First Impressions 2

[BradyManny]

I'd personally be happy to go back to Tom Brady being more of a "ball control" QB and "game manager" instead of throwing up Peytonesque numbers if it means more SBs. The track record of pass-heavy teams winning SBs is not particularly strong.

But the only difference between the 2007 team and the 2001, 2003, & 2004 team is how much time the offense had left to work with after the defense surrendered/endangered the lead in the SB. Seriously, for all the talk of the defensive-oriented Patriots of the first half of this century, Brady & co. rescued the D in 2 out 3 SB victories, and in the other (v Eagles), the D still was gassed in the 4th and almost gave it up. What I'm getting at is that the makeup for those SB winning teams is severely skewed. They were not power running teams and they were not defensive juggernauts.

As for the running game, give me the team that scores more points. The 2007 team was a play or two away from being the greatest team of all-time. I understand the notion of a balanced offense - that I want - but Brady airing it to Moss & working underneath w Welker is the most efficient way to win. Go back and rewatch some of those 01, 03, 04 DVDs and see how much more often Brady unleashes the ball then you may remember. If it weren't for weather and the sloppy field, Brady's #'s would've been better year in and year out.

 

[mayoclinic]

1.) Teams losing pass more to get back into the game.

2.) Teams winning run more to kill clock

That leads to your percentages.



3.) The 2007 Patriots came within 3 minutes of being undefeated. They lost the Super Bowl to a hot team, having lost the starting right guard to injury (and the next season showed how important he was to the running game), having a starting QB that was limited by a bad ankle, having its 3rd down back get dinged up and having tight end injury problems.

(1) and (2) aren't enough to account for the difference. Only in 2002 did the losing team play catchup for the majority of the game. For example, in 2007 no team had more than a 4 point lead at any time, so there was no incentive for either side to play catch-up. In 2008 the Steelers did lead by as much as 13 points, but I doubt it made much of a difference - the 2008 Cardinals were notable for a pitiful running attack, and pretty much fav ored the pass the whole game. They also came close to winning the game, but couldn't keep Pittsburgh off the field to prevent a comeback. In 2006 the Bears led the game for most of the 1st half, and trailed 16-14 at the half. The biggest Colt's lead was 8 points (22-14), not nearly enough to prompt a pass-happy attack. In 2005 Pittsburgh's biggest lead was 11 points, and it wasn't until they had an 11 point lead with 6 minutes to play that Seattle might have shifted the balance of it's attack to favor the pass. In 2004 the game was tied 7-7 at the half, 14-14 at 3 quarters and it wasn't until 6 minutes were left that NE opened up a 10 point lead. In 2003 NE lead 14-10 at the half and after 3 quarters. In 2001 the Rams pretty much played the same style throughout - it just took them three quarters to adjust to the physical play of the Pats.

 

[mgteich]

Scoring the most points leads to victory, really it does. Seriously, I have no problem with the 2007 offense, the best that the patriots (or perhaps anyone else) has ever fielded.

We need to have a better and healthier defense than 2007. I ma not yet convinced. I am not at all convinced that Brace and Pryor will make the difference as you indicate.

You assert that we have the best depth ever at corner. Perhaps, perhaps not. We certainly don't have the best starters ever.

In the end, we need to see what we get out of the linebackers and the corners.

And finally, whenever our defense slips, it will be up to the best offense ever to win the game.

No, I'm not saying that. I've always felt that 2007 was an unbalanced team.

I don't want us to be a "run first" team. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't have focused on the defense during the offseason - I was one of the people clamoring most strongly for that.

I think BB has given a lot of attention to the defense, and we have much more speed and athleticism than in the past. It will take time for the defense to gel, but I'm cautiously optimistic that our D will come together to be one of the better ones we have had - not up to 2003, but possibly up to 2004. We have the best front 7 ever with the additions of Brace and Pryor, more athleticism and depth in the secondary than we have had since 2003-2004, and at least two studs at LB in Thomas and Mayo, with potentially a third in Burgess if he reverts to 2005-2006 form. We also have more depth and flexibility than we have had in some time. It will take time for the defense to gel - time for new vets to learn the system, time for talented rookies to get comfortable, and time for a bunch of new players to learn how to work together. The preseason doesn't worry me too much. But by midseason I expect that we should see a much better defensive team than any in the past 4 years, or I will be very disappointed.

