I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[PP2]

Seriously do you not understand that pass/run ratios are influenced by the fact that when you have a lead you run and when you are behind you pass?
You seem to just want to totally ignore the fact that the pass/run ratio is a result of the score. You are saying more runs LEAD TO WIN but the reality is that more runs RESULT FROM being ahead in the game.
Therefore, when you cite that a team lost because of run/pass ratio you are ignoring that the run/pass ratio was a result of being behind. Conversely if you have a big lead and run 15 of the last 17 plays of the game, you have also distorted the run/pass ratio. You simply cannot use those as CAUSE when they have been proven over and over again to be EFFECT.
You seem to just pretend this argument isn't being made every time you see it. Are you hiding from it, or do you have a response?

Lol, are we playing pop warner football? Run when we have a lead, throw when we're behind? I'm afraid the NFL isn't that simple.

The pass/run ratio isn't a result of the score, it's the SCRIPT that's designed before every game. There's always about 15-20 plays designed beforehand that establishes what you are going to do during the game.

I don't deny that running on consecutive downs at the end of a game distorts the pass/run ratio, but we do NOT do that every game, either because the score is too close or because of some other factors. This still doesn't prevent us from seeing a pattern.

My rationale for using the pass/run ratio as CAUSE in relation to W-L is the invariable nature of football games in that no one game is ever the same, and the idea that we consistently run when ahead and pass when behind is pure nonsense.

 

[Ring 6]

Lol, are we playing pop warner football? Run when we have a lead, throw when we're behind? I'm afraid the NFL isn't that simple.

The pass/run ratio isn't a result of the score, it's the SCRIPT that's designed before every game. There's always about 15-20 plays designed beforehand that establishes what you are going to do during the game.

I don't deny that running on consecutive downs at the end of a game distorts the pass/run ratio, but we do NOT do that every game, either because the score is too close or because of some other factors. This still doesn't prevent us from seeing a pattern.

My rationale for using the pass/run ratio as CAUSE in relation to W-L is the invariable nature of football games in that no one game is ever the same, and the idea that we consistently run when ahead and pass when behind is pure nonsense.

Then you simply do not want to consider facts.
The discussion is whether winning is a result of more running or more running is a result of winning, and you are trying to answer that based on the number of runs and ignore that the score of the game is the most responsible factor for the number of runs.
Of course you run more with a lead and throw more when losing, and if you bothered to look at the facts you would know that.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying when I gain weight I eat more so therefore weight gain causes overeating.

 

[Deus Irae]

Who cares about 8 losses over the last 3 years?

Anyone with a brain and an interest in the NFL and this discussion, I would hope.

My view of it is that you don't get far with an one-dimensional offense, and the number of Lombardi's we've taken home lately shows that clearly.

Your view is wrong or, rather, only right under certain circumstances, and the number of Lombardis doesn't show what you claim it does, at all.

As Bill Parcell says, you don't get anywhere without the ability to win in more than one way.

Stop parroting nonsense and start thinking. Right off the top of my head, the 2006 Colts, 2010 Packers and 2011 Giants prove that false.

I have demonstrated, using ALL the playoff games since 2007 just how far one dimensional offense takes us. You have zeroed on one game, and even then, that one game is a statistical abnormality because it was a blowout.

The only things you've demonstrated are an unwillingness to test your theory and an apparent inability to grasp the basic proofs that have been presented to you. And trying to claim that the games I pointed to are statistical abnormalities when you're trying to use just 4 playoff games as your "proof" is ridiculous on your part.

 

[patsfan13]

with the Texans moving Watt around Brady adjusting the play at the line will be seen more than normal,exploiting his aggressiveness and minimizing his opportunities to deflect passes.

The Texans as a group are great at blocking passes, the Pats OL has been very good at creating passing lanes for Brady, interesting battle to watch on Monday.

 

[ivanvamp]

As someone posted on a Texans' board, the Texans made Chad Henne look like Tom Brady a few weeks ago (354 yards, 4 TDs, 0INTs). Imagine what the real Tom Brady can do.

Eh....how much better than 354 yds, 4 td, 0 int, do you think Tom Brady can do? Do you think he's going for 550 yds, 6 td, and 0 int against the Texans?

 

[PP2]

Then you simply do not want to consider facts.
The discussion is whether winning is a result of more running or more running is a result of winning, and you are trying to answer that based on the number of runs and ignore that the score of the game is the most responsible factor for the number of runs.
Of course you run more with a lead and throw more when losing, and if you bothered to look at the facts you would know that.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying when I gain weight I eat more so therefore weight gain causes overeating.

