Deus Irae

But that's not what you're been arguing, at all.


You've used numbers to try showing something. It's completely failed to show what you're attempting to show. I've given clear examples of precisely that. You're the one ignoring clear factual data.

__________________
"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

lamafist

The numbers disagree. They show that a) running attempts earlier in the game do not correlate with winning, b) that in all but short-yardage situations, an optimal run-pass ratio is close to 66% pass, 33% run, and c) that being able to run well doesn't correlate particularly strongly to winning, while being able to pass well correlates incredibly strongly.

PP2

What I am showing you is that the numbers and the theory of a balanced offense support each other. You will agree that having a balanced offense does not hurt, and gives the offense another threat, in addition to preserving Brady (and lengthening his career) do you not?

And again, the numbers presented by Ponyexpress and the numbers I presented re: playoffs W-L support that.


How can this not be clear factual data:

2007 superbowl: loss

pass: 48
run: 16

2009 wild card: loss

pass: 42
run:18

2010 divisional: loss

pass: 48
run: 28

2011 superbowl: loss

pass: 41
run: 19

Compare this to:

2007 wildcard (Jaguars): win

pass: 28
run: 29 (!)

2007 AFC championship (SD): win

pass:33
run: 31

2011 wildcard (Denver): win

pass: 34
run: 30

2011 AFC championship (Baltimore): win

pass: 36
run: 31

KontradictioN

That percentage is about what I would expect/hope to see with the GOAT lining up at quarterback.

__________________

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


CREDIT - Sicilian

Deus Irae

No, that's not what you're showing, at all, which is what we've all been telling you. What the numbers show is that there is some level of correlation. That's it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody here has been arguing that there's absolutely no correlation.

Of course I won't agree with that. Without a definition of "balance" that doesn't involve the very thing you're insisting it must, "balance" is an outmoded concept.

And, again, those numbers are meaningless.

Because it completely ignores context which is essential to the discussion and the determination of whether the numbers mean anything. Again, the Denver playoff game, when looked at in the context of this discussion, suffices to completely destroy your argument, as does the Ravens playoff game, etc...

__________________
"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

PP2

I don't see what "running earlier" or "late" has anything to do with my balanced offense philosophy.

If being able to pass well correlates strongly to winning, then why didn't we win in the superbowls since the passing rate was amongst the highest, with 48 in 2007, and 41 in 2011?

ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

From a quick look at Brady's gamelog it looks like he actually stays pretty damned efficient until he hits about 40 passes with a pretty big fall off @46 passes.

ThatllMoveTheChains!!!

My primary concern, and the numbers do seem to back it up, is eventually you switch from passing well to simply passing a lot. Brady's regular season game logs Y/A vs attempts.

Deus Irae

• In the 2011 Denver playoff game, the game was essentially over at halftime. The score was 35-7, and the run/pass ratio was, barring a slight miscount, at 13:26 (33%:66%). So, in order for your "balance" argument to be valid, you would have to be positive that not evening out the run and pass in the second half would have guaranteed a loss. Are you claiming definitively that the Patriots would have lost that lead, and that game, if they hadn't evened out the run/pass ratio?
  
• In the Ravens 2009 playoff game, the Patriots threw the ball 42 times and ran it 18 times. Using your logic, the Patriots should win that game if they go 50/50, which means that the Patriots would win the game with a 30/30 run/pass split. Well, the Patriots made their 30th pass attempt on their second to last drive of the game, which began with 10:26 left in the game, while they were already trailing 33-14. Are you claiming definitively that the Patriots would definitely have come back and won that game if they'd stopped passing at that time and just run the ball on every play from that 10:26 mark until the end of the game?

If the answers to the two questions above aren't both emphatically "Yes", then even you know that your argument is wrong, and it's just a matter of you drawing the proper lessons from those examples.

__________________
"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

ATippett56

With regard to the aforementioned article:

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Yards per Rush Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 13th in rushing yards per attempt

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Yards per Pass Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 7th in passing yards per attempt

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Yards per Rush Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 8th in opponent rushing yards per attempt

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Yards per Pass Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 27th in opponent passing yards per attempt

__________________
The End of the Chad Ochostinko Era!