I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[sevengables_2207]

IMO, this argument over balance with the Patriots offense is a play-calling issue. Those who argue for balance want to see more running plays called during the competitive part of the game...generally speaking, to keep the defense honest. Meanwhile, the offense is clearly focused on reacting to and attempting to take advantage of match-ups based on the type of defensive formation that is out there for that particular play. In other words, the play-calling is seemingly mandated by the anticipated looks the defense shows and the audibles that are implemented during the presnap chess match.

I feel that in today's NFL, keeping a defense honest is trumped by exploiting the weakness(es) of a particular defense...ad infinitum. This is true whether it is by passing the ball almost exclusively to capitalize on favorable match-ups or pounding the rock over and over again against a small front... daring the offense to run (like in the first Bills game). The beauty of this Patriots offense to me is in it's amoeba-like characteristic go pass happy against defenses that are vulnerable in coverage or stay in base packages, or to ground and pound it against nickel and dime packages. In other words, balanced offenses are not balanced because the have the most even run/pass ratio. To me, balanced offenses can hurt a defense with either the pass or the run when the opportunities present themselves.

Therefore, I think the posters who have pointed out that a lot of the statistics which argue for balance are on to something since I agree that these balanced run/pass ratios reveal that the team built up a lead more often than not by passing the ball during the contested part of the game, then used the running game to bleed the clock once a sizable lead was achieved.

 

[Ring 6]

And that is also the exact point that some like yourself and Deus are trying to make...

The actual number of pass/run plays tend to me much different during the time when the game is in the balance, but many times the rush numbers are built up down the stretch of the clock killing time which comes later in the game (much like we saw last week vs MIA).

I think it comes down to the fact that our passing game is still and will always be our biggest weapon, therefore even those who want more balance shouldn't expect anything more than about 60/40, at least during this current positional grouping era. I don't think it was necessarily the overall lack of rushes last year, but more as to how successful we were in those rushing attempts. This season has seen more effectiveness in those rushes and situations, and that is something that was needed and could lead to great results.

The main point is that Belichick will not be afraid to exploit any and all matchups that tend to fall in our favor. Sometimes that tends to be more run heavy depending upon the matchups, but as a whole often it doesn't.

I can certainly see the points provided by those like mayoclinic and PP2 who are stating their cases too, as "balance" is great on many levels. One of the aspects that they may be slightly overlooking a bit is the fact that the numbers will tend to balance themselves out more during certain situational football, much like the example from the 2004 season's SB vs Philly that ended up being 33 plays of pass vs 28 plays of run, but was not quite as balanced when the game was necessarily on the line.

No one is saying there is no benefit in trying to be balanced. But there is just no evidence to support that balance is a predictor of success.
This thread has a bunch of people arguing that since by the end of the game te pass/run ratio was in balance that means balance was responsible for the success, when the facts show the opposite is true.
Of course there are benefits of balance, but the facts show they do not outweigh attakcing with your strength and/or against their weakness.

 

[Double TE]

Balance shmalance I just want to see more Vereen and less Woodhead.

 

[mayoclinic]

No one is saying there is no benefit in trying to be balanced. But there is just no evidence to support that balance is a predictor of success.
This thread has a bunch of people arguing that since by the end of the game te pass/run ratio was in balance that means balance was responsible for the success, when the facts show the opposite is true.
Of course there are benefits of balance, but the facts show they do not outweigh attakcing with your strength and/or against their weakness.

Andy, I don't think we're ever going to resolve the arguments in the abstract. Trying to argue what the "facts" show over a prolonged period based on data in retrospect is hopeless.