It's pure nonsense that the score of the game dictates how often you run. The frequency with which you run is often dictated by what strategy you draw up before the game and what strategy is revealed by the defense during the game.

The discussion for me is NOT whether winning is a result of more running, but that a balanced offense gives us the best chance of winning.

 

[PP2]

Anyone with a brain and an interest in the NFL and this discussion, I would hope.

Let me rephrase: who cares about 8 regular season losses in the past 3 years? Given a choice I'm sure 99% of the fans would swap a 13-3 season with a bowl loss for a 9-7 season with a bowl win.

Your view is wrong or, rather, only right under certain circumstances, and the number of Lombardis doesn't show what you claim it does, at all.

So you're saying we have a better chance of winning by being an one-dimensional offense? Come on.

Stop parroting nonsense and start thinking. Right off the top of my head, the 2006 Colts, 2010 Packers and 2011 Giants prove that false.

Huh? Only the Packers qualify with a lopsided pass/rush ratio, and here I'm talking about the games that mean the most, e.g., the superbowl.

2006 Colts superbowl:

Pass: 38
Run: 42

2011 Giants superbowl:

Pass: 40
Run: 28

And please spare me your usual ad hominem which you think deflects attention from your solipsistic logic. It just doesn't.

The only things you've demonstrated are an unwillingness to test your theory and an apparent inability to grasp the basic proofs that have been presented to you. And trying to claim that the games I pointed to are statistical abnormalities when you're trying to use just 4 playoff games as your "proof" is ridiculous on your part.

Test my theory? I don't have to. I gave you the numbers from ALL the playoff games we've been in since implementing the spread offense.

You said "games" with a "s" but you only pointed to the Denver victory as something that renders my argument completely useless which is beyond ridiculous because that game again is a statistical anomaly in that it is the only blowout we've had in the playoffs since the spread, and again I've used ALL the games as a basis to point out that it is proof that the more balanced our offense is, the more we win. That's all there is to it.

 

[1960Pats]

with the Texans moving Watt around Brady adjusting the play at the line will be seen more than normal,exploiting his aggressiveness and minimizing his opportunities to deflect passes.

The Texans as a group are great at blocking passes, the Pats OL has been very good at creating passing lanes for Brady, interesting battle to watch on Monday.

And I've been watching a pretty interesting battle in this thread. I'm sorry I arrived late.

 

[1960Pats]

Great thread! It started as a mayo clinic but was handed off to PP2. I'm squarely in the balanced corner with them and not in the corner with the imbalanced group.

A - The cutoff % seems to be at a 60/40 pass/run ratio. The difference between wins vs losses when we pass it more than that, especially in the playoffs, is startling. But the numbers are better the closer to balanced. The cause really doesn't matter to me.

B - The Pats do get pass happy. A couple of the better examples were the two games against the Giants last year. In both games the Pats ran well against the weak Giants run defense, but against their very formidable pass defense they went pass-happy instead (90/43 total in two games) and lost both games and a Lombardi.

C - In looking at the overall numbers for wins and losses since 2009, I also noticed that the yards per carry isn't as much of a factor as much as attempts. There were examples of games where the Pats ran for less than 2 yards per carry and won and games where they ran for more than 4 per carry and lost. The biggest factor is the balance (gee, there's that word again.)

D - One of the things that I've noticed with great QBs is that they sometimes don't trust their team and want to do too much. We're lucky that Brady isn't one of those. Marino and Manning were, although Manning eventually saw the light.

E- Now that the NFL rules have been changed and teams are gearing up to stop the pass, wouldn't it make sense to have a team that can also run the ball? That would make this team almost untouchable.

I rest my case... maybe.

 

[Ring 6]

It's pure nonsense that the score of the game dictates how often you run. The frequency with which you run is often dictated by what strategy you draw up before the game and what strategy is revealed by the defense during the game.

The discussion for me is NOT whether winning is a result of more running, but that a balanced offense gives us the best chance of winning.

