Patriots offense: Pass-run ratio

[Ring 6]

In the Oakland game, the Pats ran 30 times and passed 30 times.

- Drive 1 (10:26-6:07, 1st) - 5 rushes (34 yds), 4 passes (26 yds, TD), 3 penalties, TD (Pats lead, 7-3)
- Drive 2 (0:03 1st - 13:32, 2nd) - 2 rushes (21 yds), 3 passes (15 yds), punt
- Drive 3 (10:20-7:44, 2nd) - 3 rushes (14 yds, TD), 3 passes (45 yds), 1 penalty, TD (Pats lead 14-10)

Again, we see the Pats getting the lead and they did it by running it as much as by passing.

10 rushes
10 passes
4 penalties

And again, late, holding a 31-13 lead, they proceeded to run again. Last drive of the game for NE: 6 rushes, 1 pass.

So between the first 3 drives and the last drive, they ran it 16 times and passed 11 times. The rest of the time they ran it 14 times and passed 19 times.

Another case, though, where the running game was instrumental in building the lead. They didn't just run it once they had a big lead; they had a lead in large part because they ran it.

You are cherry picking to your hearts delight.
It is pretty easy to find games where we ran well, where the opponent was playing a small personell grouping against us and daring us to run, and we did it well. We can find more games where the opposite of what you are showing happened too.

 

[ivanvamp]

You are cherry picking to your hearts delight.
It is pretty easy to find games where we ran well, where the opponent was playing a small personell grouping against us and daring us to run, and we did it well. We can find more games where the opposite of what you are showing happened too.

I already agreed that you are right in your general statement. I am also giving examples where the Pats' running game clearly helped cause them to build a lead, contrary to your statement that they run because they have a lead.

In other words, the Patriots can do it both ways, just as a good offensive team is supposed to be able to do.

PS - "We can find more games where the opposite of what you are showing happened too." - Please do...I'd be interested in seeing the data you come up with. Or by "we" do you mean "ivanvamp"?

 

[Deus Irae]

This seems to come up again and again, despite being debunked numerous times. So, rather than going through it all again, I'll just summarize.....

As a general rule, the run/pass ratio is dictated by the score. The score is not dictated by the run/pass ratio. This is true of both running teams and passing teams. A 50/50 team will alter its game because of the score just as a 60/40 team will.

This is why people talk about trying to get up on running teams early.

 

[BradyManny]

A good effort by the OP, but this has been debunked numerous times.

You simply cannot look at these stats by game. It doesn't tell the story. If you go by quarter, you consistently see that the Pats are a pass first team EVERY week, and that things balance out when they have a sizable lead.

In another thread I showed how Brady's pass attempts dips in the 4th quarter while BJGE rush attempts rise, both pretty sizably. I did it for 2010 and it was quite noticeable.

I posted this in November:

a cursory glance at BJGE's splits show that 35% of BJGE's carries this year and 32% of his carries in 2011 came in the fourth quarter alone.

In short - the purpoted balance you cite is created in the second half, in the fourth quarter, and often when the game is already decided. BJGE got more carries then b/c the team was leading.

Meanwhile, Brady threw just 19% of his passes in the 4th quarter in 2010.

 

[Ring 6]

I already agreed that you are right in your general statement. I am also giving examples where the Pats' running game clearly helped cause them to build a lead, contrary to your statement that they run because they have a lead.

That was in a post later than the one I was responding to, ie I hadn't read that yet.
I don't know why you seem to think every point must be in absolutes. The fact that winning has a causal relationship to run ratio rather than running having a causal relationship to winning in no way is debunked by finding examples where the team ran and won.
Its like arguing our defense has struggled this year by using the KC game.

In other words, the Patriots can do it both ways, just as a good offensive team is supposed to be able to do.

PS - "We can find more games where the opposite of what you are showing happened too." - Please do...I'd be interested in seeing the data you come up with. Or by "we" do you mean "ivanvamp"?

I think its pretty obvious. Again, I don't need to spend my time going through gamebooks to add up numbers to show something I have seen with my eyes.

