our rush offense lately

[SVN]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=170881

gives some interesting numbers about our rushing offense in last few weeks

 

[Brownfan80]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=170881

gives some interesting numbers about our rushing offense in last few weeks

The simple fact is that

A) the run blocking has tailed off.
B) the OL has had players in and out with injuries.
C) the league now has film on Maroney, respects his game, and knows his tendances.
D) with our lack of WR talent the defenses are not scared of our outside game and have been clogging the middle.
E) we've faced some damn good run defenses.

To blame the playcalling for our trailed off running game, to me, is silly. The running game is something that defenses know they need to stop by our early season games. They have been doing that lately and forcing Brady to win games with an unfamiliar cast. Unfortunately for those defenses, Brady's stepped up and made a good effort to move the ball through the air when they've taken away the run.

 

[patsox23]

I attribute this as much, if not MORE, to wildly inconsistent run-blocking.

 

[AzPatsFan]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=170881

gives some interesting numbers about our rushing offense in last few weeks

More typical Bull S**t from a writer that is devoid of any perspective, doesn't know any football, and is fundamentally blind.

1. The tough part of the Patriot schedule came at midseason.
2. Good teams have Defenses that can limit the rush.
3. The Pats are/were banged up on the right side of the Offensive line.

Duh!!

 

[Brownfan80]

Why is it silly if the play calling plays into the hands of defenses stacked to stop it? You need to learn a few things before you speak. Not everything works by the book.

Don't be so rude. You need to stop insulting people that don't agree with you. Must you degrade an opposing positions' football knowledge to make your own point of view seem more vital?

I'm of the school that you need balance even if a defense wants to take it away. The Patriots have employed this over the past five or six seasons, to the tune of great success. I'll agree with them, as they're the pros, over you.

This season we've passed 405 times and run 375. That's not huge jump in favor of the pass and pretty close to balanced when you consider that most defenses have piled up to stop the run since we showed early that it was our strength. (the math on that stat says that after twelve games we've passed only 2.5 more times per game than we've run. I'd call that balance in the purest sense)

Today's NFL, the way it has evolved, requires, IMO, a softening of defenses to make a running game work at its best.... and the Pats do not do this..they force feed the running game into stone walls....

To the tune of a 9-3 record and no losing seasons since 2000. Again, I think I'll agree with the pros. You keep thinking you're smarter than them, that's your business. Don't bash me for agreeing with a formula that's proven successful in 'today's NFL'. You keep disagreeing with what the Patriots offense does every week, but they keep winning. Who is wrong? You or them?

and only when they have fallen behind, or are in a game much closer than it should be , have they realized that they need to change direction and open up the passing game...

They play ball control and try to control time of possession until a time when that gameplan no longer is realistic. If it keeps working they keep doing it, if it doesn't and they need more points, they switch into another gear. That's called winning football, as is proven by the Patriots record over the past six years.

And, actually, your post agrees with me,that Brady has stepped up and had good efforts when we have HAD TO move the ball.....and its been done through the air.

The only reason the passing game has still worked in this scenario is that the Patriots have kept balance even when the running game has been the focal point of the defensive gameplan. If they listened to you and abandoned the running game, then the pass would not work.

If we did that earlier, the running game would benefit from it. That is logical, especially in light of what yu posted.

Distort my position if you want to, but it's simply logical that a defense won't keep respecting something if you stop doing it. The only reason the defenses keep stacking the box is because we keep running even when it's stacked.

Your opinions on offense seem to never take into account that the Patriots employ a different gameplan for each opponent. In some games we HAVE come out pass heavy when the opposing defense called for it. Other times we've played ball control. Your opinion on offense seems to be that the same gameplan would work every week without a hitch. That is not realistic in 'today's NFL'.

The fact that the Patriots offense morphs from week to week is part of why they stay so successful.