Not you are just being purposely obtuse.
Nonsense that run/pass ratio is determined by the score? What do teams do when they are running down the clock to protect a lead? What do they do on offense when the game is out of hand? What do teams do when they are trailing by a lot?
You simply cannot realistically say that the total game run/pass ratio has causation to winning or losing.
A team that builds a huge lead with a pass heavy offense to take advanatage of a mismatch then runs the ball to protect the lead is an example you are using to say balance casues winning. Its really the opposite.
Likewise, and this is something you been very guilty of in this thread, when you try to be balanced fail, and fall behind and must throw exclusively to get back in the game, you didn't lose because you threw too much, in fact you may have lost because balance failed.
You simply cannot take total stats for a game, ignore context and pretend it means anything.
An analagous example would be a RB who runs 20 times for 140 yards, and proclaiming the run offense dominated all day long, when the reality was one 90 yard run and 19 carries for 50 yards otherwise.
Context matters, and when you insert context your argument is poor.

A better way to state your final sentence is that when we fall behind we end up unbalanced, and when we get a lead we end up balanced, even though the 'balance' often is 2 separate pieces added together, a pass heavy approach to build the lead and a run heavy approach to protecting it. That is factual, not theoretical.

 

[Ring 6]

Great thread! It started as a mayo clinic but was handed off to PP2. I'm squarely in the balanced corner with them and not in the corner with the imbalanced group.

A - The cutoff % seems to be at a 60/40 pass/run ratio. The difference between wins vs losses when we pass it more than that, especially in the playoffs, is startling. But the numbers are better the closer to balanced. The cause really doesn't matter to me.

B - The Pats do get pass happy. A couple of the better examples were the two games against the Giants last year. In both games the Pats ran well against the weak Giants run defense, but against their very formidable pass defense they went pass-happy instead (90/43 total in two games) and lost both games and a Lombardi.

C - In looking at the overall numbers for wins and losses since 2009, I also noticed that the yards per carry isn't as much of a factor as much as attempts. There were examples of games where the Pats ran for less than 2 yards per carry and won and games where they ran for more than 4 per carry and lost. The biggest factor is the balance (gee, there's that word again.)

D - One of the things that I've noticed with great QBs is that they sometimes don't trust their team and want to do too much. We're lucky that Brady isn't one of those. Marino and Manning were, although Manning eventually saw the light.

E- Now that the NFL rules have been changed and teams are gearing up to stop the pass, wouldn't it make sense to have a team that can also run the ball? That would make this team almost untouchable.

I rest my case... maybe.

I think the distinction you are missing is that the total numbers dont reflect causation, and the reason they don't is the reason that balance is being overrated.
In many, many game the Patriots are unbalanced to the extent of throwing a lot, and they get a large lead, become very run heavy and end up with a cumulative result of balanced. That does not mean they did well because they were balanced. They did well because they threw, then ran a lot resulting in the APPEARANCE of balance. I don't think anyone here is saying a 12/30 run/pass in the first half and 30/12 in the 2nd half is a balanced offense, but those touting 'balance' would use that game as an example of how balance leads to wins.

 

[Deus Irae]

Let me rephrase: who cares about 8 regular season losses in the past 3 years? Given a choice I'm sure 99% of the fans would swap a 13-3 season with a bowl loss for a 9-7 season with a bowl win.




So you're saying we have a better chance of winning by being an one-dimensional offense? Come on.



Huh? Only the Packers qualify with a lopsided pass/rush ratio, and here I'm talking about the games that mean the most, e.g., the superbowl.

2006 Colts superbowl:

Pass: 38
Run: 42

2011 Giants superbowl:

Pass: 40
Run: 28

And please spare me your usual ad hominem which you think deflects attention from your solipsistic logic. It just doesn't.



Test my theory? I don't have to. I gave you the numbers from ALL the playoff games we've been in since implementing the spread offense.

You said "games" with a "s" but you only pointed to the Denver victory as something that renders my argument completely useless which is beyond ridiculous because that game again is a statistical anomaly in that it is the only blowout we've had in the playoffs since the spread, and again I've used ALL the games as a basis to point out that it is proof that the more balanced our offense is, the more we win. That's all there is to it.

Ok, I have to put this down to you being deliberately obtuse. I refuse to believe you could make so many ridiculous statements without it being on purpose, because your post here is one of the silliest I've ever seen on this board. That being the case, I'll leave you to your folly.