I'm not suggesting that we become a run-first team like Pittsburgh or the Giants. But we need to be able to run effectively, and we have done so in the past. The 2004 team had a terrific running game with similar OL personnel. The running game in 2008 (with identical personnel) was certainly adequate - not up to 2004, but solid, and, as you say, stronger than in 2007. My only concern is that with the return of TB we return to a grossly unbalanced passing attack and move away from the running game altogether. So far, I haven't seen much of a commitment to running the ball. Hopefully that's just a function of the preseason. But I would like to see more of an effort to run than I have seen so far.

If you look at the SBs since 2001, the winning teams passed on average 52% of all plays (278/534) vs. 72% for losing teams (361/499). The Pats SB teams of 2001, 2003, and 2004 passed 54% (29/54), 58% (48/83) and 56%(35/63) of the time, vs. 77% passing (53/69) for the losing 2007 team. In the 3 SBs that we won our opponents passed 68% (47/69, 2001), 70% (37/53, 2003) and 76% (55/72, 2004) of the time, whereas in 2007 the Giants passed for 57% (33:58) of their plays. The supposedly "pass happy" Indianapolis Colts actually rushed more than they passed in winning the SB in 2006 (39 passes, 42 rushes, 48%). Not once did the winning team have a higher % of passing plays than the losing team.

I'm not saying that the running game is the problem. But a pass-happy mentality does not translate into SBs, and that is a fact. We have to be able to balance a prolific passing offense with a capable running game, or the statistics say that we won't be taking home SB trophy #4.

 

[mayoclinic]

But the only difference between the 2007 team and the 2001, 2003, & 2004 team is how much time the offense had left to work with after the defense surrendered/endangered the lead in the SB. Seriously, for all the talk of the defensive-oriented Patriots of the first half of this century, Brady & co. rescued the D in 2 out 3 SB victories, and in the other (v Eagles), the D still was gassed in the 4th and almost gave it up. What I'm getting at is that the makeup for those SB winning teams is severely skewed. They were not power running teams and they were not defensive juggernauts.

As for the running game, give me the team that scores more points. The 2007 team was a play or two away from being the greatest team of all-time. I understand the notion of a balanced offense - that I want - but Brady airing it to Moss & working underneath w Welker is the most efficient way to win. Go back and rewatch some of those 01, 03, 04 DVDs and see how much more often Brady unleashes the ball then you may remember. If it weren't for weather and the sloppy field, Brady's #'s would've been better year in and year out.

I guess I don't buy that. History shows that the teams with the most prolific offenses generally don't take home the hardware at the end of the season - witness the 2007 Pats, 2003 Colts, 1998 Vikings, and 1990 49ers, all of whom were among the most prolific offenses of all time and all of whom were serious SB contenders (or favorites).

I'm all for Brady to Moss and Welker. I love it. I'm not suggesting we get rid of it. But history shows fairly strongly that if we go pass-crazy, we won't win the SB. You can make all the excuses in the world about injuries and the like, but the fact is that the most prolific offense in history couldn't put up more than 14 points in the SB, couldn't keep the opposing offense off the field, and the defense couldn't stop them when it counted. End of story. That's not what I want to see this season.

 

[mayoclinic]

Scoring the most points leads to victory, really it does. Seriously, I have no problem with the 2007 offense, the best that the patriots (or perhaps anyone else) has ever fielded.

We need to have a better and healthier defense than 2007. I ma not yet convinced. I am not at all convinced that Brace and Pryor will make the difference as you indicate.

You assert that we have the best depth ever at corner. Perhaps, perhaps not. We certainly don't have the best starters ever.