This offense, especially with a WR corps that more or less consists of Reche Caldwell alone for the past four or five weeks, is not one that's designed to be a pass first team. They're in the flux of 80% turnover at the WR position, week-to-week injury on the OL, an aged RB splitting time with a Rookie, and an unsteady health situation at TE when they'd planned on a heavy dose of two TE sets this year.

This is not the Colts. We don't have a veteran OL that's stuck together for years and two Pro-Bowl WRs on the outside. Most of your posts seem as though you wish our offense was just as good as the Colts, but that's just not realistic.

This offense was not like the Colts even when they had established and talented WRs three deep. Why would this offense be more like the Colts this season with the rag-tag WR group they are fielding?

The running game is vital to this offense. Balance and time of possession are vital to this offense.

You can disagree, but the success of the Patriots is all I'm agreeing with. You keep on disagreeing with them, as you've done since I've seen you, and as long as they keep proving you wrong I can keep smiling, knowing that I'm right to believe in them over you.

 

[Brownfan80]

And that still doesnt make them right.....they could be, they couldnt be, but it doesnt necessarily make them right.

It doesn't make them right even though they haven't had a losing season in six years and have won three superbowls? Well, stretch it that way if you'd like, I'll keep my head in reality.

Yeah,and McDaniels still tried to force it time after time, and only passed late in the games when he realized he had to..you always prove my points, but never admit it.

They haven't always passed late in games when they had to. That's an unrealistic warping of the events of this season. Some games they've had to do that, sure, but those have usually been the games they lost because the passing offense wasn't good enough to support the team (Indy, Denver). Please be realistic in your assertations.

Another good example was the Liopns game when we had to go no huddle, pass almost every down, late in the game tobeat a team we should have murdered because he forced the running game too many times... but, of course,you never see the truth.

You are completely off base on this. We ran 18 times all game long. We passed 38. If anything, this shows that the Pats forced the pass too much, not that they forced the run. I'm not sure where you're even getting your info from sometimes. And again, the lack of success running didn't force the Pats away from that phase of the game against the Lions, the turnovers and the scoreboard did.

Take your passing and running numbers and they dont mean crap if you have to pass more often at the end of a half or the end of a game to catch up, or to win..

Again you're distorting the season based on a few games out of the 12. Look at the entire season when making your claims, please, not just the examples that suit your side of the story.

you think you are so much of an expert, I think your just plain ignorant about reality. ANd, as I said yesterday, I have just about had it with your friggin bullcrap..... Get the hell off of my back...

I'm not on your back, we are having a discussion about football from opposing opinions. I haven't been rude to you once in this discussion or said a cross word, you're the one resorting to those actions this time around, and needlessly.

Call me ignorant all you wish to, but I'm not wrong to agree with what the Patriots are doing when what they are doing has resulted in a 9-3 record. If I was agreeing with gameplans that have resulted in a 2-10 record, then you'd have a point.

Listen, try reading for a change anc comprehending.

I comprehend fine, and your insults, again, are un-needed. We are simply having a conversation, please stop taking it to the level of insults.

I will say it again as Ihave said manytimes..Am I disappointed with the wins? Hell no. Could the wins have been easier, instead of a struggle? Hell YES, and thats been my point all along.

In the NFL consistency is a hard thing to find. Our coaches have found a way to never get too far up or too far down. They've figured out a way to stay on an even course and just win from week to week. This formula may not be one that you agree with, but one day after this is all over we'll return to the 'normalcy' of NFL life and begin the rollercoaster that many other teams endure from year to year. Then you'll look back and long for these years and wonder why you didn't appreciate them more when they were happening.

And you, apparently, dont quite get it, or dont want to get it,because it is quite factual and to the point.

Your opinions could really do without the constant condescension, you'd find that you'd have to type less if you just expressed your opinion and kept your disdain for other opinions out of your posts.

McDaniels play calling is making games closer than they need to be, especiallyagainst weaker opponents. ANd, if you are to freakin blind to see that, or understand it, then its you that has the poroblem, not me.

