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

[letekro]

Pretty funny how you are the guy saying you know what will happen, yet you throw a personal attack at me. Stay classy leterko. Or get classy I should say.

Would love to see you argue in front of an intelligent arbiter. They would be torn between laughing you out of the room or holding you in contempt.

Just so I'm clear, the personal attack was referring to you as "Nostrajohnson" or my remark that you don't seem interested in pursuing intellectual honesty? Or both?

 

[Dutchmaster617]

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

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

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.

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

You fall behind you pass more and rush less. The key is our defense not giving up quick points early.

 

[Ring 6]

Would love to see you argue in front of an intelligent arbiter. They would be torn between laughing you out of the room or holding you in contempt.

Again, you can't make a good argument so it gets personal.

Just so I'm clear, the personal attack was referring to you as "Nostrajohnson" or my remark that you don't seem interested in pursuing intellectual honesty? Or both?

Again, you can't make a strong argument so it gets personal.
Its hard to understand how you don't get that.

 

[letekro]

Again, you can't make a good argument so it gets personal.


Again, you can't make a strong argument so it gets personal.
Its hard to understand how you don't get that.

This is not personal. I'm pointing about problems with your argumentation. You're doing the same. Only problem is, my statements are supported by evidence while yours are supported by rhetoric. And no, points scored is not a better measure of pass offense than passer efficiency or QBR. Do I really need to flesh out why that is the case?

 

[Ring 6]

This is not personal. I'm pointing about problems with your argumentation. You're doing the same. Only problem is, my statements are supported by evidence while yours are supported by rhetoric. And no, points scored is not a better measure of pass offense than passer efficiency or QBR. Do I really need to flesh out why that is the case?

Aside from you interjecting personal slams to try to sound cool, we are discussing point of view.
Please show me what I have said that is supported by rhetoric and not fact. You may choose a different set of facts, but that doesn't change my facts to rhetoric.
And yes, points scored is the best gauge of an offense IF you are limited in your capacity to have to have some type of statistic to use to express something that no statistic can fully express.
I will take the passing offense that keeps my team on the field to score points over the one that has pretty statistics. I'm sure Belichick would agree.

Here are some examples of comments you made that are personal and not based on the facts or arguments at hand:

As you can see none have anything to do with the discussion, just with you trying to look cool by insulting me. Very immature.

Would love to see you argue in front of an intelligent arbiter. They would be torn between laughing you out of the room or holding you in contempt.

you show no interest in pursuing intellectual honesty,

My suspicion is that your belief is that only statistics that back up your worldview are relevant, but hope springs eternal that you'll prove me wrong

As you can see your attempts to attack the person rather than discuss the idea are prevelant.
Of course if you had a stronger argument, you would feel no need to play to the audience like that.

I'm done here. I have no interest in listening to you act like an @$$ because you can't have a discussion like an adult.

 

[letekro]

Aside from you interjecting personal slams to try to sound cool, we are discussing point of view.
Please show me what I have said that is supported by rhetoric and not fact. You may choose a different set of facts, but that doesn't change my facts to rhetoric.
And yes, points scored is the best gauge of an offense IF you are limited in your capacity to have to have some type of statistic to use to express something that no statistic can fully express.
I will take the passing offense that keeps my team on the field to score points over the one that has pretty statistics. I'm sure Belichick would agree.

Here are some examples of comments you made that are personal and not based on the facts or arguments at hand:

As you can see none have anything to do with the discussion, just with you trying to look cool by insulting me. Very immature.




As you can see your attempts to attack the person rather than discuss the idea are prevelant.
Of course if you had a stronger argument, you would feel no need to play to the audience like that.

I'm done here. I have no interest in listening to you act like an @$$ because you can't have a discussion like an adult.

Your hypocrisy is truly astounding. You construct straw man after straw man, ignore every piece of evidence, and use rhetoric like "idiotic" and "Chicken Little" in place of actually responding to the arguments and questions put to you. You are fooling no one. Shame, because I think you are certainly smart and aware enough to construct sound arguments in good faith.

