First Impressions 2

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm interested to get the DVR perspective on that play, because my impression at the time was that Edelman got the ball as a last-option dumpoff, that he was desperate to stay in bounds and pick up the final yards with running room ahead, but that the throw was so high it carried him out of bounds. That's not to say that he shouldn't have run the route deeper, but he looked very aware that he wasn't at the marker yet.

There's my confusion with Ken's point, I had a different play in mind. Yes, he wasn't deep enough, but then I don't think he was intended to be. It looked like he was running under the zone coverage there and I think O'Connell or Hoyer or whichever was slow to check down to him and got him the ball to late for him to turn it upfield. And yes Ken, it's not like we haven't seen long term veterans execute it the same way.

 

[Rob0729]

I guess my post was lost in cyberspace last night. No big deal, it happens. I'll try again, but i have to admit that some of what I say will be colored by some of the comments written since then.

I only watched the first 3 quarters. That's how uninteresting the game had become. In no particular order here's what I thought.

TJ O'Sullivan was the best QB on the field last night. He made several very good throws in the face of some good pressure by the Pats.

Clearly the bad tackling by the Pats tarnished a pretty good night by the defense, especially by the first unit and the packages that ran. But I can understand WHY the tackling was so bad. The Pats do VERY little live tackling in camp. In fact the ONLY live tackling I saw were one-on-one open field drills with each guy getting just one or two reps during the time allotted. I even understand WHY that's the policy. These days there is just too much money tied up in these players to risk an injury. What I DON'T understand is why they don't use the MANY tackling drills that AREN'T fully live, that would promote some of the fundamentals that we cleary DIDN'T see last night.

This is a pet peeve of mine, since I believe across the ENTIRE league, the level of tackling skills gets worse every year. This isn't just a Pats problem. On the plus side, as they do more live tackling in games, they will get better. Not good, just better.

One the Brady sack - I'm assuming Kazcur is getting killed on the boards, however quite frankly (after looking at the tape more than a few times) I don't think it was entirely his fault. Clearly he looks inside FIRST, which allows Gathers to get by him untouched. You might notice that after the play he throws his arms up in surprise that no one else had him.

Later on the side line they caught Brady and Nick laughing and fist bumping. I THINK that either Brady or Koppen made a bad call at the LOS that caused the error, probably Brady. It was not a lack of talent, but communication. If anyone cared to look, on the very next play, Kaczur engages Gathers on another pass play and PANCAKES him.

Cincinnati has a pretty good team. They put decent pressure on the QB, and have good corners. On offense Benson likes like the real deal, while they have a WR corps that is as good as there is in the league (Chad, Coles, Henry) You can't help be impressed with the catches a couple of no names made and the back up RBs. People better not sleep on the Bengals this year. They might actually be as good IN the season, as they hype tthey get in the off season.

Its official, IMHO, the Pats have become the Colts. We no longer even look comfortable running the football. We are totally a finesse team who passes to set up the run. Virtually all of our running plays are delays or counters. Slow developing and not aggressively blocked. The toss sweep to Taylor was perhaps the only running play that was still left from the 2004 playbook.

Running the football is a mind set, not just a play call. All you have to do is look at the kind of plays the Bengals were running and compare them the types of plays the Pats ran to see the difference. To see the difference in the COMMITMENT to the run. People may want to complain about the RBs or the OL, but I think the problem starts at the top.

Now that being said, I know I AM complaining about an offense that was 6th in the league WITHOUT the best QB in the leaue, and broke records WITH him. I also agree with the Football outsiders view that it is more efficient to move the ball thru the air than on the ground. However I also agree that the way to win games (especially in the northeast in winter) is to score with your passing game in the first 3 quarters, and seal it with a good ground game in the 4th. Right now I wonder if we are capable to pound the ball at a defense who is expecting us to pound the ball. Not only don't I think we have the right plays to do it, I don't think we have the right mind set. However I DO believe we have the right talent, both on the OL and in the backfield.

KOC - I think in the first couple of series he was hamstrung by the play calling. However I liked the fact that he staying in the pocket against a heavy rush and ignored the instinct to take off and run. At the end of the half, when they got back in the shot gun, he did as well as expect. He might have done better if Edelman had run a smarter route on the 3rd down play.

Hoyer - Looks like he'll make a fine PS QB, and might even develop enough over the next few years to find a place in the league for the long run, but he's not someone you want to actually get into a real game. I hope people see it.

I'm encouraged by the play of the secondary, especially Butler. There was a lot less separation by the receivers, even on completed passes, than there was last season. Even on the TD pass, Wheatly had his hand ON THE BALL, just a second late. You can see the need for improvement, but at least the amount of improvement that is needed, is in the realm of reality.

Springs played like his name WAS Ron, and he was 50+. He looked as slow and unsure of himself as he did the first practice I saw him at. The possible good news is that he improved immensely the more he practced. I don't know how many practices he got in before this one, but I doubt it was many. Personally I hope that was the problem. However if there isn't a great improvement next week, then HE might be the surprise Vet that gets cut.

We aren't cutting ANY of our TEs. However trading one won't be out of the question. There are a number of teams who have had injuries at the position and SHOULD be willing to give up a 4th or 5th rounder for a legit TE. Smith would be my guess.

Pryor keeps on impressing as well as Brace. Volmer less so, this game. He looked lost out and unsure of himself on occassion

The 2 main Binkyiots, Chung and Edelman came back to earth. But neither changed his status on the team. Both are works in progress, and both will prove to be excellent STers this season.

Tully better find another move beside "run around the QB". Woods got a sack, but it was a coverage sack. Ninkovich showed me enough that he deserves another 2 weeks to see if he can find a place on the team. On the negative side, Burgess underwhelmed me AGAIN.

Glad to see Ty Warren back, and when the 3 amigos are all together, it won't matter WHAT their alignment is. they'll be tough.

THere was some other stuff I commented on last night, but I forgot it, and this is long enough as it is. I await your comments

Still not worried about the offense at all. I still think this team's success and failures will rely mostly on the defensive side as it has pretty much since 2004. Every year since 2004 with the exception of 2006, all the biggest issues with this team was on the defensive side of the ball.

As for running the ball, this has always been a pass heavy team with very little balance of production except for 2004. Even with Weis, the mantra was the Pats' short passing game was their running game. The Pats rarely were high in the running category in the Brady era. Only in 2001 and 2004 were they up there.

As for the Pats becoming the Colts' offense, that is definitely far from the truth. First, the Colts do run the football. Other than the last few years, Marshall Faulk, Edgerinne James, and Joseph Addai were always near the top in running yards. Also, the Pats use the short passing game to suppliment the running game far more than the Colts. The Colts were not a pass happy offense either. They were a great offense and not much of a defense. They run the ball a lot.

 

[mayoclinic]

Still not worried about the offense at all. I still think this team's success and failures will rely mostly on the defensive side as it has pretty much since 2004. Every year since 2004 with the exception of 2006, all the biggest issues with this team was on the defensive side of the ball.

As for running the ball, this has always been a pass heavy team with very little balance of production except for 2004. Even with Weis, the mantra was the Pats' short passing game was their running game. The Pats rarely were high in the running category in the Brady era. Only in 2001 and 2004 were they up there.

Let me get this straight: the Pats were rarely strong in the running game except for in 2 of their 3 SB-winning years, so therefore it's not an area of concern? I would argue that it's a strong justification for a power running game. The only other year that we run the SB we had a suffocating defense. I don't want a version of the 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 Patriots. The only years that count for me are the ones in which we took it all home, and I think we need an effective running game if we are going to do that this year. As of right now, I don't think we've shown that we have an effective running game.

 

[Rob0729]

Let me get this straight: the Pats were rarely strong in the running game except for in 2 of their 3 SB-winning years, so therefore it's not an area of concern? I would argue that it's a strong justification for a power running game. The only other year that we run the SB we had a suffocating defense. I don't want a version of the 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 Patriots. The only years that count for me are the ones in which we took it all home, and I think we need an effective running game if we are going to do that this year. As of right now, I don't think we've shown that we have an effective running game.

Well, 2001 they were average. I overstated the strong. They were strong in the sense that they didn't suck. They were 13th in running with 1793 yards, 23rd in YPC with 3.8 YPC, and 7th in TDs with 15. The defense carried that team and the offense played efficent enough to not make mistakes and score enough to make it close. Do you want the Pats to go back to the passing offense of 2001.

