First Impressions 2

[AzPatsFan]

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 think you need to wake from off the warm glowing memories, and compare stats. The 2008 Pats were the best rushing edition since Hawg and Leon were punching holes for Sam Bam...

I think they were the first Pats edition since the Hawg era, to surpass 4 yards per carry, long before the Flying Elvis appeared. And the yardage they compiled on the ground was better than any since the Pats ran for over 3000, and set an NFL record that still stands.

 

[mgteich]

Please list one SB where scoring the points didn't lead to victory!
The goal is score more points than the other guy.

Outscoring the opponent obviously leads to victory, but scoring the "most" points? I'm not sure what that means.

Here's the list of AFC and NFC teams scoring the most points in the past 10 years:

2008 - San Diego (439), New Orleans (463)
2007 - NE (589*), Dallas (455)
2006 - San Diego (492), Chicago (427)
2005 - Indanapolis (439), Seattle (452)
2004 - Indianapolis (522), Green Bay (424)
2003 - Kansas City (484), St. Louis (447)
2002 - Kansas City (467), New Orleans (432)
2001 - Indianapolis (413), St. Louis (503)
2000 - Denver (485*), St. Louis (540)
1999 - Indianapolis (423), St. Louis (526+)
1998 - Denver (501+), Minnesota (556*)

Only in 1998 and 1999 did teams who lead their conference in points win the SB. Only 5 out of 22 teams leading their conferences in that 11 year period even made the SB (Denver winning in 1998 and the Rams in 1999, and the Rams losing in 2001, Chicago in 2006, and NE in 2007). The two teams who set all time scoring records (Atlanta in 1998 and NE in 2007) didn't win the SB. So over the past 11 years, scoring the most points in your division only leads to the Super Bowl about 23% of the time.

What is ironic to me is that we first rose to prominence by beating on of the all time great offensive juggernuts, the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams in 2001 by playing hard-nosed defense and smart, ball-control offense. The Rams were succeeded by the Indianapolis Colts as the most prolific offense in the NFL, and we consistently had the Colts' number using the same kind of approach - smart, tough-nosed opportunistic football. Now we've become those teams, and we've come close but no cigar. Sorry, but I'll take the good old days.

Of course we need to have a better and healthier defense. I'll I've said is that we've added a necessary infusion of youth, speed, and talent. The results haven't showed yet, and it's too soon to tell if they will. I'm not convinced that ANY of the new guys will be the answer at their respective position, though I think several show promise. I'm hopeful, but I certainly don't have a crystal ball, and the defense may not gel. BUT if it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that the "best offense ever" won't be enough to "rescue us" to the extent of winning the SB. History says we need more than that.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Part II.

But I basically agree with your preferences; and would prefer some more power running for when we need it.

 

[RayClay]

I have no idea what you talking about here. You'll have to explain. In 2007, actually toward the end of 2007, the running game became more prominent. Here we saw the BEST of Moroney until the last game. For whatever reason, the Giants contained the run, but THAT wasn't why we lost the game.

I am only worrying about the offense in the playoffs. That's when you play good teams in close games, and having a running game that can seal wins makes getting those wins more likely.

I obviously agree with this and other points about our running game and the lack of consistently establishing the run. It's not a matter of an awesome running game, it's the ability to grind it out and dish punishment to the other side, as well as clock killin'.

It's not that we have to run the ball to win. It's that failing to do it consistently gives teams, especially those with great pass rushes, the option to go balls to the wall, which is what happened to us.

Sometimes short passing can substitute, but it wasn't getting it done in that game.

Advantages of forcing the run in a game like that.

1. You make the defense play the run. Obvious advantages to slowing down the rush and changing the pass coverage.

2. You wear the defense down. You have to mix in runs in a series until you start getting first downs, commit to it for a while. Defense stays on the field, pass rushers must hesitate, as the rush gets better when you have a rhythm. Your advantage.

3. Your linemen get to beat on the defense. I'm sure all linemen love to run block so they can beat on the Strahans etc. that are making their lives miserable. The defense gets bruises instead of clear passage to the QB for a while, everything about their pass rush and pass coverage becomes passive and reactive for a while. Now a big pass play is more likely.

 

[captain stone]

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.

More bingo.

The scrap heap of history also includes the 1990 Bills, 2001 Lambs, the '04 & '05 Dolts, and of course the '07 Patriots.

 

[captain stone]

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

Even more bingo.

 

[RayClay]

Please list one SB where scoring the points didn't lead to victory!
The goal is score more points than the other guy.

Since we're being obvious here, making the other team score less points also works.

If you want to rank year by year, I'd say it works more often (defensive superiority).

 

[mayoclinic]

More bingo.

The scrap heap of history also includes the 1990 Bills, 2001 Lambs, the '04 & '05 Dolts, and of course the '07 Patriots.

