Welcome to PatsFans.com

Offensive effectiveness so far

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Fencer, Oct 13, 2006.

  1. Fencer

    Fencer Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,648
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -13

    The Pats are 11th in the league in points/game. They are near the bottom of the league in giveaways, which means their point total understates the success of the offense. They are also near the bottom of the league in takeaways, which ALSO means their point total understates the success of the offense. (E.g., if they had a net turnover differential of 0 at 10 each rather than 6 each, they'd probably both have scored and yielded more points, all else being equal.) They rely a lot on the running game, which may skew things slightly in the direction of fewer possessions/game. They've been fortunate enough to have some kneel-down situations where they might have scored if they'd needed to. 5-8 on FGs suggests STs cost them a few points. If you give them back just 3 pts/game for those factors, they're back up to 7th in the league in scoring. What's all the crying about again?
  2. psychoPat

    psychoPat Role Player PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ah, yes ... the larger picture.
  3. p8ryts

    p8ryts Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Great analysis. We are evolving to a real football team, run the ball, sometimes with more success than other times, don't give up on the run (Denver/Miami) success will follow. Running the ball is a necessary evil. The only statistic that counts is W-L ratio and the next most meaningful statistic is points allowed.

    We are doing GOOD!!!
  4. Fencer

    Fencer Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,648
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -13

    And I am disagreeing with the USA Today guy and you, NEM -- in general conclusion if not in detail. The Pats have had one of the more successful performances in the league to date. Looking at their talent level available over that period -- super at QB, excellent at RB and TE, good at OL, pathetic at WR (if adjusted for Gabriel's and Jackson's extreme newness) -- I don't think a lot more can reasonably have been expected of them. They DID win two of their games by double digits. The close wins WERE the first two games of the season, when the WR situation was particularly dire. Yeah, I winced at four straight unsuccessful runs on downs 1-4 in the Denver game, but you have to play repetitive percentages some of the time and mix it up more fully at other times, to keep the defense guessing. Is McDaniel a Top 3 playcaller? Hardly. But when your best asset is a running game, the playcalling isn't going to look as imaginative as when the ball is slung all over the place. It is what it is, and what it is has been pretty successful so far.
  5. Oswlek

    Oswlek Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    4,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    You brought this up in another thread and I countered the point. You responded with actually discussing my post, but rather you said it would be your last post on the topic. Yet here you are again.

    Care to give it a try this time?
  6. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Had the Patriots just executed a few more of thier pass plays that were there but either Brady missed it or the reciever dropped it teh scoring would have been up in each game.
  7. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    No no, haven't you been listening to NEM and USA today?? It's the running game's fault. Or rather the OC's fault for not abandoning the run earlier in games. :rolleyes:
  8. Oswlek

    Oswlek Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    4,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

  9. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Nooooo! Not again! In the name of everything that is decent, please, back away and let this thread die this time! And I ask this of YOU 80, a man of reason and objectivity!
  10. Fencer

    Fencer Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,648
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -13

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>