I am not concerned about the offense. I will restate it. Only in 2004 did the Pats have a good running game. We won two Super Bowls with Antowain Smith running the ball. I don't know if we have an effective running game yet, but othewr than 2004 I don't really know if we had anything more than efficient enough.

BTW, the 2006 run offense had more yards (1969), more YPC (3.9), and TDs (20) than the 2001 run offense and we didn't win the Super Bowl. Why? Because the defense gave up 35 second half points to the Colts in the AFCC. That is why I am concerned about the defense and not the offense.

 

[mgcolby]

I do want to point out that the Refs blew the call on one of Alexander's tackles. He tackled Brian Leonard and stripped him of the ball prior to Leonard landing on the ground. Yet they still gave the ball back to the Bengals..

It was one of the good plays that Alexander made..

Are you sure that was Alexander? I thought it was McGowan. Or am I mixing my fumbles up?

Edited: If I remember correctly McGowan made the hit to jar it loose and Alexander had "recovered" it, but they gave it back to Cincy.

 

[mayoclinic]

Well, 2001 they were average. I overstated the strong. They were strong in the sense that they didn't suck. They were 13th in running with 1793 yards, 23rd in YPC with 3.8 YPC, and 7th in TDs with 15. The defense carried that team and the offense played efficent enough to not make mistakes and score enough to make it close. Do you want the Pats to go back to the passing offense of 2001.

I am not concerned about the offense. I will restate it. Only in 2004 did the Pats have a good running game. We won two Super Bowls with Antowain Smith running the ball. I don't know if we have an effective running game yet, but othewr than 2004 I don't really know if we had anything more than efficient enough.

I'd personally be happy to go back to Tom Brady being more of a "ball control" QB and "game manager" instead of throwing up Peytonesque numbers if it means more SBs. The track record of pass-heavy teams winning SBs is not particularly strong. I would like to see more balance on offense and more physicality and aggressiveness on both sides of the ball. An effective running game is key to this. We had a reasonably effective running game last year - not up to 2004, but overally pretty solid. We seem to be going backwards so far in preseason. I know it's early, but I'd like to see more evidence that we are committed to running the ball effectively as a basic part of our offensive scheme (not just dinks and dunks).

 

[Rob0729]

I'd personally be happy to go back to Tom Brady being more of a "ball control" QB and "game manager" instead of throwing up Peytonesque numbers if it means more SBs. The track record of pass-heavy teams winning SBs is not particularly strong. I would like to see more balance on offense and more physicality and aggressiveness on both sides of the ball. An effective running game is key to this. We had a reasonably effective running game last year - not up to 2004, but overally pretty solid. We seem to be going backwards so far in preseason. I know it's early, but I'd like to see more evidence that we are committed to running the ball effectively as a basic part of our offensive scheme (not just dinks and dunks).

I agree that if more ball control would mean more championships, I would go back to it too. I'm sure Brady would too. Unfortunately, I don't think the Pats can win games 14-13 or 17-6 or 10-3 on a regular basis anymore for a number of reasons.

First, the league is different. Since 2004, there has been a lot of rules put in place that were geared to increase scoring. Few teams even with great defenses can win games on a regular basis without putting up points on offense. The PI emphasis on the chuck, rules on hitting QBs, etc. have made it harder to have a shut down defense.

Which brings me to point #2. The Pats' defense hasn't been nearly as good as at least the 2003 and 2004 seasons. The 2003 defense was the best in Patriots history and I would argue top 10-20 in league history. The 2004 defense wasn't that much worse. This defense has the potential to be a top defense, but it is unclear if they will. They struggled against the run a bit in the first game and last night there was no Carson Palmer to really test them. I don't think until this defense is proven that the Pats can go to a ball control offense like they had in the past.

As for the running game this year vs. last season, you are comparing the regular season vs. the preseason. The running game this preseason is worlds better than last preseason. The RB is better than last year since Maroney went to IR early and Taylor is better than LaMont Jordan. Morris didn't even play last night, but he is still here. If you were satisfied with last year's running game, this year's running game has the potential to be far better.

People are making too much of preseason games with no gameplanning and coaches experimenting on different things.