Ah yes, forgot to include the 1990 Bills, one of the all time most explosive teams. And, just like the 2007 Pats barely missed out winning it all, it took a Scott Norwood botched field goal to relegate the Bills to the relative obscurity of the "scrap heap of history". Yet another example of how an offensive juggernaught couldn't win the close game. Parcells' and Belichick's 1990 Giants stole 2 in a row, from the 49ers in the NFCCG and then from the Bills in the SB.

As I mentioned in other posts in this thread, it's ironic that the Pats came to greatness by robbing one-sided finesse teams like the 2001 Rams and the 2003-2004 Colts, and can now be accused of emulating them. Hopefully that won't be the case.

Once again, I don't want to be a run-first team, or to nullify our potent pass offense. But I want us to have the ability to convert on 3rd and 2 or 3, and to be able to put together a nice long clock-killing drive to give our defense a rest and break the opponent's spirit when the opposition knows we are going to run the ball, and we just smash it down their throat anyway. If we can do that, and if a few pieces come together on the defense, then we will be unstoppable. And that will take a willingness to play smashmouth sometimes instead of just letting the blitzkrieg shock and awe opponents into submission.

 

[mgteich]

Mayo made the following comment
"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."

Reading mayo's statements, I suggested that a logical conclusion is that if we won it all after the 2007 season, then this would have been a year we took it all home, and the running game would have been sufficiently effective. Personally, I do not believe the goal of a season is to try to replicate the characteristics of the past Super Bowl winning seasons.
============
I absolutely agree that we did not lose in 2007-2008 because of the running running game or any aspect of the offense. We lost because of health, the secondary, and linebacker play. Improvement in any of these would have made us much more likely to win the Super Bowl.

I agree that it is great to have a strong running game in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. However, I also believe that the equivalent of the 2007 offense and the 2007 running game is more than sufficient to sail through the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. The issues for this year are the same as 2007: health, the secondary and linebacker play.

We seem to disagree on whether our OL/FB/TE configuarations are best set up to for the run or the pass. We are a pass-first team. Our best runs are screen passes. Of course, a fullback helps! However, this doesn't matter. We will continue to be a passing team. TO the degree the passing game works, it will set up the running game. If you are looking for us to be a smash-mouthed run it up the gut running team, you are the fan of the wrong team.

I have no idea what you talking about here. You'll have to explain. In 2007, actually toward the end of 2007, the running game became more prominent. Here we saw the BEST of Moroney until the last game. For whatever reason, the Giants contained the run, but THAT wasn't why we lost the game.

I am only worrying about the offense in the playoffs. That's when you play good teams in close games, and having a running game that can seal wins makes getting those wins more likely

I agree that the defense needs to improve and I think we've gone a long way to do it. It might not be perfect, but it WILL be better, again for a lot of reasons.

I completely disagree on your last point. Why would changing the OL improve the running game. This is pretty much the SAME OL as in 2004. Light is a better run blocker than pass blocker. Mankins is a devastating run blocker as is Neal. Koppen is Koppen, a good technician, solid if unspectacular, and I think Kazcur is an upgrade on whomever we had in 2004, who couldn't be that good since he's no longer here. I don't necessarily think you need a FB to have a power running game. We've run will with TEs blocking



No disagreement here

 

[captain stone]

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

We had the best offense in the history of the NFL in 2007.
And what did that get us?

We were a top offense last year, even without Brady. Let's focus on the defense.
Why can't we do both?

We are NOT going to miss winning the SB because of the "weak" running corps of Taylor, Maroney and Faulk (and Morris).
They're obviously not weak, but they could be made stronger with a stronger committment, and a good FB.

To be a running team takes a lot more than attitude, it take changing or OL and having a FB.
Let's do it, then.

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.

I'm not being a smartass, but what's the 3rd issue, if LBs & DBs are the first 2?

 

[captain stone]

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'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.

These 2 statements have been bolded for truth.

 

[captain stone]

I guess I don't buy that. History shows that the teams with the most prolific offenses generally don't take home the hardware at the end of the season - witness the 2007 Pats, 2003 Colts, 1998 Vikings, and 1990 49ers, all of whom were among the most prolific offenses of all time and all of whom were serious SB contenders (or favorites).

I'm all for Brady to Moss and Welker. I love it. I'm not suggesting we get rid of it. But history shows fairly strongly that if we go pass-crazy, we won't win the SB. You can make all the excuses in the world about injuries and the like, but the fact is that the most prolific offense in history couldn't put up more than 14 points in the SB, couldn't keep the opposing offense off the field, and the defense couldn't stop them when it counted. End of story. That's not what I want to see this season.

Neither do I.

End of story.

 

[mayoclinic]

Mayo made the following comment
"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."