 

[Ring 6]

A good effort by the OP, but this has been debunked numerous times.

You simply cannot look at these stats by game. It doesn't tell the story. If you go by quarter, you consistently see that the Pats are a pass first team EVERY week, and that things balance out when they have a sizable lead.

In another thread I showed how Brady's pass attempts dips in the 4th quarter while BJGE rush attempts rise, both pretty sizably. I did it for 2010 and it was quite noticeable.

There is also the factor that cumulative stats without regard to situation lack meaning anyway.

 

[ivanvamp]

This seems to come up again and again, despite being debunked numerous times. So, rather than going through it all again, I'll just summarize.....

As a general rule, the run/pass ratio is dictated by the score. The score is not dictated by the run/pass ratio. This is true of both running teams and passing teams. A 50/50 team will alter its game because of the score just as a 60/40 team will.

This is why people talk about trying to get up on running teams early.

I haven't gone through every game, but I will point out four games in particular that I have looked at where the Patriots built their lead and ran a high percentage of the time:

- vs NYJ (built a 10-0 lead; 12 runs, 9 passes)
- at Oak (built a 14-10 lead; 10 runs, 10 passes)
- at Phi (built a 14-10 lead; 11 runs, 10 passes)
- at Mia (built a 14-7 lead; 5 runs, 8 passes)

TOT: 38 runs, 37 passes, similar pattern in each game.

It's not an argument that suggests the Patriots do or should run the ball more. Rather it's simply to show that, in fact, there are plenty of times where the Patriots build their lead with the running game being a major key, as opposed to them running the ball only once they've established a lead, late in games.

They can run it effectively early in games to get and build a lead, and they've done so on numerous occasions this year. There can be no argument against that fact. This doesn't change the fact that they are one of the best passing teams in football and that will continue to be their bread-and-butter.

 

[Deus Irae]

I haven't gone through every game, but I will point out four games in particular that I have looked at where the Patriots built their lead and ran a high percentage of the time:

- vs NYJ (built a 10-0 lead; 12 runs, 9 passes)
- at Oak (built a 14-10 lead; 10 runs, 10 passes)
- at Phi (built a 14-10 lead; 11 runs, 10 passes)
- at Mia (built a 14-7 lead; 5 runs, 8 passes)

TOT: 38 runs, 37 passes, similar pattern in each game.

It's not an argument that suggests the Patriots do or should run the ball more. Rather it's simply to show that, in fact, there are plenty of times where the Patriots build their lead with the running game being a major key, as opposed to them running the ball only once they've established a lead, late in games.

They can run it effectively early in games to get and build a lead, and they've done so on numerous occasions this year. There can be no argument against that fact. This doesn't change the fact that they are one of the best passing teams in football and that will continue to be their bread-and-butter.

No offense, but I can find games where running teams passed the hell out of the ball to build their leads. You're trying to take a few anecdotes and imply a universal. The Patriots are well known as a team that:


Alters game plan, sometimes significantly, according to opponent
Is generally a pass-first team


Thus, while the team will usually come out throwing to get the lead, it's not always going to happen that way. That doesn't somehow mean the team should be running more.

Also, your Miami numbers, just to look at one game, are extremely misleading. The first drive is a perfect example:

Run after a penalty made it 1st and 5 (Patriots had been passing)
46 yard pass play
2 yard run
4 yard pass
14 yard pass
4 yd TD run from inside the 35

So, almost every yard came on a passing play, and 2 of the 3 runs came on 1st and 5 or less. On the second drive, the Patriots went 6-2 in favor of passing plays, including the penalty. So, the first two drives were really a 10:5 ratio if you count the penalty plays, and the penalty play in drive one set up one of the run plays.

 

[BradyManny]

In the film.

This could be my favorite post of the year for its simplicitiy - and accuracy.

The film doesn't lie. And we've all been watching these games - and to come to the conclusion that the few times this offense has been stopped in the past two years has something to do with the balance of run-pass and playcalling does not jive with what we've witnessed.

