I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[ralmat55]

Every year people crack out the "balance" nonsense. Every year, others of us end up having to explain the difference between correlation and causation, and having to demonstrate, time and again, that the reason you get more runs in wins is because you're running more while ahead, not because you're balanced while even or behind. How many times do we have to go through this before the "balance" people stop acting as if they've got an actual point when it comes to the Patriots offense?

They don't. Balance looks nice on the stat sheet. It's generally meaningless in games involving the Patriots offense.

The flaw in your argument is that in those games the "balance" was achieved by a disproportionate number of run plays after a lead had been built. However, my memory of these games is that the Pats run/pass ratio while building their leads was pretty consistent with the overall ratio. These are the Belichick Patriots after all. I only wish they took the air out of the ball a little more when they are protecting a lead.

Truth is that this offense is at its best when using its full arsenal. I hate it when they come into a game having convinced themselves that they can't run a ball against a certain defense. Who knows that you can't on that given Sunday. Tying one arm behind your back is rarely a good strategy.

Personally, I hope they run every play Monday night out of the shotgun with 5 wide. That way, when it doesn't work, they'll learn to use their entire offense when they matchup again in the playoffs

 

[signbabybrady]

Rain can help the pass more than the run. Harder to cover receivers in the rain. The wind rarely affects Brady's passing and really only affects deeper passes or QBs who lob the ball.

Unless it is a torrential down pour or the win is blowing so hard that it is raining sideways, the wind and rain will have little factor in the Pats' game plan. Brady has had some of his best passing games in wind, rain, and snow. I remember him smoking the Bears' defense in a blizzard two years ago.

I was there for that game. In the one of the endzones on the second level. Man was it Windy up there. Excellent game to attend as it was over before the first half ended.

 

[Ring 6]

The flaw in your argument is that in those games the "balance" was achieved by a disproportionate number of run plays after a lead had been built. However, my memory of these games is that the Pats run/pass ratio while building their leads was pretty consistent with the overall ratio. These are the Belichick Patriots after all. I only wish they took the air out of the ball a little more when they are protecting a lead.

Truth is that this offense is at its best when using its full arsenal. I hate it when they come into a game having convinced themselves that they can't run a ball against a certain defense. Who knows that you can't on that given Sunday. Tying one arm behind your back is rarely a good strategy.

Personally, I hope they run every play Monday night out of the shotgun with 5 wide. That way, when it doesn't work, they'll learn to use their entire offense when they matchup again in the playoffs

The flaw in your argument about the flaw in his argument is you are trying to prove causation by how you remember things, while he has used facts and real numbers over the years in supporting the very correct conclusion that winning causes a higher run/pass ratio, not a higher run/pass ratio causes winning.
I also think your memory is faulty, which isn't really a criticism because these topics always draw out selective memory.

 

[mayoclinic]

And in tons of games they spread out the field and are unstoppable.

Sometimes. Often against weaker teams. But often against playoff caliber teams and better defenses the spread gets stopped too much.

The Pats are 4-4 in playoff games since going to the spread offense in 2007, with 2 SB losses by a FG in which the offense put up 17 or fewer points. They're averaging 23.25 PPG in those 8 playoff games, despite averaging 31.9 PPG over those 4 seasons. A drop of over 8.5 PPG in scoring in the playoffs. Not terribly impressive. In contrast, the 2001-2006 playoff teams averaged 24 PPG during the 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 regular seasons but averaged 25.3 PPG during the playoffs, and went 12-2 during that stretch, with 3 SBs. Their scoring average went up in the playoffs compared with the regular season, and was also higher than that of the 2007-2011 spread offense teams, even though those teams put up 500 or more points 3 teams and set an all time record for regular season points scored. It may be argued that the defense of the 2001-2006 teams was better, but those defenses allowed an average of 18.6 PPG in those 14 playoff games, compared with the 2007-2011 playoff defenses allowing an average of 20 PPG, so the defensive performance wasn't tremendously different in terms of points allowed.

Rod Laver used to say "never change a winning game, always change a losing game". The spread works great against inferior opponents, but it is too easily shut down by good defenses and playoff teams. It may be an easy way to beat up on weak defenses, but I'm not sure it serves us well come playoff time, compared with a more balanced approach. Of course, all of this is just a correlation.

