Grist For The Mill

[Snake Eyes]

6th in yards per game and 4th in attempts per game, again nothing special.

Maybe not, but their post season running game was better than their regular season game.

I also said before, the running game doesnt have to be outstanding, it's meant to play a role, it's part of complimentary football. The problem is that the Pats can't get it to play that role right now.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Maybe not, but their post season running game was better than their regular season game.

I also said before, the running game doesnt have to be outstanding, it's meant to play a role, it's part of complimentary football. The problem is that the Pats can't get it to play that role right now.

the Pats were right behind them, I honestly don't believe the running game is a problem at all. Sure there's room for improvement but when the passing game is on the running game is right behind it. When teams start jumping the short stuff and bringing a safety in the box the run game will suffer.

 

[MP-Logick]

You could argue that if Brady/Welker had made a wide open connection on 2nd and 11, we win the Super Bowl.

Or you could argue we should have tried some kind of running play, possibly a direct snap (which always gains a few yards) or end around that the Giants had had trouble with earlier in the game. That would at least have made it a short third down and kept the clock moving. I'm guessing BOB was hesitant to run considering we had just lost a yard doing it.

But I still think it comes down to one thing on offense - execution. They had every opportunity to win this game and just couldn't do it, whether it was the safety, underthrown interception, or the dropped passes. All the improvements we're talking about won't matter if they don't execute when they have to, because this game was very much there for the taking, without a single change in their game plan.

 

[Snake Eyes]

the Pats were right behind them, I honestly don't believe the running game is a problem at all. Sure there's room for improvement but when the passing game is on the running game is right behind it. When teams start jumping the short stuff and bringing a safety in the box the run game will suffer.

That's exactly what I find to be a problem, we can only run if we're passing successfully, if we can't run well on it's own then we're just masking the fact that we're a one-dimensional offense.

Bill Walsh said it best 'you need to be able to win in more than 1 way if you want to win a championship'.

 

[Off The Grid]

This offense lives and dies by Brady's arm, and it's become obvious that good defenses have figured out how to handle it.

Exactly. Couldn't've said it better, Sir.

Not only do we become predictable, but we put far more wear and tear on Brady ~ and the O Line, for that matter ~ than we need to, which not only produces a worn out, damaged Brady ~ which clearly cost us both Super 42 and Super Bowl 46 ~ but it could quite possibly dramatically shorten the career of the greatest Quarter Back of his time.

***

Just to be clear: Nobody's advocating that we turn the game back to 1940.

That should be obvious, considering that I made multiple references to the 2001 to 2004 Glory Run...but one of the slower wits was clearly struggling with the concept... :bricks:

We're only talking about balance.

If we return to a balanced, Ball Control Offense, as we had from 2001 to 2004, and continue to develop the Defense, I believe we will once again not only make consecutive Super Bowls, but go in with good reason to expect to control and win the game.

It's really that simple.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Maybe not, but their post season running game was better than their regular season game.

I also said before, the running game doesnt have to be outstanding, it's meant to play a role, it's part of complimentary football. The problem is that the Pats can't get it to play that role right now.

Well yeah, their regular season running game was the worst in the NFL. Nowhere to go but up.

The Pats just need some more talent at RB. Maybe Vereen/Ridley are the answer, maybe not. But once that is in place, I don't think a major philosophical overhaul will be necessary. Ideally the Pats would run a little more frequently (which would happen naturally as a result of having a more talented back), but not a ton.

 

[Hardboiled]

I firmly believe that they lost their way when they let Dan Klecko go...

Unfortunately, as long as Brady puts up fantasy stats, we'll never see the running game where it should be, as 50% of a balanced offense.

And I don't think that Josh McDaniels, the architect of the 50 TD season, believes in it at all.

Disagree with you on Klecko. Agree with you on McDaniels.

Where's our Terrell Davis?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Exactly. Couldn't've said it better, Sir.

Not only do we become predictable, but we put far more wear and tear on Brady ~ and the O Line, for that matter ~ than we need to, which not only produces a worn out, damaged Brady ~ which clearly cost us both Super 42 and Super Bowl 46 ~ but it could quite possibly dramatically shorten the career of the greatest Quarter Back of his time.

***

Just to be clear: Nobody's advocating that we turn the game back to 1940.

That should be obvious, considering that I made multiple references to the 2001 to 2004 Glory Run...but one of the slower wits was clearly struggling with the concept... :bricks:

We're only talking about balance.