 

[ivanvamp]

That was in a post later than the one I was responding to, ie I hadn't read that yet.
I don't know why you seem to think every point must be in absolutes.

I was responding to this absolute statement of yours in post #5 in this thread: "You have causation backwards. They run more because they are winning, not they win more because they are running." That was a pretty black-and-white statement. If you wished to make it more of a general rule, you should have phrased it that way, like, "In general, they run more because they are winning...etc.". But you offered an absolute statement...so I countered with examples that prove your absolute statement to be in error. It doesn't disprove the general rule, however (which is what I agree with).

The fact that winning has a causal relationship to run ratio rather than running having a causal relationship to winning in no way is debunked by finding examples where the team ran and won.
Its like arguing our defense has struggled this year by using the KC game.

As I just said above, I agree. But you didn't phrase your objection to the OP in a general rule sense. You tried to slam-dunk him with an absolute statement.

I think its pretty obvious. Again, I don't need to spend my time going through gamebooks to add up numbers to show something I have seen with my eyes.

And.....back to this. I cannot tell you what you have seen with your own eyes or what you have experienced. That's all you. But it does make it somewhat difficult to "argue" (in a friendly sort of way) points with you. I gather data, go back to the game play-by-plays, give the actual numbers and game circumstances to make a particular case, and you counter with.....well, I don't need that because I know what I see.

I guess I can just respond by saying, well, I know what *I* see, and what *I* see happens to be backed up by the actual data.

(bottom line, to reiterate: I agree with the general principle that seems indisputable, that the Pats' offensive success is more attributed to their passing game rather than their running game. But there are plenty of examples where they have run the ball well early in games to get the lead; and that means that they don't just run the ball once they have the lead.)

 

[ivanvamp]

No offense, but I can find games where running teams passed the hell out of the ball to build their leads. You're trying to take a few anecdotes and imply a universal.

No, no, no, no, NO. That's NOT what I'm doing, Deus. The OP was trying to make a point about run-pass ratios. Andy responded with an absolute statement: "You have causation backwards. They run more because they are winning, not they win more because they are running." I simply found many examples where that is not the case. I have agreed with Andy (and you and many others here) that the Pats are primarily a passing team. But I simply was showing that the absolute claim Andy made is wrong, though the general rule implied by that absolute statement is right.

The Patriots are well known as a team that:

Alters game plan, sometimes significantly, according to opponent
Is generally a pass-first team

Thus, while the team will usually come out throwing to get the lead, it's not always going to happen that way. That doesn't somehow mean the team should be running more.

I agree 100%.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, no, no, no, NO. That's NOT what I'm doing, Deus. The OP was trying to make a point about run-pass ratios. Andy responded with an absolute statement: "You have causation backwards. They run more because they are winning, not they win more because they are running." I simply found many examples where that is not the case. I have agreed with Andy (and you and many others here) that the Pats are primarily a passing team. But I simply was showing that the absolute claim Andy made is wrong, though the general rule implied by that absolute statement is right

Ok, well I can't see Andy's posts, so I didn't get that. However, if Andy is saying that they run because they are winning as opposed to winning because they run, he's correct. You finding examples of games being won with more runs doesn't prove that the team is winning BECAUSE of the running. You're taking a correlation and assuming causation, even there. If you're trying to argue that Andy was implying an absolute claim and shouldn't have been, I'll simply say that you know no absolute should be inferred on this subject, because Belichick has made clear time and again that the Patriots game plan varies by opponent.

 

[Ring 6]

I was responding to this absolute statement of yours in post #5 in this thread: "You have causation backwards. They run more because they are winning, not they win more because they are running." That was a pretty black-and-white statement. If you wished to make it more of a general rule, you should have phrased it that way, like, "In general, they run more because they are winning...etc.". But you offered an absolute statement...so I countered with examples that prove your absolute statement to be in error. It doesn't disprove the general rule, however (which is what I agree with).