In the end, we need to see what we get out of the linebackers and the corners.

And finally, whenever our defense slips, it will be up to the best offense ever to win the game.

Outscoring the opponent obviously leads to victory, but scoring the "most" points? I'm not sure what that means.

Here's the list of AFC and NFC teams scoring the most points in the past 10 years:

2008 - San Diego (439), New Orleans (463)
2007 - NE (589*), Dallas (455)
2006 - San Diego (492), Chicago (427)
2005 - Indanapolis (439), Seattle (452)
2004 - Indianapolis (522), Green Bay (424)
2003 - Kansas City (484), St. Louis (447)
2002 - Kansas City (467), New Orleans (432)
2001 - Indianapolis (413), St. Louis (503)
2000 - Denver (485*), St. Louis (540)
1999 - Indianapolis (423), St. Louis (526+)
1998 - Denver (501+), Minnesota (556*)

Only in 1998 and 1999 did teams who lead their conference in points win the SB. Only 5 out of 22 teams leading their conferences in that 11 year period even made the SB (Denver winning in 1998 and the Rams in 1999, and the Rams losing in 2001, Chicago in 2006, and NE in 2007). The two teams who set all time scoring records (Atlanta in 1998 and NE in 2007) didn't win the SB. So over the past 11 years, scoring the most points in your division only leads to the Super Bowl about 23% of the time.

What is ironic to me is that we first rose to prominence by beating on of the all time great offensive juggernuts, the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams in 2001 by playing hard-nosed defense and smart, ball-control offense. The Rams were succeeded by the Indianapolis Colts as the most prolific offense in the NFL, and we consistently had the Colts' number using the same kind of approach - smart, tough-nosed opportunistic football. Now we've become those teams, and we've come close but no cigar. Sorry, but I'll take the good old days.

Of course we need to have a better and healthier defense. I'll I've said is that we've added a necessary infusion of youth, speed, and talent. The results haven't showed yet, and it's too soon to tell if they will. I'm not convinced that ANY of the new guys will be the answer at their respective position, though I think several show promise. I'm hopeful, but I certainly don't have a crystal ball, and the defense may not gel. BUT if it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that the "best offense ever" won't be enough to "rescue us" to the extent of winning the SB. History says we need more than that.

 

[mgcolby]

Outscoring the opponent obviously leads to victory, but scoring the "most" points? I'm not sure what that means.

Here's the list of AFC and NFC teams scoring the most points in the past 10 years:

2008 - San Diego (439), New Orleans (463)
2007 - NE (589*), Dallas (455)
2006 - San Diego (492), Chicago (427)
2005 - Indanapolis (439), Seattle (452)
2004 - Indianapolis (522), Green Bay (424)
2003 - Kansas City (484), St. Louis (447)
2002 - Kansas City (467), New Orleans (432)
2001 - Indianapolis (413), St. Louis (503)
2000 - Denver (485*), St. Louis (540)
1999 - Indianapolis (423), St. Louis (526+)
1998 - Denver (501+), Minnesota (556*)

Only in 1998 and 1999 did teams who lead their conference in points win the SB. Only 5 out of 22 teams leading their conferences in that 11 year period even made the SB (Denver winning in 1998 and the Rams in 1999, and the Rams losing in 2001, Chicago in 2006, and NE in 2007). The two teams who set all time scoring records (Atlanta in 1998 and NE in 2007) didn't win the SB. So over the past 11 years, scoring the most points in your division only leads to the Super Bowl about 23% of the time.

What is ironic to me is that we first rose to prominence by beating on of the all time great offensive juggernuts, the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams in 2001 by playing hard-nosed defense and smart, ball-control offense. The Rams were succeeded by the Indianapolis Colts as the most prolific offense in the NFL, and we consistently had the Colts' number using the same kind of approach - smart, tough-nosed opportunistic football. Now we've become those teams, and we've come close but no cigar. Sorry, but I'll take the good old days.