 

[slash83]

All the elements for the Pats to have a strong running game are in place. Teams simply cannot commit 8 in the box to stop the running game, especially with a WR group of Moss, Welker, Galloway, and Lewis. Mankins and Neal are two good guards who are physical, especially Mankins. Koppen isnt the most physical dominating center but can get the job done. Light and Kaczur arent close to be scrubs either and are effective. Watson and Baker are both can block in the running game, especially Baker. The running game should at least be able to average 3 to 4 ypc.

I expect Brady to play into the 3rd quarter vs Washington, and maybe even a couple of series in game 4. Moss had a defender beat last night which probably would of resulted in a TD if Brady hadn't overthrown him. The timing still isn't there, I'm not worried about it though, it will be there with more game play, this I'm sure about.

 

[patfanken]

Still not worried about the offense at all. I still think this team's success and failures will rely mostly on the defensive side as it has pretty much since 2004. Every year since 2004 with the exception of 2006, all the biggest issues with this team was on the defensive side of the ball.

As for running the ball, this has always been a pass heavy team with very little balance of production except for 2004. Even with Weis, the mantra was the Pats' short passing game was their running game. The Pats rarely were high in the running category in the Brady era. Only in 2001 and 2004 were they up there.

As for the Pats becoming the Colts' offense, that is definitely far from the truth. First, the Colts do run the football. Other than the last few years, Marshall Faulk, Edgerinne James, and Joseph Addai were always near the top in running yards. Also, the Pats use the short passing game to suppliment the running game far more than the Colts. The Colts were not a pass happy offense either. They were a great offense and not much of a defense. They run the ball a lot.

The bottom line is that I'M not worried about the offense that much. My concerns are for the playoffs where its one and done. A game lost because we CAN'T run the ball efficiently at the end of the game. Just look back to the 2006 AFCCG, when ONE first down means a trip to the superbowl. We couldn't get it done.

BTW - you are correct in your saying the DEFENSE will ultimately decide how far we go in the playoffs. It has been the DEFENSE that ultimately knocked us out the last 3 years. But a good running game is the defense's best friend, and I believe we have more than enough talent to make one work. We just need the commitment

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree that if more ball control would mean more championships, I would go back to it too. I'm sure Brady would too. Unfortunately, I don't think the Pats can win games 14-13 on a regular basis anymore for a number of reasons.

First, the league is different. Since 2004, there has been a lot of rules put in place that were geared to increase scoring. Few teams even with great defenses can win games on a regular basis without putting up points on offense. The PI emphasis on the chuck, rules on hitting QBs, etc. have made it harder to have a shut down defense.

Which brings me to point #2. The Pats' defense hasn't been nearly as good as at least the 2003 and 2004 seasons. The 2003 defense was the best in Patriots history and I would argue top 10-20 in league history. The 2004 defense wasn't that much worse. This defense has the potential to be a top defense, but it is unclear if they will. They struggled against the run a bit in the first game and last night there was no Carson Palmer to really test them. I don't think until this defense is proven that the Pats can go to a ball control offense like they had in the past.

As for the running game this year vs. last season, you are comparing the regular season vs. the preseason. The running game this preseason is worlds better than last preseason. The RB is better than last year since Maroney went to IR early and Taylor is better than LaMont Jordan. Morris didn't even play last night, but he is still here. If you were satisfied with last year's running game, this year's running game has the potential to be far better.

People are making too much of preseason games with no gameplanning and coaches experimenting on different things.

I don't particularly disagree with anything you are saying. I agree that our 2003 defense was exceptional; I would settle for this team's defense to approach 2004 (which I thought was overall the most balanced and strongest of any Pats team) - I think the talent is there for that to happen; whether or not it does is a whole 'nother question.

What I guess concerns me so far this preseason is the appearance that the Pats are moving more and more towards a finesse team with less commitment to the run than ever before. I understand that it is early and that we are assessing personnel. But what I have seen so far worries me considerably. I'm not suggesting that we should emulate 2003-2004 and try to win games 14-13. As you say, the roles and talent have changed, and we have much more offensive firepower. But I'd much rather win games 24-17 with a physical defense and running game complementing a lethal quick-strike and ball-control passing game than see us emulate 2007 and set records while blowing out teams, only to find ourselves on the losing end of a 17-14 slugfest when up against a power running and defensive team like Pittsburgh or the Giants. History (2003 Colts, 1998 Vikings, 1990 49ers) suggest that that is the likely outcome for such unbalanced teams.