Well, if you actually thought my statement was intended as absolute and that the Patriots have never ever run early in a game they got a lead in, then you totally misunderstood me, and this was an exercise in futility.

As I just said above, I agree. But you didn't phrase your objection to the OP in a general rule sense. You tried to slam-dunk him with an absolute statement.

No, that wasn't what I was doing.

And.....back to this. I cannot tell you what you have seen with your own eyes or what you have experienced. That's all you. But it does make it somewhat difficult to "argue" (in a friendly sort of way) points with you. I gather data, go back to the game play-by-plays, give the actual numbers and game circumstances to make a particular case, and you counter with.....well, I don't need that because I know what I see.

I agree in general with what you are saying here. I have consistently used detailed statistics and facts to back up my opinions on this board.
But in such an obvious case I just have no interest in putting the effort in to find the examples that anyone paying attention would know are there.
If you really think I have to go do research to prove that the Patriots are a passing team, I don't know what to tell you.

I guess I can just respond by saying, well, I know what *I* see, and what *I* see happens to be backed up by the actual data.

You certainly can. And if its regarding something that really isn't even debatable I would expect you would.

(bottom line, to reiterate: I agree with the general principle that seems indisputable, that the Pats' offensive success is more attributed to their passing game rather than their running game. But there are plenty of examples where they have run the ball well early in games to get the lead; and that means that they don't just run the ball once they have the lead.)

The implication of the OP was that when the team commits to a balance between run and pass X happens, is severely tainted by running a lot with a lead. To state that we were successful because we ran the ball 45% of the time when we ran it 35% of the time until late in the game when we were running the clock out is inaccurate.
If you look into those games, and the statistics reflected, you would find in many games the statistics while the game was competitive would refute the conclusion.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In the Oakland game, the Pats ran 30 times and passed 30 times.

- Drive 1 (10:26-6:07, 1st) - 5 rushes (34 yds), 4 passes (26 yds, TD), 3 penalties, TD (Pats lead, 7-3)
- Drive 2 (0:03 1st - 13:32, 2nd) - 2 rushes (21 yds), 3 passes (15 yds), punt
- Drive 3 (10:20-7:44, 2nd) - 3 rushes (14 yds, TD), 3 passes (45 yds), 1 penalty, TD (Pats lead 14-10)

Again, we see the Pats getting the lead and they did it by running it as much as by passing.

10 rushes
10 passes
4 penalties

And again, late, holding a 31-13 lead, they proceeded to run again. Last drive of the game for NE: 6 rushes, 1 pass.

So between the first 3 drives and the last drive, they ran it 16 times and passed 11 times. The rest of the time they ran it 14 times and passed 19 times.

Another case, though, where the running game was instrumental in building the lead. They didn't just run it once they had a big lead; they had a lead in large part because they ran it.

And on that last drive they turned the ball over on downs AT THE 1 and Oakland proceeded to score another TD...which fortunately was inconsequential given the time remaining and the score. They got 1 20 yard run out of the shotgun by Ridley on that drive, otherwise they could only move the ball 8 yards on 4 attempts inside the 10. That was OK in that instance because running the clock down was the primary objective. But they cannot run the ball when they need to nearly as consistently as they can pass the ball when they need to, which is why they pass first or to run and not visa versa. And it's been that way since 2006 - when they also didn't trust their defense to hold the opposition down defending a lead. Oakland won TOP that game. Had we not passed more than run when it mattered they might have lost that game simply because the offense ran out of time.

The name of the game is outscore your opponent, and the way teams to that is to get the ball to their playmakers. On this team the primary offensive playmakers are the QB, his top 2 WR's and a league best TE tandem. I don't see that changing any time soon although if one or both of the rookie backs pan out as Bill likely hoped we could have a RB as a consistent playmaker on that level come 2012 and beyond. But we're clearly not there yet and forcing the issue isn't going to accomplish what some of you want to believe it will. There will be games where situations and matchups dictate that we get more bang for our buck and move the chains by running the ball more. But we won't do that as a matter of course consistently until we're a team who knows it can run the ball at will regardless of situations and matchups. And that day may not come until Brady is gone because protecting him and providing him with viable targets is job one in the interim because that is what provides the best opportunity to win despite shaky defenses and retooling on the fly and losing key components to injury not to mention offseasons to lockouts.