 

[PP2]

Not you are just being purposely obtuse.
Nonsense that run/pass ratio is determined by the score? What do teams do when they are running down the clock to protect a lead? What do they do on offense when the game is out of hand? What do teams do when they are trailing by a lot?
You simply cannot realistically say that the total game run/pass ratio has causation to winning or losing.
A team that builds a huge lead with a pass heavy offense to take advanatage of a mismatch then runs the ball to protect the lead is an example you are using to say balance casues winning. Its really the opposite.
Likewise, and this is something you been very guilty of in this thread, when you try to be balanced fail, and fall behind and must throw exclusively to get back in the game, you didn't lose because you threw too much, in fact you may have lost because balance failed.
You simply cannot take total stats for a game, ignore context and pretend it means anything.
An analagous example would be a RB who runs 20 times for 140 yards, and proclaiming the run offense dominated all day long, when the reality was one 90 yard run and 19 carries for 50 yards otherwise.
Context matters, and when you insert context your argument is poor.

A better way to state your final sentence is that when we fall behind we end up unbalanced, and when we get a lead we end up balanced, even though the 'balance' often is 2 separate pieces added together, a pass heavy approach to build the lead and a run heavy approach to protecting it. That is factual, not theoretical.

First, the word "causation" is a noun, so you are misusing it.

Second, there is no way you are going to convince me that being "unbalanced" is the best approach to winning, as opposed to having a "balanced" offense. That's very basic logic: when you are able to win in more than one way, you have a better chance of winning period. Brady is not perfect in every game, and neither is the OL. The game of football is very dynamic and complex, so being able to match up well with the complexity serves a team well.

Third, being balanced opens up a third aspect of the game, the play-action, which has been very potent for us in the past. Most of, if not all our gains have come out of the play-action.

 

[PP2]

Ok, I have to put this down to you being deliberately obtuse. I refuse to believe you could make so many ridiculous statements without it being on purpose, because your post here is one of the silliest I've ever seen on this board. That being the case, I'll leave you to your folly.

Oh please. I don't buy this one bit. Being an one-dimensional offense has never served us well, and the numbers show that as well as the fundamental philosophy behind having a multi-threat offense.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Ok, I have to put this down to you being deliberately obtuse. I refuse to believe you could make so many ridiculous statements without it being on purpose, because your post here is one of the silliest I've ever seen on this board. That being the case, I'll leave you to your folly.

As I said before, how does it benefit us to tip our hand to the opposing defense, telling them if the play is going to be a run or pass? How have the Pats and Packers been proving that doing so doesnt harm you?

 

[mayoclinic]

From Reiss, FWIW:

The potential return of Mankins, a four-time Pro Bowler, couldn't be any timelier, as the Texans' defensive line -- led by J.J. Watt and Antonio Smith -- is one of the best the Patriots will face this season. It would also create flexibility to possibly move super-sub Donald Thomas to right guard if starter Dan Connolly (back injury, questionable) is unable to go.

The more reinforcements in place to combat Watt (16.5 sacks, 32 quarterback hits, 15 passes defended), the better for the Patriots, as Watt is the key chess piece up front.

"We move him around some, [but] we don't move him around all the time," Texans defensive coordinator Wade Phillips said of Watt on Friday. "He's going to play mostly on our defensive left, and people know that. If they start doubling him, we've brought pressures from the other side that have been giving teams problems."

If that holds true to form, the 6-foot-5, 295-pound Watt will mostly be lined up against right tackle Sebastian Vollmer and either Connolly or Thomas at right guard (third-year player Nick McDonald and second-year man Marcus Cannon are also on the depth chart and figure to become bigger factors if Mankins doesn't play). In sub situations, Watt usually reduces inside and lines up against a guard or center, according to Phillips.

The other area in which the Patriots would benefit from the return of the 6-foot-4, 310-pound Mankins is in the running game, where the offense struggled until the fourth quarter last Sunday against the Miami Dolphins. Mankins plays with a mean streak, and going up against the NFL's No. 2-rated rush defense (87.6 yards per game) naturally presents some challenges.
Yet opponents haven't truly tested Houston on the ground, as they are averaging a league-low 21.4 carries per game against it. Meanwhile, the Patriots are averaging 33.4 carries per game, and one gets the sense they don't view Houston like they did the run-stuffing 2006 Minnesota Vikings, an opponent against whom they essentially conceded the run and instead spread the field in an aerial assault on "Monday Night Football."

New England Patriots hoping Logan Mankins, Chandler Jones return to action vs. Houston Texans - ESPN Boston

The Pats lowest rushing total of the year was 25 against Indy, which is well above Houston's average.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I don't buy the whole "balance" thing at all and am totally on DI's and AJ's side on this one.

