PP2
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 24,016
- Reaction score
- 24,464
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
I'm going to look at an even bigger picture than that, the following analysis is courtesy of Ponyexpress. What he did here was sort out the data by pass/run ratio, and then examined the W-L record and the results are not surprising:
Patriots offense: Pass-run ratio analysis
Data (in descending order of pass %)
Score Pass % Y/rush (non QB)
17-25 74% 3.6
38-24 69% 4.9
20-24 67% 4.4
34-27 65% 4.4
31-34 63% 4.1
35-21 62% 4
20-16 62% 4
31-24 61% 3.1
27-24 60% 4.6
37-16 58% 2.3
31-19 50% 6.3
30-21 49% 4.4
38-20 49% 2.9
41-23 49% 4.6
34-3 44% 4.5
Note: I define a balanced attack as a pass% < 60%.
Observation:When Patriots have pass % less than 60%, they are 6-0 with average score of 35-16.5
When Pats have pass % greater than 60%, they are 6-3 with average score of 28-23
Causal relationships.
I. It is assumed that the reason the Pats offense is a TD a game better when committing to the run is because (i)the pats tend to favor the run over the pass when leading by a large margin (defined here as two scores) and (ii) In close games the run game was stuffed, and the Pats had to pass to win.
Counterargument: The Past did not favor the run over the pass when leading by a two scores vs Miami in week 1, vs SD in week 2 , vs Buffalo in week 3 (ahead 21-0), vs Indy in week 9. Therefore the run pass ratio is not a clear consequence of having or not having a large lead. In those instances the coaching staff preferred to pass, even when the run game was effective (over 4 yards per non-QB carry in each of those games except Indy).
A stuffed run game here is defined as less than 4 yards per attempt. In 7 of the 9 games in which the pass ratio exceeded 60%, the non-QB rush yards per attempt also exceeded 4. In 5 of the 7 games decided by 1 score or less, the yards per attempt exceeded 4. The only exceptions were Pittsburgh (3.6) and Indy (3.1). I actually believe 3.6 is a respectable YPA vs Pittsburgh, but the running game was not in the game plan (74% pass). Therefore the Pats decision not to run was not a result of the run game being ineffective. It was a strategic choice by the coaching staff.
II. It is assumed that the pats defense performs a TD better in games when the offense commits to the run because in games where the defense performs well, the Pats tend to have a big lead and the offense runs out the clock.
Counterargument: See previous counterargument. Pats are at least as likely to pass as run with two score leads.
Conclusion:When the Pats staff commits to a balanced attack, here defined as less than 60 % passing, the entire team, both offense and defense, seems to perform better. The offense scores a TD per game more and the defense allows a TD per game less than when the pass % exceeds 60 %.
Some assume that pass % declines when the Pats have a big lead, but this is not a trend. the Pats have often shown a preference for passing while holding leads of 2+ scores. This decision to pass when leading by 2+ scores may contribute to worse performance on the defensive side of the ball. This may be because passing with a big lead increases the number of plays available to the opposition, giving them more opportunities to score and come back. Maintaining a balanced offense with a 2+ score lead tends to limit the offensive opportunities of the opposition, helping the defense. That is complimentary football.
When the Pats are in close games, they tend to abandon a balanced attack, even when the run game is working, in favor of the heavy passing attack. I do not understand this strategic decision by the coaching staff. This makes the offense predictable.
IMO If the Pats commit to a balanced offensive game plan in the postseason, even in close games, they have a much better chance to win the SB. It will also help protect a vulnerable defense.