- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 33,841
- Reaction score
- 5,686
So, we are to go to back to 2007 when we depended on our passing offense less, and didn't depend on only 2 wide receivers??????
2007 O with much better TE play...scary potential.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.So, we are to go to back to 2007 when we depended on our passing offense less, and didn't depend on only 2 wide receivers??????
The problem with this assertion is that Chad lined up in the wrong spot quite a few times pre-snap.
Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.
Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.
Also, a coach is never going to pull a receiver who is getting open in place of a receiver who isn't, regardless of whether the QB throws to him or not.
Lastly, if Reiss numbers are right - Ochocinco was on the field for 354 snaps - he was targeted 33 times in that timespan. Just shy of 10% of the time he was on the field. Deion Branch was on the field for 1020 snaps, he was targeted 100 times. Just shy of 10% of the time as well.
Per play, Ocho was targeted just as much as Branch.
Reduce the offense in '12? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston
I, for one, agree with this notion. For one thing, it would cut down on the number of busts we've had at the receiver position.
Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.
Why not become a Ground and Pound .
This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.
The Giants' offense isn't simple at all. They run a sight-reading offense just like the Patriots do.The only point I have to make is that the superbowl was won by a team with a much simpler offense.
This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.
I would say that it isn't "all" about getting open. Obviously free-lancing is not accpetable in our offense (it leads to interceptions as you say). But a receiver who rarely gets open isn't very useful. Also, getting open is especially useful on busted plays and in the red zone.
========
We shouldn't forget that "Brady throws to the open man". Brady also runs the route tree. However, IMHO, the critical point is that a receiver must be open with the context of the timing of the play.
QUOTE=RayClay;3006116]It isn't about "getting open." If a receiver gets open by going the opposite way Brady expects, that's a possible interception. Our offense isn't built on looking at a star receiver, then delivering the ball after he makes his cut.
1.) While the running game was not a positive factor in either game against the Giants, it was also not the reason for either loss.
2.) Dillon wasn't in either of the first 2 Super Bowl wins, and neither of those wins was because of any greatness out of the running game.
So if the running game would have been a positive factor would we have won?
As far as it 'not being the reason for the loss', is there ever 1 reason for a win or a loss? A stronger running game means the Giants can't tee off on Brady like they did, it also means they need to make more decisions and have a greater likelihood of making a mistake.
A better running game affects the entire game in our favor, this doesn't guarantee we win with a better RB but it certainly improves our chances.