Excellent proposal: reduce the complexity of the offense

[Ring 6]

Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.

Are you seriously trying to say 85 was doing a great job and Brady doesn't know how to find an open receiver?
This is bizarre, even for you.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

This team may have very well have won the Super Bowl a few months ago without a strong running game if Gronk was healthy.

And yes, it is a coincidence that the Pats have failed to win the Super Bowl since Corey Dillon left because they won two Super Bowls without a strong running game. In 2001, the Pats were 13th in rushing yards. In 2003, the Pats were 27th in rushing yards (talk about a strong running game). While on 2003, Antonwain Smith led the Pats in rushing with 642 yards. What the 2001, 2003, and 2004 teams all had in common that is missing today is a strong to dominant defense, not a strong running game.

As for the Jets, they lucked into the playoffs one year they went Ground and Pound. In 2009, if the Colts needed to win their game vs. the Jets and didn't pull Manning and a lot of starters in the second half, the Jets would have gone 8-8 and missed the playoffs instead of going to the AFC Championship game. Also, they relied on a strong defense those two years to keep their anemic offense from losing games for them by keeping the games close low scoring games that the Jets could pull the game out of their arses at the end with one or two good drives.

The running game is becoming less and less important in the NFL. That is why so many RB free agents are either sitting at home or signed for crap money. A strong running game is a relatively low reason the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004. Most of the reasons come from the other side of the ball (couldn't cover Dallas Clark in the AFC Championship Game vs. the Colts or couldn't stop the Giants' offense on either of their final drives in the Super Bowl for example).

the reason for why i think the pats will not win without a stronger running game is two-fold:

1. When brady struggles (and he struggles against good defenses with top pass rushers), who will pick up the slack on offense? Obviously none of the receivers can do anything with a struggling QB, so the answer is the RB. I can't remember the last time i saw a pats RB bust one for 20 yards or so. BJGE ran for 4 yards per carry last year, which is average. Brady cannot shoulder the offense on his back - he needs help. when he faces a top defense, he has struggled. he panics and makes mistakes like the inexplicable safety in the SB and interception to blackburn.

2. the defense sucks. another way to help brady out is to have a strong D, but the pats don't have one.

the easier fix is to get a strong running game.

in super bowl 46, ahmad bradshaw by himself ran for almost as many yards as the entire pats team. overall, the giants ran for about 115 yards and the pats 75 yards.

in super bowl 42, the patriots ran for a putrid 45 yards or so, the giants 90 yards. corely dillon stated that year he wanted to come back, but BB said no. dillon would have been amazing in the super bowl, certainly a huge upgrade over maroney.

in super bowl 39, the patriots ran for 112 yards, the eagles 45.

in super bowl 38, the patriots ran for 125 yards, carolina 90 yards.

in super bowl 36, the patriots ran for 115 yards, while the rams 90 yards.


so in every super bowl in the brady era, the team that ran for more yards won

a running game is still important.

 

[pherein]

a running game is still important.

It really does keep the DL honest. Its a different strategy to defend run so you can catch the DL off guard with wrong personal on the field also.
But, if you don't have a solid run game and/or scat back, you really can't be as effective.
PT, sproles,etc are an important release valve for Brees also. When no ones open and the DL/LB blitz, it leaves one of these guys open or with a defensive player that is completely out matched.
A Sproles,PT,Forte type player would also make at least one good WR/TE on the Patriots in a mismatched situation, and Brady would find that , I think.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

the reason for why i think the pats will not win without a stronger running game is two-fold:

1. When brady struggles (and he struggles against good defenses with top pass rushers), who will pick up the slack on offense? Obviously none of the receivers can do anything with a struggling QB, so the answer is the RB. I can't remember the last time i saw a pats RB bust one for 20 yards or so. BJGE ran for 4 yards per carry last year, which is average. Brady cannot shoulder the offense on his back - he needs help. when he faces a top defense, he has struggled. he panics and makes mistakes like the inexplicable safety in the SB and interception to blackburn.

