Who else is ready for a return to the run?

[woolster22]

I think my blood pressure may have finally returned to safe levels after the god damn repeat of failure. But to the point...it was when we took over backed up in our own end zone, up a few points, nine minutes to go. What does the brain trust come up with?! You got it, the same stupid idea that netted the giants a safety on our first play from scrimmage. This time, nobody but Brady in the back field, no guessing, no authority, just chuck it up like your down two scores.

The worst part? The oline was fired up. They were down right nasty the few times they got to go on the attack. I hate to say it, but losing Brady may help us assuming his back up is at least mediocre.

What won us super bowls? Ted Washington, and a steady diet of big, Bill nosed rb, letting TB pick his spots and get chunks when the defense slipped up. Would we have ever seen this twice in the same game (let alone the super bowl) pre 07?

Brady never won a championship throwing it deep (ok, Carolina was a shoot out at the end) consistently, or being the dynamo behind the high powered offense. Hell, he can't even find wr that can get anywhere near to being on the same page, and yes, I put that on him. Asking these athletes to read that much post snap clearly is asking too much. Simplify things, let the a+ athlete with the two cent brain come make us forget about the abortion that is Ocho. Then lets start pounding the ball a bit more. Find out what we have in those two young backs and help extend bradys shelf life a bit.

In theory it would help give the defense a breather and suddenly sounds like an all around win. I'd think it would be easier to get pressured into passing when it isn't your strong suit, but still come out the victor then to have your passing game 86d and be forced into running a bit to open up some space. Maybe I'm sick of us abandoning the run the last few years, and in turn have been screwing the pooch in big games as well. The hell with new toys for Brady, he has plenty (Benny, the rb babies, gronk, the pot head, Welker), make sure the line is in good shape and stand pat.

The defense needs some serious ******* help. dl, lb, DB...we are weak every where. Sure lb isn't that bad, but I encourage you all to take a peak at the 03, 04 rosters. Talent doesn't grow on trees, and it often goes early in the draft. Sure there are plenty that skip through the cracks, but it it's time to get some studs on the defensive side of the ball. Then Tf'nB cab sail off into the sun set with another ring, maybe two, and Tf'nB Jr can try to manage his way to a ring like a former late round back up I heard about once....


Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

 

[MP-Logick]

It's kind of hard to argue for a "return to the run" when the worst rushing team in the NFL just won the Super Bowl.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Listen, I like the ability to run as much as you and would like to see more of a bruising running game, BUT if Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch and Welker is able to hang onto a tough TB pass then your whole argument/thoughts never even warrant discussion. It's a game of bounces for the Pats when their in the SB. I'm over it at this point and look forward to getting another chance.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I would like to chime in. I would love to see way more runs but it will never be that good if bjge is our lead back so stick with the pass.

And when it comes to the superbowl we were good enough to win but I blame one person for our loss-logan mankins. He's not the obvious choice but after watching the game more than once it all becomes clear. The safety basically gave the giants 9 points. Brady obviously thought he was going to have time and he should have. Tuck looped all the way around and just breezed by mankins effortlessly and that had the biggest impact on the game.

Then late in the game on the gronk int, brady had to fight off a sack because mankins got beat and brady tried to make a play. Both of Brady's mistake came as a result of mankin's bad play and you just can't have that in a close game. Mankins simply can't handle the giants. Out of anger I wanted to just trade mankins and use what we get straight up for david decastro.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Listen, I like the ability to run as much as you and would like to see more of a bruising running game, BUT if Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch and Welker is able to hang onto a tough TB pass then your whole argument/thoughts never even warrant discussion. It's a game of bounces for the Pats when their in the SB. I'm over it at this point and look forward to getting another chance.

I'd prefer to see us in a SB where we go into the 4th quarter with a 3 score lead or even winning by a large a margin. Take the luck out of it as all our TB lead SBs have been within 4 points (wins or losses)?

 

[ivanvamp]

It's kind of hard to argue for a "return to the run" when the worst rushing team in the NFL just won the Super Bowl.

