Curran: Pats' reliance on the run may not be a good thing

[reflexblue]

They sure didn't look like the the seventh ranked run defense back in november. If i remember correctly that was one of Blounts first big games. The broncos have the seventh rank run defense because teams had to abandon the run to keep up with manning running up the score.

 

[Joker]

Edit: another thing. They actually were not moving the ball against Mia. It was only after the dolphins sustained multiple injuries to t secondary that things opened up.

this is bullshyt. I was at the game. They OPENED the game with a 16 play scoring drive for 83 yards.

They had a 7 play, 70 yard drive for a TD in the 2nd quarter

They had a 10 play ,50 yard drive to open the third quarter and missed ANOTHER FG.

The Pats LED at the half.

Stop with the revisionism just to make your constant battering ram point. You hate the Patriots offense without Gronk. We get it.

 

[SVN]

The point is: without Gronk they are not effective in the air. The relevant games are therefore: Mia, Balt, Buf, Ind. The pats had some success moving the ball gainst Mia, but the limitations of their passing game were apparent in the red zone. In the other 3 games, the Pats were ineffective through the air. They didn't throw it much against Buff or Ind, but when they did, the WRS were generally not open, except on playaction. The Gronkless results earlier in the year and in the last 2 playoffs don't inspire confidence that they will just be able to throw effectively whenever they want. In your other post, you seem to acknowledge as much, noting that edelman is the only viable downfield threat and stating that Dobson, who most likely is not going to play this year, is "crucial" to their success.

Edit: another thing. They actually were not moving the ball against Mia. It was only after the dolphins sustained multiple injuries to t secondary that things opened up.

I disagree with the miami part. Pats led and were at ease until the last 2 min of the 1st half when they allowed them to score which changed things.

 

[Ring 6]

There's been a fair amount of talk about the magic number being 40, particularly in the past few yrs.

Come on. That is not an argument. A fair amount of talk about the number being 40? Can you use a fact?

His average number of attempts throughout his career is 34, but once he goes over the 39 mark--things change for the worst.

Based upon what?
Of course when you throw a bunch of times because you are trailing, your w/l in those games is worse. There was an article posted here once about Brady and 50+ pass attempts. He was far, far, far and away the best of anyone all time.
This year we are 5-3 and score and average of 27 ppg when he throws 40+ times. We aren't 5-3 because of the points scored, we are 5-3 because we also allowed 27 ppg in those games.
In other words when Brady has thrown 40+ times, its because the defense is allowing almost twice as many points in those games as in the games we run a lot, however, when we are forced to throw often we are scoring just as many points. If you take the Pittsburgh anamoly away, then you have:

40+ throws score 27 allow 27
<40 throws score 25 allow 13
There is just no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the offense is less effective when forced (or choosing) to throw.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that one factor is the reason for everything, because I agree with everything that you claim about many different variables, etc. I am just pointing out that the word "need" can be interpreted differently. I believe there is a "need" for balance, just the same as anyone else would. I simply thought that I'd point it out due to the recent postseason failures, a record that is much worse, and the fact that our pts drop by a TD or so when the "40" mark is hit.

Our points dont drop when the 40 mark is hit. They actually go up.

Tom Brady?s Magic Number Is 40, And Patriots Are Better Off When He Avoids It | New England Patriots | NESN.com

That article is out of date.

 

[letekro]

this is bullshyt. I was at the game. They OPENED the game with a 16 play scoring drive for 83 yards.

They had a 7 play, 70 yard drive for a TD in the 2nd quarter

They had a 10 play ,50 yard drive to open the third quarter and missed ANOTHER FG.

The Pats LED at the half.

Stop with the revisionism just to make your constant battering ram point. You hate the Patriots offense without Gronk. We get it.

I love the hostility. The pats had 10 points going into the 4th quarter, when Grimes and Carroll went out. If that is your definition of successful offense, then fine. But, it is not mine.

