signbabybrady

I was there for that game. In the one of the endzones on the second level. Man was it Windy up there. Excellent game to attend as it was over before the first half ended.

__________________

AndyJohnson

The flaw in your argument about the flaw in his argument is you are trying to prove causation by how you remember things, while he has used facts and real numbers over the years in supporting the very correct conclusion that winning causes a higher run/pass ratio, not a higher run/pass ratio causes winning.
I also think your memory is faulty, which isn't really a criticism because these topics always draw out selective memory.

mayoclinic

Sometimes. Often against weaker teams. But often against playoff caliber teams and better defenses the spread gets stopped too much.

The Pats are 4-4 in playoff games since going to the spread offense in 2007, with 2 SB losses by a FG in which the offense put up 17 or fewer points. They're averaging 23.25 PPG in those 8 playoff games, despite averaging 31.9 PPG over those 4 seasons. A drop of over 8.5 PPG in scoring in the playoffs. Not terribly impressive. In contrast, the 2001-2006 playoff teams averaged 24 PPG during the 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 regular seasons but averaged 25.3 PPG during the playoffs, and went 12-2 during that stretch, with 3 SBs. Their scoring average went up in the playoffs compared with the regular season, and was also higher than that of the 2007-2011 spread offense teams, even though those teams put up 500 or more points 3 teams and set an all time record for regular season points scored. It may be argued that the defense of the 2001-2006 teams was better, but those defenses allowed an average of 18.6 PPG in those 14 playoff games, compared with the 2007-2011 playoff defenses allowing an average of 20 PPG, so the defensive performance wasn't tremendously different in terms of points allowed.

Rod Laver used to say "never change a winning game, always change a losing game". The spread works great against inferior opponents, but it is too easily shut down by good defenses and playoff teams. It may be an easy way to beat up on weak defenses, but I'm not sure it serves us well come playoff time, compared with a more balanced approach. Of course, all of this is just a correlation.

__________________

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

AndyJohnson

That is a ridiculous argument because nothing on any offense works as well against playoff caliber teams and better defenses.


Playoff football is historically lower scoring any way. Many of those games were played in less than perfect weather conditions, and yes, when you play better teams you do not do as well.



And they had great defenses.


The 07-11 teams were no less balanced run/pass than the 01-04 teams, particularly from 08-10 when 0-2 of that 4-4 occurred.

You can't really say that you expect an offense in 2012 to be doing what it did in 2003, after the rule changes that have redefined the game, can you?
Interestingly, I bet that if you researched this further you would find that the Patriots run/pass ratio was much higher in those playoff games. So it could easily be argued that more balance in the playoffs is the cause of less points in the playoffs is more conservative offense and too much balance.

Deus Irae

The Patriots have lost 3 games this season. Not one of those losses was because of a run/pass imbalance:

1.) The Cardinals game was clearly not a loss due to a run/pass imbalance, as any look at the first half demonstrates. The line was brutal and Hernandez went down.

2.) The Baltimore game was clearly not a loss due to a run/pass imbalance

3.) The Seattle game had NE put up 17 points in the first half. So, what happened in the second half?

First drive (3 run/4 pass). Ball moves to Seattle 19. Ridley goes for 6, then -3.
Second drive (2 run/4 pass) - Ball moves to Seattle 43. Brady throws pick.

Third drive (1 run/7 pass) - Ball moves to Seattle 6. Brady throws pick.

Fourth drive (4 run/3 pass) - Ball moves to Seattle 25. Ridley goes for 4,4,0

Fifth drive (2 run/5 pass) - Ball moves to NE 47. Intentional grounding kills drive

Sixth drive (2 run/1 pass) 3 and out. Runs of 1 yard and 1 yard

Seventh drive (0 run/3 pass) last, desperation drive

That's not a loss because of imbalance. Hell, the most imbalanced drive was the one that came the closest to being a TD.

__________________
"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

Snake Eyes

Yes, it's going to be more difficult to score on a better defense but that doesnt mean some things don't work as well as others against those defenses. There will be a 'rate of attrition' against those good teams but those rates can vary depending on what the offense does.

__________________
"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.

Snake Eyes

Was the line brutal because it was obvious, from their formation, whether the play would be a run or a pass?

All this talk about run/pass balance is missing the point, if they're tipping their hand regarding the play it becomes a lot easier to stop them.

The real issue is a lack of cohesive integration of the running and passing game.

__________________
"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.

PP2

Again what is our W-L record when the number of runs is more proportionate to the number of passes, as opposed to a high percentage of pass vs. runs? We're looking at the past few years, not just any random samples.

Deus Irae

Your question is meaningless, because it ignores context, which is the whole point. Balance achieved because a team ran 15 consecutive times at the end of a 45-3 win is not the "balance" that you are calling for. It's meaningless.

In order for "balance" to be of any import, it's got to happen with the team is fighting tooth and nail for the win. Go back and look at the Patriots losses in the past 3 years. Find the ones you think are definitely a result of a run/pass ratio problem.

2010 losses to:
Jets
Browns

2011 losses to:
Bills
Steelers
Giants

2012 losses to:
Cardinals
Ravens
Seahawks

__________________
"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

Deus Irae

The real issue is that people scream for balance as another untrue, but comforting (to them), fallback excuse, much like "The O.C. sucks!", and the like. The Patriots are 36-8 in their last 3 seasons and, if you take away Brady's recovery season (2009), they are 52-8 with Brady under center in the "Pass first" Patriots era. "Balance" is fine, and may even be aspirational, but it's not essential to this team. They lose for varying reasons, but it's not because the run/pass ratio was out of whack.

__________________
"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