Anyone concerned about the Running Game last night?

[Phokus]

I mean, if you look at it based just on the numbers, they were great, but considering Cincy's LB corps were held together by string cheese, you'd think we would've absolutely destroyed them on every single run. Take away that one big run by Morris and the running game doesn't look THAT good.

 

[ironwasp]

I mean, if you look at it based just on the numbers, they were great, but considering Cincy's LB corps were held together by string cheese, you'd think we would've absolutely destroyed them on every single run. Take away that one big run by Morris and the running game doesn't look THAT good.

Take away my uncle's cojones and he's my auntie.

 

[BelichickFan]

Morris was running just fine most of the time. I'm shocked that every run wasn't a 50 yard TD . . . but the running game wasn't a concern in the least.

 

[SVN]

I mean, if you look at it based just on the numbers, they were great, but considering Cincy's LB corps were held together by string cheese, you'd think we would've absolutely destroyed them on every single run. Take away that one big run by Morris and the running game doesn't look THAT good.

take away the great randy moss catch the game is a lot closer..
bottomline we never know with hypotheticals.

 

[Eugene Chung]

The Pats gained 173 yards on the ground without their starter. What else do you want?

 

[danny88]

I mean, if you look at it based just on the numbers, they were great, but considering Cincy's LB corps were held together by string cheese, you'd think we would've absolutely destroyed them on every single run. Take away that one big run by Morris and the running game doesn't look THAT good.

You can apply that logic to any game you want. If means nothing. Trust me I am one of the ones who think Lomo is injured to often. Fact is the crappy d's who have nothing to lose step up and play well A LOT of the time.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Take away all the runs, and our running game sucked.

I woke up very concerned about our running game.

 

[Slagathor]

I mean, if you look at it based just on the numbers, they were great, but considering Cincy's LB corps were held together by string cheese, you'd think we would've absolutely destroyed them on every single run. Take away that one big run by Morris and the running game doesn't look THAT good.

That makes no sense to me. Are 100 yards of rushng only valid if you get it with a bunch on 10 yard runs?

 

[danny88]

Take away all the runs, and our running game sucked.

I woke up very concerned about our running game.

Take away the fact Tom Brady was born and we lose that game! We lose BIG!

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

If we hadn't signed Moss in the offseason, Brady's numbers might have been a little worse last night.

 

[JackBauer]

This thread is ridiculous.

 

[MetalBleachers]

Take away my uncle's cojones and he's my auntie.

that's the ultimate response to "what if"!

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I don't have concerns but do wonder why we didn't look more dominant against their defense which had only a handful of starters and at times only two linebackers. Given our talent and weapons, shouldn't we have put up a touchdown on every possession?

 

[Warren94]

This thread is ridiculous.

exactly. this team is hitting on all cyclinders and people are complaining. no seymour no harrison and we are rolling.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I don't have concerns but do wonder why we didn't look more dominant against their defense which had only a handful of starters and at times only two linebackers. Given our talent and weapons, shouldn't we have put up a touchdown on every possession?

I don't think that was our objective. I think that it had a lot to do with ball control and keeping the Bengal offense off the field. Not that we weren't trying to score all the time, but I got the total sense of our "offense" being in totally in control and writing the script exactly the way they wanted to. We didn't need 60-70 points, we needed 14, so we went out and got them and added another 20 for padding

That was my impression.

 

[bradmahn]

Besides kneel downs, the only two possessions the Patriots did not score on were the ones that were stalled because of penalties. Two false start calls on one led to a punt, and a holding penalty on the INT possession. I'd say the offense was pretty good, not to mention they held the ball for nearly 38 minutes. Looks like the game plan was successful.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Besides kneel downs, the only two possessions the Patriots did not score on were the ones that were stalled because of penalties. Two false start calls on one led to a punt, and a holding penalty on the INT possession. I'd say the offense was pretty good, not to mention they held the ball for nearly 38 minutes. Looks like the game plan was successful.

Yeah, you are right. I gotta tone down my expectation of us scoring an effortless touchdown on every possession. Not going to be easy though...

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I don't think that was our objective. I think that it had a lot to do with ball control and keeping the Bengal offense off the field. Not that we weren't trying to score all the time, but I got the total sense of our "offense" being in totally in control and writing the script exactly the way they wanted to. We didn't need 60-70 points, we needed 14, so we went out and got them and added another 20 for padding

That was my impression.

Good point. I watched live only the 1Q and watched the recording later on. But during the 1Q, I was surprised by the penalties and punting against a poor defense and those thoughts never left me.

 

[patsox23]

Take away the fact Tom Brady was born and we lose that game! We lose BIG!

LOL. Well played.