 

[patfanken]

There's my confusion with Ken's point, I had a different play in mind. Yes, he wasn't deep enough, but then I don't think he was intended to be. It looked like he was running under the zone coverage there and I think O'Connell or Hoyer or whichever was slow to check down to him and got him the ball to late for him to turn it upfield. And yes Ken, it's not like we haven't seen long term veterans execute it the same way.

Yeah, Box you could be right. It could have been the pass led him too much, and kept him from gaining the extra 2 yds. However one of my "many" pet peeves is 3rd an say 8 pass that 3 yds long. Drives me nuts.

 

[patfanken]

Still not worried about the offense at all. I still think this team's success and failures will rely mostly on the defensive side as it has pretty much since 2004. Every year since 2004 with the exception of 2006, all the biggest issues with this team was on the defensive side of the ball.

As for running the ball, this has always been a pass heavy team with very little balance of production except for 2004. Even with Weis, the mantra was the Pats' short passing game was their running game. The Pats rarely were high in the running category in the Brady era. Only in 2001 and 2004 were they up there.

As for the Pats becoming the Colts' offense, that is definitely far from the truth. First, the Colts do run the football. Other than the last few years, Marshall Faulk, Edgerinne James, and Joseph Addai were always near the top in running yards. Also, the Pats use the short passing game to suppliment the running game far more than the Colts. The Colts were not a pass happy offense either. They were a great offense and not much of a defense. They run the ball a lot.

You can't be more correct. I was just attempting to create an image. The sad fact is the we NOW run the ball with LESS authority than even the ***** Colts. How sad an image is THAT.

 

[patfanken]

Well, 2001 they were average. I overstated the strong. They were strong in the sense that they didn't suck. They were 13th in running with 1793 yards, 23rd in YPC with 3.8 YPC, and 7th in TDs with 15. The defense carried that team and the offense played efficent enough to not make mistakes and score enough to make it close. Do you want the Pats to go back to the passing offense of 2001.

I am not concerned about the offense. I will restate it. Only in 2004 did the Pats have a good running game. We won two Super Bowls with Antowain Smith running the ball. I don't know if we have an effective running game yet, but othewr than 2004 I don't really know if we had anything more than efficient enough.

BTW, the 2006 run offense had more yards (1969), more YPC (3.9), and TDs (20) than the 2001 run offense and we didn't win the Super Bowl. Why? Because the defense gave up 35 second half points to the Colts in the AFCC. That is why I am concerned about the defense and not the offense.

In 2001 and 2003 we were NOT a good running team, but we ran the ball with a PURPOSE. In BB's eyes it was the AMOUNT of rushes that were just as important as the results. He wanted 2 things from the running game. Don't lose yds, and make the 3rd and 2's. For the most part we did that. We also ran very aggressively and at the END of ball games ASmith was usually more effective than in the beginning of games. The pounding early in the game had taken its toll on the defense. And with the offense not being the juggernaut it is today, time of possession was key to winning close games.

I'm not saying we should give up on our passing offense. We are who we are. However those times we DO run the ball, I would just like to see up take it TO the defense, rather than finesse them

 

[slash83]

In 2001 and 2003 we were NOT a good running team, but we ran the ball with a PURPOSE. In BB's eyes it was the AMOUNT of rushes that were just as important as the results. He wanted 2 things from the running game. Don't lose yds, and make the 3rd and 2's. For the most part we did that. We also ran very aggressively and at the END of ball games ASmith was usually more effective than in the beginning of games. The pounding early in the game had taken its toll on the defense. And with the offense not being the juggernaut it is today, time of possession was key to winning close games.

I'm not saying we should give up on our passing offense. We are who we are. However those times we DO run the ball, I would just like to see up take it TO the defense, rather than finesse them

Good points, A.Smith was far from a game changing back, but what he did to effectively is ware down a defense with his pounding. This offense really doesn't need a game breaking RB, just enough of a running game to gain 2 3 or 4 ypc. Our play makers are on the outside, lets just run the ball with more physicality and purpose.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last year's offense had more rushing yards than any Patriots team in the last 20 years.