Reading mayo's statements, I suggested that a logical conclusion is that if we won it all after the 2007 season, then this would have been a year we took it all home, and the running game would have been sufficiently effective. Personally, I do not believe the goal of a season is to try to replicate the characteristics of the past Super Bowl winning seasons.
============
I absolutely agree that we did not lose in 2007-2008 because of the running running game or any aspect of the offense. We lost because of health, the secondary, and linebacker play. Improvement in any of these would have made us much more likely to win the Super Bowl.

I agree that it is great to have a strong running game in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. However, I also believe that the equivalent of the 2007 offense and the 2007 running game is more than sufficient to sail through the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. The issues for this year are the same as 2007: health, the secondary and linebacker play.

We seem to disagree on whether our OL/FB/TE configuarations are best set up to for the run or the pass. We are a pass-first team. Our best runs are screen passes. Of course, a fullback helps! However, this doesn't matter. We will continue to be a passing team. TO the degree the passing game works, it will set up the running game. If you are looking for us to be a smash-mouthed run it up the gut running team, you are the fan of the wrong team.

Your logic is flawed. We didn't win the SB in 2007, just like the Rams didn't win it in 2001 and the Bills didn't win it in 1990. Just because a heavily favored offensive juggernaught couldn't close it out against a less explosive but more physical opponent doesn't mean that we can ignore their flaws. The fact is, the Pats couldn't establish a running game against the Giants (which would have countered some of the pass rush and perhaps led to a few clock-killing drives which would have left the Giants with less time and the Pats defense more rested), and their defense couldn't make the stop when it counted. We failed on both counts. The 2007 Pats team was one dimensional, albeit with the greatest one dimension ever seen in the NFL. But that wasn't enough.

Of course we're a pass first team. No one is suggesting that we abandon that strength to become a run-first team. But that doesn't mean we can't play smashmouth football effectively as well from time to time - not predominantly, but to mix it up. We ran the ball quite effectively last year, with over 100 yards rushing in 13/16 games, with the same OL personnel as in 2007 and currently, and much the same running backs (substituting Fred Taylor for Lamont Jordan, which should be an upgrade). Sure, a young Corey Dillon would help, but there's no reason we can't mix a little power running in with the blitzkrieg. Doing so will make the blitzkrieg all that much more effective. Better secondary and linebacker play will help a lot. It will help even more when the defense is rested because we can put together a few nice clock-killing drives running the football down the opposing team's gullet.

We didn't win the SB in 2007. The Rams didn't win it in 2001. The Bills didn't win it in 1990. The 1998 Vikings didn't even make it to the SB. You may be willing to bet everyone on the offense scoring ungodly numbers of points to cover up the lack of a running game and defensive lapses, but I'm not. We need to be a more complete time to win it all, and that includes a willingness to occasionally play smashmouth instead of just going for the home run or playing dink and dunk.

 

[captain stone]

What is ironic to me is that we first rose to prominence by beating on of the all time great offensive juggernuts, the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams in 2001 by playing hard-nosed defense and smart, ball-control offense. The Rams were succeeded by the Indianapolis Colts as the most prolific offense in the NFL, and we consistently had the Colts' number using the same kind of approach - smart, tough-nosed opportunistic football. Now we've become those teams, and we've come close but no cigar. Sorry, but I'll take the good old days.

And so will I.

Keep preaching the gospel, brother Mayo.

 

[glm]

Ah yes, forgot to include the 1990 Bills, one of the all time most explosive teams. And, just like the 2007 Pats barely missed out winning it all, it took a Scott Norwood botched field goal to relegate the Bills to the relative obscurity of the "scrap heap of history". Yet another example of how an offensive juggernaught couldn't win the close game. Parcells' and Belichick's 1990 Giants stole 2 in a row, from the 49ers in the NFCCG and then from the Bills in the SB.

One of the most explosive teams of all time?

They averaged 26.8 Pts/G and 329.8 Yds/G.

When teams like (off the top of my head) the 98 Broncos (31.3, 380.8), 94 49ers (31.6, 378.8), 99 Rams (32.9, 400.8), 51 Rams (32.7, 450.8) are much more explosive and also have won it all.

And those are just the ones off the top of my head, there are certainly other teams that were much more exploive than the 90 Bills and have also won it all.

 

[captain stone]

Me too!

For the record the 2004 team was my favorite. Seeing us have a true run game was awesome. I love tough hard nose football!!!!

Me three...

 

[mgteich]

The following three factors were critical in 2007 and in this season:
1) general health (fewer injuries and not having 1/3 the team having the flu)
2) production from the seconday
3) production from the linebackers

I believe that the offense is in great shape with the additions of Taylor, Baker, Galloway and Lewis. Obviously, the critical plus is a returning healthy Brady (although I would note that the offense was pretty good last year). A healthy Maroney might also help. I see no offense problems to focus on. I see no reason to try to change the most successful offense ever into a different kind of offense. I do overstate my position just a bit. I too would prefer us to have a fullback on the squad. I was shocked when Evans wasn't re-signed and no replacment brought in.