2. the defense sucks. another way to help brady out is to have a strong D, but the pats don't have one.

the easier fix is to get a strong running game.

in super bowl 46, ahmad bradshaw by himself ran for almost as many yards as the entire pats team. overall, the giants ran for about 115 yards and the pats 75 yards.

in super bowl 42, the patriots ran for a putrid 45 yards or so, the giants 90 yards. corely dillon stated that year he wanted to come back, but BB said no. dillon would have been amazing in the super bowl, certainly a huge upgrade over maroney.

in super bowl 39, the patriots ran for 112 yards, the eagles 45.

in super bowl 38, the patriots ran for 125 yards, carolina 90 yards.

in super bowl 36, the patriots ran for 115 yards, while the rams 90 yards.


so in every super bowl in the brady era, the team that ran for more yards won

a running game is still important.

I'll give you credit.

Most people would be too embarrassed to post this "analysis".

 

[Rob0729]

the reason for why i think the pats will not win without a stronger running game is two-fold:

1. When brady struggles (and he struggles against good defenses with top pass rushers), who will pick up the slack on offense? Obviously none of the receivers can do anything with a struggling QB, so the answer is the RB. I can't remember the last time i saw a pats RB bust one for 20 yards or so. BJGE ran for 4 yards per carry last year, which is average. Brady cannot shoulder the offense on his back - he needs help. when he faces a top defense, he has struggled. he panics and makes mistakes like the inexplicable safety in the SB and interception to blackburn.

2. the defense sucks. another way to help brady out is to have a strong D, but the pats don't have one.

the easier fix is to get a strong running game.

in super bowl 46, ahmad bradshaw by himself ran for almost as many yards as the entire pats team. overall, the giants ran for about 115 yards and the pats 75 yards.

in super bowl 42, the patriots ran for a putrid 45 yards or so, the giants 90 yards. corely dillon stated that year he wanted to come back, but BB said no. dillon would have been amazing in the super bowl, certainly a huge upgrade over maroney.

in super bowl 39, the patriots ran for 112 yards, the eagles 45.

in super bowl 38, the patriots ran for 125 yards, carolina 90 yards.

in super bowl 36, the patriots ran for 115 yards, while the rams 90 yards.


so in every super bowl in the brady era, the team that ran for more yards won

a running game is still important.

A few things:

- Apparently you missed this season if you can't remember a Patriots' RB busting it for 20 yards or so because Stevan Ridley had three rushes for 20 plus yards (another for 18) and Shane Vereen had a 19 yard TD run. Yes, that isn't a lot, but it is far more than you remember.
- Please explain to me how a strong running game would have made Welker and Brady connect on that pass, made the Pats cover Mario Manningham, stopped David Tyree drop his miracle pass, make Asante Samuel or Brandon Meriweather catch easy INTs they dropped, or made the Pats cover Dallas Clark.
- The first Giants Super Bowl, the Giants only rushed for 101 yards on 26 carries (3.9 YPC). It wasn't as bad as the Patriots, but clearly not a great rushing effort.
- In that Super Bowl, the o-line played so bad that no RB would have performed very well against the Giants' front four.
- Last year, the Packers won the Super Bowl with only 50 yards rushing. The year before the Saints won the Super Bowl with only 51 yards of rushing. The year before that, the Steelers won the Super Bowl with 58 total yards of rushing. Three years in a row, the Super Bowl winner won with virtually no running game.
- Another thing that the Pats had the three years the Pats won the Super Bowl was a great to dominant defense. In the Rams' Super Bowl, that was why they won by shutting down the Greatest Show on Turf and scoring only 6 less points than the offense (the defense scored 7 and the offense scored 13).
- The last few years the rules have been increasingly been skewed towards the passing game and the running game across the league (unless you have a rushing QB) has become less and less important. All these rules were put in place after the Pats won their last Super Bowl.
- All of the Pats Super Bowls with Brady have come down to the wire. The difference between the wins and the losses have literally come down to a small handful of plays. Many of these plays came while the Pats' defense was on the field.

Sorry, but your argument is weak on the running game aspect. The evidence isn't there as much as you want to spin it. In fact the evidence is against you with three of the last four Super Bowl winners won despite they had no running game in the Super Bowl.