How'd the Super Bowl parade work out for New England?

 

[mgteich]

By your logic, if we had beaten the giants, our 2007 running game would have been fine.

The reality is that the running game is better than 2007 and our receivers are as good. We had the best offense in the history of the NFL in 2007. We were a top offense last year, even without Brady. Let's focus on the defense. We are NOT going to miss winning the SB because of the "weak" running corps of Taylor, Maroney and Faulk (and Morris). We are a PASSING team. We are not a running team. To be a running team takes a lot more than attitude, it take changing or OL and having a FB.

We have a 20% chance at the SB, the best in the league. What is needed for ultimate success is health and production from our secondary and linebackers. IMHO, these three issues have been our problems since the 2005 Super Bowl; four seasons, three problems.

Let me get this straight: the Pats were rarely strong in the running game except for in 2 of their 3 SB-winning years, so therefore it's not an area of concern? I would argue that it's a strong justification for a power running game. The only other year that we run the SB we had a suffocating defense. I don't want a version of the 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 Patriots. The only years that count for me are the ones in which we took it all home, and I think we need an effective running game if we are going to do that this year. As of right now, I don't think we've shown that we have an effective running game.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'd personally be happy to go back to Tom Brady being more of a "ball control" QB and "game manager" instead of throwing up Peytonesque numbers if it means more SBs. The track record of pass-heavy teams winning SBs is not particularly strong. I would like to see more balance on offense and more physicality and aggressiveness on both sides of the ball. An effective running game is key to this. We had a reasonably effective running game last year - not up to 2004, but overally pretty solid. We seem to be going backwards so far in preseason. I know it's early, but I'd like to see more evidence that we are committed to running the ball effectively as a basic part of our offensive scheme (not just dinks and dunks).

And I agree with the previous poster that the problems that have prevented the Patriots from winning it all have had a lot more to do with the defense than the running game.

 

[mayoclinic]

By your logic, if we had beaten the giants, our 2007 running game would have been fine.

The reality is that the running game is better than 2007 and our receivers are as good. We had the best offense in the history of the NFL in 2007. We were a top offense last year, even without Brady. Let's focus on the defense. We are NOT going to miss winning the SB because of the "weak" running corps of Taylor, Maroney and Faulk (and Morris). We are a PASSING team. We are not a running team. To be a running team takes a lot more than attitude, it take changing or OL and having a FB.

We have a 20% chance at the SB, the best in the league. What is needed for ultimate success is health and production from our secondary and linebackers. IMHO, these three issues have been our problems since the 2005 Super Bowl; four seasons, three problems.

No, I'm not saying that. I've always felt that 2007 was an unbalanced team.

I don't want us to be a "run first" team. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't have focused on the defense during the offseason - I was one of the people clamoring most strongly for that.

I think BB has given a lot of attention to the defense, and we have much more speed and athleticism than in the past. It will take time for the defense to gel, but I'm cautiously optimistic that our D will come together to be one of the better ones we have had - not up to 2003, but possibly up to 2004. We have the best front 7 ever with the additions of Brace and Pryor, more athleticism and depth in the secondary than we have had since 2003-2004, and at least two studs at LB in Thomas and Mayo, with potentially a third in Burgess if he reverts to 2005-2006 form. We also have more depth and flexibility than we have had in some time. It will take time for the defense to gel - time for new vets to learn the system, time for talented rookies to get comfortable, and time for a bunch of new players to learn how to work together. The preseason doesn't worry me too much. But by midseason I expect that we should see a much better defensive team than any in the past 4 years, or I will be very disappointed.

I'm not suggesting that we become a run-first team like Pittsburgh or the Giants. But we need to be able to run effectively, and we have done so in the past. The 2004 team had a terrific running game with similar OL personnel. The running game in 2008 (with identical personnel) was certainly adequate - not up to 2004, but solid, and, as you say, stronger than in 2007. My only concern is that with the return of TB we return to a grossly unbalanced passing attack and move away from the running game altogether. So far, I haven't seen much of a commitment to running the ball. Hopefully that's just a function of the preseason. But I would like to see more of an effort to run than I have seen so far.