 

[Patspsycho]

The % of runs is a RESULT of success of the passing offense and the building of a lead, not the other way around.
I recognize what balanced offense does for a game plan and play calling. But the % of runs game by game for the Patriots is simply not causation of the results. That is not the offense we employ.

No, it is not the result of the success of the passing offense. Being pass-heavy and one dimensional has gotten this team nowhere when it counts the most.

What constitutes success is mixing up the game plan and keeping the defense honest.

Of course we've gone pass heavy the past few years and while that gets the team by in the regular season, it's done ZIP for us in the postseason, those same few years.

The Jets were practically begging us to run last postseason by being in the nickel, dime, and even quarter, and we didn't because BOB choked. They instituted this same defense plan in game #1 this year and we finally rode roughshod all over them.

Am I saying we should go run heavy? No, I'm saying we should just mix in enough runs and play actions to keep from being one-dimensional. I guarantee you our biggest success (and gains) has come from the play-action.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No, it is not the result of the success of the passing offense. Being pass-heavy and one dimensional has gotten this team nowhere when it counts the most.

Not making defensive stops when they are needed has cost this team when it mattered the most. See 2006, 2007 and 2010.

What constitutes success is mixing up the game plan and keeping the defense honest.

What constitutes success is executing when it is required. Passing or running.

Of course we've gone pass heavy the past few years and while that gets the team by in the regular season, it's done ZIP for us in the postseason, those same few years.

Not making defensive stops when they are needed has cost this team when it mattered the most. See 2006, 2007 and 2010.

The Jets were practically begging us to run last postseason by being in the nickel, dime, and even quarter, and we didn't because BOB choked. They instituted this same defense plan in game #1 this year and we finally rode roughshod all over them.

BOB did not choke. BOB called runs for Woody because he was the only guy back there who actually has speed to get into the secondary and rip off some yardage. He never did. This year, because the Pats got the lead and Brady executed when he needed to, they were able to run. Plus the 2011 Jets team is a weaker defensive team than 2010 Jets.

Am I saying we should go run heavy? No, I'm saying we should just mix in enough runs and play actions to keep from being one-dimensional. I guarantee you our biggest success (and gains) has come from the play-action.

Mixing in runs are fine as long as the opposing defense believes two things. 1) that you will run it successfully. 2) That you actually WILL run it. Because of the defense and lack of top-talent at the RB position, defenses will let the Pats run all day.

 

[ivanvamp]

What constitutes success is executing when it is required. Passing or running.

Bingo. This team, if it wants to succeed in the playoffs, they have to be able to run when they need to, and pass when they need to. If they can only do one of them, they better be able to do that one thing REALLY well.

Not making defensive stops when they are needed has cost this team when it mattered the most. See 2006, 2007 and 2010.

I think this is not quite true. In 2006, yes. They had a big lead but couldn't hold off Indy. Granted, half the defense had the flu and were playing on an empty tank, but still. They actually made a couple of HUGE defensive stops in the 4th quarter of that game. At 28-28, the Colts got the ball with 11:06 left after a Pats' 3-and-out, but the Pats' D held firm, forcing a 3-and-out of their own.

The Pats then drove for a FG - that was the drive where Reche Caldwell dropped a wide open, easy pass for a TD. Blame the offense for the loss of 4 points there. But still, they got the lead. Then, after the Colts came back to tie it, NE drove for the lead. Indy then got the ball at their 20, down 34-31 with 3:49 remaining. The Pats held, forcing a 3-and-out, and the ensuing punt gave the ball to New England at the Pats' 40 with just 3:22 left in the game.

