Running the football

I was looking at some numbers and I notice that since the start of 2012 the Patriots are 15-0 when they have a running back rush for 75 or more yards. These are the games:

Ridley (11 games)
9/9/12 – 21 carries, 125 yards, 1 touchdown
9/30/12 – 22 carries, 106 yards, 2 touchdowns
10/7/12 – 28 carries, 151 yards, 1 touchdown
10/28/12 – 15 carries, 127 yards, 1 touchdown
11/11/12 – 22 carries, 98 yards, 1 touchdown
11/22/12 – 21 carries, 97 yards, 1 touchdown
12/23/12 – 18 carries 84 yards
1/13/13 – 15 carries, 82 yards, 1 touchdown
10/13/13 – 20 carries, 96 yards, 2 touchdowns
10/27/13 – 14 carries, 79 yards, 1 touchdown
11/3/13 – 26 carries, 115 yards, 2 touchdowns

Vereen (1 game)
9/8/13 – 14 carries, 101 yards

Blount (3 games)
12/22/13 – 16 carries, 76 yards, 2 touchdowns
12/29/13 – 24 carries, 189 yards, 2 touchdowns
1/11/14 – 24 carries, 166 yards, 4 touchdowns

I think the Patriots are often too inconsistent with the running game, and they rotate their backs too much to allow the runner to establish any momentum. I know that many were a fan of Blount, I was not, and it had very little to do with Blount, it was more about the detrimental impact it had on Ridley. We traded for Blount on the heels of Ridley having one of the best seasons of a Patriots RB ever, this did a number on Ridley’s confidence, and he ended up over bulking to attempt to be in the same size range as Blount, along with poor decision-making and ball security issues.

Now that is all in the past, but this team needs to rebuild Ridley, and we need to have a commitment to the run, otherwise Brady is going to take hits and eventually end up leaving the field on a cart. He cannot drop back to pass 50+ times on a weekly basis with that half ass offensive line in front of him. In addition, the best way to get an offensive line playing well is to get them blocking in the running game, it sets a physical tone, along with some of the linemen like Wendell who excel in the run game so it helps their confidence.

Yes, and I bet that the team runs more times when it is ahead.

As has pointed out to you time and time again, causation and correlation are different concepts entirely.

This coincides with the poor stats over 39 attempts throwing that were talked about in the JMcD thread.

As mgteich and others have stated, it's the causation/correlation aspect. That said, I also think that there are times when the game is close and they choose to stick to their guns and weekly gameplan, which has poor balance.

I don't disagree with you that the ability to effectively run makes quite a bit of difference, but the stats are going to be skewed.

mgteich said:

Yes, and I bet that the team runs more times when it is ahead.

As has pointed out to you time and time again, causation and correlation are different concepts entirely.

Click to expand...

Isn't each game different when it comes to causation vs correlation?

In the last game the Pats ran the ball in the first half and had a lead. They then lost that lead in the 2nd half after not running the ball as much. Was that causation or correlation?

All I know is that when I watch the Pats, too many times they pass the ball more often than they should. The 2nd SB loss to the Giants was the best example that I can think of where passing the ball too much was the reason for the loss. It wasn't because they fell behind 2-0 and had to pass more.

It's called balance, and that's a word that has been echoing around in the halls of the NFL forever.

supafly said:

This coincides with the poor stats over 39 attempts throwing that were talked about in the JMcD thread.

As mgteich and others have stated, it's the causation/correlation aspect. That said, I also think that there are times when the game is close and they choose to stick to their guns and weekly gameplan, which has poor balance.

I don't disagree with you that the ability to effectively run makes quite a bit of difference, but the stats are going to be skewed.

Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I don't think the success of the running game matters as much as the fact that the team shows that they're willing to run the ball. But it's the games like the last one where they're having success and still get away from it that bothers me the most.