 

[letekro]

I disagree with the miami part. Pats led and were at ease until the last 2 min of the 1st half when they allowed them to score which changed things.

They scored 10 points in the first 3 quarters before going to work on Carroll's and Grimes's replacements. That is a struggle.

 

[SVN]

They scored 10 points in the first 3 quarters before going to work on Carroll's and Grimes's replacements. That is a struggle.

sure but 10 pts does not they didnt move the ball. Missed FG ,RZ issues are what killed them . They werent going 2007 offense or even 2012/13 with gronk but they werent going 3 and out either. The thing i got out of that game is they need to run in the redzone. Now they run in all the zones

 

[Joker]

It's not hostility, it's aggravation at reading your constant negative bullcrap....and that's all it is as plainly you REFUSE to acknowledge you were WRONG...OUTRIGHT AND PLAINLY WRONG in your assertion. You change the goal posts to fit your constant whiny negativity. The Pats had long sustained drives in all quarters of that game. That they only scored so many points is meaingless in YOUR beginning contextual statement. Obviously you are just outright trolling.

 

[Ring 6]

The point is: without Gronk they are not effective in the air. The relevant games are therefore: Mia, Balt, Buf, Ind. The pats had some success moving the ball gainst Mia, but the limitations of their passing game were apparent in the red zone.

They had 453 yards of offense and 29 first downs.

In the other 3 games, the Pats were ineffective through the air.

The scored 41, 34 and 43 points and won by an average margin of 23 points. You cannot do that if you are 'ineffective'.

They didn't throw it much against Buff or Ind, but when they did, the WRS were generally not open, except on playaction. The Gronkless results earlier in the year and in the last 2 playoffs don't inspire confidence that they will just be able to throw effectively whenever they want. In your other post, you seem to acknowledge as much, noting that edelman is the only viable downfield threat and stating that Dobson, who most likely is not going to play this year, is "crucial" to their success. .

There is simply no evidence of the offense being stifled for months, whether they have a running or passing game plan.
If you want to say that you think that if they don't run well or get behind and have to pass, you think there might be problems, that is your opinion, and it may or may not prove correct, but the facts do not support it.

Edit: another thing. They actually were not moving the ball against Mia. It was only after the dolphins sustained multiple injuries to t secondary that things opened up.

They had 9 possessions and gained 50 or more yards in 6 of them. For the day, they had 29 first downs and 453 yards of total offense. Your comment is simply wrong.

 

[RIpats88]

the patriots had no problem MOVING the ball against Miami...they only had problems in the red-zone because they didnt go to the run.

which they have the past few weeks.

 

[Rob0729]

I think reliance on the run is a great thing against Denver. In the Super Bowl, it may not be.

The Broncos will have to respect the run and they do not have the secondary to put 8 in the box and leave their CBs on an island if the Pats run a play action or just plain pass out of a running formation. Especially without Harris, the Broncos struggle against the pass in nickel and dime.

If the Pats win on Sunday and draw Seattle, they have a defense that can easily load up on the run and their their CBs on an island for a passing play. The 49ers are the same to a lesser extent.

I am not thrilled with the Pats receiving corp without Dobson, but I think they are more than good enough to exploit a bad Broncos' defense with two of their best defenders out of the game (Miller and Harris) especially with the Broncos having to respect the run.

 

[letekro]

Can you put forth an argument without misrepresenting mine?

In the second half of the season the Patriots were the highest scoring offense in the NFL. Since Gronk went out, the Patriots have scored 20, 41,34,43 points. That does not indicate an ineffective unit.
In the games they have scored 41,34 and 43 they only needed to throw 26,24 and 25 times, because they ran for an average of 215 yards a game.
Prior to that in 4 games that Brady needed to throw, he threw for 1497 yards.
I know that you want to believe you see something here, but there is nothing on the football field to back it up.
There has not been a game since the very early season where we needed to throw and were ineffective. That includes after Gronk was injured.