 

[Rob0729]

It really does keep the DL honest. Its a different strategy to defend run so you can catch the DL off guard with wrong personal on the field also.
But, if you don't have a solid run game and/or scat back, you really can't be as effective.
PT, sproles,etc are an important release valve for Brees also. When no ones open and the DL/LB blitz, it leaves one of these guys open or with a defensive player that is completely out matched.
A Sproles,PT,Forte type player would also make at least one good WR/TE on the Patriots in a mismatched situation, and Brady would find that , I think.

The Pats got almost as many yards and points as the Saints did last year during the regular season. The Pats won a Super Bowl in the 2003 season with a below average running game. You can win without a solid running game.

In fact, the trend is that the TEs are starting to become that aspect of the offense to keep defenders off guard. In many ways it does the same thing. I makes teams dedicate more players to the center of the field opening up passes to the outside (the running game makes defenders play closer to the line). Also, the Pats have always made up for any deficiencies in the running game with the short passing game.

Also, the Pats use the passing game to set up the run which is just as effective if done right. That is why guys like Kevin Faulk and Danny Woodhead have been so important to this team.

The Pats got to the Super Bowl with an average at best running game last year. They could have won it without a running game back in February if the Pats stopped Manningham from catching that pass or Welker caught that pass or Brady didn't cause a safety on an intentional grounding the first offensive play.

Lastly, your Saints went farther without Sproles than they did with him. Yes a Sproles or Forte can add another dimension to the offense, but adding a RB like that isn't the only way you can do it. Besides, Sproles was dangerous more as a receiver than a runner. He had over 100 more yards and (710 receiving yards) more TDs (7 receiving TDs) as a receiver than as a rusher (603 rushing yards and 2 rushing TDs) last year.

Even though I knew it was probably BS, I was all on board in trading for Forte, but in large part what he could do as a receiver not a runner. If he couldn't catch the ball, I would be 100% against that trade. Hence why I have little interest in the Jonathan Stewart rumor. Although he was a pretty good receiver this year (at least at times since nearly half his receiving yards came in two games), he hasn't been for his career.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

in response to the above, i'm not saying the pats have to have a 1500 yard rusher to win another super bowl. but clearly it has to be STRONGER (the word i used in my original post) than it is now. Low YPC in the super bowl by NY fails to account for what the giants did - kill clock. the giants dominated the time of possession. killing more clock means tom has less time to do anything. and conversely, if the patriots were able to dominate time of possession, eli would have had less time to do his magic acts.

and yes welker dropped that pass, tyree/manningham made that amazing catch, blah blah blah, but how is that going to help next year? are you seriously going to argue that the patriots only need to tinker here and there because of one miracle play in the SB and are good as golden for next year? bottom line is the team got lucky to be in the SB after that AFCCG showing and a defense that struggled all year. there is no guarantee they will be back. after SB 42 it took 4 years to get back to the super bowl. in another 4 years brady will be 39.

some of you may not see the urgency in getting a strong running game. brady will be 35 at the start of next season. QB skills diminish quite a bit after 36. elway won two super bowls late in his career, but he did so because of terrell davis. the time is now for ridley to step up and take some of the heat off tom.

 

[pherein]

The Pats got almost as many yards and points as the Saints did last year during the regular season. The Pats won a Super Bowl in the 2003 season with a below average running game. You can win without a solid running game.

In fact, the trend is that the TEs are starting to become that aspect of the offense to keep defenders off guard. In many ways it does the same thing. I makes teams dedicate more players to the center of the field opening up passes to the outside (the running game makes defenders play closer to the line). Also, the Pats have always made up for any deficiencies in the running game with the short passing game.

Also, the Pats use the passing game to set up the run which is just as effective if done right. That is why guys like Kevin Faulk and Danny Woodhead have been so important to this team.

The Pats got to the Super Bowl with an average at best running game last year. They could have won it without a running game back in February if the Pats stopped Manningham from catching that pass or Welker caught that pass or Brady didn't cause a safety on an intentional grounding the first offensive play.

Lastly, your Saints went farther without Sproles than they did with him. Yes a Sproles or Forte can add another dimension to the offense, but adding a RB like that isn't the only way you can do it. Besides, Sproles was dangerous more as a receiver than a runner. He had over 100 more yards and (710 receiving yards) more TDs (7 receiving TDs) as a receiver than as a rusher (603 rushing yards and 2 rushing TDs) last year.