Of course we need to have a better and healthier defense. I'll I've said is that we've added a necessary infusion of youth, speed, and talent. The results haven't showed yet, and it's too soon to tell if they will. I'm not convinced that ANY of the new guys will be the answer at their respective position, though I think several show promise. I'm hopeful, but I certainly don't have a crystal ball, and the defense may not gel. BUT if it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that the "best offense ever" won't be enough to "rescue us" to the extent of winning the SB. History says we need more than that.

Good stuff.

I will go with a previous poster and say that BB saw the rule changes and put more of an emphasis on offense. In its essence it is hard to disagree with that mindset. I mean after all every damn rule change is about allowing more points and demeaning the value of defense.

Hence artificial turf, Randy Moss, Wes Welker etc..Unfortunately for us we didn't win the most meaningful game of the season in 2007. And to me that is the thing missing from this thread. The overwhelming odds are that you will lose a game, and we bucked them all the way to judgement day. It doesn't detract from your statement, obviously it exemplifies it. But if you take it in context, offense is definitely the here and now and BB saw that after the 2004 season, maybe the 2005 season.

But give me a 12-0 win sealed by a Bruschi INT in the cold any day over a 54-0 drubbing.

 

[RobertWeathers]

In 2001 and 2003 we were NOT a good running team, but we ran the ball with a PURPOSE. In BB's eyes it was the AMOUNT of rushes that were just as important as the results. He wanted 2 things from the running game. Don't lose yds, and make the 3rd and 2's. For the most part we did that. We also ran very aggressively and at the END of ball games ASmith was usually more effective than in the beginning of games. The pounding early in the game had taken its toll on the defense. And with the offense not being the juggernaut it is today, time of possession was key to winning close games.

I'm not saying we should give up on our passing offense. We are who we are. However those times we DO run the ball, I would just like to see up take it TO the defense, rather than finesse them

Couldn't agree more, patfranken. Throw in 3GTG 1, 2 and 3. Look back at all those playoff games (especially vs the Raiders, Colts, Rams) where A. Smith didnt ring up a ton of yards, but in the 4th qtr, he converted 3rd downs b/c defenses RESPECTED it and were tired and most importantly, chewed the clock and kept the opposing O off the field. Dillon was a far superior talent as he could run for 100 yds with me on the line. Thats not the point. The point it that the Pats were COMMITTED to being successful running the football.

It's a simple question: Does everyone on this board have confidence that this team can convert a 3nd & 2 by running the ball? Personally, I don't. At least, not as much as I used too. As yourself if they win the 2006 AFCCC if they burned a few more minutes off the clock by converting a 3rd and 4. If so, what would the outcome have been? They still may have lost, but if they had converted, we would know that they would have had the ball longer.

 

[mayoclinic]

Couldn't agree more, patfranken. Throw in 3GTG 1, 2 and 3. Look back at all those playoff games (especially vs the Raiders, Colts, Rams) where A. Smith didnt ring up a ton of yards, but in the 4th qtr, he converted 3rd downs b/c defenses RESPECTED it and were tired and most importantly, chewed the clock and kept the opposing O off the field. Dillon was a far superior talent as he could run for 100 yds with me on the line. Thats not the point. The point it that the Pats were COMMITTED to being successful running the football.

It's a simple question: Does everyone on this board have confidence that this team can convert a 3nd & 2 by running the ball? Personally, I don't. At least, not as much as I used too. As yourself if they win the 2006 AFCCC if they burned a few more minutes off the clock by converting a 3rd and 4. If so, what would the outcome have been? They still may have lost, but if they had converted, we would know that they would have had the ball longer.

:agree::agree: Hallelujah! That's what I haven't seen. In 2008 we ran the football better because TB was injured and we had to commit to the run in order to take pressure off of Matt Cassel and keep defenses off balance. But in 2007 we clearly weren't committed to the run, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that we are this year.