 

[Ring 6]

Your hypocrisy is truly astounding. You construct straw man after straw man, ignore every piece of evidence, and use rhetoric like "idiotic" and "Chicken Little" in place of actually responding to the arguments and questions put to you. You are fooling no one. Shame, because I think you are certainly smart and aware enough to construct sound arguments in good faith.

Of course you know you just made that up and it has no basis, but go ahead and show where I created strawman arguments.
I made a claim, and pasted in your words to prove it, can you?
I have answered every legitimate question asked or point raised by you. Thats why you resorted to making in personal and ended up with something like this.

 

[letekro]

Of course you know you just made that up and it has no basis, but go ahead and show where I created strawman arguments.

I'm not going to waste time cutting and pasting. You and I both know what you said. Just off the top of my head:

1. Curran's article says that it is a bad thing that the Pats have been running the ball well.
2. I say that it's a bad thing that the Pats have been running the ball well.
3. I say that Kap is better than Brady
4. I say the Patriots are not an "efficient" team
5. I say that the Patriots cannot move the ball through the air
6. I say that the Patriots offense has not been effective.
7. I say that the Patriots cannot score

The argument was about passing game effectiveness and nothing else. You introduced all of the nonsense above which focus on team achievement or on gross passing yardage, but do not isolate passing game effectiveness. Then you said the idea that 49ers currently have a better passing game was "idiotic". In response, I gave you passer efficiency rating (Kap 91-87), I gave you QBR (Kap 68-61), someone else volunteered DYAR, which has Brady 6th and Kap 8th for the whole season (I have no idea how to compare this for the games in which Gronk did not play and Crabtree did, but there is no way that Kap's DYAR is not higher for those games if he is so close to Brady over the full season). If none of those stats mean anything to the current state of the two passing games, what does?

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not going to waste time cutting and pasting. You and I both know what you said. Just off the top of my head:

You should have because you wouldn't have found these things

1. Curran's article says that it is a bad thing that the Pats have been running the ball well.

I actually said
a column saying the excellent running game may be a problem
which is accurate

2. I say that it's a bad thing that the Pats have been running the ball well.

I never said you said that.

3. I say that Kap is better than Brady

I mistook your comment to mean that, you said it didnt, I corrected. Can you explain how that is a strawman?

4. I say the Patriots are not an "efficient" team

I never said that.
I did say the passing game was part of an offense that scored 34.5 ppg in the time frame you included, and that is a pretty efficient offense.

5. I say that the Patriots cannot move the ball through the air

I didn't say that. I repeated your incredulous claim that they cannot throw the ball effectively. Did you not say that?
That is the center of your argument correct?

6. I say that the Patriots offense has not been effective.

I never said that. I responded to you saying the passing game hasn't been effective. You did say that right?

7. I say that the Patriots cannot score

I never said that.

You just created 6 things that have some relation to what we discussed and made up comments that I said you said. Please find any examples of me doing that. Better yet, dont waste your time, they don't exist.
Then you took one comment I made where I misunderstood you and IMMEDIATELY recanted when you said you didn't mean that.

The argument was about passing game effectiveness and nothing else.

No it wasn't. It was about the idea the Patriots are running because they cannot throw, it was about whether they can move the ball if the running game isn't there, it was about you saying the success vs the Browns and Fins doesn't count, it was about you saying the 49ers pass offense is better than the Patriots, it was about you saying nothing that happened with Gronk on the field is relevant to anything, it was about games vs Carolina. It was about you changing 'ineffective moving the ball' to "passing efficiency" which is a concept I didn't even discuss because it is silly to try to define.
It was about many things.

You introduced all of the nonsense above which focus on team achievement or on gross passing yardage, but do not isolate passing game effectiveness.