 

[Ring 6]

Sometimes. Often against weaker teams. But often against playoff caliber teams and better defenses the spread gets stopped too much.

That is a ridiculous argument because nothing on any offense works as well against playoff caliber teams and better defenses.

The Pats are 4-4 in playoff games since going to the spread offense in 2007, with 2 SB losses by a FG in which the offense put up 17 or fewer points. They're averaging 23.25 PPG in those 8 playoff games, despite averaging 31.9 PPG over those 4 seasons. A drop of over 8.5 PPG in scoring in the playoffs.

Playoff football is historically lower scoring any way. Many of those games were played in less than perfect weather conditions, and yes, when you play better teams you do not do as well.

Not terribly impressive. In contrast, the 2001-2006 playoff teams averaged 24 PPG during the 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 regular seasons but averaged 25.3 PPG during the playoffs, and went 12-2 during that stretch, with 3 SBs.

And they had great defenses.

Their scoring average went up in the playoffs compared with the regular season, and was also higher than that of the 2007-2011 spread offense teams, even though those teams put up 500 or more points 3 teams and set an all time record for regular season points scored. It may be argued that the defense of the 2001-2006 teams was better, but those defenses allowed an average of 18.6 PPG in those 14 playoff games, compared with the 2007-2011 playoff defenses allowing an average of 20 PPG, so the defensive performance wasn't tremendously different in terms of points allowed.

The 07-11 teams were no less balanced run/pass than the 01-04 teams, particularly from 08-10 when 0-2 of that 4-4 occurred.

Rod Laver used to say "never change a winning game, always change a losing game". The spread works great against inferior opponents, but it is too easily shut down by good defenses and playoff teams. It may be an easy way to beat up on weak defenses, but I'm not sure it serves us well come playoff time, compared with a more balanced approach. Of course, all of this is just a correlation.

You can't really say that you expect an offense in 2012 to be doing what it did in 2003, after the rule changes that have redefined the game, can you?
Interestingly, I bet that if you researched this further you would find that the Patriots run/pass ratio was much higher in those playoff games. So it could easily be argued that more balance in the playoffs is the cause of less points in the playoffs is more conservative offense and too much balance.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots have lost 3 games this season. Not one of those losses was because of a run/pass imbalance:

1.) The Cardinals game was clearly not a loss due to a run/pass imbalance, as any look at the first half demonstrates. The line was brutal and Hernandez went down.

2.) The Baltimore game was clearly not a loss due to a run/pass imbalance

3.) The Seattle game had NE put up 17 points in the first half. So, what happened in the second half?

First drive (3 run/4 pass). Ball moves to Seattle 19. Ridley goes for 6, then -3.
Second drive (2 run/4 pass) - Ball moves to Seattle 43. Brady throws pick.

Third drive (1 run/7 pass) - Ball moves to Seattle 6. Brady throws pick.

Fourth drive (4 run/3 pass) - Ball moves to Seattle 25. Ridley goes for 4,4,0

Fifth drive (2 run/5 pass) - Ball moves to NE 47. Intentional grounding kills drive

Sixth drive (2 run/1 pass) 3 and out. Runs of 1 yard and 1 yard

Seventh drive (0 run/3 pass) last, desperation drive

That's not a loss because of imbalance. Hell, the most imbalanced drive was the one that came the closest to being a TD.

 

[Snake Eyes]

That is a ridiculous argument because nothing on any offense works as well against playoff caliber teams and better defenses.

Yes, it's going to be more difficult to score on a better defense but that doesnt mean some things don't work as well as others against those defenses. There will be a 'rate of attrition' against those good teams but those rates can vary depending on what the offense does.

 

[Snake Eyes]

The Patriots have lost 3 games this season. Not one of those losses was because of a run/pass imbalance:

1.) The Cardinals game was clearly not a loss due to a run/pass imbalance, as any look at the first half demonstrates. The line was brutal and Hernandez went down

Was the line brutal because it was obvious, from their formation, whether the play would be a run or a pass?

All this talk about run/pass balance is missing the point, if they're tipping their hand regarding the play it becomes a lot easier to stop them.

The real issue is a lack of cohesive integration of the running and passing game.