From what I've watched it's the turnovers of a young offense that have made games closer than they need to be. And I again don't see why you need to put such condescension to boldface your point. I don't agree with you that playcalling is the thing that is keeping games close. Execution of the playcalls, and most pointedly fumbles, are what have kept many of the games so close. The Bears game for instance had numerous fumbles on PASSING plays. If those turnovers on PASSING plays had not occured, the final score would have been much higher. Do turnvovers due to bad execution exist in your version of reality?


[continued in next reply, reply was too long...]

 

[Brownfan80]

[continued from previous reply, as the reply was too long..]

Its pretty easy to see that we have been involved in games far too cllose for comfort, games inwhich the defense had to bail out McDaniels time after time, or games where we needed a late game passing attack to offse the hole McDaniels had us in...

When we've only got a +3 ratio with 27 takeaways on the board, then you know your offensive players are turning the ball over more than they should. Part of it is Brady and his recievers not being in synch, part of it is that we've had a fumbling problem. The defense is not bailing out bad playcalling, they're bailing out bad execution.

and of course, two games we lost because of McDaniels idiocy to begin with, Jets and Colts. You need a lesson in reality and stop looking at numbers, cause numbers alone dont tell the complet story.

Stop telling me what I need to do, please, your view is your perogative, mine is my own.

The Colts game turned on Brady's turnovers in the passing game which were on horrible throws and tipped balls, not on bad offensive playcalls.

The Jets game was just a game where the Patriots looked flat in general and got outplayed. I didn't see that as a game where playcalling cost the game at all.

I think that it's just easier for you to blame the playcalling and not think about any of the other factors that contribute to wins and losses.

You are so blinded it is laughable. You still dont get my point and you never will.

We disagree, that doesn't make me blind. You choose to believe your point even in the face of the Patriots proving you wrong every week, I choose to be okay with what they do. If you want to see failure in winning seasons, that's your business, but don't call me blind because I don't look for the negative where it doesn't exist.

When the hell have I ever said to abandonthe running game? You are really irritating, and as I proved yesterday a friggin LIAR.

Can't you make it through a single conversation without losing your temper?

In fact, I even said that inthe Colts game they should have run the ball in the second half, INSTEAD OF ABANDONING IT...but McDaniels did exactly that, abandoned it and we all know the result..

It's easy to say what should have done when you're looking in the rear view mirror. The Patriots are 9-3. No team is perfect. No team doesn't make mistakes. Even the 'offensive powerhouse' Colts have lost a few. A perfect season isn't realistic. So, why is 9-3 not enough to make you stop being so negative and look past the few bad spots? Of course, 14-2 Championship seasons weren't enough either, so I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree..

And Ihave said to use the running ame in a smarter manner, otheriwse OTHER people may not be starting threads asking where the running game went to...because, once again, It was not started by me. You really dont know as much about the game as you like to make people think that you do.... you rely on numbers, I rely on common sense....

I'm not the one that ever goes on and on about my knowledge of the game, that's you. My common sense says that if we haven't had a losing season since 2000 and are currently 9-3, then I'm okay with how the team is being handled. If your version of common sense says otherwise, then forgive me for sticking with my own. I'd rather be happy during the greatest run in franchise history.

EXACTLY, and yuo support what I said, that McDaniels keeps trying something even whenits not working...thanks for showing I was right, again...

No, NEM, what I said was that the only reason the Box stays stacked is because the Patriots refuse to give up Balance even when the defense wants to take it away. This aids the passing game. I do not agree with you that the Patriots should stop running if it gets bottled up. What I said does not 'prove you right'. I know that 'being right' is the most important thing in the world to you, but can't you ever put that aside long enough to just have a conversation about football?

I think the fact that the Patriots have stayed balanced even in the face of heavy run defense is why they have stayed successful in the passing game even in the face of 80% turnover at the WR position. I think if they stopped running when the defense tried to take it away, that they'd lose what makes them successful. You don't impose your will by letting the D make you one dimensional. If you'd like to twist that into 'proof that you're right' then go ahead, but I don't see how our views are even close to the same.

