Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[BradyFTW!]

Or mass-ignore him. That would be pretty funny, actually. I wonder if he'd go away if he didn't have an audience anymore. Normally it's kind of a cheap way out, but when someone's just decided that facts can go to hell, there isn't much other option.

 

[maverick4]

He is a highjacking troll because he refuted your claims with facts?

What facts? The guy keeps repeating our record over the past 3 years, but isn't taking into account that maybe it's because our team is the most talented in the entire league and that the TALENT, not style, could be why we have won so many games.

He deliberately avoids any discussion over style and using shotgun over 50% of all plays from 2007-2008, because he doesn't care about telegraphing plays, all he cares about are flashy plays and stats, which are meaningless come playoff time.

 

[maverick4]

but when someone's just decided that facts can go to hell, there isn't much other option.

This is hilarious considering you look like a fool on the previous page with your disproved theory that pass/run ratio indicates if a team is run-focused or not.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Almost ALL teams, even run-focused teams, pass more than run.

The 2006 Superbowl Bears passed 514 times, ran 504 times.

The 2000 champion Baltimore Ravens passed 504 times against 511 rushes, a 47/53 ratio. Even in a clearly run-heavy team with a crappy QB it was almost 50/50. Almost all teams pass more than they run, even on run-heavy teams.

What more garbage do you have?

In 2007, 14 teams passed the ball 57% of the time or more. The median pass/run ration in the NFL was 56/44. That's a very significant difference. Only 5 teams ran more than they passed, and that included teams that were quarterbacked by Vince Young, David Garrard and JaMarcus Russell, so it was likely more of a necessity than a choice. The Steelers ran more than they passed in 2007, all the way to a 10-6 record and a wild-card loss. In 2008, they won a SB passing more than they ran.

To say that the NFL is just pure ignorance, at best.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is hilarious considering you look like a fool on the previous page with your disproved theory that pass/run ratio indicates if a team is run-focused or not.

You didn't disprove anything. The only claim that I made was that the Steelers were more pass-focused than the Patriots, and the statistics bore that out. You made the rest up all on your own.

 

[maverick4]

Only 5 teams ran more than they passed, and that included teams that were quarterbacked by Vince Young, David Garrard and JaMarcus Russell, so it was likely more of a necessity than a choice.

Which makes your argument look even more silly.

Using your reasoning, the 2006 Bears were a passing-focused offense with Rex Grossman because of their pass/run ratio.

 

[Deus Irae]

Go and look at the first page. You're the McDaniels ball washer who brings him up every chance you get, the discussion was about something else before you joined. You're a hijacking troll who can't make a solid case for why using shotgun over 50% of all plays, and over 3/4 of passing plays, is a good thing.

Here we go again:

1.) I never brought up McDaniels in this thread. Feel free to do a search.

2.) How many times do I have to post 27-5, 16-0? The Patriots were the first team in history to use the shotgun in over 50% of all plays, and they went undefeated. The very next season, using a backup quarterback, they went 11-5 using the shotgun in over 50% of all plays. That's a solid case to anyone who's not a complete idiot.

 

[maverick4]

You didn't disprove anything. The only claim that I made was that the Steelers were more pass-focused than the Patriots

No need to lie about it, I quoted what you wrote on the previous page. Keep trying to argue that there aren't any ground-game-focused teams that pass more than run, you're just digging an even deeper hole.

Also, you're still too simplistic in looking at pass/run ratio, and not considering whether it's wise or not to use shotgun so much, especially on passing plays. It's not an even distribution of run/pass from the shotgun formation.

 

[maverick4]

2.) How many times do I have to post 27-5, 16-0?

You post winning records but ignore failures and make excuses for not getting rings... just like a 2003-2004 Colts fan. You guys will never understand why you keep getting stuffed by more physical defenses in the playoffs.

 

[Deus Irae]

You post winning records but ignore failures and make excuses for not getting rings... just like a 2003-2004 Colts fan. You guys will never understand why you keep getting stuffed by more physical defenses in the playoffs.

Actually, the problem is that you're bringing up something completely irrelevant. AGAIN, the 2007 Patriots were the first to use the shotgun for over 50% of the snaps. Therefore, there is nothing to compare it to when you're complaining about running over 50% of the snaps from the shotgun.

 

[maverick4]

You clearly don't understand statistics, causation, or correlation.