Rushing rankings of past SB winners (rank by rush yards gained):

2001 - NE - #13, 112.1 yds, 3.8 avg
2002 - TB - #27, 97.3 yds, 3.8 avg
2003 - NE - #27, 100.4 yds, 3.4 avg
2004 - NE - #7, 133.4 yds, 4.1 avg
2005 - Pit - #5, 138.9 yds, 4.0 avg
2006 - Ind - #18, 110.1 yds, 4.0 avg
2007 - NYG - #4, 134.3 yds, 4.6 avg
2008 - Pit - #23, 105.6 yds, 3.7 avg
2009 - NO - #6, 131.6 yds, 4.5 avg
2010 - GB - #24, 94.9 yds, 4.0 avg
2011 - NYG - #32, 89.2 yds, 3.5 avg

2007 New England Patriots - #13, 115.6 yds, 4.1 avg
2011 New England Patriots - #20, 110.3 yds, 4.0 avg

A couple of observations:

(1) Clearly you don't need a great, or even a good, running game to win the Super Bowl. 6 of the 11 teams were below average in that department, and 3 of the last 4 have been downright bad at it.

(2) The 2007 and 2011 Patriots had better running games than most of the last 11 SB winners, and yet they didn't win the SB.

Now, let's take that list and see how each of the SB winners did in the rushing department in terms of yards and avg in the SB that they won.

2001 - NE - #13, 112.1 yds, 3.8 avg - SB: 133 yds, 5.3 avg
2002 - TB - #27, 97.3 yds, 3.8 avg - SB: 150 yds, 3.6 avg
2003 - NE - #27, 100.4 yds, 3.4 avg - SB: 127 yds, 3.6 avg
2004 - NE - #7, 133.4 yds, 4.1 avg - SB: 112 yds, 4.0 avg
2005 - Pit - #5, 138.9 yds, 4.0 avg - SB: 181 yds, 5.5 avg
2006 - Ind - #18, 110.1 yds, 4.0 avg - SB: 191 yds, 4.5 avg
2007 - NYG - #4, 134.3 yds, 4.6 avg - SB: 91 yds, 3.5 avg
2008 - Pit - #23, 105.6 yds, 3.7 avg - SB: 58 yds, 2.3 avg
2009 - NO - #6, 131.6 yds, 4.5 avg - SB: 51 yds, 2.8 avg
2010 - GB - #24, 94.9 yds, 4.0 avg - SB: 50 yds, 3.8 avg
2011 - NYG - #32, 89.2 yds, 3.5 avg - SB: 114 yds, 4.1 avg

Observations:

(1) 6 of the 11 teams rushed for more yards in the SB than they gained on average per game during the regular season. In other words, 54.5% of the time over the past 11 years, the SB-winning team's running game "stepped up" in the SB.

(2) 4 of the last 5 SB winners were the opposite, however. In fact, 4 of the last 5 SB winners didn't even get to 100 yards rushing. 3 of the last 4 SB winners didn't even gain 60 yards on the ground.

(3) In the Patriots' last two SBs, the Giants were 50-50....1 time they gained more in the SB than they averaged during the year (2011) and 1 time they gained less in the SB than they averaged during the year (2007).

Long story short: there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can do it by running the ball well or by passing the ball well. You can do it with a powerful offense and a relatively weak defense. You can do it with a strong defense playing well in the big spots.

I think what we want from the Patriots (or what *I* want, anyway) is for them to have the ability to win a game any way possible. If they need to put up tons of points in a shootout, they can do that. If they need to grind out the clock on the ground and get first downs when they need to, they can do that. If they need to make a big stop on defense, they can do that.

 

[UK_Pat37]

I think what we want from the Patriots (or what *I* want, anyway) is for them to have the ability to win a game any way possible. If they need to put up tons of points in a shootout, they can do that. If they need to grind out the clock on the ground and get first downs when they need to, they can do that. If they need to make a big stop on defense, they can do that.

For me 2010 was that year. We had a slightly better 'bend-don't-break' defense which was at the top of the league when it came to getting crucial turnovers and I don't think we had ever run the ball well like that since Dillon graced us with his presence!

I thought 2010 was our year for sure.

 

[BelichickFan]

Listen, I like the ability to run as much as you and would like to see more of a bruising running game, BUT if Tyree doesn't make a miracle catch and Welker is able to hang onto a tough TB pass then your whole argument/thoughts never even warrant discussion. It's a game of bounces for the Pats when their in the SB. I'm over it at this point and look forward to getting another chance.

Also, "when we were winning SB" we won them by three points with plays that could have gone either way. We've been to five, we won three close ones and lost two close ones. That's the way it goes with close games and has nothing to do with running or passing, offense or defense.

As for running more, that's fine but you're still taking the ball out of the NFL's best player's hands more.

 

[Deus Irae]

...What won us super bowls? ...

2001: Great defense and a hell of a timely last drive
2003: Brady to Branch
2004: Solid overall game and McNabb's incompetence

 

[IllegalContact]

the pats need ot be able to sell the run better. which means they need to run more without removing the passing game as the primary option.

but beyond the running game, the pats need to use their RB's more in the passing game, also the pats would have won the SB if they did some more of what worked best. The giants failed to stop the dumpoffs to woodhead as it was 100% success rate. he should have had 10 catches and that ould have reduced the heat on brady substantially

 

[Ring 6]

the pats need ot be able to sell the run better. which means they need to run more without removing the passing game as the primary option.

but beyond the running game, the pats need to use their RB's more in the passing game, also the pats would have won the SB if they did some more of what worked best. The giants failed to stop the dumpoffs to woodhead as it was 100% success rate. he should have had 10 catches and that ould have reduced the heat on brady substantially

You can't really say that since every time he was open and thrown to the pass was completed that he was open every play.

 

[signbabybrady]

2001: Great defense and a hell of a timely last drive
2003: Brady to Branch
2004: Solid overall game and McNabb's incompetence

04 we absolutely rode CD through the season and up to the the SB he was a beast but then the rest of the team was too which made for a solid overall beast of a team. God that was my favorite team.

 

[upstater1]

I think my blood pressure may have finally returned to safe levels after the god damn repeat of failure. But to the point...it was when we took over backed up in our own end zone, up a few points, nine minutes to go. What does the brain trust come up with?! You got it, the same stupid idea that netted the giants a safety on our first play from scrimmage. This time, nobody but Brady in the back field, no guessing, no authority, just chuck it up like your down two scores. The worst part? The oline was fired up. They were down right nasty the few times they got to go on the attack. I hate to say it, but losing Brady may help us assuming his back up is at least mediocre.
What won us super bowls? Ted Washington, and a steady diet of big, Bill nosed rb, letting TB pick his spots and get chunks when the defense slipped up. Would we have ever seen this twice in the same game (let alone the super bowl) pre 07? Brady never won a championship throwing it deep (ok, Carolina was a shoot out at the end) consistently, or being the dynamo behind the high powered offense. Hell, he can't even find wr that can get anywhere near to being on the same page, and yes, I put that on him. Asking these athletes to read that much post snap clearly is asking too much. Simplify things, let the a+ athlete with the two cent brain come make us forget about the abortion that is Ocho. Then lets start pounding the ball a bit more. Find out what we have in those two young backs and help extend bradys shelf life a bit. In theory it would help give the defense a breather and suddenly sounds like an all around win. I'd think it would be easier to get pressured into passing when it isn't your strong suit, but still come out the victor then to have your passing game 86d and be forced into running a bit to open up some space. Maybe I'm sick of us abandoning the run the last few years, and in turn have been screwing the pooch in big games as well. The hell with new toys for Brady, he has plenty (Benny, the rb babies, gronk, the pot head, Welker), make sure the line is in good shape and stand pat. The defense needs some serious ******* help. dl, lb, DB...we are weak every where. Sure lb isn't that bad, but I encourage you all to take a peak at the 03, 04 rosters. Talent doesn't grow on trees, and it often goes early in the draft. Sure there are plenty that skip through the cracks, but it it's time to get some studs on the defensive side of the ball. Then Tf'nB cab sail off into the sun set with another ring, maybe two, and Tf'nB Jr can try to manage his way to a ring like a former late round back up I heard about once....
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

When the Patriots went to the run on the NYG's 45 in the 4th qtr., on first and 10, they let the Giants know they were running. I wouldn't have minded a run there if they spread them out with one in the backfield. But they went away from what was working. They blew it right there.

