I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[Ring 6]

Again that would presuppose that we open every game by passing heavy, and then end up running out the clock.

No it doesnt. It says that happens a lot, and happens in the games you are inappropriate calling proof of the opposite.
When you strip those away, you are left with nothing to support your argument, which is that balance causes wins.

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.

What? Many games you cite as bad games due to being pass happy, started out balanced, failed, and then went pass happy to catch up, and you categorize that a loss due to imbalance when the offense was balanced until that put them well behind.

Do I deny that this happens occasionally? No.

Often

Does this happen every single time? No.

No one ever said it did.

 

[PP2]

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.

The numbers prove that.

 

[PP2]

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.

You can't ignore the fact that the offense is most effective when Brady stays between 20 -40 passes.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Well, the argument you were coming down on the side of was that running a lot makes teams win, and less balance causes failure.
I think we can agree that tallying the play calls without regard to context is useless.
I recognize what you are saying. I'm disputing the concepts such as when we run 35 times we win, because in most of those games we only run 35 because we got out to a comfortable lead.

 

[PP2]

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.

Yet we started the game in balanced mode, and were pretty effective doing that, ending the first quarter with a 24-0 lead.

 

[Ring 6]

You can't ignore the fact that the offense is most effective when Brady stays between 20 -40 passes.

Once again, when he has to throw more than 40 times it is often because they have fallen behind.
Brady by the way has BY MILES the best record in games he throws 50+ times of anyone in NFL history.
20-40 times is 40 or less.
Are you seriously telling me that you think more than or less than 40 passes is the cause and the result is the effect rather than the other way around?
You are just purposely refusing to be honest now.

 

[PP2]

No it doesnt. It says that happens a lot, and happens in the games you are inappropriate calling proof of the opposite.
When you strip those away, you are left with nothing to support your argument, which is that balance causes wins.

Really having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say here.

What? Many games you cite as bad games due to being pass happy, started out balanced, failed, and then went pass happy to catch up, and you categorize that a loss due to imbalance when the offense was balanced until that put them well behind.

You have no proof of that. Also I want to point out that we don't always start out balanced.

 

[Ring 6]

The numbers prove that.

No they don't they prove winning is a predictor of balance. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference.

 

[PP2]

Once again, when he has to throw more than 40 times it is often because they have fallen behind.
Brady by the way has BY MILES the best record in games he throws 50+ times of anyone in NFL history.

I'd be interested in knowing his record in 50+ passes games.

 

[PP2]

No they don't they prove winning is a predictor of balance. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference.

The numbers show that when the number of runs are near the number of passes than they are further apart, the game results in a victory, especially in the playoffs (although with the occasional anomaly such as the Denver game).

 

[Ring 6]

Really having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say here.

You are using games that start balanced and turn unbalanced because the team is losing and throws to catch up as proof unbalance causes losses, and you are using games that started unbalanced and ran a lot with the lead to end up with the illusion of balance to support balance causes winning.
The exact evidence you think supports your idea actually refutes it.

You have no proof of that. Also I want to point out that we don't always start out balanced.

The proof is watching the games. The proof is in the gamebook. The proof is common sense and intellectual integrity.

 

[Ring 6]

The numbers show that when the number of runs are near the number of passes than they are further apart, the game results in a victory, especially in the playoffs (although with the occasional anomaly such as the Denver game).

When there are clouds it often rains.
Rain is caused by clouds. You are arguing clouds are caused by rain.

Winning more often when the total number of runs and passes are close together is a fact.
It neither supports that winning is a product of balance or balance is a product of winning.
The facts solve that, and prove without question that balance is a product of winning.

We are discussing the reason for the dynamic, and you keep naming the dynamic as the proof your reason is correct.

See the above example all you are doing in this thread is saying that rain causes clouds because every time it rains there are clouds.
You are way to smart to make me believe you don't understand that.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd be interested in knowing his record in 50+ passes games.

I wish I could find it, but it was ridiculous. It was something like he was 15-10 and the next best guy was 4-12.

 

[PP2]

You are using games that start balanced and turn unbalanced because the team is losing and throws to catch up as proof unbalance causes losses, and you are using games that started unbalanced and ran a lot with the lead to end up with the illusion of balance to support balance causes winning.
The exact evidence you think supports your idea actually refutes it.

Again, not every game starts balanced. There are games where Brady just comes out throwing, and the other team just goes right to nickel or dime.

The proof is watching the games. The proof is in the gamebook. The proof is common sense and intellectual integrity.

The gamebook? Have you got a copy of that? I only have the 2004 copy.

If you want to talk about common sense, then you will know very well that if a defense has to account for both the passing AND run game (which makes possible, the play-action) it will have a lot harder time stopping our offense.

In other words, it's better to be a multi-threat offense, than an one dimensional passing offense.

 

[VrabelJr]

It's probably better to look at the pass:run ratio at the point when you get the lead in the game. Usually when you win games these days it's by throwing the ball. You then run to maintain the lead which leads to a closer 1:1 ratio.

That said, I hope nobody is arguing that we won tonight by running the ball. Lol.

 

[PP2]

When there are clouds it often rains.
Rain is caused by clouds. You are arguing clouds are caused by rain.

Winning more often when the total number of runs and passes are close together is a fact.
It neither supports that winning is a product of balance or balance is a product of winning.
The facts solve that, and prove without question that balance is a product of winning.

If we go by your logic, then you are also incorrect because you have just said it doesn't support that balance is a product of winning which is what you have been arguing.

 

[Ring 6]

Yet we started the game in balanced mode, and were pretty effective doing that, ending the first quarter with a 24-0 lead.

Not really. We ran on the 1st 3 plays. Then we threw on 13 of 18 to get 3 TD drives. 13/5 is not a balanced offense.
Yet, what does any of that have to do with your argument?
Here is what does:
we threw 13 of the first 21 plays.
We threw 19/30 plays in the first half and 17/24 in the 2nd half to the point we make it 35-7 and it was over.
That is a 36/18 pass to run ratio, which is MUCH higher than we have ever been in any season under BB, ie and UNBALANCED game plan.
However, since we ran the clock out and ended up 37/33 pass run, you will chalk this up as a game that balance was the reason we won, when it fact we won while being unbalanced.

 

[Ring 6]

If we go by your logic, then you are also incorrect because you have just said it doesn't support that balance is a product of winning which is what you have been arguing.

You are kidding right?

Back ot the analogy.
Clouds and rain being present neither proves the argument that clouds cause rain or rain causes clouds.
You are arguning it does.
The facts prove which is cause and which is effect, both existing does not.

 

[Ring 6]

It's probably better to look at the pass:run ratio at the point when you get the lead in the game. Usually when you win games these days it's by throwing the ball. You then run to maintain the lead which leads to a closer 1:1 ratio.

That said, I hope nobody is arguing that we won tonight by running the ball. Lol.

Correct.......

 

[Patsrock]

I wish I could find it, but it was ridiculous. It was something like he was 15-10 and the next best guy was 4-12.

Brady is 5-3 in games with 50 or more passes. And 2-0 in the playoffs

Wins
Chicago 2002
SD 2001
KC 2002
Philly 2007
Buffalo 2009

Oakland 2001 playoffs
SD 2006 playoffs


Losses
Sea 2012
Denver 2006
SD 2002

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00/gamelog/