pazrul72

When it comes to run/pass ratio I don't care what the final numbers are, I care more about what formations they line up in. If Brady puts the ball up 50 times for 5 TD's and 0 picks I could care less if the running game was 20 for 40 yards we still win that game. What I do think is important is I don't ever want to see the shotgun 5 wide formation short of it being 3rd and 15+. At least the threat to run needs to be present. Plus your RB can chip an edge rusher before going out into the flat so you have a dump off emergency route for a blitz or great coverage. Against the Texans I want at least enough of a rushing game they the defense can not just assume it will be pass. When and where that rushing game comes from doesn't really matter wither it's at the end of the game to put it away or throughout as a vital cog. The key is to keep Brady upright and not taking huge shots because we only have the 5 o line man to block and a free rusher is coming.

__________________
These players, a lot of other people didn't believe in them, but they believe in themselves. And that is all that matters. - The Hooded One

Snake Eyes

You mean the Pats offensive struggles int he playoffs are not a real issue?

People love to criticize but not to offer alternative suggestions which can in turn be criticized. Saying "the OC sucks" allows any idiot to seem knowledgable even if the OC actually does suck.

Also, my issue isn't with the run/pass "balance", IMO one can determine balance by what produces the most results, so 70/30 might actually be the optimum ratio depending on the situation. My point is that the formations the Pats typically use telegraph whether it'll be a run or pass, which make it easier to stop, I want to keep the defense guessing and off-balance.

__________________
"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.

mayoclinic

And yet the 2001-2006 teams scored better than their season average in the playoffs. As for the argument that playoff football is historically lower scoring, last year's playoffs featured scores such as 45-28, 36-32, 45-10, 37-20 and 31-10 and 29-23. Not particularly low-scoring games. The year before included scores such as 41-36, 48-21, 35-24, and 31-25. The Packers averaged over 30PPG in their 4 victories en route to the SB. The playoffs aren't that low scoring any more, even though our offense seems to have had trouble putting up points in the playoffs, with the exception of the Denver game.

You can't possibly believe this. The 2008 team, which didn't make the playoffs was balanced. 2007 had a decent rushing attack, but it certainly wasn't balanced. 2009? Belichick himself admitted that he had Moss, Welker and nothing else. 2010? The Jets dared the Pats to run the ball in the playoffs by putting 8 DBs on the field in the playoffs. 2011 - the worst rushing attack in years. Those were not balanced offenses. The Pats passed 45 times and rushed 28 in the loss to the Jets - and only because the Jets dared them to run. They passed 41 times and rushed 19 in the SB loss to the Giants last year. And they passed 48 times and rushed all of 16 in the 2007 SB loss to the Giants. BB compared the Texans' DL to the Giants this week in terms of their length and ability to deflect passes, and their ability to generate pressure. Going pass happy and trying to spread the Giants out didn't work too well in 2 SBs. I could see the Texans posing similar problems. Keeping them honest with the running game and play action will open up a lot of opportunities, and make the spread more effective too.

Of course not, and I never suggested that. I did, however, suggest that an over-reliance on the spread leads to a predictable offense that can be too easily shut down by good defenses. And I would like to see the Pats evolve towards a more balanced approach that uses all of their weapons - including a generous amount of the spread, which can be devestatingly effective - instead of situationally limiting themselves.

2011 SB, Giants: 41 passes, 19 rushes; 17 points
2011 AFCCG, Ravens: 36 passes, 31 rushes, 23 points
2011 Divisional game, Broncos: 34 passes, 30 rushes, 45 points
2010 Divisional game, Jets: 45 passes, 28 rushes, 21 points
2009 Divisional game, Ravens: 42 passes, 18 rushes, 14 points (though I tend to discount this a bit, as the Pats got behind early)
2007 SB, Giants: 48 passes, 16 rushes, 14 points
2007 AFCCG, Chargers: 33 passes, 31 rushes, 21 points
2007 Division game, Jaguars: 28 passes, 29 rushes, 31 points

Just a correlation, and the data are limited, but those data suggest that going pass happy (40 pass attempts or more) tends to result in fewer points produced. That's not factoring in the caliber of the defenses (2 games against the Giants, 1 against the Ravens, 1 against the Jets) vs. the other opponents.

__________________

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

Deus Irae

No, I mean that the Patriots offensive struggles the playoffs are not a result of the run/pass ratio, but are the result of different issues in different instances. Not rehashing this past Super Bowl:

2007 - Brady injury, Neal injury, Hochstein injury, injured TEs
2009 - Welker injury Ravens score on opening kickoff, Brady strip sack, Brady INT, Brady INT #2, Game basically over with 1:24 left in first quarter, with the Patriots having run just 12 offensive plays
2010 - Stupid Brady INT on screen pass, Crumpler drops easy TD pass. That's 7-11 points lost right there.


Indeed.

__________________
"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

mayoclinic

Green Bay did rush 31 times - vs. 37 pass attempts - for 99 yards against the Texans in their 42-28 win. Even though Green Bay ranks 20th in rushing and the Texans are 2nd in rushing defense, the Packers were still able to rush enough to be effective, and to keep their offense from being one-dimensional. That's key.

From Elliot Harrison at NFL.com today, FWIW:

I'm not expecting a game like the first Buffalo game where the Pats go run-crazy against a small DL. That obviously won't happen But keeping the Texans' honest, staying committed to the run, keeping balanced, and keeping the Houston DL form teeing off - those things are important, IMHO.

__________________

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

The problem is that in-game situations are a much bigger factor in run/pass ratio than any predetermined game-plan. If the offense produces a lot of points in the first 3 quarters, we're going to run a lot more in the 4th. If the offense produced fewer points in the first three quarters, it's more likely that we'll be behind and forced to go pass-heavy.

I think it'd be much more instructive to look at any possible correlation between scoring and run-pass ratio in the first halves of games.

RodThePat

Green Bay ran the football because they threw all over the Texans and had the game in hand pretty much from the get go. They ran because they were effective on offense, they weren't effective on offense because they ran. Of those 31 rushes by the Packers, 12 of them came in the 4th quarter, when the game was pretty much over.

In the first half, including penalties and plays in which Rodgers got sacked/scrambled, the Packers dropped back to pass 26 times. They got a huge lead by spreading the Texans out and letting Rodgers air-raid them all over the field.

The Jaguars, with backup Chad Henne playing most of the game, threw 37 passes to 27 run attempts and scored 37 on the Texnas. Similarly, the Lions put 31 points and 525 total yards on Houston by dropping back 61 times, carrying the ball a mere 23 times.

Every single evidence points to the Texans' weakness of defense being through the air. That doesn't mean we have to completely abandon the running game, but there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the best way to put points on the board against this team is to throw the ball early and often.

Deus Irae

Here's what Green Bay did to build up their 28-10 lead, in terms of run/pass ratio:

First drive: 3/4
Second drive: 2/5
Third drive: 1/5
Fourth drive: 3/4
Fifth drive: 3/3
Sixth drive: 5/8

So, that's a 17:29 run/pass ratio, which is 37% run, not including the two sacks, which would have pushed it to 17:31, which would be 35% run. That's 63%-65% passing. That's not the famed "balance", at all.

Green Bay Packers at Houston Texans - October 14th, 2012 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

__________________
"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

Ive_Killed_People

We have the greatest QB in the history of the game I am comfortable with the ball in his hand an inordinate amount of the time thank you very much.

lamafist

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but I think it's a mistake to take last Sunday's game against the Dolphins as an argument that the Pats should have been running more during the whole game.

Both Belichick and McDaniels said in interviews that the plan early was to use short quick passes to the outside to get the defensive line moving laterally to tire them out and keep them on their feet and ready to have to run toward the sideline.

Now, normally a team can accomplish the same goal by running to the outside, but this wasn't going to be a good option for the Pats on Sunday. Losing Gronk has a big negative effect on our strong-side running, and with Vollmer and Connoly both far from 100% going into the game, the right side of the line figured to be a problem. And it was.

McDaniels' game-plan helped take the pressure off our depleted run-blocking unit for much of the game and put them in position to succeed when the team would need it most down the stretch.