 

[PP2]

As you know, because you've been one of the people who's had to have it shown to him year after year, the Patriots running totals are frequently padded when they run to grind clock. Many of the games that your side likes to cite to as "proof" have been shown to be games where the run/pass balance was dramatically titled towards pass until the game was in hand and it was time to kill clock. Your "balance' argument has been blown out of the water, year after year.

It simply doesn't apply to the Patriots offense.

Again what is our W-L record when the number of runs is more proportionate to the number of passes, as opposed to a high percentage of pass vs. runs? We're looking at the past few years, not just any random samples.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again what is our W-L record when the number of runs is more proportionate to the number of passes, as opposed to a high percentage of pass vs. runs? We're looking at the past few years, not just any random samples.

Your question is meaningless, because it ignores context, which is the whole point. Balance achieved because a team ran 15 consecutive times at the end of a 45-3 win is not the "balance" that you are calling for. It's meaningless.

In order for "balance" to be of any import, it's got to happen with the team is fighting tooth and nail for the win. Go back and look at the Patriots losses in the past 3 years. Find the ones you think are definitely a result of a run/pass ratio problem.

2010 losses to:
Jets
Browns

2011 losses to:
Bills
Steelers
Giants

2012 losses to:
Cardinals
Ravens
Seahawks

 

[Deus Irae]

Was the line brutal because it was obvious, from their formation, whether the play would be a run or a pass?

All this talk about run/pass balance is missing the point, if they're tipping their hand regarding the play it becomes a lot easier to stop them.

The real issue is a lack of cohesive integration of the running and passing game.

The real issue is that people scream for balance as another untrue, but comforting (to them), fallback excuse, much like "The O.C. sucks!", and the like. The Patriots are 36-8 in their last 3 seasons and, if you take away Brady's recovery season (2009), they are 52-8 with Brady under center in the "Pass first" Patriots era. "Balance" is fine, and may even be aspirational, but it's not essential to this team. They lose for varying reasons, but it's not [highlight]because[/highlight] the run/pass ratio was out of whack.

 

[pazrul72]

When it comes to run/pass ratio I don't care what the final numbers are, I care more about what formations they line up in. If Brady puts the ball up 50 times for 5 TD's and 0 picks I could care less if the running game was 20 for 40 yards we still win that game. What I do think is important is I don't ever want to see the shotgun 5 wide formation short of it being 3rd and 15+. At least the threat to run needs to be present. Plus your RB can chip an edge rusher before going out into the flat so you have a dump off emergency route for a blitz or great coverage. Against the Texans I want at least enough of a rushing game they the defense can not just assume it will be pass. When and where that rushing game comes from doesn't really matter wither it's at the end of the game to put it away or throughout as a vital cog. The key is to keep Brady upright and not taking huge shots because we only have the 5 o line man to block and a free rusher is coming.

 

[Snake Eyes]

The real issue is that people scream for balance as another untrue, but comforting (to them), fallback excuse, much like "The O.C. sucks!", and the like.

You mean the Pats offensive struggles int he playoffs are not a real issue?

People love to criticize but not to offer alternative suggestions which can in turn be criticized. Saying "the OC sucks" allows any idiot to seem knowledgable even if the OC actually does suck.

Also, my issue isn't with the run/pass "balance", IMO one can determine balance by what produces the most results, so 70/30 might actually be the optimum ratio depending on the situation. My point is that the formations the Pats typically use telegraph whether it'll be a run or pass, which make it easier to stop, I want to keep the defense guessing and off-balance.

 

[mayoclinic]

That is a ridiculous argument because nothing on any offense works as well against playoff caliber teams and better defenses. Playoff football is historically lower scoring any way. Many of those games were played in less than perfect weather conditions, and yes, when you play better teams you do not do as well.

And yet the 2001-2006 teams scored better than their season average in the playoffs. As for the argument that playoff football is historically lower scoring, last year's playoffs featured scores such as 45-28, 36-32, 45-10, 37-20 and 31-10 and 29-23. Not particularly low-scoring games. The year before included scores such as 41-36, 48-21, 35-24, and 31-25. The Packers averaged over 30PPG in their 4 victories en route to the SB. The playoffs aren't that low scoring any more, even though our offense seems to have had trouble putting up points in the playoffs, with the exception of the Denver game.

The 07-11 teams were no less balanced run/pass than the 01-04 teams, particularly from 08-10 when 0-2 of that 4-4 occurred.