Here's what I would personally like to see regarding run/pass "balance" for tonight's game:

- I would like to see the Pats present the threat of rushing the ball enough of the time to keep the Texans from teeing off against Brady
- I would like to see the Pats be able to run the ball effectively enough when they do rush to make the Texans respect that threat
- If the Pats are able to run the ball effectively, I would like to see them use it enough to wear down the Texans' DL a bit so that they aren't able to get in Brady's face as much as the game goes on, and hopefully tire them out
- I'd like to see the Pats use the running game to set up play action effectively to open up some passing opportunities
- I'd like to see some screens, draws or misdirection plays that take advantage of the Texans' aggressiveness on defense
- I'd like to see the Pats be able to run the ball in short yardage and red zone situations when it counts
- I'd like to see the Pats be able to run the ball if they get ahead and need to sustain some drives to give their defense a rest, chew up the clock, keep Schaub off the field, and/or get a couple of key first downs

That's mainly what I meant when I said "yes please" to the OP's statement that "I hope McDaniels sticks with the run against the Texans". Not that I particularly care what the ratio is. Not that I expect the bulk of the yardage or points to come on the ground, as opposed to through the air. But I personally think that if we can do the majority of the things listed above, it will make it easier for Brady to work his magic than if he goes empty backfield and spreads things out and the Texans just tee off at him, strength against strength.

There's lots of ways to have an effective rushing game, and it shows up differently in the box score. We didn't have great totals or a great rushing average against Miami, but when it came to crunch time we ran the ball down their throat again and again and they couldn't stop us. I'd call that fairly effective. If that's how the Texas game pans out, I'll be satisfied. I'm not personally wedded to one scenario. But I do think that it will be easier to beat the Texans if the running attack shows up effectively at some point during the game than if it doesn't.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

No one is saying there is no benefit in trying to be balanced. But there is just no evidence to support that balance is a predictor of success.
This thread has a bunch of people arguing that since by the end of the game te pass/run ratio was in balance that means balance was responsible for the success, when the facts show the opposite is true.
Of course there are benefits of balance, but the facts show they do not outweigh attakcing with your strength and/or against their weakness.

Sure there is. There was an article posted linking passing efficiency (Y/A) to winning. After looking at Brady's game logs it's pretty clear that he's most effective when passing between 20-40 times a game.

So based on that it's pretty reasonable to believe that you need to find a way to take the ball out of Brady's hand 20-30 times a game, and while you could accomplish this by throwing it 40 consecutive times and then running it for the remainder of the game it makes much more sense to maintain some semblance of balance all game long.

The article posted also showed a correlation between rushing efficiency and winning, but it was much less. However I'd guess that primary backs also see a "sweet spot" for touches, so a good pass/rush balance probably has the best chance of resulting in both being efficient, which should increase the odds of winning.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure there is. There was an article posted linking passing efficiency (Y/A) to winning. After looking at Brady's game logs it's pretty clear that he's most effective when passing between 20-40 times a game.

So based on that it's pretty reasonable to believe that you need to find a way to take the ball out of Brady's hand 20-30 times a game, and while you could accomplish this by throwing it 40 consecutive times and then running it for the remainder of the game it makes much more sense to maintain some semblance of balance all game long.

The article posted also showed a correlation between rushing efficiency and winning, but it was much less. However I'd guess that primary backs also see a "sweet spot" for touches, so a good pass/rush balance probably has the best chance of resulting in both being efficient, which should increase the odds of winning.

We arent discussing correlation, we are discussing causation.
Counting runs and passes and ignoring context is pointless in answering.
To summarize, the argument being made is that balance LEADS TO success, and the reality is success leads to balance.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I don't think we're ever going to resolve the arguments in the abstract. Trying to argue what the "facts" show over a prolonged period based on data in retrospect is hopeless.

Here's what I would personally like to see regarding run/pass "balance" for tonight's game:

- I would like to see the Pats present the threat of rushing the ball enough of the time to keep the Texans from teeing off against Brady
- I would like to see the Pats be able to run the ball effectively enough when they do rush to make the Texans respect that threat
- If the Pats are able to run the ball effectively, I would like to see them use it enough to wear down the Texans' DL a bit so that they aren't able to get in Brady's face as much as the game goes on, and hopefully tire them out
- I'd like to see the Pats use the running game to set up play action effectively to open up some passing opportunities
- I'd like to see some screens, draws or misdirection plays that take advantage of the Texans' aggressiveness on defense
- I'd like to see the Pats be able to run the ball in short yardage and red zone situations when it counts
- I'd like to see the Pats be able to run the ball if they get ahead and need to sustain some drives to give their defense a rest, chew up the clock, keep Schaub off the field, and/or get a couple of key first downs

That's mainly what I meant when I said "yes please" to the OP's statement that "I hope McDaniels sticks with the run against the Texans". Not that I particularly care what the ratio is. Not that I expect the bulk of the yardage or points to come on the ground, as opposed to through the air. But I personally think that if we can do the majority of the things listed above, it will make it easier for Brady to work his magic than if he goes empty backfield and spreads things out and the Texans just tee off at him, strength against strength.