Wait. So you can go in circles, and I cannot introduce a criteria I have?
Its simple. You want to be negative and are searching for statistics to 'prove you are right'. I look at the success the team had, which is what matters, which the passing game was part of. I don't discount the passing game because the running game was dominant. I never defined anything as gross passing yards other than your claim they didn't move the ball effectively.
I used the criteria I feel are important. You dismissed successful passing with whatever excuse you found and then argued an archaic stat formula proves something.

Then you said the idea that 49ers currently have a better passing game was "idiotic".

I find that idiotic, I agree.

In response, I gave you passer efficiency rating (Kap 91-87), I gave you QBR (Kap 68-61),

I explained that I do not place value on those metrics, and I never have. They are flawed, they are all but useless.
I don't accept your formula. So?

someone else volunteered DYAR, which has Brady 6th and Kap 8th for the whole season (I have no idea how to compare this for the games in which Gronk did not play and Crabtree did, but there is no way that Kap's DYAR is not higher for those games if he is so close to Brady over the full season). If none of those stats mean anything to the current state of the two passing games, what does?

Football is not about statistics, but even if it is, being 'more efficient' throwing for 180 yards and scoring 20 points is not a better passing game than moving your team up and down the field scoring 30 points, accumulating 450 yards of offense and 30 first downs. That is why rating is a metric for people who don't understand football to compare some groups of statistics that are not anywhere near a complete picture, folded into a flawed formula.
The 49ers struggle to throw the ball consistently and have an effective offense when they are not running effectively, the Patriots have not. Its that simple really. Kaepernick is not in Bradys vicinity.

 

[letekro]

You should have because you wouldn't have found these things


I actually said
a column saying the excellent running game may be a problem
which is accurate


I never said you said that.



I mistook your comment to mean that, you said it didnt, I corrected. Can you explain how that is a strawman?



I never said that.
I did say the passing game was part of an offense that scored 34.5 ppg in the time frame you included, and that is a pretty efficient offense.



I didn't say that. I repeated your incredulous claim that they cannot throw the ball effectively. Did you not say that?
That is the center of your argument correct?


I never said that. I responded to you saying the passing game hasn't been effective. You did say that right?



I never said that.

You just created 6 things that have some relation to what we discussed and made up comments that I said you said. Please find any examples of me doing that. Better yet, dont waste your time, they don't exist.
Then you took one comment I made where I misunderstood you and IMMEDIATELY recanted when you said you didn't mean that.



No it wasn't. It was about the idea the Patriots are running because they cannot throw, it was about whether they can move the ball if the running game isn't there, it was about you saying the success vs the Browns and Fins doesn't count, it was about you saying the 49ers pass offense is better than the Patriots, it was about you saying nothing that happened with Gronk on the field is relevant to anything, it was about games vs Carolina. It was about you changing 'ineffective moving the ball' to "passing efficiency" which is a concept I didn't even discuss because it is silly to try to define.
It was about many things.




Wait. So you can go in circles, and I cannot introduce a criteria I have?
Its simple. You want to be negative and are searching for statistics to 'prove you are right'. I look at the success the team had, which is what matters, which the passing game was part of. I don't discount the passing game because the running game was dominant. I never defined anything as gross passing yards other than your claim they didn't move the ball effectively.
I used the criteria I feel are important. You dismissed successful passing with whatever excuse you found and then argued an archaic stat formula proves something.



I find that idiotic, I agree.


I explained that I do not place value on those metrics, and I never have. They are flawed, they are all but useless.
I don't accept your formula. So?



Football is not about statistics, but even if it is, being 'more efficient' throwing for 180 yards and scoring 20 points is not a better passing game than moving your team up and down the field scoring 30 points, accumulating 450 yards of offense and 30 first downs. That is why rating is a metric for people who don't understand football to compare some groups of statistics that are not anywhere near a complete picture, folded into a flawed formula.
The 49ers struggle to throw the ball consistently and have an effective offense when they are not running effectively, the Patriots have not. Its that simple really. Kaepernick is not in Bradys vicinity.