Even though I knew it was probably BS, I was all on board in trading for Forte, but in large part what he could do as a receiver not a runner. If he couldn't catch the ball, I would be 100% against that trade. Hence why I have little interest in the Jonathan Stewart rumor. Although he was a pretty good receiver this year (at least at times since nearly half his receiving yards came in two games), he hasn't been for his career.

Common Rob,, there isn't a single QB in the NFL that won't tell you they don't need a good run game, why ?
I hope your not telling me the Patriots don't need Forte or some relief for Brady. I mean Bradys amazing but he's not perfect, and when you rely on him to be so, and he has a bad game, your going to lose.
Its best to supply him with enough weapons so when he has a bad day, others can compensate. Having a bad running game helps no one in NE. Its an excuse. He needs better to help, and thats very proven. You can't be 1 dimensional or defense plan for it.
You ready don't think sproles or PT would have given you an edge in the SB?

I don't expect you to agree with me, we didn't make the SB, but contemplate it. The Pats with our back field. And you where brilliant to want Forte, who wouldn't, but with sproles or PT you would have won that SB.

 

[Deus Irae]

in response to the above, i'm not saying the pats have to have a 1500 yard rusher to win another super bowl. but clearly it has to be STRONGER (the word i used in my original post) than it is now. Low YPC in the super bowl by NY fails to account for what the giants did - kill clock. the giants dominated the time of possession. killing more clock means tom has less time to do anything. and conversely, if the patriots were able to dominate time of possession, eli would have had less time to do his magic acts.

and yes welker dropped that pass, tyree/manningham made that amazing catch, blah blah blah, but how is that going to help next year? are you seriously going to argue that the patriots only need to tinker here and there because of one miracle play in the SB and are good as golden for next year? bottom line is the team got lucky to be in the SB after that AFCCG showing and a defense that struggled all year. there is no guarantee they will be back. after SB 42 it took 4 years to get back to the super bowl. in another 4 years brady will be 39.

some of you may not see the urgency in getting a strong running game. brady will be 35 at the start of next season. QB skills diminish quite a bit after 36. elway won two super bowls late in his career, but he did so because of terrell davis. the time is now for ridley to step up and take some of the heat off tom.

Your argument's a lousy one. I'm sorry, because I'm a big fan of the running game and the idea of pummeling an opponent on the ground, but that's just the way it is in the modern NFL.

 

[Deus Irae]

Common Rob,, there isn't a single QB in the NFL that won't tell you they don't need a good run game, why ?
I hope your not telling me the Patriots don't need Forte or some relief for Brady. I mean Bradys amazing but he's not perfect, and when you rely on him to be so, and he has a bad game, your going to lose.
Its best to supply him with enough weapons so when he has a bad day, others can compensate. Having a bad running game helps no one in NE. Its an excuse. He needs better to help, and thats very proven. You can't be 1 dimensional or defense plan for it.
You ready don't think sproles or PT would have given you an edge in the SB?

I don't expect you to agree with me, we didn't make the SB, but contemplate it. The Pats with our back field. And you where brilliant to want Forte, who wouldn't, but with sproles or PT you would have won that SB.

The Saints were 6th in the NFL in rushing yards last season. In their game against the 49ers, they put up a total of 37 yards rushing. In the NFCCG, the 49ers lost to the Giants despite outrushing New York 150-85 and holding the Giants to under 4 ypc. The Giants were outgained against the Packers as well, 147-95, again averaging under 4 ypc.

 

[Joker]

you can stop a running attack...I want to see defenses stop the Pats passing attack now that Lloyd is in the fold...specifically, I want to see that fat blubbering idiot's "amoeba!!!" defense keep the safety up to double Gronkowski or Welker and let Crofatherly matchup 1 on 1 all game with Lloyd. Of course I'm also assuming Revis takes his customary position in single coverage and the Pats flank out Branch or whomever to his side.

I'm sure Greasy Toesucker has big ideas on stopping Hernandez 1 on 1 again...like he idiotically tried twice last season.Perhaps Landry will last long enough into the season to find out, eh?

