AndyJohnson

see what i just posted

PATSYLICIOUS

I can't speak for that others who favor more balance, but a good number in my mind is somewhere around 60-40 in favor of passing, at most unbalanced somewhere around 65-35 in a pass heavy approach. Enough to show that you're at least contemplating running the ball. I agree 50-50 in this offense and with Tom Brady at QB isn't very reasonable unless it's like the Buffalo game where we're running at will. I'm not sure if that's exactly what the others are expecting and I'm too lazy to read back through all the posts.

The only # I have a problem with is one like in the Seattle game where there's over 50 attempts when the offense isn't even having that much success. Regardless of our gameplan or how much the run game is struggling, I never want to see that unless we're well into the 2nd half and our offense is just scoring at will with it, which wasn't clearly the case in the Seattle game. And wasn't the case @ Miami while we were seemingly headed toward that # until the last drive.

__________________
Organized madness
The young Gott-stra
Young Frank Sinatra

TheBostonStraggler

I guess "served us well" is a relative phrase. The Patriots have many division championships and many SB appearances. I think most would agree that the Patriots have served us well for many years now.

Yet I don't disagree that it is optimal for an offense to be able to run the ball effectively and pass the ball effectively. But frequently that just isn't how it plays out during the game. If the Texans are stuffing the run in the first two series but we're getting 7 to 9 to 11 yards per pass play at a high completion rate, why would we not go to the pass more often? Why would we not make them adjust to their own weakness and, hopefully, force open a different weakness that can be exploited (maybe runs up the middle)?

Bottom line, philosophically I agree with you for team building but disagree with you when it comes to game time. I want the Patriots to win, and if that means a lot more passing than running (or vice versa) for this particular game? I'm very good with it. I'm good with any game plan, any play calling that results in a victory. And I'm largely unconcerned about how even we were in our play calling.

__________________
“This is one you should have thought twice about before hitting submit”

DocHoliday

What I (and others apparently) take issue with is that people are using the split numbers at all. They are meaningless out of context.

Even a 99-1 split can be balanced if you passed the ball effectively and were able to run the ball on that one down you needed to. That's all being balanced is - being able to run the ball when you must do it. Conversely, a 30-30 split for example can be supremely unbalanced if your run attempts didn't achieve the yards and first downs necessary. To put it simply:

Balance is a capability, not a result.

__________________

PATSYLICIOUS

Yeah the exact #'s aren't terribly important. I'm not saying we should sit there with a pencil and a calculator until we've run the ball enough to be at 40%, just in my mind something around 60-40 is enough to show defenses you are willing to run and run often, . The whole point is unpredictability for me. I think Ridley has done well enough this year that they should at least line him up behind Brady on alot of the passes rather than just coming out in spread so much.

__________________
Organized madness
The young Gott-stra
Young Frank Sinatra

PP2

My argument is that we are most potent when we bring a balanced approach to the offense, and since the record more or less reflects that (with the occasional exception) it is not being balanced just to be balanced.

Brady is not Brady every week. As great as he is, he is still human. He will have the occasional bad game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think it's pretty much a given that the other team schemes against Brady, and not the run game or play-action, which means it makes all the more sense to be balanced, and our record in the playoffs reflect that.


My mistake, I meant to say nearly all of our biggest gains have come out of the play-action.

PP2

You're missing the point here. We converted to the spread offense in 2007, and have not won a superbowl ever since. That is my argument.

In the years that we won the superbowl, e.g., 2004 being the last time we did that, we ran heavily with a different offense. I don't have to tell you how much Dillon rushed for that year.

2004 superbowl (vs. eagles):

pass: 33
run: 28

That is why I maintain that the more balanced our offense is (it doesn't have to be strictly 50/50, but neither should it be 90/10) the better our record has been, and that's been a consistent result over the years.

PP2

Balance is a choice.

The fact that a balanced offense results in a better W-L record just can't be overlooked. To use your example that a 30/30 ratio isn't necessarily a sign of success because the run could have failed to achieve a first down every time is to me, not looking at the big picture.

The big picture is that you won the game. Even if the run didn't succeed, it still contributed in that it may have given the defense fits to the point where passing won the game, or a big play, or a play-action. The bottom line is we still used the run game as a weapon, whether or not it succeeded.

AndyJohnson

In 2007 we had possibly the best team in NFL history that made it to the SB and had one bad game which would have been a win if the D had not allowed 2 long TD drives in the 4th quarter.
In 2008 we won 11 games with a QB who hadn't started an NFL OR COLLEGE game.
In 2009 we had a decent season by most teams standards and a poor one by ours, highlighted by dysfunction in the lockerroon, defensive struggles, and the loss of one of our most vital players in the last game of the season.
In 2010 we were 14-2 and had a bad playoff game, which would have been a win if the D could have not allowed a long TD drive in the 4th quarter.
In 2011 we were 13-3 and went to the SB which we would have won if the defense didn't allow a long 4th quarter TD.

Not only are you offering an entitled to a SB attitude, but you don't even understand where to place the blame.
But please show us the style of offense that has proven more successful.

AndyJohnson

That is simply not consistent with the facts.
Once again when we win we END UP balanced because we build a lead then become run heavy. You are taking the end result of play calls and calling it meaningful to the win. If we throw 30 times and run 12 in the first half and built a huge lead, then run 30 and pass 12 in the second half, your approach credits balance for the win. Conversely if we pass 20 and run 20 in the first half, fall behind by 3 TDs, then throw 35 and run 5 times in the second half you blame imbalance on the loss.
Your theory is only valid if you limit it to the parts of the game that decided the outcome. Instead you are using the lazy approach of taking the statsheet, and allowing it to make you believe things that didn't happen.



He is still the same guy every week. Whether he has a good or bad game is about the game plan, how his teammates play and how the defense that is paid to stop him does. He doesn't just show up and play well or poorly in a vaccuum.

This of course makes absolutely no sense. Its a 'given' becuase believing it helps your argument? So your argument is now that defenses ignore the run against us?
By the way a defense focussing on the pass would make play action less effective against them.
But that isn't really the point here. Regardless of how a team tries to defend you they have strengths and weakness. When you have Tom Brady it is very likely that the quality of their pass defense makes it a mismatch for us to throw. Good offense does what works, not what puts balance on a stat sheet.
Unpredictability is one not so huge factor in designing and running an offense. You have decided it is the only one, and we would fail miserably with that attitude.




Yet, that is still incorrect, but if it were, why are you complaining about the balance, it would be working just fine.