In the 2007 SB it became apparent early on that the Pats couldn't effectively run against the Giants (admittedly Neal's injury hurt a lot in that regard), and they pretty much abandoned that approach. As a result, the Giants could pin back their ears and let loose their pass rush without much fear of being run on. The result was 14 points for the most prolific offense in history.

I understand that the rules have changed, that BB has adapted, etc. But I want to know that we are committed to being able to run for that key short yardage 3rd down or TD, or to being able to put together a critical clock-eating drive when the game is close and our defense needs a rest.

 

[mgcolby]

:agree::agree: Hallelujah! That's what I haven't seen. In 2008 we ran the football better because TB was injured and we had to commit to the run in order to take pressure off of Matt Cassel and keep defenses off balance. But in 2007 we clearly weren't committed to the run, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that we are this year.

In the 2007 SB it became apparent early on that the Pats couldn't effectively run against the Giants (admittedly Neal's injury hurt a lot in that regard), and they pretty much abandoned that approach. As a result, the Giants could pin back their ears and let loose their pass rush without much fear of being run on. The result was 14 points for the most prolific offense in history.

I understand that the rules have changed, that BB has adapted, etc. But I want to know that we are committed to being able to run for that key short yardage 3rd down or TD, or to being able to put together a critical clock-eating drive when the game is close and our defense needs a rest.

Me too!

For the record the 2004 team was my favorite. Seeing us have a true run game was awesome. I love tough hard nose football!!!!

 

[mayoclinic]

Me too!

For the record the 2004 team was my favorite. Seeing us have a true run game was awesome. I love tough hard nose football!!!!

As I've said before, I'll take 2004 too - 2007 had the most explosive offense and 2003 the best defense, but 2004 had the most balanced and best overall team. I thought Corey Dillon was fabulous in what he brought to the team, and I'd love to see us somehow get a big back who can both pound the ball and break the long run (Jonathan Dwyer being my current favorite in the college ranks).

 

[mgcolby]

As I've said before, I'll take 2004 too - 2007 had the most explosive offense and 2003 the best defense, but 2004 had the most balanced and best overall team. I thought Corey Dillon was fabulous in what he brought to the team, and I'd love to see us somehow get a big back who can both pound the ball and break the long run (Jonathan Dwyer being my current favorite in the college ranks).

Weak 2 against Arizona, Dillon had a TD run on the 2nd series (I believe) and I looked at my Brother and said "holy ****, so this is what it is like to have true run game".

I mean we hadn't seen a run game since Curtis left. (and for those that will feel obligated to remind me of Robert Edwards, yes he had a hell of a rookie year, but it wasn't consistent)

 

[Rob0729]

:agree::agree: Hallelujah! That's what I haven't seen. In 2008 we ran the football better because TB was injured and we had to commit to the run in order to take pressure off of Matt Cassel and keep defenses off balance. But in 2007 we clearly weren't committed to the run, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that we are this year.

In the 2007 SB it became apparent early on that the Pats couldn't effectively run against the Giants (admittedly Neal's injury hurt a lot in that regard), and they pretty much abandoned that approach. As a result, the Giants could pin back their ears and let loose their pass rush without much fear of being run on. The result was 14 points for the most prolific offense in history.

I understand that the rules have changed, that BB has adapted, etc. But I want to know that we are committed to being able to run for that key short yardage 3rd down or TD, or to being able to put together a critical clock-eating drive when the game is close and our defense needs a rest.

Me too!

For the record the 2004 team was my favorite. Seeing us have a true run game was awesome. I love tough hard nose football!!!!

Actually, 2003 is my favorite year eventhough it might have been one of the worst offenses of the Brady era. I am a defense guy and that was the best Pats defense ever and I loved how the defense almost single handily won games that year. I love opportunistic agressive defense more than anything else.

I would love to go back to the 2004 offense as long as we have a solid defense to back it up. As dominant the offense was in 2007, the games were boring to watch. I am not a big fan of a high powered offense, but when your defense has major holes like it has had every year since 2004 it is a neccessary evil. The Pats would have probably been a 10 win or less team without the high powered offense in 2007. The defense had some pretty big holes that were covered up because opposing offenses became one dimensional when they were down by three or four TDs by halftime.

