Running back?

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I guess it is impossible for any team to not have a weak link and if ours is our lack of a stud running back so be it....that's why we have a team built around Brady on offense...I am much happier they adressed their defensive needs this off season than to have them not, and instead pick up a "stud" running back...having said this I still believe what they have will be enough (at running back) to complement their passing attack...it's going to be a great season once again...and personally I can't wait for it to get started!!!!!

Typically, "stud RB's" seem to go with teams missing a "franchise QB".

You don't take up $22 million in cap for a QB to have a "stud RB".

The reality is the RB's on this team should be selected as the group that can best compliment the all world QB.

 

[Ring 6]

Typically, "stud RB's" seem to go with teams missing a "franchise QB".

You don't take up $22 million in cap for a QB to have a "stud RB".

The reality is the RB's on this team should be selected as the group that can best compliment the all world QB.

You also don't have 'stud RB' production when you have a HOF QB playing at his peak. Teams run often because they can't throw effectively, not the other way around. A big misperception these days is that biggest numbers = best RB.

 

[1960Pats]

Young guys come into the NFL and succeed at RB all the time - I don't see why these two should be any different.

They will need to get the blocking schemes in pas protection down, but I don't doubt their ability to run the ball at this level.

Both RBs should be better with a year under their belts, but it won't mean squat if the Pats go pass-happy again.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Both RBs should be better with a year under their belts, but it won't mean squat if the Pats go pass-happy again.

How so?

The reality is the offense is there to score points.

Your team has an all world QB. So let's go 3 yards and a cloud of dust?

The offense has to run the ball when it needs and be able to run when the defense dictates this. If that's 5 or 50 times is completely irrelavent.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

You also don't have 'stud RB' production when you have a HOF QB playing at his peak. Teams run often because they can't throw effectively, not the other way around. A big misperception these days is that biggest numbers = best RB.

An observation that was largely lost in the Matt Forte thread several weeks back.

 

[1960Pats]

I see Law Firm as a loss. He wasn't worth what he could get elsewhere by the dictates of the dismal science of Patsonomics. But he's a loss.

He could get short yardage and did a good job on the goalline, in addition to some more impressive runs. He was good enough (in combo w/Woodhead and [your name here]) to keep the defense thinking "yeah but it is theoretically possible they can run the ball..." And that's pretty much the whole of your responsibilities as a NE Patriots runningback.

That's what we want of RBs... until such time as the "calls for balance" of a fan board overwhelm what clearly is the Pats' philosophy about the position.

I kind of share the attitude here that the position is worth some additional emphasis, but it's not the priority in the Pats' minds, and never has been. Que sera sera. It's a matter of getting the most out of what you've got, and in the Brady era, I think that's just bound to be the passing game (and of course the defense, particularly in the '12 draft.)

I used to see a stat on another board about the Pats 15-4 record last that kind of tells the story if true. When the Pats ran the ball at least 40% of the plays they were 10-0 and when they didn't they were 5-4. That included two losses to a Giants team that was great in pass defense and bordered on putrid in run defense.

A closer look at those kind of numbers for the last few years supports the position that the pass-happy offense may have been the problem and not the solution to their inability to get over the Lombardi hump the last few years.

RUN THE DAMN BALL!

 

[patchick]

I used to see a stat on another board about the Pats 15-4 record last that kind of tells the story if true. When the Pats ran the ball at least 40% of the plays they were 10-0 and when they didn't they were 5-4. That included two losses to a Giants team that was great in pass defense and bordered on putrid in run defense.

A closer look at those kind of numbers for the last few years supports the position that the pass-happy offense may have been the problem and not the solution to their inability to get over the Lombardi hump the last few years.

RUN THE DAMN BALL!

Have you checked on the stats for 40% running plays in the first three quarters? I have a feeling that a lot of the running=winning stats actually mean running out the clock=winning.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I used to see a stat on another board about the Pats 15-4 record last that kind of tells the story if true. When the Pats ran the ball at least 40% of the plays they were 10-0 and when they didn't they were 5-4. That included two losses to a Giants team that was great in pass defense and bordered on putrid in run defense.

A closer look at those kind of numbers for the last few years supports the position that the pass-happy offense may have been the problem and not the solution to their inability to get over the Lombardi hump the last few years.