If we return to a balanced, Ball Control Offense, as we had from 2001 to 2004, and continue to develop the Defense, I believe we will once again not only make consecutive Super Bowls, but go in with good reason to expect to control and win the game.

It's really that simple.

2011 Giants
2010 Packers
2009 Saints

On what basis would you call these teams "ball control offenses" that doesn't apply to the 2011 Patriots?

On a side note, Having the 2004 offense, paired with the 2011 defense, leaves you with a team that would struggle to make the playoffs.

 

[Off The Grid]

Super Bowl 46 Play Selections

Patriots ~ 41/19 Pass ~ Time of Possession ~ 22:55
Giants ~ 40/28 Pass ~ Time of Possession ~ 37:05

Gaudy Stats??

Or Rings???

You decide.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Super Bowl 46 Play Selections

Patriots ~ 41/19 Pass ~ Time of Possession ~ 22:55
Giants ~ 40/28 Pass ~ Time of Possession ~ 37:05

Gaudy Stats??

Or Rings???

You decide.

Sample size of 1, Patriots were playing from behind, etc. etc.

 

[Off The Grid]

Having the 2004 offense, paired with the 2011 defense, leaves you with a team that would struggle to make the playoffs.

You see, that's where you fail FootBall 101, my friend.

That 2004 Ball Control Offense would've protected the 2011 Defense.

You really don't see how that works...do you??

 

[Ron Sellers]

Dave Stachelski - 5th Round - 141st Overall
Arthur Love- 6th Round 180th Overall
Jabari Hollaway - 4th Round- 119th Overall
Daniel Graham - 1st Round - 21st Overall
Ben Watson - 1st Round - 32nd Overall
Andy Stokes - 7th round - 255th Overall
David Thomas- 3rd Round - 86th Overall

----------------------------------------------------
Terrance Wheatley - 2nd Round - 62nd Overall
Jonathan Wilhite - 4th Round - 129th Overall
Darius Butler - 2nd Round - 41st Overall
Brandon Tate - 3rd Round - 83rd Overall
Taylor Price -3rd Round - 90th Overall
Bethel Johnson - 2nd Round - 45th Overall
Chad Jackson - 2nd Round 36th Overall

------------------------------------------------

Listen, you can talk all you want about how we wasted picks with Tight Ends. But the comparison of the players I named and the ones you named shows that, with the exception of ONE player, each of the draft picks were selected in the 2nd and 3rd round. The other in the fourth round. Every single one of these players was an absolute bust.

The names you selected were 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounders. The others were Ben Watson and Daniel Graham. I mean, call me crazy but these were not busts. These two were good players. 10 years later Graham is still in the league, and Watson signed a very nice deal with the Browns. These are not Hall of Famers by any stretch, but Geez, they were good. Daniel Thomas wasnt great either, but he was ok. Good enough for the Saints to take him away from us. He'd probly still be on our team if not for a dumb penalty vs. the Colts in 08 which cost us a playoff spot.

Your attempt at bashing me is foolish. You use extremes which arent event close. The percentage of "premium picks" used on CBs and WRs vs. TEs isnt a comparison. Especially if you consider Daniel Graham and Watson to be good players, like I, and most people do

First of all you are using players drafted through the 4th round in your argument regarding defensive backs and wide receivers, but you don't want to use players drafted through the 4th round in the counterpoint (Mills, Holloway); I think you really need to use the same standards for both sides of an argument.

Second you make the case that certain players were good picks because they are still in the league or lasted a long time (tight ends Watson and Graham), but you don't do the same when it comes to wide receivers (Tate, Edelman, Slater, Price) or defensive backs (Wilson, Sanders, Hobbs, Meriweather, Wlhite, Wheatley); again, I would simply ask that one applies the same standard to both sides of the argument.

Third, let's play out a hypothetical scenario. In the first drive of a game a team throws an incomplete pass, another incomplete pass, and an interception. Should they not throw another forward pass for the rest of the game? What if they run for no gain, a loss of three, and a fumble; should they not run again for the rest of the game?

In the above scenarios would it not be better to take a look at why those plays did not work, make adjustments, and then try another pass (or run) rather than abandon the passing (or running) game entirely for the rest of the game?

To me the more logical solution is for the various talent evaluators - area scouts, director of college scouting, Caserio, Belichick, position coaches, coordinators and whoever else is involved in any way with what goes into evaluating players before the draft - at some time they go back and try to determine what they may have overlooked, what they overvalued and undervalued, learn from that and try to become better talent evaluators.