 

[mayoclinic]

Actually, 2003 is my favorite year eventhough it might have been one of the worst offenses of the Brady era. I am a defense guy and that was the best Pats defense ever and I loved how the defense almost single handily won games that year. I love opportunistic agressive defense more than anything else.

I would love to go back to the 2004 offense as long as we have a solid defense to back it up. As dominant the offense was in 2007, the games were boring to watch. I am not a big fan of a high powered offense, but when your defense has major holes like it has had every year since 2004 it is a neccessary evil. The Pats would have probably been a 10 win or less team without the high powered offense in 2007. The defense had some pretty big holes that were covered up because opposing offenses became one dimensional when they were down by three or four TDs by halftime.

I loved the stifling defense of 2003 - one of the best of the decade, without a doubt. And I'm not casting stones at the powerhouse offense of 2007 - it clearly covered up for a lot of deficiencies in the team and almost singlehandedly allowed us to run the table. That fact that it did so is amazing, but is shouldn't prevent trying to remedy those deficiencies and build a more complete team.

 

[patfanken]

Last year's offense had more rushing yards than any Patriots team in the last 20 years.


How'd the Super Bowl parade work out for New England?

You are missing the point DI. Its not about JUST the yards, and IIRC we actually had MORE rushing plays than passing plays. Ya think Brady's injury MIGHT have been a factor in that. Do you think the porous secondary might have been a factor in not getting to the supberbowl, along with the once every 25 year anomaly that leaves a 11-5 team out of the playoffs (and sends an 8-8 team to the superbowl).

The point is that we have a running game that is just fine as long as the weather is fine and the passing game is working on all cylinders. For the regular season, I'm sure it will be just fine. HOWEVER in December and January, those months where you create your playoff position and work your way into the superbowl. The cold, bad weather months when passing games are limited, and you are in a one and done situation, I worry that we won't have the running game, or rather the running attitude that will allow us to control the ball at the end of games. I look at the 2006 AFCCG as just ONE example. There have been others.

What made the 2004 team so special was the number of times the running game was able to control the clock and seal wins for us. This team has the talent to do that, just not the commitment, and even if they decided to do it later in the season, its not easy just to flip a switch and become a ball control team.

Hey we may not need it, but I think its possible to create that power running game within what we already do, and have be more than 3 TEs with a OG at FB

 

[patfanken]

By your logic, if we had beaten the giants, our 2007 running game would have been fine.

I have no idea what you talking about here. You'll have to explain. In 2007, actually toward the end of 2007, the running game became more prominent. Here we saw the BEST of Moroney until the last game. For whatever reason, the Giants contained the run, but THAT wasn't why we lost the game.

The reality is that the running game is better than 2007 and our receivers are as good. We had the best offense in the history of the NFL in 2007. We were a top offense last year, even without Brady. Let's focus on the defense. We are NOT going to miss winning the SB because of the "weak" running corps of Taylor, Maroney and Faulk (and Morris). We are a PASSING team. We are not a running team. To be a running team takes a lot more than attitude, it take changing or OL and having a FB.

I am only worrying about the offense in the playoffs. That's when you play good teams in close games, and having a running game that can seal wins makes getting those wins more likely

I agree that the defense needs to improve and I think we've gone a long way to do it. It might not be perfect, but it WILL be better, again for a lot of reasons.

I completely disagree on your last point. Why would changing the OL improve the running game. This is pretty much the SAME OL as in 2004. Light is a better run blocker than pass blocker. Mankins is a devastating run blocker as is Neal. Koppen is Koppen, a good technician, solid if unspectacular, and I think Kazcur is an upgrade on whomever we had in 2004, who couldn't be that good since he's no longer here. I don't necessarily think you need a FB to have a power running game. We've run will with TEs blocking

We have a 20% chance at the SB, the best in the league. What is needed for ultimate success is health and production from our secondary and linebackers. IMHO, these three issues have been our problems since the 2005 Super Bowl; four seasons, three problems.