RUN THE DAMN BALL!

Actually, it doesn't.

Refer to patchick's post and question.

The reality is causation and correlation. That's where the confusion is.

Teams default to running the ball BECAUSE they are winning. They do not run to win.

Teams default to passing because they are NOT winning. Passing is the only hope to actually catch up.

coldhardfootballfacts.com has done all the statistical analysis of this.

 

[1960Pats]

How so?

The reality is the offense is there to score points.

Your team has an all world QB. So let's go 3 yards and a cloud of dust?

The offense has to run the ball when it needs and be able to run when the defense dictates this. If that's 5 or 50 times is completely irrelavent.

No way that I want them to go 3 yards and a cloud of dust. I want enough of a running game so that when Brady fakes a run it works. You can't do that if you only run it 5 times. All they need is the threat of a running game and the passing game would be even better, especially with the new WRs.

 

[BlueThunder]

Not sure the 3 yds and a cloud of dust is what the run game is all about. It should be all about making the opposing D not know if it will be a run or a pass when you need 5 or 6 yds. Ridley has shown he can break the longer runs.

Keep the D guessing and not having to pass to move the chains would be the perfect O.

Ridley,Vereen, Woodhead and possibly Addai should be able to accomplish that.

(Hoping that Larsen is part of the RB crew) :rocker:

 

[signbabybrady]

I'm not sure what and I have no reasonable contribution for it but Vereen's potential excites me more than Ridley. The little bits of Vereen I've seen on the field, I liked a lot.

I actually think this is very reasonable. They are both on their second years and Vareen was drafted higher so while it could prove to be wrong the Patriots thought he would be better when they drafted the two.

Yes Ridley showed more last year but its not like he lit the world on fire. He proved to be much more than we thought and since Vareen was hurt the whole year he proved much more than Vareen but I think it is very reasonable to think that when healthy Vareen could prove the better of the two.

While Ridley showed he can catch a little out of the backfield last year I think it is not a stretch to say that Vareen should be the better of the two in the passing game so (obviously has to prove his worth in camp) giving the orientation of this team Vareen could very easily have a bigger role.

I think the idea that because Ridley was on the field last year and proved he has some value to the team already doesnt automatically mean he is ahead of Vareen on the depth this year. Vareen has to come in and prove he can stay on the field for one but also show the skills that got him drafted ahead of Ridley and he very easily could surpass him. Ridley has to prove he can build on last year and that the fumbles are behind him. They both still have a lot to prove before becoming the 1-2 punch Ridley has slightly less to prove as he showed something last year but I dont think last year means much for these two kids.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

No way that I want them to go 3 yards and a cloud of dust. I want enough of a running game so that when Brady fakes a run it works. You can't do that if you only run it 5 times. All they need is the threat of a running game and the passing game would be even better, especially with the new WRs.

Yet your earlier post states:

RUN THE DAMN BALL

In 2006, they went to Minnesota, blew out the Vikings and ran like 3 times.

Ditto 2007 and the Steelers.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Not sure the 3 yds and a cloud of dust is what the run game is all about. It should be all about making the opposing D not know if it will be a run or a pass when you need 5 or 6 yds. Ridley has shown he can break the longer runs.

Keep the D guessing and not having to pass to move the chains would be the perfect O.

Ridley,Vereen, Woodhead and possibly Addai should be able to accomplish that.

(Hoping that Larsen is part of the RB crew) :rocker:

Loooking at the potential skill set of the group, there seems to be a considerable case that can be made to be optomistic.

 

[Kasmir]

Even if Vereen and Ridley somehow both tank, people are forgetting Woodhead.

NFL.2012.Super.Bowl.XLVI.Giants.vs.Patriots. - YouTube

You could see his impact in the SB when he finally got his speed back. Woodhead may end up being the starter, and is the best back IMO for hurry up/shotgun, as the drive in the SB before the half shows. I think McDaniels will use Woodhead better too. (motioning him to WR, screens, etc.)

Agreed. Woodhead was phenomenal in 2010, but fell to earth in 2011 for whatever reason. But it's amusing that folks here seem to believe it less likely that Woodhead will return to what he was in 2010 than Vereen will do what he never has. I wonder how many here realize that Woodhead is faster and quicker than Vereen?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Agreed. Woodhead was phenomenal in 2010, but fell to earth in 2011 for whatever reason.

