woolster22

I think my blood pressure may have finally returned to safe levels after the god damn repeat of failure. But to the point...it was when we took over backed up in our own end zone, up a few points, nine minutes to go. What does the brain trust come up with?! You got it, the same stupid idea that netted the giants a safety on our first play from scrimmage. This time, nobody but Brady in the back field, no guessing, no authority, just chuck it up like your down two scores.

The worst part? The oline was fired up. They were down right nasty the few times they got to go on the attack. I hate to say it, but losing Brady may help us assuming his back up is at least mediocre.

What won us super bowls? Ted Washington, and a steady diet of big, Bill nosed rb, letting TB pick his spots and get chunks when the defense slipped up. Would we have ever seen this twice in the same game (let alone the super bowl) pre 07?

Brady never won a championship throwing it deep (ok, Carolina was a shoot out at the end) consistently, or being the dynamo behind the high powered offense. Hell, he can't even find wr that can get anywhere near to being on the same page, and yes, I put that on him. Asking these athletes to read that much post snap clearly is asking too much. Simplify things, let the a+ athlete with the two cent brain come make us forget about the abortion that is Ocho. Then lets start pounding the ball a bit more. Find out what we have in those two young backs and help extend bradys shelf life a bit.

In theory it would help give the defense a breather and suddenly sounds like an all around win. I'd think it would be easier to get pressured into passing when it isn't your strong suit, but still come out the victor then to have your passing game 86d and be forced into running a bit to open up some space. Maybe I'm sick of us abandoning the run the last few years, and in turn have been screwing the pooch in big games as well. The hell with new toys for Brady, he has plenty (Benny, the rb babies, gronk, the pot head, Welker), make sure the line is in good shape and stand pat.

The defense needs some serious ******* help. dl, lb, DB...we are weak every where. Sure lb isn't that bad, but I encourage you all to take a peak at the 03, 04 rosters. Talent doesn't grow on trees, and it often goes early in the draft. Sure there are plenty that skip through the cracks, but it it's time to get some studs on the defensive side of the ball. Then Tf'nB cab sail off into the sun set with another ring, maybe two, and Tf'nB Jr can try to manage his way to a ring like a former late round back up I heard about once....


Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

MP-Logick

It's kind of hard to argue for a "return to the run" when the worst rushing team in the NFL just won the Super Bowl.

fair catch fryar

Listen, I like the ability to run as much as you and would like to see more of a bruising running game, BUT if Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch and Welker is able to hang onto a tough TB pass then your whole argument/thoughts never even warrant discussion. It's a game of bounces for the Pats when their in the SB. I'm over it at this point and look forward to getting another chance.

doesntmatter1

I would like to chime in. I would love to see way more runs but it will never be that good if bjge is our lead back so stick with the pass.

And when it comes to the superbowl we were good enough to win but I blame one person for our loss-logan mankins. He's not the obvious choice but after watching the game more than once it all becomes clear. The safety basically gave the giants 9 points. Brady obviously thought he was going to have time and he should have. Tuck looped all the way around and just breezed by mankins effortlessly and that had the biggest impact on the game.

Then late in the game on the gronk int, brady had to fight off a sack because mankins got beat and brady tried to make a play. Both of Brady's mistake came as a result of mankin's bad play and you just can't have that in a close game. Mankins simply can't handle the giants. Out of anger I wanted to just trade mankins and use what we get straight up for david decastro.

RelocatedPatFan

I'd prefer to see us in a SB where we go into the 4th quarter with a 3 score lead or even winning by a large a margin. Take the luck out of it as all our TB lead SBs have been within 4 points (wins or losses)?

__________________
Don't let a small thing like Facts get in the way of a good opinion.

ivanvamp

Rushing rankings of past SB winners (rank by rush yards gained):

2001 - NE - #13, 112.1 yds, 3.8 avg
2002 - TB - #27, 97.3 yds, 3.8 avg
2003 - NE - #27, 100.4 yds, 3.4 avg
2004 - NE - #7, 133.4 yds, 4.1 avg
2005 - Pit - #5, 138.9 yds, 4.0 avg
2006 - Ind - #18, 110.1 yds, 4.0 avg
2007 - NYG - #4, 134.3 yds, 4.6 avg
2008 - Pit - #23, 105.6 yds, 3.7 avg
2009 - NO - #6, 131.6 yds, 4.5 avg
2010 - GB - #24, 94.9 yds, 4.0 avg
2011 - NYG - #32, 89.2 yds, 3.5 avg

2007 New England Patriots - #13, 115.6 yds, 4.1 avg
2011 New England Patriots - #20, 110.3 yds, 4.0 avg

A couple of observations:

(1) Clearly you don't need a great, or even a good, running game to win the Super Bowl. 6 of the 11 teams were below average in that department, and 3 of the last 4 have been downright bad at it.

