How can we eliminate the 3 and outs?

[tobias funke]

What if the Patriots put their offense on the field an hour early and spend 30-45 minutes sucking while everyone else is stretching.

Then when the actual game starts, they'll be on fire.

 

[Ring 6]

We could be better, one team is 11-0 scoring 35 a game, we could be in that same category. Sure it didn't matter in 07 but being top 5 doesn't mean we can't improve.

I will always take Brady's word, he was upset over a slow start and missed opportunities, some will say but we scored 34, cool but Brady is still active and has high standards for himself.

The point is its silly to ask how can we improve at something we are already excellent at, as if its a weakness.

 

[Ring 6]

All good points but we are 27 in time of possession. Keeping this offense on the field more wearing down a defense will help this team and our defense in particular.

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Average Time of Possession (Excluding OT) on TeamRankings.com

I just think our offense will be much better with more of a focus on the running game.

You should look at the defensive side it your issue is time of possession.
Too many 3 and outs ranks about 189th on the list of issues with this team.

 

[pherein]

All fair and reasonable pieces of advice

Just do me a favor, and take care of Green Bay in the NFCCG...as you are clearly the only team that has any shot of ending this nonsense.

Thanks Supa just playing a bit.

Yeah, I think your dead on. Not just because Im a homer, but because we have the only offense in the NFC capable of out scoring GB, and being behind is not a concern for us. This offense has been Top #5 for years longer than GB and 21pts in a quarter is almost usual for us. Our WR/TE core is just as good plus most are seasoned, like colson,Moore, Meachum, etc.. Plus we have a scat Back in sproles and RB's that GB does not have.
Both of our defenses are not doing great, but I think having Moore, Smith, and porter in our 1st game would have shifted the game to let us win it.

The only way GB goes down is if we meet them in the playoffs or they just have a bad day. Unfortunately that will be on their turf, but we have a run game and they do not. Brees and Rogers are playing on the same level, except Ints. But brees is very good in big games. I think the MNF vs the Giants will tell a lot about where the Saints are.
The Giants are desperate,can't afford a 3rd loss, and will play very well, I think, its up to the Saints to play their game and put 35pts on the board, Brees is usually at his best in primetime. But if they beat us, then we all know the Saints have to make quick adjustments to go far in the playoffs. GB has a pretty easy schedule, but no one will be easy in the playoffs.
Personally I would love GB to go undefeated and we meet them at lambeau.
Pound the Rock in cold weather and beat them , but we never want the easy way here , in the big easy same as most NO fans want NE to win so we can
face them in a SB. Bradys almost unbeatable in a SB,lol.
Besides our team can't beat a easy team to save their lives, hmm Rams, seahawks,, oops

 

[supafly]

Thanks Supa just playing a bit.

Yeah, I think your dead on. Not just because Im a homer, but because we have the only offense in the NFC capable of out scoring GB, and being behind is not a concern for us. This offense has been Top #5 for years longer than GB and 21pts in a quarter is almost usual for us. Our WR/TE core is just as good plus most are seasoned, like colson,Moore, Meachum, etc.. Plus we have a scat Back in sproles and RB's that GB does not have.
Both of our defenses are not doing great, but I think having Moore, Smith, and porter in our 1st game would have shifted the game to let us win it.

The only way GB goes down is if we meet them in the playoffs or they just have a bad day. Unfortunately that will be on their turf, but we have a run game and they do not. Brees and Rogers are playing on the same level, except Ints. But brees is very good in big games. I think the MNF vs the Giants will tell a lot about where the Saints are.
The Giants are desperate,can't afford a 3rd loss, and will play very well, I think, its up to the Saints to play their game and put 35pts on the board, Brees is usually at his best in primetime. But if they beat us, then we all know the Saints have to make quick adjustments to go far in the playoffs. GB has a pretty easy schedule, but no one will be easy in the playoffs.
Personally I would love GB to go undefeated and we meet them at lambeau.
Pound the Rock in cold weather and beat them , but we never want the easy way here , in the big easy same as most NO fans want NE to win so we can
face them in a SB. Bradys almost unbeatable in a SB,lol.
Besides our team can't beat a easy team to save their lives, hmm Rams, seahawks,, oops

There is no doubt in my mind that New Orleans has the best chance to beat Green Bay. Some may feel SF, but I disagree personally, and don't feel that SF can outscore them, even though they would slow them down. You need a good balance (much like Green Bay themselves), and I am holding out hope that it's your team.

