The Official Brady sucks and the defense has been carrying him Thread

[reflexblue]

I'm saying that matchups and game situations dictate what it takes to win and conversely how far you go. You and Rhody and Psycho can waste your time banging your head against a brick wall in search of statistical balance. It all boils down to execution and matchups. The JETS wanted us to run the damn ball for a reason. That was the only legit shot they had at winning other than hoping for uncharacteristic mistakes. Bill will tell you they want to run the ball, but most of all they want to score enough points to win the damn game... I'd love this team to be 3 dimensional. But for me that means capable of playing complimentary situational football. I'm more concerned that our ST has been less than special this season. With your back up against the goal line and facing 80-90+ yard fields on a team struggling to field a cohesive pass defense, you don't take the ball out of the hands of your most impactful player (and in effect players) on misguided principle.

Bill has a defensive game plan in the HOF based on allowing an opponent to run the damn ball.

This has been tried before does "Air Coryell" ring a bell? SD won a lot of Regular season games with Fouts passing, but when it came to the playoffs it didn't work out so well did it.
Of course most people have forgoten how well a balanced attack works because the last time we had one was maybe '04-'05.

The last time this team actually Won something it ran the ball also.

 

[Lifer]

Hate to inform you of this "Lifer" but that's exactly what they did.

Patriots offense last 3 games

Pitt loss = 12 run 35 pass
NYG loss = 24 run 49 pass
Jets win = 28 run 39 pass

1st Jets win = 35 run 33 pass

When the Patriots run a BALANCED offense they win.
When the Patriots morph into Peyton Brady and the Colts they struggle.

Yes you convinced me. It wasn't Tom Brady shredding the Jets through the air that won the game, it was Green-Ellis, Woodhead, Faulk, and Ridley getting one yard gains four more times than last week that won the game.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Originally Posted by RhodyPatriot View Post
Hate to inform you of this "Lifer" but that's exactly what they did.

Patriots offense last 3 games

Pitt loss = 12 run 35 pass
NYG loss = 24 run 49 pass
Jets win = 28 run 39 pass

1st Jets win = 35 run 33 pass

When the Patriots run a BALANCED offense they win.
When the Patriots morph into Peyton Brady and the Colts they struggle.

Did you do that exercise for the other 5 wins too?

 

[Satchboogie3]

No one has ever won just passing or running like what your describing. The whole idea is like an Alice in Wonderland moment

Really? Really?
Superbowl 45: Green Bay Packers - 24th in rushing yards, 20th in rushing attempts, no feature back. 5th ranked passing yards, 16th ranked passing attempts.
Superbowl 43: While Pittsburgh is known as a run first team, they actually were ranked higher in passing yards than rush yards (appalling 3.7 ypc!). They won on defense clearly.
Superbowl 42: A fluke. 9 times out of ten we win that game after that 2min warning mark. **** happens.
Superbowl 41: Indy. Enough said. Yes, their defense got good, but you pretty much need your defense playing well unless you plan on winning 3 or 4 straight shootouts.
Superbowl 40: Pits. 5th ranked rush offense, no passing offense to speak of (24th in passing yards, dead last in passing attempts). Obviously defense and ball possession was key, but guess what, we don't live in the same league anymore. Still, not a bad philosophy if you actually have a great defense and backs/o-line.
Superbowl 34: Stl Rams. Greatest show on turf that was pass first that year (1st ranked passing offense, mid-of-pack run offense), not to mention the fact that Kurt had 45 pass attempts in the superbowl win...

The key is quite simple. Maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. It doesn't matter much how you go about it. Generally there are two formulas: The older, ground and pound with a game-managing passing attack and stellar defense. You NEED a top-notch defense if you want to be run-first. You simply can't win running the ball with an average or worse defense. The other is a prolific, pass-first offense. Sure, some have better run games than others, but the key is in the passing game and QB play and having an adequate defense. You pretty much need some sort of defense to win, but offense makes up for A LOT, and you score points by passing, NOT by running.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I posted a thread indicating how much his turnovers were hurting the team, but nowhere did I suggest that it was permanent, or a growing problem, but his involvement in the offense has to be scaled back and managed properly because the facts speak for themselves:

Patriots' Record by Called-pass pct. (2009-2011, including playoffs)

Called Passes --- W-L

Over 60 pct. ..... 11-11
Under 60 pct ..... 18-2

In other words, when we pass for under 60%, and run on over 40% of our snaps, we are almost unbeatable.

