Typical Josh McDaniels

[Mack Herron]

Every pass succeeds when executed perfectly. "Lack of execution" is the ubiquitous players refrain when things go poorly. This simplistic statement overlooks the notion that play calling can affect outcome with balanced run/pass making it harder to defend both the run and the pass. So coaches nearly always state they want to be balanced. There are compelling arguments that balance is important even if the run is not efficient (especially when the pass is also failing). One of these arguments is that running puts the OL in a aggressive mentality, and passing puts them back on their heels. It has opposite effects on the DL. Successful teams run and pass. Understandably, JM has stated they need to have better balance than they had against MIA, as many here have said.

 

[juny]

Can't we all just agree that the OL was so bad that no matter what the ratio of play calls were, the team wasn't going to do squat vs Miami?

 

[JMC00]

Can't we all just agree that the OL was so bad that no matter what the ratio of play calls were, the team wasn't going to do squat vs Miami?

No. A better called and schemed plan in the 2nd half doesn't have only 3 runs in a one score game. McDaniels set that OL up to fail in the 2nd half by putting them on their heels in that weather to do nothing but be attacked by a DL that was conditioned in that weather instead of allowing the OL to do some attacking on the Miami defensive line.

It's just mind numbing that a guy that called 11 running plays down in Miami in 2012 during a 16 play 7 minute game killing 75 yard drive in a 20-13 game when the OL and run game wasn't having the best day and Brady was kind of struggling refused to do the same thing 2 years in a row which had a hand in losing those games. Whereas the one time he did do it it was the reason they won the game.

 

[shmessy]

Can't we all just agree that the OL was so bad that no matter what the ratio of play calls were, the team wasn't going to do squat vs Miami?

No.

I can agree that the OL was bad enough that going pretty much one dimensional and allowing a great pass rush front 4 Miami line to tee it up made the situation far worse than it had to be.

In football, as in boxing, you need to hit jabs and body punches along with the head shots to soften up the opposition and keep them guessing.

McDaniels/Brady made the Miami D's job alot easier - - - and our D's job alot harder. Where is Andy Johnson on THAT?

 

[Ring 6]

No.

I can agree that the OL was bad enough that going pretty much one dimensional and allowing a great pass rush front 4 Miami line to tee it up made the situation far worse than it had to be.

In football, as in boxing, you need to hit jabs and body punches along with the head shots to soften up the opposition and keep them guessing.

McDaniels/Brady made the Miami D's job alot easier - - - and our D's job alot harder. Where is Andy Johnson on THAT?

Can you please tell me what argument you are attributing to me. I'm having a hard time keeping up with what you are telling me I think.

 

[shmessy]

Can you please tell me what argument you are attributing to me. I'm having a hard time keeping up with what you are telling me I think.

"Run/pass ratio was a minor impact on this loss", and they were "forced into being one dimensional".

In both halves, the Patriots were averaging well over 4 yards per running play. Did they have to employ some gadgets to do so at times? Yes. It was working and in the 1st half the Patriots D was refreshed enough (being on the field only 12 minutes) to give up only 3 points!

In the 2nd half, the lopsided Pass/Run ratio kept lots of time on the clock for the Patriots D to be forced into playing 19 of the 30 minutes in the second half on a 89 degree 61% humidity day.

Your argument is one of tunnel vision.

 

[Ring 6]

"Run/pass ratio was a minor impact on this loss", and they were "forced into being one dimensional".

The Pass/Run ratio kept lots of time on the clock for the Patriots D to be forced into playing 19 of the 30 minutes in the second half on a 89 degree 61% humidity day.

Your argument is one of tunnel vision.

I would argue that yours is tunnel vision as you are focussing on one narrow dynamic.
If they had executed, hell, if they had eliminated penalties, things would have been very different. A run/pass ratio when you gain 30 yards of offense in almost an entire half, isnot the heart of the problem. There were plays to be made that were not made. If either the run or pass had succeeded they would have been less one-dimensional.

