mayoclinic

So far, this game does not support Andy's "teams pass the ball to get ahead and then run it once they're ahead to make the final numbers look more balanced" hypothesis. The Pats started out fairly balanced over the first 3 drives. Since then they've been pretty unbalanced, passing almost exclusively, and mostly ineffectively, except for the one deep TD pass to Stallworth. Lot of 3 and outs.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"OVER Loading at ANY position can create a Fatal Advantage. THAT is what interests ME. Attacking With Concentrated Force. THAT is what WINS. In the words ~ more or less ~ of General Patton: 'I'm fighting a WAR, here. Let the B*****ES worry about their FLANKS.' " - Off the Grid

"The key to any successful organization is to anticipate things, not react to them." - Michael Lombardi

lamafist

Um... what?

The first drive was balanced. The 2nd drive: 5 passes, and one run up the middle for no gain. 3rd drive: 6 passes and 3 runs (for a net of 2 yards, btw.)

PP2

That would presuppose that we start every game by being pass-heavy which is simply not true.

I had to read that last sentence a few times and still don't understand it. The game of football doesn't exist in a vacuum, period. Everyone has days when they play good or bad, and Brady is no exception to that rule. The more balanced an attack we have on offense, the less of a load there is on Brady, especially when he has the occasional off-day.

Part of what makes for a good offense is being unpredictable. You can't be unpredictable by being one-dimensional.

PP2

Again that would presuppose that we open every game by passing heavy, and then end up running out the clock. Or if we open up by running heavy, then passing to catch up. I'm pretty sure that this doesn't really exist on the NFL level.. more like Pop Warner football.


Do I deny that this happens occasionally? No.

Does this happen every single time? No.

PP2

Are you saying we have a weakness in our run game? Why would we not use it frequently? Especially this year with no less than four solid RBs.

AndyJohnson

That is not a hypothesis, that is a fact of what often happens in games that people consider balanced based on the final tallies.
Once again:
If you end up balanced only because you ran heavily when ahead, that is not an example of being better because you were balanced. When you strip away those games, there is no reasonable evidence left.
Never did I even imply that the Patriots always throw early and run late, only that the examples being used to support the fallacy that balance causes winning rather than winning causing balance were invalid examples.
You are in strawman heaven now.

AndyJohnson

How do you get that I am saying that? Please stick to the discussion rather than making things up and attributing them to me.

PP2

Please point out to me exactly where I said it was too high?

Again, let me point out that the only thing I said was that "the closer to 50/50.." which doesn't mean it must absolutely be 50/50.

33/22 to me is pretty balanced, as opposed to 2007, which was 48/16, and the Giants came right out of the gate targeting Brady all the way. Their schemes were designed solely to either pressure or confuse Brady. They dared us to run on them and we didn't.

PP2

Then what do you mean by strengths and weaknesses? What weakness do we have?

AndyJohnson

No it doesnt. It says that happens a lot, and happens in the games you are inappropriate calling proof of the opposite.
When you strip those away, you are left with nothing to support your argument, which is that balance causes wins.


What? Many games you cite as bad games due to being pass happy, started out balanced, failed, and then went pass happy to catch up, and you categorize that a loss due to imbalance when the offense was balanced until that put them well behind.

Often
No one ever said it did.