The one thing we agree on is that Kap is not in Brady's league. But, by any metric, other than the Andy-Johnson-I-know-it-when-I-see-it metric, the 49ers as currently constituted have been more consistent and just better in the passing game than the Patriots as presently constituted:

More passing YPG (not including QB scrambling yards)
Better completion %
Better TD/INT ratio
Better passer efficiency rating, QBR and DYAR

If you don't think the 49ers throw the ball consistently, fine. That is your opinion and no one is suggesting they are the 2007 Patriots. But the statistics demonstrate that recently they have been throwing it better, more consistently, more effectively, more whatever, than the Pats.

All that being said, as many others have pointed out, the Broncos may not have the personnel to deal with the Pats' offense, especially with Chris Harris out. So this weakness that I perceive hopefully will not sink them this week.

 

[PatriotReign]

I still don't understand why D.J. Williams isn't being allowed onto the field. He should have been here long enough to get a grasp on the playbook and he's also the fastest TE on the roster. I'm sure he has deficiencies in the blocking game but he could be a competent receiving option.

 

[Ring 6]

The one thing we agree on is that Kap is not in Brady's league. But, by any metric, other than the Andy-Johnson-I-know-it-when-I-see-it metric, the 49ers as currently constituted have been more consistent and just better in the passing game than the Patriots as presently constituted:

That is wrong.
Passing yards Patriots 10th at 4077. 49ers 30th at 2979. That is more than 33% more productive.
Comp % Patriots 60.5 49ers 58.5
Passing TDs Patriots 25 49ers 21
Passing first downs Patriots 225 49ers 148

More passing YPG (not including QB scrambling yards)
Better completion %
Better TD/INT ratio
Better passer efficiency rating, QBR and DYAR

If you don't think the 49ers throw the ball consistently, fine. That is your opinion and no one is suggesting they are the 2007 Patriots. But the statistics demonstrate that recently they have been throwing it better, more consistently, more effectively, more whatever, than the Pats.

No, the statistics you wish to chose for your favor say that.
Feel free to use whatever yardstick you wish.
I disagree with your yardstick, and think it isn't even close.
Lets also not overlook the fact that you have cherrypicked a small sample, which includes mostly games where the Patriots played in conditions that were not conducive to throwing the football. Lets also recognize that the Patriots were way out in front in those games and didn't need to throw the ball, and further recognize that the 'efficient numbers' are not apples to apples when you play in 38 degree driving rain and only throw mostly in obvious passing situations.

All that being said, as many others have pointed out, the Broncos may not have the personnel to deal with the Pats' offense, especially with Chris Harris out. So this weakness that I perceive hopefully will not sink them this week.

It hasn't sunk them yet, so why should this week be different.

 

[Deus Irae]

I still don't understand why D.J. Williams isn't being allowed onto the field. He should have been here long enough to get a grasp on the playbook and he's also the fastest TE on the roster. I'm sure he has deficiencies in the blocking game but he could be a competent receiving option.

He's not good.

 

[supafly]

You fall behind you pass more and rush less. The key is our defense not giving up quick points early.

Speaking in a general sense, overall--yes, of course. I agree with you.

However, sometimes it is just specific gameplanning, such as we've seen plenty of times in the past to try and take away an opponent's strength.

The SEA game last season was a decent example of this, as we passed for almost 60 times, yet had the lead throughout the entire game. They actually were ahead 23-10 with about six minutes left in the game, until SEA came back to score 2 late fourth quarter TD's. This was not a case of "falling behind," it was a case of not playing into their strong rush defense.