Youstil dont get what I have been saying, and you never will because you have a mental block about me..plain and simple..You just dont get it...you havent got a clue as to what I have been saying, you arent even close...not even close to understanding...you have no mental capacity to see beyond numbers....its a lot deeper than numbers....

I'm not just quoting numbers, and never have just relied on numbers. I've used numbers to support my claims, because plenty of them do, but I've never used those numbers to engineer my points.

NEM, have you ever stopped and tried to understand your own position?

If the Patriots keep doing things that you don't agree with, but they keep winning and winning, why haven't you stopped and wondered if it's you that doesn't 'get it'? You keep saying that they're wrong in how they go about the game, but this is the best coaching staff that the league has seen in 15 years. Why do you think you know better, when their way keeps winning?

And again, please, don't mock my 'mental capacity', can't we have a single football discussion without you resulting to insults?

 

[Brownfan80]

...................................... I dont insult until I have been insulted.

That is completely untrue this time around, though I refuse to call you a Liar. I insulted you not once in this thread and said not a single cross word, and you were insulting several times, as I pointed out. Let's not argue about reality, it's right there in the threadprint. I'll respond to anything else worth responding to in that reply shortly.

 

[Brownfan80]

Again, you dont get my point. Yes, there are turnovers, some of which were actually CAUSED by the play that was called.....plays that never should have been called in those situations...right into a defense geared to stop exactly that kind of play... there is very little guesswork needed by defenses with McDani8els lack of imagination play book.

Several of the INTs were caused by tipped balls by WRs. Open WRs that didn't catch the ball. Several other INTs have been caused by horrible throws into triple coverage. Part of that is due to a heavy pass rush or a bad block, but either way those are execution problems. Most of the fumbles have occured on positive plays where either the open WR caught the ball and didn't secure it, or fumbled on a play where better ball security would have made the play a non-issue. To blame turnovers on the playcalling, seriously, is not realistic.

Even with Brady's turnovers, this game had the most hoorendous play call decision of all. After ripping the Colts defense with the running game , for over 100 yards in the first half, McDaniels scuttled it, only down by 4 points, and only handed the ball to Maroney for 4 touches. That was totally asinine.

Do you know why this happened? I don't. So why rip it. There are things that go on behind the scenes that none of us know about. Many of us thought it was a bad move to abandon the running game against the Colts, myself included, but I'm not going to sit here however many weeks later and blame the OC for it. There may have been factors in those decisions that we did not know about. I, for one, believe fully that if the OC was doing something that Belichick didn't like that he'd step in, say so, and change it. But he didn't do that. So I believe there were other factors in the decisions that were made in that particular scenario. Either way, that is just one loss out of a 9-3 season, so why harp on it?

What factor cold be more important than bad playcalling and being outcoached by a defensive coordinator, as McDaiels was in the Lions game, but we stillgot the victory...That is my point,not wins or losses, just bad playcalling...but yuo keep stressing wins, and 9-3, which is great...but that has never been my point.

Offensive Playcalling did not cause Patrick Pass to fumble after a good gain on the ground. Offensive Playcalling did not cause Ben Watson to fumble, again. Offensive Playcalling did not cause Brady to make a bad decision on the lone INT. Offensive playcalling did not make our defense play horrible 3rd down D that kept the offense off the field for extended stretches. Each of those factors, in my opinion, are the ones that were more vital than the offensive playcalling, and also the factors that you're choosing to ignore in your quest to blame the OC for everything.

The Pats arent proving me wrong, at all. Winning is not the problem, it is HOW they are winning, and WHY the wins could have come easier, and that some of the losses need not have been losses, if not for the bad playcalling. That is the point I have been trying to make..its got nothing to do with winning or losing...