If you look at the SBs since 2001, the winning teams passed on average 52% of all plays (278/534) vs. 72% for losing teams (361/499). The Pats SB teams of 2001, 2003, and 2004 passed 54% (29/54), 58% (48/83) and 56%(35/63) of the time, vs. 77% passing (53/69) for the losing 2007 team. In the 3 SBs that we won our opponents passed 68% (47/69, 2001), 70% (37/53, 2003) and 76% (55/72, 2004) of the time, whereas in 2007 the Giants passed for 57% (33:58) of their plays. The supposedly "pass happy" Indianapolis Colts actually rushed more than they passed in winning the SB in 2006 (39 passes, 42 rushes, 48%). Not once did the winning team have a higher % of passing plays than the losing team.

I'm not saying that the running game is the problem. But a pass-happy mentality does not translate into SBs, and that is a fact. We have to be able to balance a prolific passing offense with a capable running game, or the statistics say that we won't be taking home SB trophy #4.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, I'm not saying that. I've always felt that 2007 was an unbalanced team.

I don't want us to be a "run first" team. Nor am I saying that we shouldn't have focused on the defense during the offseason - I was one of the people clamoring most strongly for that.

I think BB has given a lot of attention to the defense, and we have much more speed and athleticism than in the past. It will take time for the defense to gel, but I'm cautiously optimistic that our D will come together to be one of the better ones we have had - not up to 2003, but possibly up to 2004. We have the best front 7 ever with the additions of Brace and Pryor, more athleticism and depth in the secondary than we have had since 2003-2004, and at least two studs at LB in Thomas and Mayo, with potentially a third in Burgess if he reverts to 2005-2006 form. We also have more depth and flexibility than we have had in some time. It will take time for the defense to gel - time for new vets to learn the system, time for talented rookies to get comfortable, and time for a bunch of new players to learn how to work together. The preseason doesn't worry me too much. But by midseason I expect that we should see a much better defensive team than any in the past 4 years, or I will be very disappointed.

I'm not suggesting that we become a run-first team like Pittsburgh or the Giants. But we need to be able to run effectively, and we have done so in the past. The 2004 team had a terrific running game with similar OL personnel. The running game in 2008 (with identical personnel) was certainly adequate - not up to 2004, but solid, and, as you say, stronger than in 2007. My only concern is that with the return of TB we return to a grossly unbalanced passing attack and move away from the running game altogether. So far, I haven't seen much of a commitment to running the ball. Hopefully that's just a function of the preseason. But I would like to see more of an effort to run than I have seen so far.

If you look at the SBs since 2001, the winning teams passed on average 52% of all plays (278/534) vs. 72% for losing teams (361/499). The Pats SB teams of 2001, 2003, and 2004 passed 54% (29/54), 58% (48/83) and 56%(35/63) of the time, vs. 77% passing (53/69) for the losing 2007 team. In the 3 SBs that we won our opponents passed 68% (47/69, 2001), 70% (37/53, 2003) and 76% (55/72, 2004) of the time, whereas in 2007 the Giants passed for 57% (33:58) of their plays. The supposedly "pass happy" Indianapolis Colts actually rushed more than they passed in winning the SB in 2006 (39 passes, 42 rushes, 48%). Not once did the winning team have a higher % of passing plays than the losing team.

I'm not saying that the running game is the problem. But a pass-happy mentality does not translate into SBs, and that is a fact. We have to be able to balance a prolific passing offense with a capable running game, or the statistics say that we won't be taking home SB trophy #4.

1.) Teams losing pass more to get back into the game.

2.) Teams winning run more to kill clock

That leads to your percentages.



3.) The 2007 Patriots came within 3 minutes of being undefeated. They lost the Super Bowl to a hot team, having lost the starting right guard to injury (and the next season showed how important he was to the running game), having a starting QB that was limited by a bad ankle, having its 3rd down back get dinged up and having tight end injury problems.

 

[chillinvillin]

I do want to point out that the Refs blew the call on one of Alexander's tackles. He tackled Brian Leonard and stripped him of the ball prior to Leonard landing on the ground. Yet they still gave the ball back to the Bengals..

It was one of the good plays that Alexander made..

Just remember, all refs in the league are tuttored by peyton manning and recieve bonuses from the whole colts organization