2001 team only ran for 22 yds more than 2011 team

[QuantumMechanic]

This Pro Football Reference link (Team Game Finder Query Results - Pro-Football-Reference.com) is a table that lists the number of rushing yards every Pats team has had, in descending order.

I have to admit being surprised to find out the 2008 team was the #6 all-time Pats rushing team. Or that the 2003 championship team ran for 157 fewer yards than the 2011 team. Or that (as the subject line says) the 2001 team only ran for 22 more yards than the 2011 team.

 

[WinstonSmith]

2008 was one of Faulk's finest years running the ball; he averaged over 6 yars per carry.

They would have never lost If they only gave him the rock on every snap.

 

[brdmaverick]

I'm not quite sure what the perspective of the surprise is.......are you surprised that the 2001 only ran for the 22 yards more than the 2011 team because......

1.) You thought the 2001 team ran for more yards.

2.) Or you tought the 2011 ran more fewer yards.

 

[strngplyr]

I'm not quite sure what the perspective of the surprise is.......are you surprised that the 2001 only ran for the 22 yards more than the 2011 team because......

1.) You thought the 2001 team ran for more yards.

2.) Or you tought the 2011 ran more fewer yards.

Because the common perception is that the championship teams were defense/run game oriented to an extreme degree.

 

[IllegalContact]

Because the common perception is that the championship teams were defense/run game oriented to an extreme degree.

defense, yes......run game oriented, no

going out on a limb here, but I think the fact that the pats kept opponent under 20 point only 5 games including the playoffs in 2011 and only once in th elast 9 games. the 2001 pats kept the opponent below 20 points 14 times in 2001 including the last 9 games including the playoffs

 

[BradyFTW!]

This Pro Football Reference link (Team Game Finder Query Results - Pro-Football-Reference.com) is a table that lists the number of rushing yards every Pats team has had, in descending order.

I have to admit being surprised to find out the 2008 team was the #6 all-time Pats rushing team. Or that the 2003 championship team ran for 157 fewer yards than the 2011 team. Or that (as the subject line says) the 2001 team only ran for 22 more yards than the 2011 team.

The rushing attacks in 2001 and 2003 weren't especially good, is why. Some posters here have tried to rewrite history so that Antowain Smith was a legitimate #1 RB, but he never really was. Those teams won on the strength of the defense and Brady. 2004 was the only time in the Belichick era that the Pats had an overpowering ground game.

I think that there's been a tendency, at times, to underrate pre-2007 Brady around here. He did lead the league in passing yards in 2005, and even prior to becoming a stat-compiling monster, he was always a really good, really efficient QB who get a lot of yards without turning the ball over. His worst career TD-INT ratio was 1.5 (2001), and he's only been below 2-to-1 twice. 2011 was also the one and only year that he's passed for under 3,500 yards (obviously not counting 2008).

 

[Deus Irae]

This Pro Football Reference link (Team Game Finder Query Results - Pro-Football-Reference.com) is a table that lists the number of rushing yards every Pats team has had, in descending order.

I have to admit being surprised to find out the 2008 team was the #6 all-time Pats rushing team. Or that the 2003 championship team ran for 157 fewer yards than the 2011 team. Or that (as the subject line says) the 2001 team only ran for 22 more yards than the 2011 team.

Per the same site....

2011:
1050 combined run/pass attempts
438 runs
612 pass attempts
.417 run percentage
4.0 ypa

2001:
955 combined run/pass plays
473 runs
482 pass attempts
.492 run percentage
3.8 ypa

 

[Gostkowski for 3]

Teams gain more yards per game now than they did in 2001, and they also score more points. The 2001 team was more balanced than it is now. A lot of people think balance is important. I happen to think the only thing that is important is the final score, and we seem to be pretty good at that.

 

[borg]

BB incorporated a risk free offense for his newbie QB in '01. That D allowed allowed BB to be patient often settling for a field position advantage....waiting for the other team to make the critical mistake. With Brady in, that team passed for less than 200 yds 7 times. And when they did pass....Troy Brown (101 catches) was the safe target.
Check out the turnover patterns for both the Pats D and O. The offense was coughing up the ball at a very high rate mid season but straightened that out in the back half and playoffs. The D gelled and became monsters retrieving the ball as the season progressed and into the playoffs.
The D set up the O....team ball...unlike now

 

[PatsSox363804]

Because the common perception is that the championship teams were defense/run game oriented to an extreme degree.

No one thought that about the 03 team, I think they had the worst season long running statistics to ever to win a Superbowl at the time. That's why we brought in Corey Dillon, the run game was the only "weak" spot on the team.

People don't believe me when I tell them how well the Pats ran the ball in 08 because they like using that year to crap on Brady.

 

[patfanken]

Here are a couple of other stats that I remember from those years that have stuck with me because they belie the fact that the Pats had a "dominant" defense in those years. In fact in 2001 and 2003 the Pats D was ANYTHING but dominant. In both those championship years the Pats D ranked in the mid 20's in total D (IIRC_

What has been consistent in all of BB years here, I bet (because I'm too lazy to look it up....and I know someone more industrious will ) is that there is usually a big gap between where the Pats rank in total yards, and where they rank in scoring.

Another interesting thing I recall from those days was that the Pats usually were in the top 10 in sacks while never having any individual double digit sackers.