You can't possibly believe this. The 2008 team, which didn't make the playoffs was balanced. 2007 had a decent rushing attack, but it certainly wasn't balanced. 2009? Belichick himself admitted that he had Moss, Welker and nothing else. 2010? The Jets dared the Pats to run the ball in the playoffs by putting 8 DBs on the field in the playoffs. 2011 - the worst rushing attack in years. Those were not balanced offenses. The Pats passed 45 times and rushed 28 in the loss to the Jets - and only because the Jets dared them to run. They passed 41 times and rushed 19 in the SB loss to the Giants last year. And they passed 48 times and rushed all of 16 in the 2007 SB loss to the Giants. BB compared the Texans' DL to the Giants this week in terms of their length and ability to deflect passes, and their ability to generate pressure. Going pass happy and trying to spread the Giants out didn't work too well in 2 SBs. I could see the Texans posing similar problems. Keeping them honest with the running game and play action will open up a lot of opportunities, and make the spread more effective too.

You can't really say that you expect an offense in 2012 to be doing what it did in 2003, after the rule changes that have redefined the game, can you?

Of course not, and I never suggested that. I did, however, suggest that an over-reliance on the spread leads to a predictable offense that can be too easily shut down by good defenses. And I would like to see the Pats evolve towards a more balanced approach that uses all of their weapons - including a generous amount of the spread, which can be devestatingly effective - instead of situationally limiting themselves.

Interestingly, I bet that if you researched this further you would find that the Patriots run/pass ratio was much higher in those playoff games. So it could easily be argued that more balance in the playoffs is the cause of less points in the playoffs is more conservative offense and too much balance.

2011 SB, Giants: 41 passes, 19 rushes; 17 points
2011 AFCCG, Ravens: 36 passes, 31 rushes, 23 points
2011 Divisional game, Broncos: 34 passes, 30 rushes, 45 points
2010 Divisional game, Jets: 45 passes, 28 rushes, 21 points
2009 Divisional game, Ravens: 42 passes, 18 rushes, 14 points (though I tend to discount this a bit, as the Pats got behind early)
2007 SB, Giants: 48 passes, 16 rushes, 14 points
2007 AFCCG, Chargers: 33 passes, 31 rushes, 21 points
2007 Division game, Jaguars: 28 passes, 29 rushes, 31 points

Just a correlation, and the data are limited, but those data suggest that going pass happy (40 pass attempts or more) tends to result in fewer points produced. That's not factoring in the caliber of the defenses (2 games against the Giants, 1 against the Ravens, 1 against the Jets) vs. the other opponents.

 

[Deus Irae]

You mean the Pats offensive struggles int he playoffs are not a real issue?

No, I mean that the Patriots offensive struggles the playoffs are not a result of the run/pass ratio, but are the result of different issues in different instances. Not rehashing this past Super Bowl:

2007 - Brady injury, Neal injury, Hochstein injury, injured TEs
2009 - Welker injury Ravens score on opening kickoff, Brady strip sack, Brady INT, Brady INT #2, Game basically over with 1:24 left in first quarter, with the Patriots having run just 12 offensive plays
2010 - Stupid Brady INT on screen pass, Crumpler drops easy TD pass. That's 7-11 points lost right there.

People love to criticize but not to offer alternative suggestions which can in turn be criticized. Saying "the OC sucks" allows any idiot to seem knowledgable even if the OC actually does suck.

Indeed.

 

[mayoclinic]

Given GB and Detroit's success spreading them out I don't think we'll see Brady under center much. I hope that doesn't mean 5 wide however. You can keep Houston off balance by throwing in a draw, RB screen or reverse any time it looks like their line is getting up the field too fast for their own good. I will say though Watt and Smith both play with their heads up which makes them alert to gadget plays. I think this will be more of a game plan which we've seen VS the Steelers in the past. Spread them out and run selectively. I do hope Vereen sees more of a role. I think his size/speed ratio would play better VS the Texans than Woodhead and I do like splitting him out VS this defense a lot as you have pointed out.

Green Bay did rush 31 times - vs. 37 pass attempts - for 99 yards against the Texans in their 42-28 win. Even though Green Bay ranks 20th in rushing and the Texans are 2nd in rushing defense, the Packers were still able to rush enough to be effective, and to keep their offense from being one-dimensional. That's key.