I'm going through every single one of these games now/tomorrow and already I'm finding plenty of game situation stats that show this is extremely misleading. Don't worry, I'll show it's complete BS when I'm done with my actual ANALYSIS. You know, taking your time and break things down, not just pick up some stat and going "Uh huh! It's right here!".

 

[Dutchmaster617]

They can afford to run while winning, that doesn't prove we win by running.

The coaching doesn't even establish a smart running game, especially yesterday, they use woodhead as an every down back and back him up with old Faulk. Brady and Sanchez saved our ass.

 

[Lifer]

The main point of all this is the segment of Patriot Nation that feels that Tom Brady is somehow "the problem" with the 6-3 New England Patriots has obviously failed to grasp it is only Tom Brady that keeps this team, which is terribly lacking in the running game and defense, from being 2-8. Put Curtis Painter behind center and were in the Luck sweepstakes. This isn't the team Matt Cassel led to 11-5. Has Brady been perfect this year? Hardly. But he has been forcing things because he has been put in the mindset, born out of reality, that this team is now totally dependent on him the way the Colts were on Manning. That is more on Belichick not building the defense and falling in love with the 2007 mindset Moss brought in. As much as anyone I long for the days of 2004 and beating the Colts 20-3. But to piss on Tom Brady? The one reason the Patriots contend for anything? Insanity.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm going through every single one of these games now/tomorrow and already I'm finding plenty of game situation stats that show this is extremely misleading. Don't worry, I'll show it's complete BS when I'm done with my actual ANALYSIS. You know, taking your time and break things down, not just pick up some stat and going "Uh huh! It's right here!".

As I posted earlier, the game that they just played is a good example of what you're talking about...

16 runs and 31 passes up until the Patriots final 2 drives.

 

[BradyManny]

Also 19-2 when balanced, and 11-11 when not, says hi too.

This is getting out of hand.

Unless you can go through and document how those 21 games played out, you - as several posters have pointed out - are confusing causation and correlation.

I know you watched those games. I know that you can't, being honest, tell me that all - or even a majority - of those 21 games in which the end total of the game was a 60/40 run-pass split truly saw a run-pass balance from the onset.

I don't have time to go through every game. But 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.

Think about how many games in those 19 victories you cite in which the Patriots had the game in hand by or shortly into the fourth quarter.

Again, please learn the difference between causation and correlation and STOP citing that stat without doing the research to see if there is any validity to back your assertion.

There is a huge correlation between running the ball and winning because teams that are leading the game run the ball more, especially in the fourth quarter. It is NOT necessarily the cause of that victory.

 

[Ring 6]

Play action says hi.

Also 19-2 when balanced, and 11-11 when not, says hi too.

Again you are proving when we win, we win.

 

[Patspsycho]

I'm going through every single one of these games now/tomorrow and already I'm finding plenty of game situation stats that show this is extremely misleading. Don't worry, I'll show it's complete BS when I'm done with my actual ANALYSIS. You know, taking your time and break things down, not just pick up some stat and going "Uh huh! It's right here!".

Please do that, and please include the playoff game vs. the Jets.

 

[Patspsycho]

This is getting out of hand.

Unless you can go through and document how those 21 games played out, you - as several posters have pointed out - are confusing causation and correlation.

I know you watched those games. I know that you can't, being honest, tell me that all - or even a majority - of those 21 games in which the end total of the game was a 60/40 run-pass split truly saw a run-pass balance from the onset.

I don't have time to go through every game. But 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.

Think about how many games in those 19 victories you cite in which the Patriots had the game in hand by or shortly into the fourth quarter.

Again, please learn the difference between causation and correlation and STOP citing that stat without doing the research to see if there is any validity to back your assertion.

There is a huge correlation between running the ball and winning because teams that are leading the game run the ball more, especially in the fourth quarter. It is NOT necessarily the cause of that victory.

Some of the games are like that, some are not. The bottom line is, in the big picture, having a serious commitment to the run game most certainly does help.

How else do you explain the fact that we haven't done squat in the playoffs in the last three years? Brady has had a chance to carry the team every single time he has failed, most particularly last year.

 

[Patspsycho]

Again you are proving when we win, we win.

Then how come we keep losing when we get to the playoffs?

 

[BradyManny]

Some of the games are like that, some are not. The bottom line is, in the big picture, having a serious commitment to the run game most certainly does help.

How else do you explain the fact that we haven't done squat in the playoffs in the last three years? Brady has had a chance to carry the team every single time he has failed, most particularly last year.

No, most of the games are not like that. Again, I have just shown you that statistically, the Patriots last year ran the ball in the fourth quarter way more than they passed.

