Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

[Sciz]

As an alternative, Ridley only ever has 20 carries when the Patriots win.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

In 2012, the games Ridley had 20+ runs were:

Titans - 34-13, and a game that was clearly not decided by Ridley's running (21-3 at the half included a fum rec for a TD, 2 big passes by Brady on the first drive while Ridley had runs of 0/17/-1, and a 12 play drive where Ridley ran twice). It's not that Ridley didn't help and play well. It's that his running 20+ times wasn't the reason for the Patriots win.

Bills - 52-28, in a game where 11 of Ridley's 22 carries came in a 7 point first half, 6 more of his 22 carries came in a 14 point 3rd quarter where the biggest runs were made by Bolden, not Ridley.

Denver - 31-21, where the Patriots ripped open a big lead and then sat on it (great game by Ridley until he fumbled)

Bills - 37-31, where, up until the last two (FG) drives, Ridley had 10 carries for 22 yards on the Patriots scoring drives

Jets - 49-19, where we had the Buttfumble game and 35 Patriots points scored in the 2nd quarter and Ridley had 2 carries for 5 yards in that quarter

Dolphins - 28-0, where the Patriots first score came on 2 Brady passes after an INT by Gregory, their second score came on a 13 play drive that started on the NE and Ridley ran twice for 3 total yards, their 3rd score came on a 14 play drive where Ridley had 2 runs for 5 total yards, and a final scoring drive starting on the Miami 47, where Ridley had 2 runs for 6 total yards

What does your analysis do to change anything?

You also ignored other stats which further indicated Ridley's importance to the offense since the start of 2012.

 

[Deus Irae]

Who hand my ass to me DI? You?

Pretty much everyone you've argued with on the topic. It's been painful to watch, frankly, because you've got nothing on the issue. You remind me of a poster from a while back. He was an ESPN transplant, started out ok and then lost his mind and started making ridiculously bad arguments until he eventually moved on.

Seems like you're well down that same road.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

I think keeping the GOAT upright in a clearly pass-oriented league gives them a good chance at winning, yes. Call me crazy.

Likely more so than having the team run over some irrelevant number of times in a game.

No I agree with what you've said about protecting Brady but I don't understand why you'd label the stats I point out as grasping for straws.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

Pretty much everyone you've argued with on the topic. It's been painful to watch, frankly, because you've got nothing on the issue. You remind me of a poster from a while back. He was an ESPN transplant, started out ok and then lost his mind and started making ridiculously bad arguments until he eventually moved on.

Seems like you're well down that same road.

No my argument is valid, I have no issue with my mind the guy is a lousy offensive coordinator, if you disagree that's your failure, because his time in Denver and St Louis are proof positive that unless he has Brady, a physical freak and the best slot receiver in the NFL he is a subpar offensive coordinator.

Painful is watching your insistence on ignoring reality and things that did happen.

 

[jah]

What does your analysis do to change anything?

You also ignored other stats which further indicated Ridley's importance to the offense since the start of 2012.

What stats? Ridley puts up big numbers in garbage time trying to run out the clock. He carries the ball 20+ times BECAUSE the Patriots win, not the other way around.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

What stats? Ridley puts up big numbers in garbage time trying to run out the clock. He carries the ball 20+ times BECAUSE the Patriots win, not the other way around.

Oh OK so the 20 carries for 98 yards and 2 touchdowns 2 weeks ago against the Saints didn't help us win. Wow......

 

[Observer]

The Patriots win every time they score more points than the opponent. It's Josh McDaniels' fault they don't do it all the time.
Am I doing this right?

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

Pretty much everyone you've argued with on the topic. It's been painful to watch, frankly, because you've got nothing on the issue. You remind me of a poster from a while back. He was an ESPN transplant, started out ok and then lost his mind and started making ridiculously bad arguments until he eventually moved on.

Seems like you're well down that same road.

Let's just clarify this, Tom Brady goes to the Super Bowl more than 50% of the seasons without McDaniels, has won all 3 of his Super Bowls without McDaniels, has a higher winning percentage and has better stats without McDaniels, I'm losing my mind though.... OK

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It would be great to get far ahead and have one of those laughers, where we then hand it off all 4th quarter.

Oddly though, those laughers make some people (who aren't watching the games) think that running the ball late was how it became an easy win (early) in the first place.

 

[fumbrunner]

No I agree with what you've said about protecting Brady but I don't understand why you'd label the stats I point out as grasping for straws.

Because every game is different. you cant correlate a given number of rushes to why they win a game. It doesn't work that way. Nor is it a prediction of future results.