Secondly, this is a big part of the problem here. I did not say they were forced into being one-dimensional, the article that you posted did. I don't recall right now whether it was Brady or McDaniels, and don't really care to go back and look, who said that the failure to execute forced them into being one dimensional. You brought the article to the thread.

You should really take a step back and read the posts you respond to. You have a heavy habit of taking any post that doesn't 100% agree with you and pretend it says the exact, complete polar opposite of what you said. Thats not the case, and you end up arguing that someone is wrong about something they never said, as noted above.

Unless you think your opinion is the only one that is valid, you ought to be able to accept that others feel that the play selection had less of an impact than you think it did, as well as that execution was a bigger problem than play selection. There is no way you can 'prove' that your opinion on or assessment of that topic is any better than anyone else, so there is no need for you to act all offended that someone see it differently to the point of calling me out as if I argued the Earth was flat, and consistently 'refuting' arguments that you attribute to me that are not the ones I made.

 

[shmessy]

I would argue that yours is tunnel vision as you are focussing on one narrow dynamic.
If they had executed, hell, if they had eliminated penalties, things would have been very different. A run/pass ratio when you gain 30 yards of offense in almost an entire half, isnot the heart of the problem. There were plays to be made that were not made. If either the run or pass had succeeded they would have been less one-dimensional.

Secondly, this is a big part of the problem here. I did not say they were forced into being one-dimensional, the article that you posted did. I don't recall right now whether it was Brady or McDaniels, and don't really care to go back and look, who said that the failure to execute forced them into being one dimensional. You brought the article to the thread.

You should really take a step back and read the posts you respond to. You have a heavy habit of taking any post that doesn't 100% agree with you and pretend it says the exact, complete polar opposite of what you said. Thats not the case, and you end up arguing that someone is wrong about something they never said, as noted above.

Unless you think your opinion is the only one that is valid, you ought to be able to accept that others feel that the play selection had less of an impact than you think it did, as well as that execution was a bigger problem than play selection. There is no way you can 'prove' that your opinion on or assessment of that topic is any better than anyone else, so there is no need for you to act all offended that someone see it differently to the point of calling me out as if I argued the Earth was flat, and consistently 'refuting' arguments that you attribute to me that are not the ones I made.

"If they had executed, hell, if they had eliminated penalties, things would have been very different. A run/pass ratio when you gain 30 yards of offense in almost an entire half, isnot the heart of the problem. There were plays to be made that were not made. If either the run or pass had succeeded they would have been less one-dimensional."

Would they have been more successful if they ran more in the 2nd half? Maybe, maybe not. No one is saying they would have scored any in the 2nd half. However, if they had run more often, they would have eaten up more clock and saved the Patriot D from having been out there 19 of the 30 minutes on a 89 degree 61% humidity day. The DL would not have been as fatiguede. THAT is not an opinon, that is fact.

Regarding your other opinions, I will simply agree to disagree. .

 

[Ring 6]

"If they had executed, hell, if they had eliminated penalties, things would have been very different. A run/pass ratio when you gain 30 yards of offense in almost an entire half, isnot the heart of the problem. There were plays to be made that were not made. If either the run or pass had succeeded they would have been less one-dimensional."

Would they have been more successful if they ran more in the 2nd half? Maybe, maybe not. No one is saying they would have scored any in the 2nd half. However, if they had run more often, they would have eaten up more clock and saved the Patriot D from having been out there 19 of the 30 minutes on a 89 degree 61% humidity day. The DL would not have been as fatiguede. THAT is not an opinon, that is fact.

Regarding your other opinions, I will simply agree to disagree. .

I think that is very overrated. Running instead of passing only has the effect of time running off the clock between plays. That does not give the defense a longer rest, it only shortens the clock. As it turned out, we were the ones who needed more clock.
Look at it this way. In real time, the defense is back on the field just as quickly on a 3 and out of 3 runs as one of 3 incomplete passes. All that is different is the time on the game clock. Had we run every snap, with the same results, the defense would have returned to the field in exactly the same amount of time, and the game would have ended a drive or 2 earlier.