That to me would seem to make a whole lot more sense than what I would consider to be an over reaction: that is, to never ever draft a player from (fill in the blank of the position) because there were some cases in the past where players from said position did not eventually become all-pros.

Personally I think the use of extremes to attempt to prove a point is on your part, not mine.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Sample size of 1, Patriots were playing from behind, etc. etc.

You WANT their defense on the field for as long as possible, that allows you to gash them late in the game when their gassed. You also want to limit the time their offense has to make up scores, the more they try to force things because they dont have much time to score the more mistakes they make.

No matter what the situation, being able to bleed the clock and keep the opposing defense on the field, as well as protecting your QB, are all GOOD things!

 

[Ron Sellers]

You see, that's where you fail FootBall 101, my friend.

That 2004 Ball Control Offense would've protected the 2011 Defense.

You really don't see how that works...do you??

You were going pretty good before you accused one of the most knowledgeable, level-headed people on this site of "fail FootBall 101".

By the way, that 2004 Ball Control Offense turned the ball over ten more times than the 2011 offense did, while scoring 76 fewer points.


Remember several years ago when the networks would always talk about time of possession, as if it was some be-all tell-tale stat? And then people figured out there was very little correlation between TOP and winning, and the talking heads finally stopped talking about it before and after every game? Why resurrect it from the dead as if it suddenly once again has great meaning?

For the record, the Giants ran nine more plays than the Pats did a week ago; not so coincidentally the net difference in number of plays in the Pats first drive and the Giants subsequent second drive: nine plays.


Hey, I'm all for running the ball more often than the Pats did in the loss to the Giants. But let's not make this into something more than what it is. The 1976 - 1978 Pats running game is not returning, and there is no way it can with the current set of NFL rules and the way games are officiated.

 

[MaineMan]

A couple things for further consideration WRT the Pats offense "running more."

First, it seems to me that the ultimate, final run-pass decision on a given play in most situations is made by Brady alone - most likely at the LoS after he's seen what the defense is doing. I'm nearly certain that, for virtually every offensive personnel package and for virtually every set of play options that Brady has on his wrist band for that package, there's a run play in there somewhere. It may or may not be the primary option; he may check out of the run play if it is the primary or check IN to the run option if it's not the primary.

Brady may check out of the run if the specific play-design seems unlikely to be successful against the particular defensive configuration he's seeing. He may also check out of it if he sees the defense giving him something for his pass option that would seem to make that potentially MORE successful than the run in terms of yards gained (which is not to say he thinks that the run would necessarily fail).

Here's the thing. That "specific play-design" from the offensive brain trust (Brady and BB, as well as BoB) for runs has been limited by available personnel. This season, that included the injury-necessitated rotation at center for several regular season games (BGE's forte is running up the gut), and, of course, the injury to Gronk for the SB (which certainly didn't help run-blocking). However, both 2010 and 2011 were limited by the abilities of the RBs. I believe that both BGE and Woody are very good at their specialties and very much worth having. But neither is a "complete back" and, so, having either in the personnel package somewhat tips the hand to the defense - though not completely or they would be significantly less successful (the Pats actually ran the ball on 47% of their plays in 2010 and did pretty well, overall, especially with BGE running between the guards). Ridley has appeared, thus far, to be able to be more complete than either, but he still has a bit of a development hill to climb - especially wrt getting rid of his risky habit of carrying the ball a bit low and away from his body, and of getting a bit upright sometimes into contact. I hope he can fix these things by the start of 2012, but they weren't fixed going into the post-season, so the Pats had to limit his opportunities.

So, while "running the ball more" seems great philosophically, there are a few things that need to come together to make that realistic. Nothing radical such as a major FA pickup and/or picking a first-round center - Gronk being healthy, stability at center (Connolly seems fully capable to me, BTW), maturation of Ridley and/or Vereen would seem to be enough to get the Pats ground game at least back to 2010 level, if not significantly better (even if they lose BGE, which seems like a significant possibility).

 

[bucky]

You see, that's where you fail FootBall 101, my friend.

That 2004 Ball Control Offense would've protected the 2011 Defense.

You really don't see how that works...do you??

