- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
What I'm getting at is the Morris injury took the offensive philosophy off track. It was routinely explosive in the first 5 games with a good balance of run/pass, then it turned volcanic in the next 5 with emphasis on the pass. While scoring was up, the philosophy didn't improve necessarily. During the latter part of the season the Pats basically had to dedicate a whole game to running the ball (Jets part 2) just to get Maroney ready for the postseason. The Jax and SD playoff games were impressive as far as balancing the offense, and while the games were close, the Pats used the running game to take command. In the SB, the Pats had no offensive rhythm except for the 2 scoring drives.
But your logic is wrong because you don't take into account the on-field realities. They ran the ball in JetsII because they couldn't pass in the weather (just think back to the Revis interception). As for the Super Bowl, the line stunk up the joint once Neal left the game. Run or pass, it failed to get the job done. Balance, or lack thereof, had nothing to do with it: the O-line got its collective ass handed to it. This was the most potent offense in NFL history, and people are letting a fluke loss in the Super Bowl cause them to find flaws where there aren't any and to imagine little flaws to be enormous problems.
Last edited: