I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans - Page 8 - New England Patriots Forums

Bravo777 · 12-06-2012, 03:22 PM

We should not only run the ball, but run up the score as well!

76Texan · 12-06-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everlong

Given GB and Detroit's success spreading them out I don't think we'll see Brady under center much. I hope that doesn't mean 5 wide however. You can keep Houston off balance by throwing in a draw, RB screen or reverse any time it looks like their line is getting up the field too fast for their own good. I will say though Watt and Smith both play with their heads up which makes them alert to gadget plays. I think this will be more of a game plan which we've seen VS the Steelers in the past. Spread them out and run selectively. I do hope Vereen sees more of a role. I think his size/speed ratio would play better VS the Texans than Woodhead and I do like splitting him out VS this defense a lot as you have pointed out.

The Texans let the GB out of hands due to silly mistakes.
We stopped them to force a couple of FGs, but one time we lined up in the neutral Zone, and the other time Barwin jumped over a guy during the FG try, giving them new sets of downs.

Otherwise, the game would still be even or within 3 points late in the third.
Rodgers had one of those good games where completed passes through tight windows and the receivers making some great catches.

He narrowly escaped the pass rushes a few times; it was one of those games even though his completion percentage was not up to par.
He played a whale of the game that day.

The Jags game, we had missed tackles from guys who are normally sure tacklers; we had guys bumping into each other converging on the receiver; we had two guys way faster than The receiver bracketing him and we let Blackmon slip away. They all turned into long scores.

Our pass rushes were tremendous in that game as well in the Lions game.
We just shouldn't have Alan Ball on Megatron in the first half.
His technique is not sound and that's why he's a journey man type that signed for a vet minimum. Most of our fans were astounded when he made the roster.
Personally, I only expect him as a standout on ST. Because he's a very good tackler with the Cowboys under Wade.

We never let Stafford have more than 3 secs in the pocket without pressure unless he had max-protect.

He was harrassed all day, but it was a credit to him that he didn't make any mistake. He made the most out of his chances with guys in his face; just another resilient performance by a pretty good QB.

***AndyJohnson*** · 12-06-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

That is a theory and there is nothing that says it applies to the Patriots or the topic being discussed.

***AndyJohnson*** · 12-06-2012, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Why would that question matter?
Everyone accepts that more runs and more wins go together.
The debate is which is cause and which is effect.
To think you prove causation by saying runs are higher in wins, is to not understand the discussion.
The point being made, that you are trying to refute is:
We run more because we are winning, not we win more because we are running.

***AndyJohnson*** · 12-06-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Naming some highscoring games doesn't disprove the fact that playoff scoring is traditionally lower.

Quote:

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.

We allow fewer points too. Playoff football, esp in cold weather cities is different, thats just a fact.

Quote:

You can't possibly believe this

You cant really dispute it.
01 528p/473r
02 636/395
03 569/473
04 511/524
TOTAL 2244/1865 54.6% pass

07 607/451
08 582/513
09 610/466
10 532/454

TOTAL 2331/1884 55.3% pass

That is statistically insignificant difference (less than 1/2 pass per game)

.

Quote:

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.

See above. The pass/run ratio has been remarkably consistent throughout the BB years, and always varies widely game to game. There is no point made by calling one game a philosophical change.

Quote:

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.

So your argument is 'do better'?

Quote:

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.

First, 40 passes is arbitrary, and 40/14 is different than 40/30.
Again, though, the discussion here is whether running causes wins or wins cause running. You are trying to use data of run pass ratios over the course of a season when we often win half the games by more than 2 TDs to one single game where we are trailing, or struggling to run the ball, or just in a close game against a good defense.
Nothing you have written in this entire post provides any evidence that balance causes wins rather than wins cause more runs.

***AndyJohnson*** · 12-06-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 76Texan

The Texans let the GB out of hands due to silly mistakes.
We stopped them to force a couple of FGs, but one time we lined up in the neutral Zone, and the other time Barwin jumped over a guy during the FG try, giving them new sets of downs.

Otherwise, the game would still be even or within 3 points late in the third.
Rodgers had one of those good games where completed passes through tight windows and the receivers making some great catches.

He narrowly escaped the pass rushes a few times; it was one of those games even though his completion percentage was not up to par.
He played a whale of the game that day.

The Jags game, we had missed tackles from guys who are normally sure tacklers; we had guys bumping into each other converging on the receiver; we had two guys way faster than The receiver bracketing him and we let Blackmon slip away. They all turned into long scores.

Our pass rushes were tremendous in that game as well in the Lions game.
We just shouldn't have Alan Ball on Megatron in the first half.
His technique is not sound and that's why he's a journey man type that signed for a vet minimum. Most of our fans were astounded when he made the roster.
Personally, I only expect him as a standout on ST. Because he's a very good tackler with the Cowboys under Wade.