We also know that this team had 10 victories where they won by more than a touchdown, so I think right there you can surmise where a lot of the running came from. I would guess a bunch of those 19 victories you are citing came from that 10 or from our 5 victories of over a touchdown this year.

And Brady carries this team every week. Way to cherry pick the losses.

It's why when he even has a mediocre day or faces an elite defense that can curb this offense's potent production, the team is doomed.

The team lost against the Ravens b/c Brady had an off day. Against the Jets & Giants, the Patriots simply faced elite defenses and couldn't win a low-scoring game. The type of game we used to win.

Throughout the history of the game - heck, in almost every sport - a great defense has ALWAYS defeated a great offense - run, pass, it doesn't matter. The Pats need a defense that can get off the field, and get the offense more possessions to dictate the style of the game.

Would it help to be balanced? Sure. But only if the Pats had an elite rushing attack. Fact is the Patriots don't have a running offense that can impose its will on the other team, so your point is entirely moot.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Some of the games are like that, some are not. The bottom line is, in the big picture, having a serious commitment to the run game most certainly does help.

How else do you explain the fact that we haven't done squat in the playoffs in the last three years? Brady has had a chance to carry the team every single time he has failed, most particularly last year.

Tom himself has attempted to explain that to you...Failure to execute consistently. Plays are there in the passing game and on the ground not to mention on defense and we either simply fail to execute (physical or mental mistakes, lack of discipline or focused intensity exhibited by one or more players or entire units) consistently and/or our opponent executes at a high level with disciplined intensity and consistency.

Your argument in this and other threads is taking on an almost childlike quality. You want to find the simple secret to success that is hiding in plain sight and point a finger at the one guy whose ego is obviously not allowing all of them and us to see it... Fans always want their team to be capable of making any play at any time in any situation. When reality proves they cannot do that, the fans first line of defense is then it's obvious they should have done something else ergo it's a failed choice. That is why the QB, OC and EC are so often the blame game whipping boys of choice. Easier to say X needs to get his head out of his ass or get replaced with someone who like the fan gets it than it is to do what teams do and analyze the tape and the entirety of the performances in context. When a team isn't executing, particularly in a scheme predicated on it as opposed to raw or elite talent, nothing is guaranteed to work.

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

^ This is as close to the truth as its gonna get.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Really, and where have the pats just Run the ball to win this year. We're not talking about running the ball when the run defense is weak, we're talking about running the ball to keep the pass rush off of Brady, and setting up play action. One would have to be a real moron to think you can win against top notch teams in the playoffs with a one dimensional passing attack. This team has tried what you described for years now, and haven't won a playoff game in FOUR years.

The fact is if you actually where Watching the games is that we abandon the run for no rhyme or reason. Its like BOB forgets he has one and when he does he never leaves one in long enough to get any kind of rhythm going.

No one has ever won just passing or running like what your describing. The whole idea is like an Alice in Wonderland moment

Let's inject some basic intelligence into your thought process.

That's the first step.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Running the ball is more correlated to winning because teams that get ahead will run the ball more to run out the clock.

It's not causation.

Running means winning ahhhhh....nope
Winning means running alhhhh...yup

Passing is less correlated to winning than running. Why?

Teams that are behind throw more.

Yet effective passing is the most important causation of winning besides turnovers and turnover differential.

Ever hear the term, "QB driven league"?

Since you don't seem to grasp that basic concept. I doubt you can grasp that you throw when you need to throw and run when you need to run.

A ten play drive that has one running play converting a 3rd and 1 is a great example. It's what the situation dictates.

I bet you still can't comprehend the 2006 win in Minnesota.

Your playoff example is equally bizarre.

Did someone invent for zero reason?

 

[Ring 6]

Then how come we keep losing when we get to the playoffs?

Twice is 'keep losing'?
What does that have to do with this anyway?
You are using run/pass stats to conclude that running more causes winning. The reality is winning causes more running.
Sundays game was an example of getting ahead and running late to skew the stats while the Giants game was the opposite, where we ran a lot early, failed, and THEREFORE lost and had a high pass ratio.
The raw numbers don't prove what you want to think they do, and I don't know why you are struggling so hard to accept that.

 

[Ring 6]

Then how come we keep losing when we get to the playoffs?

Wait. Your answer to a discussion is we lost playoff games so that makes whatever you say right?

 

[Ring 6]

Some of the games are like that, some are not. The bottom line is, in the big picture, having a serious commitment to the run game most certainly does help.

How else do you explain the fact that we haven't done squat in the playoffs in the last three years? Brady has had a chance to carry the team every single time he has failed, most particularly last year.

How did Brady, most particularly, fail by completing 64% of his passes for 299 yards?