Now, at this point, given their health (or lack of it), I'd say that the NE defense had done a fairly admirable job. In two huge spots they had forced Indy to punt, and they gave the ball back to the offense in very good field position with just over 3 minutes left *and with the lead* and they gave the Pats' offense the chance to salt the game away.

What did NE do? First play: penalty for 12 men on the field. UNBELIEVABLE. Ok, 1st and 15. Brady completes to Caldwell for 7 yards. 2nd and 8. Manageable. Brady 4 yard pass to Ben Watson. Brings up 3rd and 4. Biggest play of the game. What happens? Incomplete pass to Troy Brown. They punt, Indy drives for the winning score.

In other words, the D gave the O a chance to end the game and the offense did DIDDLY SQUAT with it. And then finally the D gave out. But they did get two huge stops in the 4th quarter and the offense missed a golden chance to salt the game away.


In 2007, the Pats obviously lost to the Giants in the SB, and it was a defensive struggle all game long, 17-14. Until the 4th quarter, the Pats absolutely dominated the Giants' offense, holding them to just 3 points. They got lots of big stops along the way. Obviously they didn't seal the deal with the Giants' last drive, but it's difficult to blame the defense for that game, on the whole. There isn't a Pats' fan alive that wouldn't have taken it if he was told before the game that they'd allow just 17 points to the Giants. We'd ALL have thought that was a relatively easy Pats' win (considering that they just scored 38 on the Giants a few weeks before in NY). While the O made a huge drive late in the game, they only amassed 274 total yards and 14 points. We can be upset at that last Giants' drive (which featured a 4th down conversion made by Jacobs by about the length of your middle finger, an INT that slipped through Samuels' hands, a freakish play aided by the worst non-call on an obvious (and play-impacting) holding I've ever seen...in other words that drive was a perfect storm of unbelievable things), but if the offense plays even semi-decently, they win that game going away.

In 2006 the Pats' D did not play well overall but made a big stop and gave the ball back to the offense to put the game away and the O couldn't do it. In 2007 the D played terrific all game long until the very end.

In 2010, the D played pretty well overall against the Jets (held them to 14 first downs and just 314 total yards), but the Jets got two TD thanks to tremendous field position. The unbelievable gaffe on the fake punt gave the ball to the Jets well into NE territory. And then they scored after the unsuccessful onside kick late in the game. That's 14 points right there that the Jets should *never* have gotten.

When you lose, there's usually enough blame to go around, and so it is in all three of these games. But it's not fair to pin these games on the defense's inability to make stops when it matters most. That's a factor, but hardly the only one.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think this is not quite true. In 2006, yes. They had a big lead but couldn't hold off Indy. Granted, half the defense had the flu and were playing on an empty tank, but still. They actually made a couple of HUGE defensive stops in the 4th quarter of that game. At 28-28, the Colts got the ball with 11:06 left after a Pats' 3-and-out, but the Pats' D held firm, forcing a 3-and-out of their own.

The Pats then drove for a FG - that was the drive where Reche Caldwell dropped a wide open, easy pass for a TD. Blame the offense for the loss of 4 points there. But still, they got the lead. Then, after the Colts came back to tie it, NE drove for the lead. Indy then got the ball at their 20, down 34-31 with 3:49 remaining. The Pats held, forcing a 3-and-out, and the ensuing punt gave the ball to New England at the Pats' 40 with just 3:22 left in the game.

Now, at this point, given their health (or lack of it), I'd say that the NE defense had done a fairly admirable job. In two huge spots they had forced Indy to punt, and they gave the ball back to the offense in very good field position with just over 3 minutes left *and with the lead* and they gave the Pats' offense the chance to salt the game away.

What did NE do? First play: penalty for 12 men on the field. UNBELIEVABLE. Ok, 1st and 15. Brady completes to Caldwell for 7 yards. 2nd and 8. Manageable. Brady 4 yard pass to Ben Watson. Brings up 3rd and 4. Biggest play of the game. What happens? Incomplete pass to Troy Brown. They punt, Indy drives for the winning score.