How did I misrepresent your argument??? I said you think everything is rosy. Here, you say, "everything is rosy".

You are deliberately trying to obfuscate a point that is not debatable: without Gronkowski, the Patriots are not effective through the air. "Not effective through the air" does not mean they cannot score if they have a running game and the other team turns the ball over repeatedly. The point which I'm tired of making is that assuming they CAN'T run and the other team does NOT turn it over repeatedly, they will struggle to score. The fact that they haven't needed to throw in recent weeks, but have struggled to throw anyway, should highlight to you the weakness of the passing game in must-pass situations, but somehow you have reached the opposite conclusion.

As for your question, I will do something you never do, respond directly to it: They needed to throw against Miami and could not get it done. Those with eyes saw the inability to convert when the opponent plays aggressive man to man coverage as the Dolphins did in the red zone. They needed to throw against Cleveland and could do nothing until Cleveland backed off its DBs and went prevent to protect the lead. The Pats had what 7 points up until that point? Let's go back to last year. No gronkowski, no passing game. SB 46, no Gronkowski, no passing game. Then, we had Wes Welker, who you claim is a great WR, and the Prisoner, who was a beast. Now, we have Jules, who I love, but has limitations, Amendola, who I love but is hurt, and Vereen, who I love but has looked lost in recent weeks outside of the Cleveland game. Now, if you 'd be so kind, point me to the games without Gronk where our passing game WAS effective.

 

[PatsDeb]

Yeah, Tom, a 21 point win isn't a good thing. And you're right. BB and McD and TFB will forget that Denver watched their game and go into Denver with no game plan other than handing it off to LeGarrett Blount. We're doomed.

What a crock. How about making a more accurate title, such as, "Pats Roll Over the Colts Making the Most of the Personnel They Have (As Usual)."

The only thing I agree with is that it is maddening that our three rookie wide receivers continue to break down and have really contributed nothing this year other than an occasional good play. But, at this point, it is what it is.

 

[IllegalContact]

you don't 'rely on the run'

if you can run, you run........why wouldn't you?

denver's speedy LB's play right into overpursuit on the play action......

the difficulty for opponents to fathom is that the pats can switch to throwing the ball at any time and that still always has to be accounted for.

there's nothing wrong with having the ability to keep manning off the field

 

[Ring 6]

Come on. That is not an argument. A fair amount of talk about the number being 40? Can you use a fact?


Based upon what?
Of course when you throw a bunch of times because you are trailing, your w/l in those games is worse. There was an article posted here once about Brady and 50+ pass attempts. He was far, far, far and away the best of anyone all time.
This year we are 5-3 and score and average of 27 ppg when he throws 40+ times. We aren't 5-3 because of the points scored, we are 5-3 because we also allowed 27 ppg in those games.
In other words when Brady has thrown 40+ times, its because the defense is allowing almost twice as many points in those games as in the games we run a lot, however, when we are forced to throw often we are scoring just as many points. If you take the Pittsburgh anamoly away, then you have:

40+ throws score 27 allow 27
<40 throws score 25 allow 13
There is just no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the offense is less effective when forced (or choosing) to throw.


Our points dont drop when the 40 mark is hit. They actually go up.



That article is out of date.

Here are some #s. I will attach one link, and you can play with it from there to see whatever you wish:

Player Game Finder Query Results - Pro-Football-Reference.com

40+ attempts (including playoffs)
Brady is 36-23, .610%. The only other QB in NFL history (1960 forward) over .500 (monimum 10 games) are:
McNab 19-18-1

50+ passes Brady is 10-6 .625%
Dan Fouts at 3-2 and McNab 4-2-1 are the only QBs in history other than Brady (minumum 4 games) over .500.
Of all the QBs with 5 or more games.
Brady 10-6 .625%
Everyone else in NFL history 107-371 ..224%

In other words Tom Brady wins almost 3 times as often as the rest of the NFL QBs since 1960 combined when throwing 50+ passes.