As far as the MNF game goes, I wouldn't even think twice about that one. It's at home, and the NYG are weakened. Strangely enough (and this is an odd theory), I believe that the NYG are actually going to give Green Bay a decent shot next week. The Giants will have lost 3 in a row after the Saints game, they will be desperate, they will need a win to stay alive in the playoff race...and the game will be in NY.

Other than the NYG game, I don't see Green Bay having much competition until the playoffs; and even then, it likely won't be until the second game in the NFCCG.

 

[ausbacker]

There is no doubt in my mind that New Orleans has the best chance to beat Green Bay. Some may feel SF, but I disagree personally, and don't feel that SF can outscore them, even though they would slow them down. You need a good balance (much like Green Bay themselves), and I am holding out hope that it's your team.

As far as the MNF game goes, I wouldn't even think twice about that one. It's at home, and the NYG are weakened. Strangely enough (and this is an odd theory), I believe that the NYG are actually going to give Green Bay a decent shot next week. The Giants will have lost 3 in a row after the Saints game, they will be desperate, they will need a win to stay alive in the playoff race...and the game will be in NY.

Other than the NYG game, I don't see Green Bay having much competition until the playoffs; and even then, it likely won't be until the second game in the NFCCG.

Green Bay of 2011 is almost an exact replica of the Patriots of 2007. Unfortunately, we know how that carousel rides.

 

[pherein]

Green Bay of 2011 is almost an exact replica of the Patriots of 2007. Unfortunately, we know how that carousel rides.

Um minus the clutch QB and one hell of a kicker

 

[pherein]

There is no doubt in my mind that New Orleans has the best chance to beat Green Bay. Some may feel SF, but I disagree personally, and don't feel that SF can outscore them, even though they would slow them down. You need a good balance (much like Green Bay themselves), and I am holding out hope that it's your team.

As far as the MNF game goes, I wouldn't even think twice about that one. It's at home, and the NYG are weakened. Strangely enough (and this is an odd theory), I believe that the NYG are actually going to give Green Bay a decent shot next week. The Giants will have lost 3 in a row after the Saints game, they will be desperate, they will need a win to stay alive in the playoff race...and the game will be in NY.

Other than the NYG game, I don't see Green Bay having much competition until the playoffs; and even then, it likely won't be until the second game in the NFCCG.

Thanks, kind of share that thought. SF is a good team but to young. I thought Ravens game showed both teams can't score off good defensive play, and we all know NO and GB have the tools to play well, they just are not consistent right now. I don't think they can beat GB in a playoff game. Rogers is much more clutch than smith, and GB coaching staff is better. I wish they could, it would solve a problem for us. But I don't see it happening. And SF has the same problem we do in cold weather, except they only have Gore, and no good screen option, dixon didn't work out for them with that.

You make a good case, really the best is if we beat the giants so they have to win the GB game at home. Then we all are in good position with GB getting their 1st loss. That might get them to spiral down, lose some more games, and lose the #1 seed. After all GB has had a few really close wins.

I think we can take them the 2nd time, if we have all our players. I have a lot of confidence that Brees will show up VS Rogers, Sean Payton is pretty good at play calling a team the 2nd time around. Hope our boys can make you proud and do what they are capable of, this team is better than the 2009 team, the offense has shown that, but the defense is having very unusual problems and no TA's.
I do have to say though, we are still not used to being in this position as fans, were still amazed we have a good team, that is doing so well year to year. Its a lot of fun

 

[supafly]

Green Bay of 2011 is almost an exact replica of the Patriots of 2007. Unfortunately, we know how that carousel rides.

Well, to be fair aus...if only for a freak once in a lifetime helmet catch.

And on top of that, the referee admitted that he had started to blow his whistle for an in the grasp call; so not only did it take the once in a lifetime helmet catch, it took it happening at the exact milli-second that it did.

And it took a blatant non-holding call with a player with him arm around Seymour's throat...all on the same play.

(not to mention the 2 or 3 dropped INT's on the last drive)

Green Bay may not be that terribly unlucky to have so many things go against them all at once on a 3rd and long at the end of the game...or they may, who knows? You have a decent point that they play the games for a reason.