This is just a fairy tale. The numbers don't prove that out, especially if you consider how much the Patriots intentionally used a fast-pace and no-huddle offense. Most teams run off about 30 seconds between plays, for the Pats it's about 20. Here are the raw numbers:

2004 Offense:
Run/Pass ratio: 524/511, Yards: 5722, Turnovers: 20, 1st downs: 344, points: 401, TOP: 31:34

2011 Offense:
Run/Pass ratio: 644/438, Yards: 6848, Turnovers: 12, 1st downs: 399, points: 483, TOP: 28:47


So, what have we learned? The 2011 Pats offense had 20% more points, yards, and 1st downs. They committed 40% less turnovers. And their TOP was 10% less while running a no-huddle, fast pace offense.

Hmm, so you still think that just under 3 minutes of TOP is worth more than 70 yards, 5 points and .5 turnovers per game?

 

[IllegalContact]

Can someone explain to me how our gigantic, beefy O-line couldn't move the pile in the running game versus the Giants fast, undersized D-line?

probably for the same reason that 100% success in dump offs to woodhead wasn't enough to stick with it. the offense is so predictable that teams know that even though they leave the RB open in the flat, that brady will not keep going there

 

[BradyFTW!]

You see, that's where you fail FootBall 101, my friend.

That 2004 Ball Control Offense would've protected the 2011 Defense.

You really don't see how that works...do you??

You're right, I don't see how that works. Please explain to me how an offense that's predicated on winning the field position battle would protect one of the worst yardage defenses in history. I understand the merits of ball control offense, although the fact that the last six teams to make the Super Bowl have all been pass-first in the Patriots' mold indicates pretty strongly that you're overselling the point. To that effect, I'd ask you to point out a single NFL team that has enjoyed more success than the Pats over the past two (or 5, or 10) years using what you would consider to be more of a "ball control" offense than the Pats employ. Your options are pretty much limited to the Ravens and Jets.

I also remember how good the 2004 defense was, which is something that you may have forgotten if you think that the 2011 D can hold a candle to it.

Man, this board is seriously in rough shape if I'm consistently falling on the even-keeled, calm, "underreacting" side of the line. A team that's good enough to be one play from winning the SB--and is loaded with cap room and premium draft picks to re-stock--does not need to radically overhaul the philosophy that got it there. Period.

All of that said, I noticed that you ignored the other point that I made, so I'll ask it again:

2011 Giants
2010 Packers
2009 Saints

On what basis would you call these teams "ball control offenses" that doesn't apply to the 2011 Patriots?

 

[hellolin]

RUN...THE...DAMNED...BALL.

Matt Forte got the biz running back!

 

[billdog3484]

First of all you are using players drafted through the 4th round in your argument regarding defensive backs and wide receivers, but you don't want to use players drafted through the 4th round in the counterpoint (Mills, Holloway); I think you really need to use the same standards for both sides of an argument.

Second you make the case that certain players were good picks because they are still in the league or lasted a long time (tight ends Watson and Graham), but you don't do the same when it comes to wide receivers (Tate, Edelman, Slater, Price) or defensive backs (Wilson, Sanders, Hobbs, Meriweather, Wlhite, Wheatley); again, I would simply ask that one applies the same standard to both sides of the argument.

Third, let's play out a hypothetical scenario. In the first drive of a game a team throws an incomplete pass, another incomplete pass, and an interception. Should they not throw another forward pass for the rest of the game? What if they run for no gain, a loss of three, and a fumble; should they not run again for the rest of the game?

In the above scenarios would it not be better to take a look at why those plays did not work, make adjustments, and then try another pass (or run) rather than abandon the passing (or running) game entirely for the rest of the game?

To me the more logical solution is for the various talent evaluators - area scouts, director of college scouting, Caserio, Belichick, position coaches, coordinators and whoever else is involved in any way with what goes into evaluating players before the draft - at some time they go back and try to determine what they may have overlooked, what they overvalued and undervalued, learn from that and try to become better talent evaluators.

That to me would seem to make a whole lot more sense than what I would consider to be an over reaction: that is, to never ever draft a player from (fill in the blank of the position) because there were some cases in the past where players from said position did not eventually become all-pros.

Personally I think the use of extremes to attempt to prove a point is on your part, not mine.

ok lets draft more DBs and WRs our GM/HC/OC/DC has a great track record of selecting players at these positions. i never said we drafted tight ends poorly, you did. read your post. i said we did a decent job of drafting tight ends, certainly not poorly enough to stop drafting them. You listed players, and the only busts were those picked in rounds 4 through 7. I chose players drafted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, premium picks. going forward i would not be too thrilled if we selected DBs and WRs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. do i think we could potentially do well there? of course. But id rather sign current nfl veterans at these positions and draft where we have drafted well. therefore, we have a greater liklihood of improving the team.