 

[letekro]

That is wrong.
Passing yards Patriots 10th at 4077. 49ers 30th at 2979. That is more than 33% more productive.
Comp % Patriots 60.5 49ers 58.5
Passing TDs Patriots 25 49ers 21
Passing first downs Patriots 225 49ers 148



No, the statistics you wish to chose for your favor say that.
Feel free to use whatever yardstick you wish.
I disagree with your yardstick, and think it isn't even close.
Lets also not overlook the fact that you have cherrypicked a small sample, which includes mostly games where the Patriots played in conditions that were not conducive to throwing the football. Lets also recognize that the Patriots were way out in front in those games and didn't need to throw the ball, and further recognize that the 'efficient numbers' are not apples to apples when you play in 38 degree driving rain and only throw mostly in obvious passing situations.


It hasn't sunk them yet, so why should this week be different.

I have picked a small sample--only 4 games for the Pats and 7 games for the 49ers. But discussing the 49ers without Crabtree is silly, because he is playing now and has completely turned their passing game around. 4 games for the Pats may be too small of a sample, but I certainly didn't see anything in the pre-Gronk games in 2013 (other than the magical final drive against NO), or in playoffs past when he has been out, that suggests they can be a good passing offense without him.

 

[Ring 6]

I have picked a small sample--only 4 games for the Pats and 7 games for the 49ers. But discussing the 49ers without Crabtree is silly, because he is playing now and has completely turned their passing game around. 4 games for the Pats may be too small of a sample, but I certainly didn't see anything in the pre-Gronk games in 2013 (other than the magical final drive against NO), or in playoffs past when he has been out, that suggests they can be a good passing offense without him.

Your sample is 4 games mostly in bad weather conditions with big leads and a dominant running game where we ran in most run/pass option situations.

The 49ers have scored 178 points in those 7 games, or 25.4 a game.
The Patriots have scored 34.5 in the 4 games you are using.

The result of what your offense did is a better gauge of the quality of your offense than a statistical analysis to show why there are categories of statistics that you can do better in and score fewer points for your team.
The fact of the matter is that it is about making plays to sustain drives and score points, not chalking up stats.
On top of that your entire analysis is flawed because 75% of Bradys games were in brutal weather conditions.
Conditions where the opposing QBs totalled:

59/112 (53%) with 3 TDs and 7 Ints
Clearly you are not accounting for the fact that the conditions had a major impact on the passing game.

 

[letekro]

Your sample is 4 games mostly in bad weather conditions with big leads and a dominant running game where we ran in most run/pass option situations.

The 49ers have scored 178 points in those 7 games, or 25.4 a game.
The Patriots have scored 34.5 in the 4 games you are using.

The result of what your offense did is a better gauge of the quality of your offense than a statistical analysis to show why there are categories of statistics that you can do better in and score fewer points for your team.
The fact of the matter is that it is about making plays to sustain drives and score points, not chalking up stats.
On top of that your entire analysis is flawed because 75% of Bradys games were in brutal weather conditions.
Conditions where the opposing QBs totalled:

59/112 (53%) with 3 TDs and 7 Ints
Clearly you are not accounting for the fact that the conditions had a major impact on the passing game.

Meh, only the Bills game was really bad weather and Thad Lewis went 16-29 for 245 yards and a 95 rating. I would say the weather game SF played in GB cancelled that out. Pats did a whole lot of nothing through the air in those games. I don't think you can really explain it away by saying they were running the ball well or they were ahead. They did try to throw and it just wasn't working very well, so they stuck with the run, which eventually paid big dividends.

 

[captain stone]

He [DJ Williams] is not good.

Then Bill should've signed somebody who was better.

 

[Ring 6]

Meh, only the Bills game was really bad weather and Thad Lewis went 16-29 for 245 yards and a 95 rating. I would say the weather game SF played in GB cancelled that out. Pats did a whole lot of nothing through the air in those games. I don't think you can really explain it away by saying they were running the ball well or they were ahead. They did try to throw and it just wasn't working very well, so they stuck with the run, which eventually paid big dividends.

Disagree completely. Weather was a factor. They ran because they could, not because they had to.

 

[Deus Irae]

Then Bill should've signed somebody who was better.

Take a look at what was out there. It's not as if Tony Gonzalez was on his couch waiting for BB to call.