 

[Snake Eyes]

It comes down to play-calling and execution. I'd like to see the Pats play off-script, meaning you don't do what the opposition expects: this means you pass on 1st or 2nd down when they expect a run, and you run when they expect a pass. We have some competent RBs in Ridley and Vereen, TFB should be taking plenty of snaps from under Center and use the play action to great effect.

 

[lamafist]

Interesting read. At first look at the title of this thread my answer was simple just run the ball more. After reading the article I still think that is the answer. I think we do have a good running game given the chance and focus (in practice) will get us there. Now we are dealing with some injuries to the OL right now but over the past 8 weeks I just think we need to run the ball more. On first down, second, third or heck fourth we just need to run it more to keep the defense off the field which happens a lot with 3 and outs with 35 seconds ticking off the clock (Steeler's game).

I hear this rationale a lot -- either phrased conversely as "keeping the opposing QB off the field" -- and I've never been able to make sense of it. Controlling the ball might keep the defense off the field in terms of the game clock, but it doesn't change the 1:1 ratio of offensive and defensive possessions. Essentially, you're keeping your defense off the field by keeping your offense out of the endzone. It's pretty much a wash.

All you can really hope to accomplish is to reduce the overall number of possessions for both teams for that game. Now, this is actually a pretty robust strategy if you are a bad team trying to beat a significantly better one. Reducing the number of iterations increases the ability of any aberrant outcome to a drive to decide the game. But the Pats are rarely in the position where increasing the fluke potential of a game is to their advantage.

The other problem your logic is that is that, as the study I linked to demonstrates, running on early downs won't actually help "keep the defense off the field" because it increases the chances the offense will go three-and-out. Gaining 3 yards on first down results in a net negative change in the probability of getting a 1st down -- i.e. teams facing 2nd and 7 have converted the down series at a lower rate than teams with a 1st and 10. And since a significant majority of rushing attempts gain 3 or fewer yards, more than half of all rushes hurt their teams chances of getting a first down.

Thus, teams should run on first down just often enough to prevent diminishing returns from passing attempts. Which brings me to your second point...

The article does make some good points but most teams do not have Tom Brady which totally changes things. Alex Smith, Flacco, McCoy, Tebow run the ball on First down because of their QB. Heck Matt Ryan, Schaub, Fitzpatick and even Ben Roethlisberger depend on a strong running game. As a defensive coach you can commit the extra guy to the box but Tom Brady?? you just cannot take that chance too often. He gets too much respect and with the TE play down field catching the ball keeps those safety's playing soft. Do not change so much as execute what the defense is giving you but the last 8 weeks I find the offense is trying to force the pass too much.

Well this is just my opinion and I coach and play in the Canadian rules where we hardly see the run. I just think you have to be able to run the ball especially in December and January so we better establish a running game to get us to a Superbowl. We all know Tom can throw but when we can dominate on the ground as well might get us over the top.

Quick look at our three losses.

Bills - 25 runs 45 passes. We were up 14 points early and IMO should have commited more to the run that game.

Steelers - 12 runs 35 passes. Again I think we went away from the run too quickly. I like our set with Soldier at TE but with the injuries at OT that set may have to wait till playoffs.

Giants - 22 runs 49 passes. HOF QB I get it but with our defense we just need to even this up to avoid three and outs and putting our young defense which is has been transitioning from the 3-4 to get comfortable.

My point is do not abandon the run make it something you work on to be successful in the playoffs. When I see eight or nine men in the box against Brady I will change my opinion but we need to focus on the run more going forward.

So, basically what you're saying is that because we have have one of the best QBs in the game, and therefore one of the best passing attacks in the league, we should... run more than teams that don't?

Look, the Pats run and pass games are both above average, but the Pats' passing game is much, much more above average than the running game. Clearly, if teams are bailing out on the snap and leaving a ton of running room, it makes sense to take advantage of that. This is why Brady has carte blanche to audible to whatever he wants at the line. Again, this goes back to running enough, and in the right circumstances, to prevent diminishing returns in the passing attack.

But when it becomes a matter of principle to the point that we're getting away from what we do best more than is strictly necessary, than we're hurting the offense. This is all the more true when what we do best has historically proven to be more likely to produce first downs than running early.

(Also, it's worth mentioning that we are converting on 76% of down series, 2nd in the league, despite facing a a demonstrably tougher slate of defenses than any of the other top 5 offenses in down-series conversion rate.)