A balanced offense where Brady is protected = success. 20 carries in a game is irrelevant. 10 or 15 may be just as effective. Or 25 in a game that calls for it. As others have mentioned, correlation does not equal causation. Past results do not equal future results.

The exception is keeping Brady clean.

 

[fumbrunner]

Let's just clarify this, Tom Brady goes to the Super Bowl more than 50% of the seasons without McDaniels, has won all 3 of his Super Bowls without McDaniels, has a higher winning percentage and has better stats without McDaniels, I'm losing my mind though.... OK

fyi...the defense allowed scores late in both SB games as well. And if not for two circus catches, the patriots would have 5 SBs. You can't place the blame solely on the offense in those games.

Geez bro, you are digging yourselves deeper and deeper onthese threads. You like being the lone ranger, dont you?

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

fyi...the defense allowed scores late in both SB games as well. And if not for two circus catches, the patriots would have 5 SBs. You can't place the blame solely on the offense in those games.

Geez bro, you are digging yourselves deeper and deeper onthese threads. You like being the lone ranger, dont you?

I'm not blaming the offense only, I'm pointing out that without McDaniels calling the plays Brady has end the season in the super bow 57% of the time and with McDaniels calling the plays that percentage drops to 20%.

I don't like being the lone ranger but I'm not going to sit in here making up excuses and manipulating stats just to be popular, if people want to hate Brady6 for putting facts and hard numbers on the table that's fine but it isn't going to change the situation.

 

[supafly]

I think this relates to the stat where 40 pass attempts is the magic number for Brady, showing the need for more balance--like the majority of posters have claimed.

For those who haven't seen my bring it up in other threads--since the start of the 2011 season we are 21-2 when Brady throws 39 or less times, and just 9-7 with a full TD less per game in games when he throws 40 times or more.

Obvious need for balance, but I'd also agree with those who say that the situations change depending upon the specifics. For example, during the 2011 and 2012 seasons we were able to take advantage of the 2 TE's + Welker a lot too, so it may not have mattered as much re: Ridley and his touches. It sure does now though.

 

[MassPats38]

Let's just clarify this, Tom Brady goes to the Super Bowl more than 50% of the seasons without McDaniels, has won all 3 of his Super Bowls without McDaniels, has a higher winning percentage and has better stats without McDaniels, I'm losing my mind though.... OK

Where was the defense ranked in 2001, 2003 and 2004? What was the point differential in those Super Bowls? Where was the defense ranked in 2007 and 2011? What was the point differential in those Super Bowls? So the Pats win rather than lose those close games without McDaniels? It had nothing to do with the Giants, as BB stood by helplessly as McDaniels flushed his perfect season?

Here is an article on how plays are called by the Pats.
And as an FYI, just in case you believe you have reached a revelation on McDaniels's incompetence, the rest of the NFL is calling and disagrees.

How do you explain 2009, with Brady, Moss, Welker and no McDaniels? 10-6 and probably the worst team since 2002. Or 2010? No McDaniels and 0-1 in the playoffs. So when Joshy McD left at the end of 2008, the Pats went 0-2 in the playoffs. He didn't lose the close Super Bowls because the Pats didn't see the Super Bowl, except from a chair. So the differences those years was McDaniels - if he was there, then the Pats get to the Super Bowl because as OC the Pats went to conference championships all but one year and a Super Bowl once every three years. I don't believe it, but it is as ridiculous as your efforts to drop the failures on him by cherry-picking stats and forgetting wins and losses turn on a combination of coaching, personnel and execution.

How many 16-0 seasons without McDaniels? With him? How many Corey Dillons has McDaniels had as OC? Is Maroney the same as Dillon? Is Ridley the same as Dillon?

As a basic premise, to the extent this thread says when the Pats do not need to throw the ball because the run is effective (control the clock and move the chains), the point is fine. It doesn't matter if it's Ridley, Vereen, Blount, or any other back. If you are saying it has to be Ridley, then I would respond he had better have been cured of fumbleitis because that appears to be his achilles heel this year (preseason and regular). If you want to do the math on him, find out what percentage of his carries, preseason and regular season, he has put the ball on the ground. Increase his carries, and ask how many fumbles that projects to. Given your love of statistics, he has fumbled once on record this season, and that resulted in 6 points. As such, there is a 100% chance of those fumbles resulting in a score for the other team, so project your results with that in mind (that is sarcasm to demonstrate the misuse of statistics). I hope Ridley is over his fumbleitis because he showed something last year, but he has had enough near misses and lucky breaks not statistically labeled fumbles that I wouldn't bet on it just yet.