Continually re-posting our record over the past 2 years, is not support for the fact we used shotgun so much. Our team is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, we had a favorable schedule for two years, and also multiple other factors.

The 1998 Vikings went 15-1. It doesn't mean anything, their style of play was exposed along with the 01 Rams, 04 Colts, and 07 Pats.

 

[Bartmac36]

Well I'm hope they run it 90% of the time this year...they are incredibly effective in it both running and passing and they should run plenty of plays out of it this year...

 

[Fencer]

Don't you mean guaranteed 3.4 yards per play (or, I see what you mean if it's 4 downs and guaranteed)? What about an offense with twice as many yards every play with twice as much variance? Hypothetically speaking. Better, worse, or same? I say worse. The lower variance is more valuable.

There's a reason it's rare to see teams win rings in which their main bread and butter is about being pass-heavy (in the NFL), home runs or power hitters (MLB), or fast-break and 3-pointers (NBA).

Yes. I was counting all 4 downs.

However, I think you take the point too far in the other direction. It's not as if ball control offenses really are that much more predictable. They still can have plenty of no-gain plays.

 

[maverick4]

Well I'm hope they run it 90% of the time this year...they are incredibly effective in it both running and passing and they should run plenty of plays out of it this year...

Did you see the passing breakdown? Over 3/4 of our passing plays were from shotgun... MEANING, when we line up in shot gun, it is an obvious key to the defense to defend the pass. The d-line and linebackers don't even have to look for the run.

 

[Deus Irae]

You clearly don't understand statistics, causation, or correlation.

Continually re-posting our record over the past 2 years, is not support for the fact we used shotgun so much. Our team is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, we had a favorable schedule for two years, and also multiple other factors.

The 1998 Vikings went 15-1. It doesn't mean anything, their style of play was exposed along with the 01 Rams, 04 Colts, and 07 Pats.

You don't even read your own posts, do you?

Go and look at the first page. You're the McDaniels ball washer who brings him up every chance you get, the discussion was about something else before you joined. You're a hijacking troll who can't make a solid case for why using shotgun over 50% of all plays, and over 3/4 of passing plays, is a good thing.

You're trying to use a team that didn't use the shotgun for over 50% of its plays, the Colts, as an argument against using the shotgun for over 50% of a team's plays.

Seriously, you need to have your thread starting privileges revoked.

 

[efin98]

Why? Gee maybe giving them a half second advance on the throw maybe. Or maybe giving the Brady/Cassel a bit of breathing room back there. Or maybe giving them a clearer view right off the bat

Any one of those could easily answer why they felt comfortable, but all that will get brushed aside until someone strokes your ego and gives you the answer that you want

Since he apparently never saw this reply...I answered his question per his demand.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You clearly don't understand statistics, causation, or correlation.

Continually re-posting our record over the past 2 years, is not support for the fact we used shotgun so much. Our team is loaded with talent on both sides of the ball, we had a favorable schedule for two years, and also multiple other factors.

The 1998 Vikings went 15-1. It doesn't mean anything, their style of play was exposed along with the 01 Rams, 04 Colts, and 07 Pats.

The 1998 Vikings scored 27 points in the NFCCG and lost by a FG in overtime after Gary Anderson missed his first FG of the year. If you think that 'exposed' them, then you're even denser than I thought.

 

[maverick4]

However, I think you take the point too far in the other direction. It's not as if ball control offenses really are that much more predictable. They still can have plenty of no-gain plays.

Fair enough, never said they didn't. Do you agree, or disagree, that if a team uses shotgun more than 50% of all plays, and that among all passing attempts, 3/4 were out of shotgun, that it gives a big hint to the opposing defense?

 

[maverick4]

The 1998 Vikings scored 27 points in the NFCCG and lost by a FG in overtime after Gary Anderson missed his first FG of the year.

What's interesting, is that the same excuse-making could be done for ANY of the MANY non-physical, pass happy offenses in NFL history. But, the result is always the same at the end of those stories: no ring.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What's interesting, is that the same excuse-making could be done for ANY of the MANY non-physical, pass happy offenses in NFL history. But, the result is always the same at the end of those stories: no ring.

Protip: if the offense scores 27 points and the team still loses, it's probably because the defense didn't get the job done. Except in the universe you live in, where every loss is the offense's fault. You probably blame the 2006 Pats' offense for the fact that the defense gave up 35 points in the 2nd half.