From Elliot Harrison at NFL.com today, FWIW:

If Stevan Ridley -- the league's seventh-leading rusher -- gets it going versus the NFL's second-best run defense, this is the Patriots' ballgame. I'm guessing 82 yards and a touchdown. Pats win.

I'm not expecting a game like the first Buffalo game where the Pats go run-crazy against a small DL. That obviously won't happen But keeping the Texans' honest, staying committed to the run, keeping balanced, and keeping the Houston DL form teeing off - those things are important, IMHO.

 

[lamafist]

2011 SB, Giants: 41 passes, 19 rushes; 17 points
2011 AFCCG, Ravens: 36 passes, 31 rushes, 23 points
2011 Divisional game, Broncos: 34 passes, 30 rushes, 45 points
2010 Divisional game, Jets: 45 passes, 28 rushes, 21 points
2009 Divisional game, Ravens: 42 passes, 18 rushes, 14 points (though I tend to discount this a bit, as the Pats got behind early)
2007 SB, Giants: 48 passes, 16 rushes, 14 points
2007 AFCCG, Chargers: 33 passes, 31 rushes, 21 points
2007 Division game, Jaguars: 28 passes, 29 rushes, 31 points

Just a correlation, and the data are limited, but those data suggest that going pass happy (40 pass attempts or more) tends to result in fewer points produced. That's not factoring in the caliber of the defenses (2 games against the Giants, 1 against the Ravens, 1 against the Jets) vs. the other opponents.

The problem is that in-game situations are a much bigger factor in run/pass ratio than any predetermined game-plan. If the offense produces a lot of points in the first 3 quarters, we're going to run a lot more in the 4th. If the offense produced fewer points in the first three quarters, it's more likely that we'll be behind and forced to go pass-heavy.

I think it'd be much more instructive to look at any possible correlation between scoring and run-pass ratio in the first halves of games.

 

[RodThePat]

Green Bay did rush 31 times - vs. 37 pass attempts - for 99 yards against the Texans in their 42-28 win. Even though Green Bay ranks 20th in rushing and the Texans are 2nd in rushing defense, the Packers were still able to rush enough to be effective, and to keep their offense from being one-dimensional. That's key.

From Elliot Harrison at NFL.com today, FWIW:



I'm not expecting a game like the first Buffalo game where the Pats go run-crazy against a small DL. That obviously won't happen But keeping the Texans' honest, staying committed to the run, keeping balanced, and keeping the Houston DL form teeing off - those things are important, IMHO.

Green Bay ran the football because they threw all over the Texans and had the game in hand pretty much from the get go. They ran because they were effective on offense, they weren't effective on offense because they ran. Of those 31 rushes by the Packers, 12 of them came in the 4th quarter, when the game was pretty much over.

In the first half, including penalties and plays in which Rodgers got sacked/scrambled, the Packers dropped back to pass 26 times. They got a huge lead by spreading the Texans out and letting Rodgers air-raid them all over the field.

The Jaguars, with backup Chad Henne playing most of the game, threw 37 passes to 27 run attempts and scored 37 on the Texnas. Similarly, the Lions put 31 points and 525 total yards on Houston by dropping back 61 times, carrying the ball a mere 23 times.

Every single evidence points to the Texans' weakness of defense being through the air. That doesn't mean we have to completely abandon the running game, but there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the best way to put points on the board against this team is to throw the ball early and often.

 

[Deus Irae]

Green Bay did rush 31 times - vs. 37 pass attempts - for 99 yards against the Texans in their 42-28 win. Even though Green Bay ranks 20th in rushing and the Texans are 2nd in rushing defense, the Packers were still able to rush enough to be effective, and to keep their offense from being one-dimensional. That's key.

Here's what Green Bay did to build up their 28-10 lead, in terms of run/pass ratio:

First drive: 3/4
Second drive: 2/5
Third drive: 1/5
Fourth drive: 3/4
Fifth drive: 3/3
Sixth drive: 5/8

So, that's a 17:29 run/pass ratio, which is 37% run, not including the two sacks, which would have pushed it to 17:31, which would be 35% run. That's 63%-65% passing. That's not the famed "balance", at all.

Green Bay Packers at Houston Texans - October 14th, 2012 - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

We have the greatest QB in the history of the game I am comfortable with the ball in his hand an inordinate amount of the time thank you very much.