 

[Shockt327]

LOL, is this OP seriously this dense? This is an age-old football cliche, that just needs to die already.

When a team is protecting a lead in the 4th Q; what do they do? They run the ball! Why? Because they want to run out the clock. That's why you'll see more rushing attempts in wins. This is so painfully obvious. A key example of how correlation does not equal causation. /derp

 

[QuantumMechanic]

LOL, is this OP seriously this dense? This is an age-old football cliche, that just needs to die already.

When a team is protecting a lead in the 4th Q; what do they do? They run the ball! Why? Because they want to run out the clock. That's why you'll see more rushing attempts in wins. This is so painfully obvious. A key example of how correlation does not equal causation. /derp

Heck, annoyance at the cliche is pretty much what brought Football Outsiders into existence in the first place. One of their first articles:

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | The Establishment Clause

And if anything the NFL is even more favorable to passing ten years later.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't think Brady6 likes having Josh McDaniels as the Patriots OC.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Patriots 7–0 when Ridley carries 20+ times since the start of 12'

Where was the defense ranked in 2001, 2003 and 2004? What was the point differential in those Super Bowls? Where was the defense ranked in 2007 and 2011? What was the point differential in those Super Bowls? So the Pats win rather than lose those close games without McDaniels? It had nothing to do with the Giants, as BB stood by helplessly as McDaniels flushed his perfect season?

Here is an article on how plays are called by the Pats.
And as an FYI, just in case you believe you have reached a revelation on McDaniels's incompetence, the rest of the NFL is calling and disagrees.

How do you explain 2009, with Brady, Moss, Welker and no McDaniels? 10-6 and probably the worst team since 2002. Or 2010? No McDaniels and 0-1 in the playoffs. So when Joshy McD left at the end of 2008, the Pats went 0-2 in the playoffs. He didn't lose the close Super Bowls because the Pats didn't see the Super Bowl, except from a chair. So the differences those years was McDaniels - if he was there, then the Pats get to the Super Bowl because as OC the Pats went to conference championships all but one year and a Super Bowl once every three years. I don't believe it, but it is as ridiculous as your efforts to drop the failures on him by cherry-picking stats and forgetting wins and losses turn on a combination of coaching, personnel and execution.

How many 16-0 seasons without McDaniels? With him? How many Corey Dillons has McDaniels had as OC? Is Maroney the same as Dillon? Is Ridley the same as Dillon?

As a basic premise, to the extent this thread says when the Pats do not need to throw the ball because the run is effective (control the clock and move the chains), the point is fine. It doesn't matter if it's Ridley, Vereen, Blount, or any other back. If you are saying it has to be Ridley, then I would respond he had better have been cured of fumbleitis because that appears to be his achilles heel this year (preseason and regular). If you want to do the math on him, find out what percentage of his carries, preseason and regular season, he has put the ball on the ground. Increase his carries, and ask how many fumbles that projects to. Given your love of statistics, he has fumbled once on record this season, and that resulted in 6 points. As such, there is a 100% chance of those fumbles resulting in a score for the other team, so project your results with that in mind (that is sarcasm to demonstrate the misuse of statistics). I hope Ridley is over his fumbleitis because he showed something last year, but he has had enough near misses and lucky breaks not statistically labeled fumbles that I wouldn't bet on it just yet.

Corey Dillion played two seasons with McDaniels calling the plays.

As far as Ridley fumbling it happens to all running backs, Lynch led the NFL in fumbles last season you can't just bench a guy for making a mistake especially when you're struggling to score touchdowns and struggling to get first downs, and the player you're benching finished third in the NFL in rushing touchdowns and rushing first downs last season. That is idiotic and every time I see Ridley on the sidelines for a player like Blount or Bolden my despair for McDaniels grows.

 

[fumbrunner]

Corey Dillion played two seasons with McDaniels calling the plays.

As far as Ridley fumbling it happens to all running backs, Lynch led the NFL in fumbles last season you can't just bench a guy for making a mistake especially when you're struggling to score touchdowns and struggling to get first downs, and the player you're benching finished third in the NFL in rushing touchdowns and rushing first downs last season. That is idiotic and every time I see Ridley on the sidelines for a player like Blount or Bolden my despair for McDaniels grows.

Oh yes you can.

As for your example, if you would like to cheer for a team led Pete Carroll, go ahead. Been there. don't want to do it again.

"Do Your Job" TM Bill Belichick