We never let Stafford have more than 3 secs in the pocket without pressure unless he had max-protect.

He was harrassed all day, but it was a credit to him that he didn't make any mistake. He made the most out of his chances with guys in his face; just another resilient performance by a pretty good QB.

Wow, all this time I thought allowing 100 points in 3 games would mean a defense played poorly, and you just explained how they were the 85 Bears.

PatriotSeven · 12-06-2012, 10:01 PM

I don't think we have the type of run game where we can physically shove it down people's throats at will, irrelevant of run defense. We can't dictate to defenses that we will run the ball and let them try and stop us.

So I don't think this game plan will be any different than all the others. Brady and McDaniels will take whatever the defense gives them.

whoartthou · 12-07-2012, 04:35 AM

Why not replicate what rodgers and the packers did to the texans?

***mayoclinic*** · 12-07-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patstopia

With Houston 19th against the pass and 2nd against the run, I would assume that taking the ball out of Brady's hands would not be to our advantage! That being said, with Bolden back, a nice 55/45 would be nice once we get up by a few

Just as an aside, the Broncos are currently the 6th ranked rushing defense at 93 YPG. They had given up an average of just 87.5 YPG when we faced them week 5, about the same as the Texans' current average. That didn't stop the Pats from rushing for 250 yards. I know it doesn't mean much, but I don't think that the fact that a defense is ranked as having a low rushing average means that we should be afraid that we can't run the ball effectively.

PP2 · 12-07-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

I'm going to look at an even bigger picture than that, the following analysis is courtesy of Ponyexpress. What he did here was sort out the data by pass/run ratio, and then examined the W-L record and the results are not surprising:

Quote:

Patriots offense: Pass-run ratio analysis
Data (in descending order of pass %)
Score Pass % Y/rush (non QB)
17-25 74% 3.6
38-24 69% 4.9
20-24 67% 4.4
34-27 65% 4.4
31-34 63% 4.1
35-21 62% 4
20-16 62% 4
31-24 61% 3.1
27-24 60% 4.6
37-16 58% 2.3
31-19 50% 6.3
30-21 49% 4.4
38-20 49% 2.9
41-23 49% 4.6
34-3 44% 4.5

Note: I define a balanced attack as a pass% < 60%.

Observation:When Patriots have pass % less than 60%, they are 6-0 with average score of 35-16.5
When Pats have pass % greater than 60%, they are 6-3 with average score of 28-23

Causal relationships.
I. It is assumed that the reason the Pats offense is a TD a game better when committing to the run is because (i)the pats tend to favor the run over the pass when leading by a large margin (defined here as two scores) and (ii) In close games the run game was stuffed, and the Pats had to pass to win.

Counterargument: The Past did not favor the run over the pass when leading by a two scores vs Miami in week 1, vs SD in week 2 , vs Buffalo in week 3 (ahead 21-0), vs Indy in week 9. Therefore the run pass ratio is not a clear consequence of having or not having a large lead. In those instances the coaching staff preferred to pass, even when the run game was effective (over 4 yards per non-QB carry in each of those games except Indy).
A stuffed run game here is defined as less than 4 yards per attempt. In 7 of the 9 games in which the pass ratio exceeded 60%, the non-QB rush yards per attempt also exceeded 4. In 5 of the 7 games decided by 1 score or less, the yards per attempt exceeded 4. The only exceptions were Pittsburgh (3.6) and Indy (3.1). I actually believe 3.6 is a respectable YPA vs Pittsburgh, but the running game was not in the game plan (74% pass). Therefore the Pats decision not to run was not a result of the run game being ineffective. It was a strategic choice by the coaching staff.

II. It is assumed that the pats defense performs a TD better in games when the offense commits to the run because in games where the defense performs well, the Pats tend to have a big lead and the offense runs out the clock.

Counterargument: See previous counterargument. Pats are at least as likely to pass as run with two score leads.

Conclusion:When the Pats staff commits to a balanced attack, here defined as less than 60 % passing, the entire team, both offense and defense, seems to perform better. The offense scores a TD per game more and the defense allows a TD per game less than when the pass % exceeds 60 %.
Some assume that pass % declines when the Pats have a big lead, but this is not a trend. the Pats have often shown a preference for passing while holding leads of 2+ scores. This decision to pass when leading by 2+ scores may contribute to worse performance on the defensive side of the ball. This may be because passing with a big lead increases the number of plays available to the opposition, giving them more opportunities to score and come back. Maintaining a balanced offense with a 2+ score lead tends to limit the offensive opportunities of the opposition, helping the defense. That is complimentary football.
When the Pats are in close games, they tend to abandon a balanced attack, even when the run game is working, in favor of the heavy passing attack. I do not understand this strategic decision by the coaching staff. This makes the offense predictable.

IMO If the Pats commit to a balanced offensive game plan in the postseason, even in close games, they have a much better chance to win the SB. It will also help protect a vulnerable defense.