 

[UK_Pat37]

The point is: without Gronk they are not effective in the air. The relevant games are therefore: Mia, Balt, Buf, Ind. The pats had some success moving the ball gainst Mia, but the limitations of their passing game were apparent in the red zone. In the other 3 games, the Pats were ineffective through the air. They didn't throw it much against Buff or Ind, but when they did, the WRS were generally not open, except on playaction. The Gronkless results earlier in the year and in the last 2 playoffs don't inspire confidence that they will just be able to throw effectively whenever they want. In your other post, you seem to acknowledge as much, noting that edelman is the only viable downfield threat and stating that Dobson, who most likely is not going to play this year, is "crucial" to their success.

Edit: another thing. They actually were not moving the ball against Mia. It was only after the dolphins sustained multiple injuries to t secondary that things opened up.

It is conceivable that there are just some very good defences...and Miami has a very talented unit...that can stop the pass and/or run very effectively? You're talking like Brady threw for a mediocre 3K! You might try and quote the lower number of TDs, but we were second in rushing TDs throughout the year.

We have a balanced attack. We are not reliant on the run. Curran is just basically saying, 'if you run the ball well, you'll win games'. No *****.

It's a knee jerk article based on the fact we opted to run more on the Colts than throw it. Our passing game is NOT the reason we did so. So this whole debate is a huge non starter.

Curran is spot on. The Patriots are running so much because they have few weapons in the passing game. It's Julian Edelman and nobody else. If I'm the Broncos I double team Edelman all game long. Amendola gives them a couple of good receptions per game and that's about it. The pillow soft kiddies they drafted at WR can't be counted on for anything so forget them. The TE's?? What TE's??
If I'm the Broncos I bring my entire defense down within 10 yds of the line of scrimmage. You clog up that 10 yd zone and smother the Patriots.
Patriots need to keep this game close. If the Broncos get up by 10 to 14 it could get real ugly.

Again, you're wrong. We're running so much because we can. We ran so much Saturday because we could and that was the game plan against a very weak front seven.

As I already said, if we needed to throw 40 + times a game, we WOULD. But we didn't need to. Who we have at WR has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ring 6]

How did I misrepresent your argument??? I said you think everything is rosy. Here, you say, "everything is rosy".

Where did I say everything is rosy? I listed facts, you concluded everything is rosy. I'm just giving facts, sorry they conflict with your prearranged conclusion.

You are deliberately trying to obfuscate a point that is not debatable: without Gronkowski, the Patriots are not effective through the air.

There is no evidence of that.

"Not effective through the air" does not mean they cannot score if they have a running game and the other team turns the ball over repeatedly. The point which I'm tired of making is that assuming they CAN'T run and the other team does NOT turn it over repeatedly, they will struggle to score.

There is no evidence of that.

The fact that they haven't needed to throw in recent weeks, but have struggled to throw anyway, should highlight to you the weakness of the passing game in must-pass situations, but somehow you have reached the opposite conclusion.

198 yards in 25 pass attmepts is not struggling.
They have not been in a must-pass situation, so those games are not indicative of must-pass situations.

As for your question, I will do something you never do, respond directly to it:

Surely you are kidding, as I quote each section of your posts and respond directly to each point.

They needed to throw against Miami and could not get it done.

They had 29 first downs and 453 yards of offense.

Those with eyes saw the inability to convert when the opponent plays aggressive man to man coverage as the Dolphins did in the red zone.

So they just let us have 453 yards and 29 first downs then tried to stop us once we were in position for the game winning TD?

They needed to throw against Cleveland and could do nothing until Cleveland backed off its DBs and went prevent to protect the lead.

Didn't we win that game? Didn't we score 27 points? Didn't we have 484 yards of offense and 30 first downs?
At best one drive was in any type of prevent defense. But regardless of what they played, we had almost 500 yards, 30 first downs and 27 points, which totally refutes your point.