No disagreement here

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You are missing the point DI. Its not about JUST the yards, and IIRC we actually had MORE rushing plays than passing plays. Ya think Brady's injury MIGHT have been a factor in that. Do you think the porous secondary might have been a factor in not getting to the supberbowl, along with the once every 25 year anomaly that leaves a 11-5 team out of the playoffs (and sends an 8-8 team to the superbowl).

The point is that we have a running game that is just fine as long as the weather is fine and the passing game is working on all cylinders. For the regular season, I'm sure it will be just fine. HOWEVER in December and January, those months where you create your playoff position and work your way into the superbowl. The cold, bad weather months when passing games are limited, and you are in a one and done situation, I worry that we won't have the running game, or rather the running attitude that will allow us to control the ball at the end of games. I look at the 2006 AFCCG as just ONE example. There have been others.

What made the 2004 team so special was the number of times the running game was able to control the clock and seal wins for us. This team has the talent to do that, just not the commitment, and even if they decided to do it later in the season, its not easy just to flip a switch and become a ball control team.

Hey we may not need it, but I think its possible to create that power running game within what we already do, and have be more than 3 TEs with a OG at FB

I agree with much of what you state, especially the fact that the 2004 team was an excellent team at wearing out foes in the fourth quarter, on the back of Clock Killin' Corey Dillon. However, I am not sure we can say at this point that this team does not have the commitment to do so now. The Colts game in 06 was an example of not killing the clock; however, the running backs were a MASH unit in the 4th quarter. If the backs we have are healthy, Morris and especially Taylor are both capable of salting away a game by wearing down the defense. And for all of the vitriol he receives on this forum, Maroney did a fine job icing the Chargers in the 18th win of the season that came thisclose.

Also, the personnel on the offensive line has the potential to be every bit as good as the lines on previous championship teams.

The thing that excites me most about Fred Taylor is the possibility of him banging out hard yards, in the fourth quarter, in January, in Foxboro.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are missing the point DI. Its not about JUST the yards, and IIRC we actually had MORE rushing plays than passing plays. Ya think Brady's injury MIGHT have been a factor in that. Do you think the porous secondary might have been a factor in not getting to the supberbowl, along with the once every 25 year anomaly that leaves a 11-5 team out of the playoffs (and sends an 8-8 team to the superbowl).

The point is that we have a running game that is just fine as long as the weather is fine and the passing game is working on all cylinders. For the regular season, I'm sure it will be just fine. HOWEVER in December and January, those months where you create your playoff position and work your way into the superbowl. The cold, bad weather months when passing games are limited, and you are in a one and done situation, I worry that we won't have the running game, or rather the running attitude that will allow us to control the ball at the end of games. I look at the 2006 AFCCG as just ONE example. There have been others.

What made the 2004 team so special was the number of times the running game was able to control the clock and seal wins for us. This team has the talent to do that, just not the commitment, and even if they decided to do it later in the season, its not easy just to flip a switch and become a ball control team.

Hey we may not need it, but I think its possible to create that power running game within what we already do, and have be more than 3 TEs with a OG at FB

I'm not missing the point at all. The point is simply not valid, in my opinion.

 

[mayoclinic]

You are missing the point DI. Its not about JUST the yards, and IIRC we actually had MORE rushing plays than passing plays. Ya think Brady's injury MIGHT have been a factor in that. Do you think the porous secondary might have been a factor in not getting to the supberbowl, along with the once every 25 year anomaly that leaves a 11-5 team out of the playoffs (and sends an 8-8 team to the superbowl).

The point is that we have a running game that is just fine as long as the weather is fine and the passing game is working on all cylinders. For the regular season, I'm sure it will be just fine. HOWEVER in December and January, those months where you create your playoff position and work your way into the superbowl. The cold, bad weather months when passing games are limited, and you are in a one and done situation, I worry that we won't have the running game, or rather the running attitude that will allow us to control the ball at the end of games. I look at the 2006 AFCCG as just ONE example. There have been others.