That said, however, I prefer it when the Pats come out in formations other than stuff like a 5-wide empty backfield shotgun. I'd like them to be able to show the defense the threat of a run even if they pass it 17 times in a row out of a "mixed" formation.

 

[DocHoliday]

Balance is being able to run when you must and to throw when you must. That's all it is.

It's not having a 50/50 pass/run split. If you can pass with ease, you'll pass yourself into a nice lead and then run out the clock. That won't reflect a 50/50 split sometimes, but it is balanced.

Running when you have to and passing when you have to are more important than having 50-50 run/pass splits.

50-50 just means you're working toward a stupid statistic.

Yes, you can actually win without the run if you are dominant enough. See: 2011 Patriots, a team with an unstoppable pass offense when healthy, and a mere pedestrian run offense. Packers and Giants proved you can do it - it's just easier (and less of an injury risk) to have a run game than a high flying air attack.

 

[Ring 6]

First, the word "causation" is a noun, so you are misusing it.

Seriously? Now you want to be a richard?

Second, there is no way you are going to convince me that being "unbalanced" is the best approach to winning, as opposed to having a "balanced" offense. That's very basic logic: when you are able to win in more than one way, you have a better chance of winning period.

Now you are simply philosophizing. Your new theory assumes that the said team is equally able to succeed with the run or pass, which is ridiculous. It further assumes that it is equally able in every game, regardless of the quality, nature and strength and weakness of the opponent D, which is even more ridiculous.
If your argument is that you would like to have an offense that is equally good at running and passing, thats a great wish, but it has nothing to do with a discussion about whether a team that inherently is not balanced in talkent and strength and weakness should mandate balance for the sake of balance. Nor does it mean, as has been your point, that balance for the sake of balance is more likely to produce a win that relying on your strength and/or attacking the opponents weakness.

Brady is not perfect in every game, and neither is the OL. The game of football is very dynamic and complex, so being able to match up well with the complexity serves a team well.

Brady is Brady every week, but he is facing a different opponent, with different talent, schemes, strengths and weaknesses, so doing his job is harder or easier. None of that says that the Patriots should have a game plan of being balanced. Great idea to be able to do everything well to exploit the opponents weakness, but again that has absolutely nothing to do with being balanced in a specific game. The type of team you are describing would be run heavy vs run weak Ds and pass heavy against pass weak Ds, pretty much without fail, yet you are criticizing when exactly that happens.

Third, being balanced opens up a third aspect of the game, the play-action, which has been very potent for us in the past. Most of, if not all our gains have come out of the play-action.

What? Are you telling me that you think most of or ALL of Brady's 5000+ passing yards last year were on play action? This is another case of being purposely obtuse, because you can't really believe that.
Is your argument now that run/pass ratios assisting the play action game is the key to an offense? That would mean that a poor running team should accept multiple bad play calls (and likely failed drives) in order to set up a potential play action pass?
I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to have read a stat sheet that shows the amount of runs in wins is higher, dismissed all logic and understanding that those numbers are often artificially skewed by the 4th quarter when teams are either running out the clock or playing catch up, and are now reaching and creating explanations to back up a failed conclusion.
Striving to keep the defense guessing is a wonderful thing, but it is only a small piece of an offensive philosophy, and making it your priority is only effective in certain, and somewhat rare cases.

 

[Ring 6]

Balance is being able to run when you must and to throw when you must. That's all it is.

That is NOT what has been argued in this thread.

It's not having a 50/50 pass/run split. If you can pass with ease, you'll pass yourself into a nice lead and then run out the clock. That won't reflect a 50/50 split sometimes, but it is balanced.

The balance crowd is saying that 50/50 split is all that matters and since it is 50/50 it must have been 50/50 all game long.

Running when you have to and passing when you have to are more important than having 50-50 run/pass splits.

And also when it is what you do best and/or what the defense is weak against.

50-50 just means you're working toward a stupid statistic.

Bingo

Yes, you can actually win without the run if you are dominant enough. See: 2011 Patriots, a team with an unstoppable pass offense when healthy, and a mere pedestrian run offense. Packers and Giants proved you can do it - it's just easier (and less of an injury risk) to have a run game than a high flying air attack.

Most of the reason for this argument is that by and large teams that lose end up with a high pass/run ratio because they throw to catch up. Therefore an uneducated view of statsheets creates a belief that the tail wagged the dog.