Patriots won the Carolina Super Bowl because of a record setting passing performance from Tom Brady. Rushing the ball didn't do it, the defense didn't do it. The defense gave up 29 points in 31 minutes.

 

[Deus Irae]

04 we absolutely rode CD through the season and up to the the SB he was a beast but then the rest of the team was too which made for a solid overall beast of a team. God that was my favorite team.

The question was what won the Super Bowls. The Patriots have yet to win a Super Bowl where the win was because of the running game.

 

[IllegalContact]

You can't really say that since every time he was open and thrown to the pass was completed that he was open every play.

sure you can......keep going there until they stop you

given the pats passing attack, that was the one thing that the giants were giving up.....they just guessed correctly that brady won't keep going there. the dyas of an RB catching 10 passes in a game died with kevin faulk, and for no good reason

 

[Boomer B]

I think my blood pressure may have finally returned to safe levels after the god damn repeat of failure. But to the point...it was when we took over backed up in our own end zone, up a few points, nine minutes to go. What does the brain trust come up with?! You got it, the same stupid idea that netted the giants a safety on our first play from scrimmage. This time, nobody but Brady in the back field, no guessing, no authority, just chuck it up like your down two scores. The worst part? The oline was fired up. They were down right nasty the few times they got to go on the attack. I hate to say it, but losing Brady may help us assuming his back up is at least mediocre. "

So your plan is to get rid of one of the best players who ever lived and to ride the Law Firm train to the promised land?

If we didn't have Brady last year we don't even sniff the playoffs. He had more pressure on him then any player in the league. He knew for the Pats to win he would have hang 30 pts up each game with how bad our Defense was.

I do agree that as Brady gets older we need to run the ball more and take some pressure off him, but he still drives this bus and having number 12 at QB gives us our best chance at another championship.

 

[Deus Irae]

... I hate to say it, but losing Brady may help us assuming his back up is at least mediocre...

This part is idiotic

 

[BradyFTW!]

All logic, reason, and common sense was abandoned in the creation of this thread. If I could, I would give it zero stars.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

sure you can......keep going there until they stop you

given the pats passing attack, that was the one thing that the giants were giving up.....they just guessed correctly that brady won't keep going there. the dyas of an RB catching 10 passes in a game died with kevin faulk, and for no good reason

But should it have died?

Think about this for a minute. Our offense for all intensive purposes is a two TE offense or a TE and an H back if you prefer.

What does the introduction of a stud 3 down RB give us? The answer is more flexibility and tons of mismatches out of the base personnel, no substitutions to give away the play calling needed.

It is impossible for defenses to double cover Gronkowski and Welker on every play. Her"drop"nez is seeing tons of LBer coverage and getting open at will against it.

Add a back like Richardson of Alabama, who gets to the LOS faster than Green Ellis could ever think of getting there or a back like Richardson that is a threat due to his speed to bounce a run outside, catches the ball out of the backfield fairly well, and is a viscious blocker in blitz pick up mode and you add another weapon to an arsensal that defenses struggle to stop as is now.

If defenses play 6 in the box and sells out to cover the pass, we feed them a steady diet of Richardson. If defenses move 7 or 8 into the box, we use our TE's and WR's locked in single coverage to burm them. Oh and with Richardson staying in to pick up the blitz, defenses will have a difficult job of giving Brady happy feet by blitzing him.

We see a ton of nickel coverages and still throw against it, but just think what a RB like Richardson would do with just 6 defenders in the box against our 5 O line guys and a blocker like Gronkowski to account for all the defensers.

I'm not advocating a trade up for Richardson per se, but if you think about it, our offense could really explode to a whole new dimension with a back like Richardson, which in turn will reduce Brady's risk of injury by not having to drop back to throw 40 to 50 times a game. I think we could have won the SB this year if Brady was healthier for the SB.

 

[Ring 6]

sure you can......keep going there until they stop you

given the pats passing attack, that was the one thing that the giants were giving up.....they just guessed correctly that brady won't keep going there. the dyas of an RB catching 10 passes in a game died with kevin faulk, and for no good reason

That makes no sense. You don't decide to throw to the RB before the play, you throw to him if he is open.
It is entirely possible to get wide open on a handful of plays and covered on others. Your theory assumes we choose who to throw to and do it whether he is open or not.