I also think Blount was over rated and maybe that's why he is not back he only has like 12 yards in two games so far this year. as for the run game I think they need to run more when they have a lead every first down play should be a run when they have a lead I am not looking for 40 run att a game or even a 50/50 of ran and pass I understand this teams bread and butter is the pass offense but just find a way to eat the clock when they got the lead,

for me the problems for the team start when the defense stars to fold a little cause that's when josh mcdaniels goes into don't worry bill ill win this game for us mode and starts calling pass after pass to WR's who cant get open. Vereen Edelman and Gronk had 3 rec for 24 yards in the 2th half Brady not going to his top guys with the game on the line is not very Brady like. bottom line again last week was a bad coached game lets hope they fix the play calling

mgteich said:

Yes, and I bet that the team runs more times when it is ahead.

As has pointed out to you time and time again, causation and correlation are different concepts entirely.

Click to expand...

Brady is better when the Pats establish play action. The Martz Rams offense is dead as NFL defensive coordinators have figured it out.

There is enough film out there to serve as a blueprint on how to defend and beat the NE offense. The Ravens, Jets, Giants, Broncos AFCC and now Miami, have all shown they can execute this defense . Its the same formula in every loss and the Pats react like clockwork giving up on the run and becoming 1 dimensional.

mgteich said:

Yes, and I bet that the team runs more times when it is ahead.

As has pointed out to you time and time again, causation and correlation are different concepts entirely.

Click to expand...

Here is a little piece of advice; before you write a post making an assertion do some research to ensure it is correct. We were not ahead or if we were it were not substantial in the Bills game that Vereen had 100 yards or against the Saints, Dolphins, and many others when Ridley had 100+ yards. In addition, this past Sunday we led by 10 points entering the half, and we completely abandoned the run in the second half, so once again your assertion fails to align with the reality. You are right causation and correlation is different, however you should do the legwork to determine which one it is before just asserting that it is correlation.

1960Pats said:

Isn't each game different when it comes to causation vs correlation?

In the last game the Pats ran the ball in the first half and had a lead. They then lost that lead in the 2nd half after not running the ball as much. Was that causation or correlation?

All I know is that when I watch the Pats, too many times they pass the ball more often than they should. The 2nd SB loss to the Giants was the best example that I can think of where passing the ball too much was the reason for the loss. It wasn't because they fell behind 2-0 and had to pass more.

It's called balance, and that's a word that has been echoing around in the halls of the NFL forever.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Running the football well allows you to control the clock, wear down defenses, and create mismatches in the passing game. Only someone with questionable knowledge about football would think that running the football well is just something that correlates with winning. Last week we entered the half with solid balance in the first half having run the ball 16 times, we led 20-10, in the second half we ran the football 3 times, and we lost that half 23-0. How is that for some causation.. .

1960Pats said:

Isn't each game different when it comes to causation vs correlation?

In the last game the Pats ran the ball in the first half and had a lead. They then lost that lead in the 2nd half after not running the ball as much. Was that causation or correlation?

All I know is that when I watch the Pats, too many times they pass the ball more often than they should. The 2nd SB loss to the Giants was the best example that I can think of where passing the ball too much was the reason for the loss. It wasn't because they fell behind 2-0 and had to pass more.

It's called balance, and that's a word that has been echoing around in the halls of the NFL forever.

Click to expand...

In the money quarter in Super Bowl 38, the Pats passed the ball 22 times and ran it 8 times. Did you complain that they were passing the ball more often than they should have then?

KontradictioN said:

In the money quarter in Super Bowl 38, the Pats passed the ball 22 times and ran it 8 times. Did you complain that they were passing the ball more often than they should have then?

Click to expand...

Over 10 years ago.

How is that relevant today? The spread was still fresh and defenses struggled to adapt.

What happens is that the Pats eventually go back to Air McDaniels like everything is okie dokie and have success vs the scrub teams. Good teams like Pittsburgh for instance, keep playing the same defense vs Brady expecting different results.

Everyone in Pats Nation is dancing on the roof, until the Pats get B slapped in the playoffs by Super Bowl contending team. If anyone here thinks that the Pats would beat Seattle in last seasons Super Bowl they really have bought in to the hype.

Triumph said:

Over 10 years ago.

