The Official Brady sucks and the defense has been carrying him Thread

[Angry Man]

Can this thread be moved to practice squad please?

 

[letekro]

I posted a thread indicating how much his turnovers were hurting the team, but nowhere did I suggest that it was permanent, or a growing problem, but his involvement in the offense has to be scaled back and managed properly because the facts speak for themselves:

Patriots' Record by Called-pass pct. (2009-2011, including playoffs)

Called Passes --- W-L

Over 60 pct. ..... 11-11
Under 60 pct ..... 18-2

In other words, when we pass for under 60%, and run on over 40% of our snaps, we are almost unbeatable.

That pink elephant in the room is the logical fallacy inherent in this post. The called runs in your example are just a proxy for the real determinant--the SUCCESS of the running game. If they call 30 passes and 30 runs for 30 yards, I assure you, they will not win the game. But that scenario will never play out because if they can't run the ball against a given team, they won't run it 30 times, which will lead them to throwing more as their only means of moving the ball, which will lead to more opportunities for tipped balls and holding penalties, which means a greater chance of not scoring, which means a greater chance of losing the game.

 

[Patspsycho]

You are doing causation in reverse.
When the Patriots get ahead they run more.
The causation of run/pass distribtion is that winning causes a higher % of runs, not that a higher % of runs causes winning.
Last week is a good example. We came out trying to run the ball in the first half, and it failed miserably, leaving us shut out at halftime. therefore we throw more because we failed running, and you chalk that up to a loss due to a philiosophy of throwing too much. Its ass backwards .

The first TD of that game occured as a result of a RUN.

The first run of last week's game was a 18 yard gain by BJGE and you're calling it a miserable failure? He then went on to only have five carries, and Ridley only got three. That is most certainly not a failure on their parts, or are you daring to call Ridley a bust?

 

[Patspsycho]

My point is, the end result of the game was 60/40 - so it goes down in your stat as a "balanced" game. But look at the box score, Brady had 5TD tosses in the first half. How balanced were they in that first half? Brady threw 34 passes in slightly over 2 quarters in that game. The running was done when Hoyer was in the game.

Thus, your stat is extremely misleading.

No it is not because we made large gains out of the play action. That's what a solid commitment to the run does- it opens up the play action. Brady may have thrown 5 TDs, but the game started with:

1) 45 yard rushing TD by Maroney
2) 50 yard TD to Moss out of the play-action (BJGE with the flea flicker).

Who are you to then suggest that our offensive eruption didn't occur as a result of this great start?

Whereas if we play one-dimensional (e.g., abandon the run) our record has been pretty clear: 11-11, as opposed to 18-2.

 

[Patspsycho]

Reiss is apparently on my side:

Eyes on Patriots' running game - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[Ring 6]

The first TD of that game occured as a result of a RUN.

The first half shut out was earned with 11 runs and 11 passes prior to the 2 minutes drive.

The first run of last week's game was a 18 yard gain by BJGE and you're calling it a miserable failure?

That was a nice play, the 12 for 25 that followed in the first half was a miserable failure.

He then went on to only have five carries, and Ridley only got three. That is most certainly not a failure on their parts, or are you daring to call Ridley a bust?

How is it not a failure (and I could care less who's 'part' you place the failire on) to start with a nice run then go 12 for 25 for the rest of the half? Of course they went away from the run, it wasn't working.
After the first 18 yard run and before the 2 minute drill, the running game was 9 carries for 14 yards. THAT was why we were shut out.
On the set of downs that we failed (ie if you gain 2 1st downs then go 3 more and out, I'm talking about those 3) on 1st and 2nd down we ran 7 times and threw 4.

How could you possibly infer I am calling Ridley a bust? I didn't even mention him. I said the running game stank in the 1st half. How does that turn into Ridleys careeer being a fail? You are way, way too sensitive about this concept you are championing here.

 

[Ring 6]

Reiss is apparently on my side:

Eyes on Patriots' running game - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Actually it is Chris Forsberg, and I'm not sure how pointing out the same stat, puts him 'on your side'.
Everyone agrees the stat exists. It seems only you fail to recognize the causation is more likely the opposite of what you are claiming than what you are claiming, ie win/loss (actuallly score of game) causes run/pass ratio, not run/pass ratio causes win/loss

 

[Patspsycho]

How is it not a failure (and I could care less who's 'part' you place the failire on) to start with a nice run then go 12 for 25 for the rest of the half? Of course they went away from the run, it wasn't working.
After the first 18 yard run and before the 2 minute drill, the running game was 9 carries for 14 yards. THAT was why we were shut out.
On the set of downs that we failed (ie if you gain 2 1st downs then go 3 more and out, I'm talking about those 3) on 1st and 2nd down we ran 7 times and threw 4.

BJGE and Ridley are true backs, not Woodhead. The fact that BJGE and Ridley carried only 8 times the whole game is such a small sample that you cannot really argue that the run game failed, when neither backs got any real chance. Even the best backs get off to slow starts, get stuffed, or get a one yard gain.

How many of those 9 carries for 14 yards were by Woodhead?

 

[pherein]

cut him, Cut him Now!!!!!