This is not college. How you win does not matter in the professional game. If your only complaint or point is that HOW they are winning isn't up to your standard, then truly you have no point. All that matters is the Win in the NFL. Could it be better sometimes? Sure. Does it need to? No, a win is a win. We don't get better seeding or a different matchup or homefield based on HOW we win. That's not NFL football.

Who sees failure in winning seasons. But, there always is some, no matter what, and the failure this year is McDaniels , who has caused games to be close that should have been, and 2 losses that shouldnt have been. And that is all i have been pointing out about McDaniels, that he is our weakest link, and without his inane play calling, IMO, wins should have and could have been easier, and as I Said, 2 losses would not have been losses

Now we're just going in circles. Oh well, I knew it would happen. You blame playcalling even when execution and the other team have a hand in the game, I take those into account. We both know and understand this by now..

WHY do something that isnt working. Why run into a stone wall? There is absolutely no sense to it...You cant keep doing something that is not working and expect a different result. But, McDainiels does, instead of finding something that will loossen up the defense so the running game WILL work...he is stubborn, obstinate, and really far too young and out of his league..... unless he is willing to change and accept the fact that he has made wrong decisions, and judgement and make IMMEDIATE changes...eventually we will not be as fortunate as we have been this season.

You keep saying this, and you've been saying this for years, yet the Patriots keep winning. I don't know what to tell you. Balance is important in this scheme. It just is what it is. You don't let the D tell you what your gameplan is, you impose your gameplan and stick to it, even if success is not immediate. That's the MO of this team, and it's worked. The OC's age has nothing to do with it. He's 9-3 and has put together a top ten offense out of piecemeal parts. He deserves credit, not critisism.

It's not a case of being one dimensional, its a case of accepting the fact that what yhou are doing isnt working and changing it to something that willwork and allow what isnt working to work.

Giving into the defense and allowing them to dictate your gameplan is not something the patriots have done, and not something I'd want them to do. Their philosophy, which I agree with, has lead to a 9-3 record. I'd say it's working.

Again, i will repeat this..it is not the winning, or the losing, it is the HOW they have made winning muchmore difficult than it need be..IMO, and the reason is McDaniels....plain and simple....he has been the main fctor inthe fact that we have been in far too many games where we all have to hold our breath worrying that the one mistake will happen that will turn a win, into a loss....and eventually, intime, things DO turn around and go THAT way instead of the way they have been going, and if McDaniels doesnt see that, then he will be our biggest mistake ever....in time.

We've held our breath all during this run, did you forget 2003 and 2004? But all that matters is the win! The close wins don't lead to a downfall, they count just as much as the bigger wins. 1 W in the W column and one less L in the L column. Again, this is not the BCS, it doesn't matter how you win, it just matters that you win.

I don't get it NEM? Do you think that any NFL team can produce a perfect offense over the course of an entire NFL season? What more do you want than what this team has given you over the past six years?

 

[Brownfan80]

Sorry, I am not feelling too well tonight.

It's all gravy, this is the closest we've come to an actual football discussion so far, so those little barbs aside, I thank you for keeping the temper mostly in check. Feel better.

 

[Brownfan80]

NEM - Just to clarify, I do understand you. You look at it as you think Bill does and think that even at 9-3 there is room for improvement.

I get that, I do.

But with the execution problems (fumbles, INTs, 3rd down conversions, lack of 3rd down stops on D) I doubt that if you asked Belichick on truth serum what the most pressing problem with the Patriots is that he'd say it's the OC's playcalling.

I think, honestly, that he'd say ball security. The offensive players execution with the ball already in their hands is what has hurt this team the most this season, and made some of the games closer.

The OC is not perfect, none of them are, but the players inability to hold the ball I'm sure is a bigger concern to the head cheese. I know it would be if it were my team.

So anyway, this extra post was just to let you know that I get what you're saying about the need for improvement even though we're 9-3. I just don't agree that our biggest need for improvement is the OC's playcalling.

And we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that one, because I know you're pretty set on that.