==================
So, we need to focus on the defense because it is within the defense that we could fail to achieve success. When I consider our team, I consider 10 units: QB, RB's, receivers, OL, DL, LB, CB, S, specialists and special teams.

We will always have stronger and weaker units. I think that the weakest two units (and the two biggest question marks) are the linebackers and the secondary. The FO has done a lot to improve these units. As always some units are in transition. These are the two for now.

I'm not being a smartass, but what's the 3rd issue, if LBs & DBs are the first 2?

 

[captain stone]

I would love to go back to the 2004 offense as long as we have a solid defense to back it up. As dominant the offense was in 2007, the games were boring to watch. I am not a big fan of a high powered offense, but when your defense has major holes like it has had every year since 2004 it is a neccessary evil. The Pats would have probably been a 10 win or less team without the high powered offense in 2007. The defense had some pretty big holes that were covered up because opposing offenses became one dimensional when they were down by three or four TDs by halftime.

You are correct, sir.

The flaws of the '07 defense were disguised because the opposing offense had to throw away at least half of its playbook, at halftime.

 

[captain stone]

You are missing the point DI. Its not about JUST the yards, and IIRC we actually had MORE rushing plays than passing plays. Ya think Brady's injury MIGHT have been a factor in that. Do you think the porous secondary might have been a factor in not getting to the supberbowl, along with the once every 25 year anomaly that leaves a 11-5 team out of the playoffs (and sends an 8-8 team to the superbowl).

The point is that we have a running game that is just fine as long as the weather is fine and the passing game is working on all cylinders. For the regular season, I'm sure it will be just fine. HOWEVER in December and January, those months where you create your playoff position and work your way into the superbowl. The cold, bad weather months when passing games are limited, and you are in a one and done situation, I worry that we won't have the running game, or rather the running attitude that will allow us to control the ball at the end of games. I look at the 2006 AFCCG as just ONE example. There have been others.

What made the 2004 team so special was the number of times the running game was able to control the clock and seal wins for us. This team has the talent to do that, just not the commitment, and even if they decided to do it later in the season, its not easy just to flip a switch and become a ball control team.

Hey we may not need it, but I think its possible to create that power running game within what we already do, and have be more than 3 TEs with a OG at FB

Thank you for the rebuttal.

 

[mgteich]

Let's cut to the chase. You believe that our critical need compared to the 2006, 2007 and 2008 season is to improve our running game. I believe that the our critical need compared to 2006, 2007 and 2008 is to improve our corners and linebackers.
===========================
Also, let's be clear about the 2008 season. The game plans were developed because we had Cassel at quarterback. If you want the same of kind of balanced game with same kind of game management, we have the wrong quarterback. And I know we have the right quarterback. This year, we will run Tom Brady's offense. And just BTW, the DEFENSE plays much better when we are 10-14 points ahead instead of 6.

Your logic is flawed. We didn't win the SB in 2007, just like the Rams didn't win it in 2001 and the Bills didn't win it in 1990. Just because a heavily favored offensive juggernaught couldn't close it out against a less explosive but more physical opponent doesn't mean that we can ignore their flaws. The fact is, the Pats couldn't establish a running game against the Giants (which would have countered some of the pass rush and perhaps led to a few clock-killing drives which would have left the Giants with less time and the Pats defense more rested), and their defense couldn't make the stop when it counted. We failed on both counts. The 2007 Pats team was one dimensional, albeit with the greatest one dimension ever seen in the NFL. But that wasn't enough.

Of course we're a pass first team. No one is suggesting that we abandon that strength to become a run-first team. But that doesn't mean we can't play smashmouth football effectively as well from time to time - not predominantly, but to mix it up. We ran the ball quite effectively last year, with over 100 yards rushing in 13/16 games, with the same OL personnel as in 2007 and currently, and much the same running backs (substituting Fred Taylor for Lamont Jordan, which should be an upgrade). Sure, a young Corey Dillon would help, but there's no reason we can't mix a little power running in with the blitzkrieg. Doing so will make the blitzkrieg all that much more effective. Better secondary and linebacker play will help a lot. It will help even more when the defense is rested because we can put together a few nice clock-killing drives running the football down the opposing team's gullet.

We didn't win the SB in 2007. The Rams didn't win it in 2001. The Bills didn't win it in 1990. The 1998 Vikings didn't even make it to the SB. You may be willing to bet everyone on the offense scoring ungodly numbers of points to cover up the lack of a running game and defensive lapses, but I'm not. We need to be a more complete time to win it all, and that includes a willingness to occasionally play smashmouth instead of just going for the home run or playing dink and dunk.