I agree, but no need to cut Brady. Get McNabb he's still really good, and put Brady on special teams, skip the whole kicking thing and have him throw it.
That way you have a good second stringer to McNabb and kickers are overrated, plus Brady would be good to receive on the kickoff, he has great feet. Just a thought but Im drinking

 

[Ring 6]

BJGE and Ridley are true backs, not Woodhead. The fact that BJGE and Ridley carried only 8 times the whole game is such a small sample that you cannot really argue that the run game failed, when neither backs got any real chance. Even the best backs get off to slow starts, get stuffed, or get a one yard gain.

How many of those 9 carries for 14 yards were by Woodhead?

They ran the ball and it failed. How is that so hard to understand?
I think 1 of those was Woodhead, btw.

Its not a matter of sample size.
They went out and tried to establish the run. After a good first play, they were awful the rest of the half (9 carries for 14 yards). Running more did not help the offense.
You seem to want to think that run/pass ratio is the answer and ignore that went the tried really hard to establish the run the offense was awful.
If they ran successfully, they would have been on the field, scoring points and not having a small sample size. When they don't run well and have to abandon it you drag the cart back in front of the horse and say they should have done what they tried to do and failed at and everything would have been wonderful. It wasnt.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I agree, but no need to cut Brady. Get McNabb he's still really good, and put Brady on special teams, skip the whole kicking thing and have him throw it.
That way you have a good second stringer to McNabb and kickers are overrated, plus Brady would be good to receive on the kickoff, he has great feet. Just a thought but Im drinking

lol. Nice ones!

PS: bet you drank more after seeing your Saints pull away with that FG.

 

[Ring 6]

BJGE and Ridley are true backs, not Woodhead. The fact that BJGE and Ridley carried only 8 times the whole game is such a small sample that you cannot really argue that the run game failed, when neither backs got any real chance. Even the best backs get off to slow starts, get stuffed, or get a one yard gain.

How many of those 9 carries for 14 yards were by Woodhead?

Just so I understand. The Patriots came out with YOUR game plan last week and it caused them to be shut out in the first half, and your argumnet is they should have done the same thing in the second half?

 

[pherein]

lol. Nice ones!

PS: bet you drank more after seeing your Saints pull away with that FG.

Oh we won? We kicked a FG? I was on eye level with my dog at that point telling him how much he means to me, and that he's my best friend

 

[BradyToAmendola]

You are doing causation in reverse.
When the Patriots get ahead they run more.
The causation of run/pass distribtion is that winning causes a higher % of runs, not that a higher % of runs causes winning.
Last week is a good example. We came out trying to run the ball in the first half, and it failed miserably, leaving us shut out at halftime. therefore we throw more because we failed running, and you chalk that up to a loss due to a philiosophy of throwing too much. Its ass backwards .

This post is dead on.

 

[Patspsycho]

Just so I understand. The Patriots came out with YOUR game plan last week and it caused them to be shut out in the first half, and your argumnet is they should have done the same thing in the second half?

Oh, what exactly was my game plan?

 

[Ring 6]

Oh, what exactly was my game plan?

The ran 50% of the plays in the first half before the 2 minute drill.
You want them to run more, in fact you are saying now that the 50% wasnt enough apparently.
That plan got zero points.

 

[Patspsycho]

They ran the ball and it failed. How is that so hard to understand?
I think 1 of those was Woodhead, btw.

Its not a matter of sample size.
They went out and tried to establish the run. After a good first play, they were awful the rest of the half (9 carries for 14 yards). Running more did not help the offense.
You seem to want to think that run/pass ratio is the answer and ignore that went the tried really hard to establish the run the offense was awful.
If they ran successfully, they would have been on the field, scoring points and not having a small sample size. When they don't run well and have to abandon it you drag the cart back in front of the horse and say they should have done what they tried to do and failed at and everything would have been wonderful. It wasnt.

Your head is up your ass.

BJGE's YPC was 4.3, how exactly is that a failure of the run game?

The failure is that he only had 12 attempts.

The failure is that Ridley only had 3 attempts.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Patspsycho]

The ran 50% of the plays in the first half before the 2 minute drill.
You want them to run more, in fact you are saying now that the 50% wasnt enough apparently.
That plan got zero points.

So you're saying that the fact that BJGE and Ridley had a combined pathetic 15 carries and that's enough in terms of seeing if the run game is a fail or success?

Put Ridley on the field and give him only three tries and if he doesn't rip off a 80 yard run, the run game is a failure for the day? Come on.

 

[Ring 6]

Your head is up your ass.

BJGE's YPC was 4.3, how exactly is that a failure of the run game?

The failure is that he only had 12 attempts.

The failure is that Ridley only had 3 attempts.

That's all there is to it.

So you find the running game to be successful when you get one 18 yard run then for the rest of the half until the 2 minute drill, they go out of their way to feature the run and get 9 carries for 14 yards, and zero points and that isn't failure?
They didn't get more attempts because they failed. Do you want to keep handing it off and punting so you can say they carried a lot?

 

[Ring 6]

So you're saying that the fact that BJGE and Ridley had a combined pathetic 15 carries and that's enough in terms of seeing if the run game is a fail or success?

I am saying that an entire first half focussed on running the ball and being shut out because of it is enough for me to conclude I don't want to contuinue that in the second half. Are you disagreeing?

Put Ridley on the field and give him only three tries and if he doesn't rip off a 80 yard run, the run game is a failure for the day? Come on.

So if they kept it up and had 18 carries for 28 yards into the 4th quarter and we were still being shut out, you would consider that a good approach? Or would you wait for the 18 yard run followed by 3 and out to say the ypc was good?