yards, but in the 4th qtr, he converted 3rd downs b/c defenses RESPECTED it and were tired and most importantly, chewed the clock and kept the opposing O off the field. Dillon was a far superior talent as he could run for 100 yds with me on the line. Thats not the point. The point it that the Pats were COMMITTED to being successful running the football.

It's a simple question: Does everyone on this board have confidence that this team can convert a 3nd & 2 by running the ball? Personally, I don't. At least, not as much as I used too. As yourself if they win the 2006 AFCCC if they burned a few more minutes off the clock by converting a 3rd and 4. If so, what would the outcome have been? They still may have lost, but if they had converted, we would know that they would have had the ball longer.

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

Hallelujah! That's what I haven't seen. In 2008 we ran the football better because TB was injured and we had to commit to the run in order to take pressure off of Matt Cassel and keep defenses off balance. But in 2007 we clearly weren't committed to the run, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that we are this year.

In the 2007 SB it became apparent early on that the Pats couldn't effectively run against the Giants (admittedly Neal's injury hurt a lot in that regard), and they pretty much abandoned that approach. As a result, the Giants could pin back their ears and let loose their pass rush without much fear of being run on. The result was 14 points for the most prolific offense in history.

I understand that the rules have changed, that BB has adapted, etc. But I want to know that we are committed to being able to run for that key short yardage 3rd down or TD, or to being able to put together a critical clock-eating drive when the game is close and our defense needs a rest.

Originally Posted by mgcolby

Me too!

For the record the 2004 team was my favorite. Seeing us have a true run game was awesome. I love tough hard nose football!!!!