Thunderkyss

In all honesty, I hope New England keeps running the ball too. If you're running it, you're not throwing it.

Points come out of the passing game.

AndyJohnson

First, that 'fact' is only true if you move the goalposts to what balanced means. It wasn't long ago that what is balanced today would be considered pass happy.
Secondly, once again, balance is a result of winning, not a cause.




This is very true, and would be a good example of balance being effective.
The scenario that conflicts with your model, and the one that actually happens is when a team exploits an opponent by throwing then builds up the implication of balance while running out the clock, or the team that strives for balance fails, then gives the impression of imbalance by throwing to catch up.




Again, using the run to set up the pass has merit. (As do many other approaches) Passing to set up a big lead and running out the clock is not, however, an example of balance.

AndyJohnson

Very true. But when you throw, you open up opportunities in the running game, which you should take advantage of. There is no doubt spending all day in 3rd and 4 is much better than spending it in 3rd and 10, but there are many ways to skin that animal, and ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of your own team as well as the opponent because you think balance is more important is foolhardy.

Snake Eyes

What are you basing that conclusion on? Also, what if one didnt use the 2RB/2WR/TE set? I'm thinking that with just 1 RB in the backfield it would change what the defense has to do and keep them honest.

__________________
"The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery, you must learn it's riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts...this you can trust"


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

AndyJohnson

I'm not sure what you think the gain of 'keeping them honest' is. When we spread the field and spread the defense we negate the pass rush with quick developing plays which are about all we run from there. So the advantage is what? The LBs taking a millisecond to see their read?
The advantage of 5 wides is obvious.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are referring to.

AndyJohnson

You missed a sack.
And we ran 6 of the last 7 plays to kill the clock, so before offense became defense it was
pass 33
run 22
That is exactly the run/pass ratio that you say is too high and is sigingificantly higher than we have had since 2007.

Snake Eyes

We negated the pass rush in SB42? If they know it's a pass they dont have to worry about the run, they can just tee off on the QB.

For years on this board I kept on hearing about how important and difficult it was to find D-lineman who could "read and react", because without that we'd be at risk for getting gashed, yet somehow it's not a big deal when we allow the defense the favor of not having to read the play as it's happening

Anyway, what is the data you based your previous assertion on?

__________________
"The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery, you must learn it's riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts...this you can trust"


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

AndyJohnson

In many cases they are rushing the QB regardless of how we align.
The point of 5 wides is to make all 5 players an immediate receiving threat, so that we can get the ball out before the rush gets there. Not much of the pass blocking issues in SB 42 were in 5 wides, which is what we are discussing.

Huh? When you run a 2gap defense you need 2 gap run defenders. What does that have to do with this topic?
I think you are looking at this from WAY too narrow a viewpoint, which would be correct if we ran empty backfield on every play.
The point of empty backfield is to have 5 receivers immediately in the pattern. It is used to run quick developing pass plays. The negative is that you tip your hand that it is a pass, but since you are in the gun and its a quick throw, the pass rush isn't really a concern.
It is also most often used in obvious passing situations where the alignment influence on the defense respecting the run is immaterial.






One more time, what assertion or conclusion are you referring to?
I can't answer what did you mean by ________ if you don't tell me what _________ is. If you are referring to the post right before 'see what i just posted' it was simply common sense and basic football knowledge, there is nothing in it that would require data.

supafly

And that is also the exact point that some like yourself and Deus are trying to make...

The actual number of pass/run plays tend to me much different during the time when the game is in the balance, but many times the rush numbers are built up down the stretch of the clock killing time which comes later in the game (much like we saw last week vs MIA).

I think it comes down to the fact that our passing game is still and will always be our biggest weapon, therefore even those who want more balance shouldn't expect anything more than about 60/40, at least during this current positional grouping era. I don't think it was necessarily the overall lack of rushes last year, but more as to how successful we were in those rushing attempts. This season has seen more effectiveness in those rushes and situations, and that is something that was needed and could lead to great results.

The main point is that Belichick will not be afraid to exploit any and all matchups that tend to fall in our favor. Sometimes that tends to be more run heavy depending upon the matchups, but as a whole often it doesn't.

I can certainly see the points provided by those like mayoclinic and PP2 who are stating their cases too, as "balance" is great on many levels. One of the aspects that they may be slightly overlooking a bit is the fact that the numbers will tend to balance themselves out more during certain situational football, much like the example from the 2004 season's SB vs Philly that ended up being 33 plays of pass vs 28 plays of run, but was not quite as balanced when the game was necessarily on the line.

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

sevengables_2207

IMO, this argument over balance with the Patriots offense is a play-calling issue. Those who argue for balance want to see more running plays called during the competitive part of the game...generally speaking, to keep the defense honest. Meanwhile, the offense is clearly focused on reacting to and attempting to take advantage of match-ups based on the type of defensive formation that is out there for that particular play. In other words, the play-calling is seemingly mandated by the anticipated looks the defense shows and the audibles that are implemented during the presnap chess match.

I feel that in today's NFL, keeping a defense honest is trumped by exploiting the weakness(es) of a particular defense...ad infinitum. This is true whether it is by passing the ball almost exclusively to capitalize on favorable match-ups or pounding the rock over and over again against a small front... daring the offense to run (like in the first Bills game). The beauty of this Patriots offense to me is in it's amoeba-like characteristic go pass happy against defenses that are vulnerable in coverage or stay in base packages, or to ground and pound it against nickel and dime packages. In other words, balanced offenses are not balanced because the have the most even run/pass ratio. To me, balanced offenses can hurt a defense with either the pass or the run when the opportunities present themselves.

Therefore, I think the posters who have pointed out that a lot of the statistics which argue for balance are on to something since I agree that these balanced run/pass ratios reveal that the team built up a lead more often than not by passing the ball during the contested part of the game, then used the running game to bleed the clock once a sizable lead was achieved.