What made the 2004 team so special was the number of times the running game was able to control the clock and seal wins for us. This team has the talent to do that, just not the commitment, and even if they decided to do it later in the season, its not easy just to flip a switch and become a ball control team.

Hey we may not need it, but I think its possible to create that power running game within what we already do, and have be more than 3 TEs with a OG at FB

Nicely said.

TB's injury last year forced the Pats to run in order to not put too much pressure on Matt Cassel to win games at first, and to keep opposing defenses from being able to tee off on him later on. I think that balance actually improved our offense for a post-season run. Ironically, we literally got left out in the cold with an 11-5 record while seeing a 9-7 team we beat 47-7 late in the season make it all the way to the SB. The rushing game helped us go 4-0 in December with over 160 yards rushing in 3 of the last 4 games (including 183 yards rushing in the snow against Arizona and 168 yards rushing at frozen Buffalo, not to mention a season high 277 against Oakland). We twice ran for over 250 yards (against Denver week 7 and against Oakland week 15). In only 3 weeks did we fail to put up 100 yards rushing (78 against the Fins in week 3, 98 against the Rams in week 8 and 84 against Seattle in week 14). We even put up over 120 yards rushing against Pittsburgh, the most they gave up all season.

I'm confident we have the personnel to have a strong running game, and the capability to run block effectively. The key OL personnel are unchanged from last year, and the backs are unchanged as well except for the addition of Fred Taylor for Lamont Jordan, which should be an upgrade. My concern is that with TB back and a big strike passing attack that we will abandon the commitment to run, and that this will fail us down the road. As I've tried to document earlier in this thread, the recent history of the NFL strongly disfavors teams with prolific offenses in the stretch run, when cold weather and tougher opponents tend to favor more balanced teams with strong defenses and an ability to move the chains when the going gets tough.

I'm sure we can win 12-14 games and possibly get to the SB without a true effective running game. I'm much less confident that we can run the table in the post-season without it.

 

[captain stone]

Still not worried about the offense at all. I still think this team's success and failures will rely mostly on the defensive side as it has pretty much since 2004. Every year since 2004 with the exception of 2006, all the biggest issues with this team was on the defensive side of the ball.
The biggest issues, maybe, but not all the issues.

As for running the ball, this has always been a pass heavy team with very little balance of production except for 2004.
I wouldn't exactly call the '01 & '03 squads "pass-heavy" either.

Even with Weis, the mantra was the Pats' short passing game was their running game.
Or that the short passing game was their passing game, and the running game was their running game.

The Pats rarely were high in the running category in the Brady era. Only in 2001 and 2004 were they up there.
As in, 2 of the 3 years they won the SB?

As for the Pats becoming the Colts' offense, that is definitely far from the truth. First, the Colts do run the football. Other than the last few years, Marshall Faulk, Edgerinn James, and Joseph Addai were always near the top in running yards. Also, the Pats use the short passing game to suppliment the running game far more than the Colts. The Colts were not a pass happy offense either. They were a great offense and not much of a defense. They run the ball a lot.

The Dolts may run the ball some, but they don't run it well, and haven't for awhile. Besides, is it really a good thing to imply equivalence btwn. our offense and theirs?

 

[captain stone]

The bottom line is that I'M not worried about the offense that much. My concerns are for the playoffs where its one and done. A game lost because we CAN'T run the ball efficiently at the end of the game. Just look back to the 2006 AFCCG, when ONE first down means a trip to the superbowl. We couldn't get it done.

BTW - you are correct in your saying the DEFENSE will ultimately decide how far we go in the playoffs. It has been the DEFENSE that ultimately knocked us out the last 3 years. But a good running game is the defense's best friend, and I believe we have more than enough talent to make one work. We just need the commitment

Bingo.

Having a real FB would be real nice, too.