One of my favorite stats from 2003 was that team won TEN games against opponents that won 10 games or more. Think about that for a second. Of the 17 games the Pats won that season, TEN times they had to beat a team good enough to have won 10 or more games. Compare that, for example to the "undefeated" Dolphin team that, IIRC, beat just 2 teams that had winning records in the regular season....or last year's Pats team

BTW- Antwain Smith's major role in those 2 seasons was to NOT lose yardage, and make most of his short yardage opportunities and punch it in on the GL BB used the ground game to eat time and keep games close. Smith was BJGE before there was a BJGE. Nothing snazzy, but very dependable

Disclaimer - I know its fashionable to remember the days when the Pats had what was considered one of the top defenses in the league (or at least in the top half). But it should also be remembered that this was before "spread-type" offenses became common and WR's who were over 6' or 200lbs were RARE. Plus I think the overall level of QB play is better now than then. And THEN remember that this was all before Polian highjacked the rules committee

 

[RobertWeathers]

No one thought that about the 03 team, I think they had the worst season long running statistics to ever to win a Superbowl at the time. That's why we brought in Corey Dillon, the run game was the only "weak" spot on the team.

People don't believe me when I tell them how well the Pats ran the ball in 08 because they like using that year to crap on Brady.

As far as running the football is concerned, the 2008 season was unique. Cassel's scrambling ability forced defenses to play a little bit differently. Morris, Faulk, Jordan and BJGE were all functional runners. No one here is saying that they were gamebreakers. However there is no question that they were extremely efficient.

I do give credit also to JMcD for being pretty creative that year. Lots of screens, draws, etc.

With that said, I don't consider the 08 team the best running team of the BB era as the 04 team in my mind is.

My .02$

 

[Kontradiction]

This Pro Football Reference link (Team Game Finder Query Results - Pro-Football-Reference.com) is a table that lists the number of rushing yards every Pats team has had, in descending order.

I have to admit being surprised to find out the 2008 team was the #6 all-time Pats rushing team. Or that the 2003 championship team ran for 157 fewer yards than the 2011 team. Or that (as the subject line says) the 2001 team only ran for 22 more yards than the 2011 team.

Why would that statistic for the 2008 team surprise you? Cassel hadn't started a game since high school. He had to be somewhat eased into the line-up. If I remember correctly, I believe it was the Chargers game where that became apparent.

 

[mayoclinic]

Per the same site....

2011:
1050 combined run/pass attempts
438 runs
612 pass attempts
.417 run percentage
4.0 ypa

2001:
955 combined run/pass plays
473 runs
482 pass attempts
.492 run percentage
3.8 ypa

I think this is key. The 2001 offense may not have produced much more rushing yards than 2011, but it was much more balanced in terms of the run/pass ratio. There was also more use of the RBs in the passing game - 74 of Brady's 306 receptions (24%) in 2001 were to Antowain Smith, Marc Edwards or Kevin Faulk, whereas in 2011 RBs were targeted on only 58/612 attempts (9.5%; target data wasn't available for 2001). So in 2011 RBs rushed or were receiving targets in 47% of offensive snaps, vs. approximately (assuming that pass targets can be extrapolated from receptions) 62% in 2001.

 

[crew1954]

This is what sticks out to me. What a great year that was. Averaging 210 yards a game on the ground.

I think 1978 The Pats set a single season NFL record for most yards, but that was in 16 games and they gained only another 217 yards.

1976
Games: 14

Wins: 11

Losses: 3


Atttempts:591

Yards: 2948

Ave per attempt:4.99

TDs: 24

 

[Pape]

Comparing the 2001 running game to the 2011 running game is kinda like comparing apples to oranges imo.

Why? Simple - because of the progresson of Brady as a passer. In 2001 Brady was throwing, on average in the low to mid 200 yards per game. The balance of plays were on the ground. In essence, the running game was used to open up the passing game. It wasnt pretty, but Smith and Co ground out the yards.

The Pats went 11-5 that year. In the five games that they lost, the Pats offensive balance tipped in favor of the passing game. In the 11 games that they won, the Pats offensive split indicated that they ran the ball more than they passed in 8 of the 11 games.

In 2011, as you would expect, it was the reverse with the offensive split in favor of the passing game in 11 games, 4 games favored the running game and one was a dead heat.

edit - I did not look at the post season for the above information. I would add in both 2001 and 2011 the Pats passed more in every playoff game than they ran the ball. The Closest they had to a 50/50 balance was in Super Bowl XXXVI, when they had 25 run plays and 27 passing plays.

 

[brdmaverick]

No one thought that about the 03 team, I think they had the worst season long running statistics to ever to win a Superbowl at the time. That's why we brought in Corey Dillon, the run game was the only "weak" spot on the team.

People don't believe me when I tell them how well the Pats ran the ball in 08 because they like using that year to crap on Brady.

I was actually watching this past Super Bowl again (don't know why), but what I found interesting is the commentators noted that the Giants had the worst-ranked rushing attack in the league. Definitely goes against the running game wins championships theory.

 

[BradyManny]

Different eras, hard to compare.

Bottom line, that rushing offense did it when it mattered in 2001. The rushing attack in 2011 was an afterthought, whose production was the result largely of defense's worrying about a prolific passing attack.

To me, the key play of SB46 that no one talks about is Logan getting blown up and Benny losing yardage on 1st and 10 before the infamous Brady-Welker mishap. That team was rolling along, and by putting itself in a 2nd and very long, it really hindered itself. It's a point that's almost made moot by the fact that our two best players failed to capitalize on a gift from the Giants defense the next play, but still...you have to wonder how that drive unfolds differently with a productive first down on that play.