In other words, the D gave the O a chance to end the game and the offense did DIDDLY SQUAT with it. And then finally the D gave out. But they did get two huge stops in the 4th quarter and the offense missed a golden chance to salt the game away.

Excellent recounting of the facts which are indisputable. But in the end, I'll stick to my overall belief that when the offense scores 34 points, a majority of the "blame pie" for the loss goes to the defense.

In 2007, the Pats obviously lost to the Giants in the SB, and it was a defensive struggle all game long, 17-14. Until the 4th quarter, the Pats absolutely dominated the Giants' offense, holding them to just 3 points. They got lots of big stops along the way. Obviously they didn't seal the deal with the Giants' last drive, but it's difficult to blame the defense for that game, on the whole. There isn't a Pats' fan alive that wouldn't have taken it if he was told before the game that they'd allow just 17 points to the Giants. We'd ALL have thought that was a relatively easy Pats' win (considering that they just scored 38 on the Giants a few weeks before in NY). While the O made a huge drive late in the game, they only amassed 274 total yards and 14 points. We can be upset at that last Giants' drive (which featured a 4th down conversion made by Jacobs by about the length of your middle finger, an INT that slipped through Samuels' hands, a freakish play aided by the worst non-call on an obvious (and play-impacting) holding I've ever seen...in other words that drive was a perfect storm of unbelievable things), but if the offense plays even semi-decently, they win that game going away.

I'll contradict myself a little here and say that the offense did not perform up to the levels we had seen during the regular season. Did they lose the game? Partially. However in a defensive struggle such as that one, the D that blinks last did not do the job. Specifically Asante....

In 2010, the D played pretty well overall against the Jets (held them to 14 first downs and just 314 total yards), but the Jets got two TD thanks to tremendous field position. The unbelievable gaffe on the fake punt gave the ball to the Jets well into NE territory. And then they scored after the unsuccessful onside kick late in the game. That's 14 points right there that the Jets should *never* have gotten.

When you lose, there's usually enough blame to go around, and so it is in all three of these games. But it's not fair to pin these games on the defense's inability to make stops when it matters most. That's a factor, but hardly the only one.

Yes in 2010 the offense had two 4th qtr drives of 15 play drive and 7 plays and netted 3 points total. However, the defense allowed 4 TDs in 5 red zone trips and didn't record a sack or an INT. Thats bad.

In the end I do agree that the lack of converting offensively when they needed to played a part in the 3 big losses but in my mind it was the defenses that really lost the games.

 

[ivanvamp]

Excellent recounting of the facts which are indisputable. But in the end, I'll stick to my overall belief that when the offense scores 34 points, a majority of the "blame pie" for the loss goes to the defense.

I'll contradict myself a little here and say that the offense did not perform up to the levels we had seen during the regular season. Did they lose the game? Partially. However in a defensive struggle such as that one, the D that blinks last did not do the job. Specifically Asante....

Like I said, when you lose there's generally plenty of blame to go around. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the D that made two huge stops and gave the ball to the O to salt the game away, but gave up a bunch of points blew the game, and then on the other hand say that the D that was great all game long and held a good offense to just 17 points but couldn't make a stop on their last drive is also to blame.

I mean, I guess you can when you conclude with this:

in my mind it was the defenses that really lost the games.

 

[Patspsycho]

BOB did not choke. BOB called runs for Woody because he was the only guy back there who actually has speed to get into the secondary and rip off some yardage. He never did. This year, because the Pats got the lead and Brady executed when he needed to, they were able to run. Plus the 2011 Jets team is a weaker defensive team than 2010 Jets.

With all due respect, he did. We did not put together a sustained drive until the 2nd half and that was only because BJGE was in there. BJGE had a 4.8 YPC average yet only got 9 snaps the entire game. Woody got 14 snaps and managed to eke out a 3.3 YPC

Even a grade school kid can identify when a defense plays quarter coverage with only 3 DE's on the line. Why throw against this? Especially when you have 6 man protection leaving you only 4 receivers each of which can literally be doubled up in the Jets backfield (8 DBs).