There's lots of ways to have an effective rushing game, and it shows up differently in the box score. We didn't have great totals or a great rushing average against Miami, but when it came to crunch time we ran the ball down their throat again and again and they couldn't stop us. I'd call that fairly effective. If that's how the Texas game pans out, I'll be satisfied. I'm not personally wedded to one scenario. But I do think that it will be easier to beat the Texans if the running attack shows up effectively at some point during the game than if it doesn't.

I too would love for us to be effective enough to use the whole playbook, and break tendancies. I'm not arguing balance is bad, I'm arguing it is a factor and if you gameplan with balance as the priority, it usually isn't the best move.

 

[mayoclinic]

I too would love for us to be effective enough to use the whole playbook, and break tendancies. I'm not arguing balance is bad, I'm arguing it is a factor and if you gameplan with balance as the priority, it usually isn't the best move.

I'm not advocating game planning with the idea of "balance" in terms a specific ratio in mind. But in most cases, giving the Pats' pass-oriented offense, establishing the capability to run the ball early and maintaining that threat will make it all the more difficult for opposing defenses to stop Brady. There will be cases like the "Williams Wall" where that approach makes little sense, so I'm not advocating a one size fits all approach.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

We arent discussing correlation, we are discussing causation.
Counting runs and passes and ignoring context is pointless in answering.
To summarize, the argument being made is that balance LEADS TO success, and the reality is success leads to balance.

Nope you're missing my point. It isn't that balance leads to success it's that imbalance leads to failure. Starting with imbalance can paint you into a corner later in the game.

 

[mayoclinic]

Andy, I don't think we're ever going to resolve the arguments in the abstract. Trying to argue what the "facts" show over a prolonged period based on data in retrospect is hopeless.

Here's what I would personally like to see regarding run/pass "balance" for tonight's game:

- I would like to see the Pats present the threat of rushing the ball enough of the time to keep the Texans from teeing off against Brady
- I would like to see the Pats be able to run the ball effectively enough when they do rush to make the Texans respect that threat
- If the Pats are able to run the ball effectively, I would like to see them use it enough to wear down the Texans' DL a bit so that they aren't able to get in Brady's face as much as the game goes on, and hopefully tire them out
- I'd like to see the Pats use the running game to set up play action effectively to open up some passing opportunities
- I'd like to see some screens, draws or misdirection plays that take advantage of the Texans' aggressiveness on defense
- I'd like to see the Pats be able to run the ball in short yardage and red zone situations when it counts
- I'd like to see the Pats be able to run the ball if they get ahead and need to sustain some drives to give their defense a rest, chew up the clock, keep Schaub off the field, and/or get a couple of key first downs

That's mainly what I meant when I said "yes please" to the OP's statement that "I hope McDaniels sticks with the run against the Texans". Not that I particularly care what the ratio is. Not that I expect the bulk of the yardage or points to come on the ground, as opposed to through the air. But I personally think that if we can do the majority of the things listed above, it will make it easier for Brady to work his magic than if he goes empty backfield and spreads things out and the Texans just tee off at him, strength against strength.

Seems like the Pats agree with this. Come out running right at the Texans, and effectively.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm not advocating game planning with the idea of "balance" in terms a specific ratio in mind. But in most cases, giving the Pats' pass-oriented offense, establishing the capability to run the ball early and maintaining that threat will make it all the more difficult for opposing defenses to stop Brady. There will be cases like the "Williams Wall" where that approach makes little sense, so I'm not advocating a one size fits all approach.

Perfect example of this with the play action to Lloyd for a TD. Safety bit on the play action because the Pats had effectively established the run. I might have been able to complete that pass. God, what a beautiful play. Poetry.