 

[pherein]

The Saints were 6th in the NFL in rushing yards last season. In their game against the 49ers, they put up a total of 37 yards rushing. In the NFCCG, the 49ers lost to the Giants despite outrushing New York 150-85 and holding the Giants to under 4 ypc. The Giants were outgained against the Packers as well, 147-95, again averaging under 4 ypc.

PT was knocked out that game , you know that. They were not stoping him until the hit. WE lost because of defense, no one put 32pts on them except us. Our offense shredded the top defense in the the nfl and the defense couldn't stop one of the worst offenses in the playoffs, like last year, pretty simple.
You saw the giants game, it was turnovers . Heck, we had 6 turnovers vs them and they still almost lost. Has nothing to do with run game.

 

[Deus Irae]

PT was knocked out that game , you know that. They were not stoping him until the hit. WE lost because of defense, no one put 32pts on them except us.
You saw the giants game, it was turnovers . Heck, we had 6 turnovers vs them and they still almost lost. Has nothing to do with run game.

And..... with your post, you've helped to make my point about the running game.

 

[pherein]

And..... with your post, you've helped to make my point about the running game.

lol, no we lost PT in that game, and lost all our RB's vs seatle. Yes we still make big points your right, but we have a huge WR/TE depth, but we lost

 

[JMarr]

Nah, the notion that we could benefit tremendously from a more potent running attack is utter nonsense. After all, we've got TFB, who aces every big game he ever plays in.

 

[Deus Irae]

lol, no we lost PT in that game, and lost all our RB's vs seatle. Yes we still make big points your right

WE lost because of defense....Has nothing to do with run game.

The Patriots lost largely because the defense couldn't stop the Giants and change field position, and because Welker, Branch and Hernandez had critical drops. Just as with the Saints, it wasn't about the run game, although both teams would obviously have been thrilled with more from it.

TommyBrady12 was pointing to rushing yards for the Patriots in their Super Bowls as if they meant something, yet the Giants lost the rushing yards battle in half of their playoff games this season and in one of their 4 wins in 2007, and have come away with 2 Super Bowl victories on the strength of their defensive line and big plays in the passing game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nah, the notion that we could benefit tremendously from a more potent running attack is utter nonsense.

That was not the discussion, so why set up the straw man?

After all, we've got TFB, who aces every big game he ever plays in.

Brady set a Super Bowl record for consecutive completions in this past Super Bowl, and had multiple drops that count against his completion percentage and change the appearance of his effectiveness. Despite that, he had the team with the lead with just a couple of minutes to go, but the defense couldn't get the job done. As has been noted time and again, the defense was unable to force the Giants into 3-and-outs, and the Patriots were fighting bad field position all game long as a result. That has nothing to do with the Patriots running game.

 

[JMarr]

Brady set a Super Bowl record for consecutive completions in this past Super Bowl, and had multiple drops that count against his completion percentage and change the appearance of his effectiveness. Despite that, he had the team with the lead with just a couple of minutes to go, but the defense couldn't get the job done. As has been noted time and again, the defense was unable to force the Giants into 3-and-outs, and the Patriots were fighting bad field position all game long as a result. That has nothing to do with the Patriots running game.

We should have lost the Ravens game. Brady admitted he sucked. Brady will have have some "bad" games in the future, more so as he physically declines. I'm not putting my money on the Patriots winning another SB without having a plan B for when Brady or the receivers having an off game, or we face a defense that knows how to slow our passing game down.

 

[Deus Irae]

We should have lost the Ravens game.

I don't know who "we" is, but the Patriots won the Ravens game, and they should have. I don't know where the notion that the Ravens should have won originally came from, but it's a very stupid claim.

Brady admitted he sucked. Brady will have have some "bad" games in the future, more so as he physically declines. I'm not putting my money on the Patriots winning another SB without having a plan B for when Brady or the receivers having an off game, or we face a defense that knows how to slow our passing game down.

Brady often takes the blame upon himself, and he was an MVP candidate in a year where he threw for over 5000 yards. You're just talking out of your ass here.

 

[Joker]

quite a running game the Giants unleashed throwing into double coverage on that key completion late in the 4th quarter...what WAS the Giants final ypc figure?? They rushed for 20 more yards on 9 more attempts than the Patriots and had a 4.1 ypc to the Pats 4.5...

again...you PASS to win these days