How is that relevant today? The spread was still fresh and defenses struggled to adapt.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely relevant today. You just wish it wasn't because it blows up your point. You and others are speaking in absolutes as if a shortage of running the ball is the only contributor to losing the game. The poster I replied to was citing Super Bowl XLVII (a mere 7 years ago) so I used stats from a Super Bowl victory 4 years prior to back up mine. It's not that the point is irrelevant, it's just inconvenient. Further, that was before defenses were neutered by Polian and the competition committee, meaning Carolina's DB's could be far more aggressive than any Super Bowl we've seen since. One would think, given that, the pass happy statistic from the 4th quarter of that game would be more detrimental to the team.

KontradictioN said:

In the money quarter in Super Bowl 38, the Pats passed the ball 22 times and ran it 8 times. Did you complain that they were passing the ball more often than they should have then?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is complaining. The purpose of my OP was to acknowledge the need to establish the running game and rebuild Ridley's confidence. It is the best way to help Brady and the OL in my opinion.

Brady6 said:

I don't think anyone is complaining. The purpose of my OP was to acknowledge the need to establish the running game and rebuild Ridley's confidence. It is the best way to help Brady and the OL in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't have any complaints about establishing the running game. It's blaming a skewed pass to run ratio as the only reason for a loss that I have a problem with. The latter is what Triumph is trying to do.

people can say "well the pats are usually ahead and running out the clock" but my eyes tell me different.

brady/the pats thrive off of play action, and the only way to make that work is to stick with the running game. most of our losses have the same formula to them. The first few runs dont go anywhere and then the pats abandon it making us one dimensional passing team. When the defense knows you are going to pass they can just put their heads down and get after the QB which is a recipe for disaster.'

look at last years broncos game. THe pats built their playoff run on being a running team(because we lacked so few weapons) but blount gets stuffed on a couple runs and they decide to stop running and have brady pass, pass, pass. and we all saw what happened.

There is no reason brady should have dropped back to pass so many times last week. especially with a rotating OL and that pass rush.

look at what the ravens did against the steelers? most of their runs didnt net huge gains, but they stuck with it and it paid off by eventually ripping a few huge runs and also paid off in the play action game.

KontradictioN said:

It's absolutely relevant today. You just wish it wasn't because it blows up your point. You and others are speaking in absolutes as if a shortage of running the ball is the only contributor to losing the game. The poster I replied to was citing Super Bowl XLVII (a mere 7 years ago) so I used stats from a Super Bowl victory 4 years prior to back up mine. It's not that the point is irrelevant, it's just inconvenient. Further, that was before defenses were neutered by Polian and the competition committee, meaning Carolina's DB's could be far more aggressive than any Super Bowl we've seen since. One would think, given that, the pass happy statistic from the 4th quarter of that game would be more detrimental to the team.

Click to expand...

Quite frankly your example of SB38 is not a good one.

Brady passed the ball 6 straight times on the final drive of a 29 - 29 ball game to get within FG range for the win. Nobody in their right mind would criticize the Pats not running the ball with a 1:08 on the clock and time ticking away. Carolina may have been playing a prevent defense giving Brady open passing lanes underneath as well.

But I see why that you only want to use the 4th quarter because it jives with your arguement. Too bad it doesnt tell the whole story how NE rushed the ball 35 times and passed 48 times in that SB. And 6 of those 48 passes were to get in FG range skewing the run pass ratio in your favor even more. Weis tried to achieve balance. Brady was never sacked 1 time the entire game.

Your example isnt relavant to a game like Miami at all. The Dolphins rushed 3 and dropped 8 taking away what Brady excels at the short to intermediate receptions. Conversly, the Panthers ran only 16 times and passed 33 times. Delahome was sacked 4 times. Who does that remind you of?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200402010car.html

Give Ridley the rock 25 times tomorrow and grind them to death

supafly said:

This coincides with the poor stats over 39 attempts throwing that were talked about in the JMcD thread...

Click to expand...

Where is this Skippy McD thread of which you speak?
I would like to put my 2 cents in it, which is more than I would pay for his play-calling.