 

[mayoclinic]

So far, this game does not support Andy's "teams pass the ball to get ahead and then run it once they're ahead to make the final numbers look more balanced" hypothesis. The Pats started out fairly balanced over the first 3 drives. Since then they've been pretty unbalanced, passing almost exclusively, and mostly ineffectively, except for the one deep TD pass to Stallworth. Lot of 3 and outs.

 

[lamafist]

So far, this game does not support Andy's "teams pass the ball to get ahead and then run it once they're ahead to make the final numbers look more balanced" hypothesis. The Pats started out fairly balanced over the first 3 drives. Since then they've been pretty unbalanced, passing almost exclusively, and mostly ineffectively, except for the one deep TD pass to Stallworth. Lot of 3 and outs.

Um... what?

The first drive was balanced. The 2nd drive: 5 passes, and one run up the middle for no gain. 3rd drive: 6 passes and 3 runs (for a net of 2 yards, btw.)

 

[PP2]

That is simply not consistent with the facts.
Once again when we win we END UP balanced because we build a lead then become run heavy.

That would presuppose that we start every game by being pass-heavy which is simply not true.

He is still the same guy every week. Whether he has a good or bad game is about the game plan, how his teammates play and how the defense that is paid to stop him does. He doesn't just show up and play well or poorly in a vaccuum.

I had to read that last sentence a few times and still don't understand it. The game of football doesn't exist in a vacuum, period. Everyone has days when they play good or bad, and Brady is no exception to that rule. The more balanced an attack we have on offense, the less of a load there is on Brady, especially when he has the occasional off-day.

Good offense does what works, not what puts balance on a stat sheet.
Unpredictability is one not so huge factor in designing and running an offense. You have decided it is the only one, and we would fail miserably with that attitude.

Part of what makes for a good offense is being unpredictable. You can't be unpredictable by being one-dimensional.

 

[PP2]

Secondly, once again, balance is a result of winning, not a cause.

Again that would presuppose that we open every game by passing heavy, and then end up running out the clock. Or if we open up by running heavy, then passing to catch up. I'm pretty sure that this doesn't really exist on the NFL level.. more like Pop Warner football.

Again, using the run to set up the pass has merit. (As do many other approaches) Passing to set up a big lead and running out the clock is not, however, an example of balance.

Do I deny that this happens occasionally? No.

Does this happen every single time? No.

 

[PP2]

ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of your own team as well as the opponent because you think balance is more important is foolhardy.

Are you saying we have a weakness in our run game? Why would we not use it frequently? Especially this year with no less than four solid RBs.

 

[Ring 6]

So far, this game does not support Andy's "teams pass the ball to get ahead and then run it once they're ahead to make the final numbers look more balanced" hypothesis.

That is not a hypothesis, that is a fact of what often happens in games that people consider balanced based on the final tallies.
Once again:
If you end up balanced only because you ran heavily when ahead, that is not an example of being better because you were balanced. When you strip away those games, there is no reasonable evidence left.
Never did I even imply that the Patriots always throw early and run late, only that the examples being used to support the fallacy that balance causes winning rather than winning causing balance were invalid examples.
You are in strawman heaven now.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you saying we have a weakness in our run game? Why would we not use it frequently? Especially this year with no less than four solid RBs.

How do you get that I am saying that? Please stick to the discussion rather than making things up and attributing them to me.

 

[PP2]

You missed a sack.
And we ran 6 of the last 7 plays to kill the clock, so before offense became defense it was
pass 33
run 22
That is exactly the run/pass ratio that you say is too high and is sigingificantly higher than we have had since 2007.

Please point out to me exactly where I said it was too high?

Again, let me point out that the only thing I said was that "the closer to 50/50.." which doesn't mean it must absolutely be 50/50.

33/22 to me is pretty balanced, as opposed to 2007, which was 48/16, and the Giants came right out of the gate targeting Brady all the way. Their schemes were designed solely to either pressure or confuse Brady. They dared us to run on them and we didn't.

 

[PP2]

How do you get that I am saying that? Please stick to the discussion rather than making things up and attributing them to me.

Then what do you mean by strengths and weaknesses? What weakness do we have?