01-03-2011, 10:35 PM
|
#26
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,198
|
Re: The Biggest Difference between the 2010 offense and the 2007.
Patriots running attack is a legitimate threat
Tom Curran cherry picks a few complimentary stats before adding in some pretty good observations in comparing 2009 to 2010:
Quote:
Total yards aren’t as important as when they come. For instance, Laurence Maroney’s 45-yard touchdown run in a 59-0 win over Tennessee in October 2009 were not quite as impressive as the Patriots 72 rushing yards in the second half at Pittsburgh in October. Especially with those yards coming against a team that hadn’t allowed a 100-yard game by an opponent all year.
The general feeling about the 2009 Patriots running game was that it was pretty good. But this year’s edition spearheaded by a pair of undrafted guys is far more effective.
The Patriots rushing attack is a realistic threat this year. Last year, it seemed more a device used until Brady could go long for Randy Moss again. The diversity of the offense with tight ends now being featured in the passing game has had an impact. And the blocking of the tight ends has as well.
It’s interesting because, last February, the Indianapolis Colts’ presence in the Super Bowl – despite having the planet’s worst rushing attack – was seen as proof of a sea change.
The notion teams needed a legitimate, grind-it-out rushing attack to succeed was passé. Protections for quarterbacks and receivers, sophisticated advances in the passing game made the air the way to go. Indy was at the leading edge of that wave.
Last season, the Colts advanced to the Super Bowl with an attack that averaged 3.54 yards per carry, 80.9 per game. That was last in the NFL.
But the presence of Peyton Manning was the equalizer.
And this year, the presence of Brady and an effective running game has resulted in a Patriots team that is again historically explosive.
|
|
|
|