(2) The 2007 and 2011 Patriots had better running games than most of the last 11 SB winners, and yet they didn't win the SB.

Now, let's take that list and see how each of the SB winners did in the rushing department in terms of yards and avg in the SB that they won.

2001 - NE - #13, 112.1 yds, 3.8 avg - SB: 133 yds, 5.3 avg
2002 - TB - #27, 97.3 yds, 3.8 avg - SB: 150 yds, 3.6 avg
2003 - NE - #27, 100.4 yds, 3.4 avg - SB: 127 yds, 3.6 avg
2004 - NE - #7, 133.4 yds, 4.1 avg - SB: 112 yds, 4.0 avg
2005 - Pit - #5, 138.9 yds, 4.0 avg - SB: 181 yds, 5.5 avg
2006 - Ind - #18, 110.1 yds, 4.0 avg - SB: 191 yds, 4.5 avg
2007 - NYG - #4, 134.3 yds, 4.6 avg - SB: 91 yds, 3.5 avg
2008 - Pit - #23, 105.6 yds, 3.7 avg - SB: 58 yds, 2.3 avg
2009 - NO - #6, 131.6 yds, 4.5 avg - SB: 51 yds, 2.8 avg
2010 - GB - #24, 94.9 yds, 4.0 avg - SB: 50 yds, 3.8 avg
2011 - NYG - #32, 89.2 yds, 3.5 avg - SB: 114 yds, 4.1 avg

Observations:

(1) 6 of the 11 teams rushed for more yards in the SB than they gained on average per game during the regular season. In other words, 54.5% of the time over the past 11 years, the SB-winning team's running game "stepped up" in the SB.

(2) 4 of the last 5 SB winners were the opposite, however. In fact, 4 of the last 5 SB winners didn't even get to 100 yards rushing. 3 of the last 4 SB winners didn't even gain 60 yards on the ground.

(3) In the Patriots' last two SBs, the Giants were 50-50....1 time they gained more in the SB than they averaged during the year (2011) and 1 time they gained less in the SB than they averaged during the year (2007).

Long story short: there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can do it by running the ball well or by passing the ball well. You can do it with a powerful offense and a relatively weak defense. You can do it with a strong defense playing well in the big spots.

I think what we want from the Patriots (or what *I* want, anyway) is for them to have the ability to win a game any way possible. If they need to put up tons of points in a shootout, they can do that. If they need to grind out the clock on the ground and get first downs when they need to, they can do that. If they need to make a big stop on defense, they can do that.

UK_Pat37

For me 2010 was that year. We had a slightly better 'bend-don't-break' defense which was at the top of the league when it came to getting crucial turnovers and I don't think we had ever run the ball well like that since Dillon graced us with his presence!

I thought 2010 was our year for sure.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BelichickFan

Also, "when we were winning SB" we won them by three points with plays that could have gone either way. We've been to five, we won three close ones and lost two close ones. That's the way it goes with close games and has nothing to do with running or passing, offense or defense.

As for running more, that's fine but you're still taking the ball out of the NFL's best player's hands more.

Deus Irae

2001: Great defense and a hell of a timely last drive
2003: Brady to Branch
2004: Solid overall game and McNabb's incompetence

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

IllegalContact

the pats need ot be able to sell the run better. which means they need to run more without removing the passing game as the primary option.

but beyond the running game, the pats need to use their RB's more in the passing game, also the pats would have won the SB if they did some more of what worked best. The giants failed to stop the dumpoffs to woodhead as it was 100% success rate. he should have had 10 catches and that ould have reduced the heat on brady substantially

__________________
“ I think good coaches will coach with the personnel they have, and if you only have one (good) linebacker, you’re not going to play a 3–4. ”
—Hank Bullough, who installed one of the first 3–4 defenses with the New England Patriots.