My theory always was that injuries really slowed Woodhead the first part of 2011. He didn't seem to have the same burst. Towards the end he was closer to 2010 form.

 

[ivanvamp]

Your rant aside, I've been calling for more run-pass "balance" and more effective integration of the running game into the offense since 2009.

As have I. I don't care if they remain pass-heavy (with their passing weapons they should be). I just want them to be *ABLE* and *WILLING* to adjust and run the ball effectively when they need/want to. So when they're up 17-12 on the Giants, with 6:43 left in the 3rd quarter, it's a perfect time to hammer away on the ground. Here was their next possession:

1-10, NE 17 - BJGE 2 yd run
2-8, NE 19 - Brady incomplete to BJGE
3-8, NE 19 - Brady sacked by Tuck for a 4-yd loss
4-8, NE 15 - Punt, NY gets the ball at the NE 48

I mean, I know the Pats had just ripped through the Giants in the air on two consecutive possessions (to end the 1st half and to open up the 2nd half). So maybe they followed the old adage, you keep doing it until they stop it. Well, they sure stopped it there. But it would have been great to run the ball down their throats for a little while.

In a game where the Giants overplayed the pass, the Patriots had 19 rushing plays for 83 yds (4.4 avg), and 43 passing plays for 266 yds (6.2 avg). This suggests to me that if they committed more to the run they'd have had success, and that would have taken pressure off Brady, they would have kept the ball longer, and probably would have won the game.

I just want them (and this is me being greedy I guess) to be able to do everything well on offense: pass deep, pass short, pass to the outside and in the seams, pass to the WR, TE, and RB, pass when they *need* to, and pass when they don't, but also run with power, run with deception, run outside and inside, run out of the shotgun and with power formations, run when they *need* to, and run when they don't. So yes, I want this offense to be able to do anything they require, and to have a willingness to adjust the game plan accordingly.

 

[Kontradiction]

Again, keep in mind those are two second year kids with less barely 4 games of total NFL game experience, and 0 games starting experience. Do you really think that's sufficient to carry the whole team at RB?

If they can blow through that A-Gap and get to the second level without fumbling or dancing for a loss, then yes, I think that's sufficient enough to carry the whole team. If they have fumbling issues and are impatient behind the line of scrimmage, then no.

 

[PatriotReign]

I Didn't know that whole SB was uploaded on youtube, ouch. I'll take your word for it tnx anyway.

Yes it's quite soul crushing and the comments only make it worse.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Yes it's quite soul crushing and the comments only make it worse.

I watched the whole thing for the first time last week. It still hurts, but it was cool to focus on the one on one matchups. Arrington played fantastic bumping and limiting Cruz as well as in run support, the rest of the CBs (Mccourty, Molden, Moore) were just outgunned by Nicks and Manningham.

Watching the Brady scramble on 1st and 10 and bombing to Gronk is so painful, you just wish he took the sack instead .

 

[jmt57]

My theory always was that injuries really slowed Woodhead the first part of 2011. He didn't seem to have the same burst. Towards the end he was closer to 2010 form.

I would take that a step further and say that injuries slowed down the entire RB unit in 2011. While some of the run-pass imbalance may be attributed to BOB, in my opinion much was due to injuries at the position.

Woodhead: got his bell rung early in the season (probably a concussion) and had an ankle injury later.

BJGE: a turf toe injury sounds benign, but it is anything but that. The only cure is several weeks of rest, which he never got. I am convinced this is the sole reason for his drop in production from 2010 to 2011.

Faulk: began the year on PUP, was injured in his first game back and was never 100%.

Vereen: for all intents missed the 2011 season with his hamstring injury.

Ridley: had an ankle injury in late August/early September which was probably worse than the Patriots led the media and fans to believe. He missed about two weeks worth of practices and never got on the field till very late in the season, despite the injuries to all the other running backs.



I think the Pats couldn't run the ball more often in 2011 even if they did want to. If the group as a whole can stay healthier this season then I would expect the running backs to play a bigger role in 2012, despite all the attention of the addition of Lloyd and Gaffney at WR to the Patriots' offense.