The Pats had what 7 points up until that point?

Games are 60 minutes.

Let's go back to last year. No gronkowski, no passing game. SB 46, no Gronkowski, no passing game. Then, we had Wes Welker, who you claim is a great WR, and the Prisoner, who was a beast. Now, we have Jules, who I love, but has limitations, Amendola, who I love but is hurt, and Vereen, who I love but has looked lost in recent weeks outside of the Cleveland game. Now, if you 'd be so kind, point me to the games without Gronk where our passing game WAS effective.

This has already been done over an over.
I get that you want to have a negative feeling after winning the Divisional round. Just don't pretend there are facts to support it.

 

[Ring 6]

I think reliance on the run is a great thing against Denver. In the Super Bowl, it may not be.

The Broncos will have to respect the run and they do not have the secondary to put 8 in the box and leave their CBs on an island if the Pats run a play action or just plain pass out of a running formation. Especially without Harris, the Broncos struggle against the pass in nickel and dime.

If the Pats win on Sunday and draw Seattle, they have a defense that can easily load up on the run and their their CBs on an island for a passing play. The 49ers are the same to a lesser extent.

I am not thrilled with the Pats receiving corp without Dobson, but I think they are more than good enough to exploit a bad Broncos' defense with two of their best defenders out of the game (Miller and Harris) especially with the Broncos having to respect the run.

We are going to take what the defense gives us. We are going to attack weaknesses.
We have the best running game in BBs era (in a recent short term view) and Tom Brady with enough weapons to get to the exposed area of the field.
When we need to run, we run well. When we need to pass, we pass well.
Do we win every game, and score 50 every week, no. Neither does anyone else.
In the second half of the season, we outscored Denver. We did in round 1 as well against similar defenses.
Those who insist on Chicken Littling the week, are beyond reaching any way.

 

[letekro]

It's not hostility, it's aggravation at reading your constant negative bullcrap....and that's all it is as plainly you REFUSE to acknowledge you were WRONG...OUTRIGHT AND PLAINLY WRONG in your assertion. You change the goal posts to fit your constant whiny negativity. The Pats had long sustained drives in all quarters of that game. That they only scored so many points is meaingless in YOUR beginning contextual statement. Obviously you are just outright trolling.

Joker, I'm not a negative poster any more than Curran is a negative journalist. Just pointing out a concern. All teams (other than maybe San fran) are deeply flawed, so it is not the end of the world. It troubles me that you think I'm moving the goalposts. I said our passing game is not effective. I didn't say "we can't move the ball with our passing game". We struggled in the red zone because the dolphins played tight man to man coverage and our guys can't separate. The concern that I share with Curran is: what if a team takes that red zone philosophy to the rest of the field? My view and Curran's view, which you may disagree with, is that the Patriots would struggle mightily in that scenario without a running game. Now, the question is: without Chris Harris, can the broncos play aggressive man coverage? Hopefully not. I also think we'll be able to run the ball pretty well, so I'm hoping my concern doesn't materialize.

 

[Ring 6]

Joker, I'm not a negative poster any more than Curran is a negative journalist. Just pointing out a concern. All teams (other than maybe San fran) are deeply flawed, so it is not the end of the world. It troubles me that you think I'm moving the goalposts. I said our passing game is not effective. I didn't say "we can't move the ball with our passing game". We struggled in the red zone because the dolphins played tight man to man coverage and our guys can't separate. The concern that I share with Curran is: what if a team takes that red zone philosophy to the rest of the field? My view and Curran's view, which you may disagree with, is that the Patriots would struggle mightily in that scenario without a running game. Now, the question is: without Chris Harris, can the broncos play aggressive man coverage? Hopefully not. I also think we'll be able to run the ball pretty well, so I'm hoping my concern doesn't materialize.

Wait. You are saying our passing is not effective but the 49ers is?
Are you really saying that?