What a Mess

[mayoclinic]

I am so glad for this bye. This team has been exhausting to watch this season. I hate to say it, but I am happy for a week where the Pats can heal up and I can just watch other teams make their fans crazy.

See post #37 above. Sure there have been flaws, but given all the injuries, the results haven't been that terrible. We're 4 points away from being 8-0, and there have been some very good things. A week to heal up and get ready for the second half is certainly needed, but if the team's performance so far makes you crazy you might want to consider what other fans have to settle for.

 

[VJCPatriot]

See post #37 above. Sure there have been flaws, but given all the injuries, the results haven't been that terrible. We're 4 points away from being 8-0, and there have been some very good things. A week to heal up and get ready for the second half is certainly needed, but if the team's performance so far makes you crazy you might want to consider what other fans have to settle for.

Yeah imagine if you had to be a Jets or Bills fan. I'm sure there are some of those guys being talked off a ledge right now as we enjoy the glow of a blowout victory by our team in London.

This has to be said but, The Pats that we saw today is the Juggernaut that I've been waiting to see. I know this team has the talent and the players to execute like that. Would love to see this continue into future games!

 

[mayoclinic]

This has to be said but, The Pats that we saw today is the Juggernaut that I've been waiting to see. I know this team has the talent and the players to execute like that. Would love to see this continue into future games!

Vince Wilfork said earlier this week that he can't wait to see what this team can do if it gets going for a full 60 minutes. The talent base is there. It's a young team with a lot of new pieces, there have been a lot of injuries, and it clearly hasn't had time to gel and get in sync yet. But there have been flashes. I think the odds are that we'll see more consistency and more of this over the second half of the season. The Pats have gone 8-0 the second half of the past 2 seasons, and it's not out of the question that they could run the table again, with Houston and San Francisco at home being by far their most difficult games.

If this team starts executing and playing with confidence and consistency ... watch out.

 

[patchick]

See post #37 above. Sure there have been flaws, but given all the injuries, the results haven't been that terrible. We're 4 points away from being 8-0, and there have been some very good things. A week to heal up and get ready for the second half is certainly needed, but if the team's performance so far makes you crazy you might want to consider what other fans have to settle for.

Very, very weird to have a +11.5 average scoring differential and a 5-3 record.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Ok, No offense to you, but you're not the first to go down this route. I have no idea why people think telling me what I already know is supposed to be the answer.

Bradford was completing passes at a high rate, particularly until the game got out of hand, but he wasn't moving the team well enough to get more than 7 points. As has been noted, he was 3-3 for the TD on that first drive, and he was 13-15 at one point, meaning he was still 10-12 after the TD drive. Now, the question/issue I brought up is whether this was because the downfield routes were well covered (DBs doing the job) or because Bradford was missing/passing on open receivers.

Fair enough. I took from your post (the one I originally commented on) that Bradford should have scored more points simply because he had a high completion percentage (replying that YPA is too important a factor to leave out of that equation). But your intended view of factoring in what Bradford missed downfield versus what the Patriots wouldn't give him due to good coverage/scheme??? I got no idea . I didn't notice the wide view enough to be able to offer an educated guess. I recall he missed a couple of better options but that means little (even TB and the best QBs aren't going to see the best option every time). I look forward to seeing film breakdown (if anyone does that this week).

With that said, I think we all should be happy about one thing, after the first series no more of those really big plays that have been killing the Patriots. A robust offense and a solid run D (as well as solid punting and kicking), the only thing the Patriot secondary MUST do is not allow those big plays. The Patriots can/will win a lot of games with that formula even with opposing QBs consistently having good numbers against our below average coverage secondary.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'll take wins any way they come and I enjoyed how the defense played yesterday.

that said, I can't fathom why the rams didn't try that play again the entire game.

 

[mayoclinic]

Very, very weird to have a +11.5 average scoring differential and a 5-3 record.

As I wrote in another thread, the Pats have been schizophrenic. The offense is averaging just under 150 YPG rushing (149.625). They've rushed for over 150 yards in 4 of their 8 games: week 1 vs. Tennessee (162), week 4 vs. Buffalo (247), week 5 vs. Denver (251) and week 8 vs. the Rams (152). The Pats went 4-0 in those games, winning by a combined score of 162-69 and scoring 30 or more points in all 4 games, for an average margin of victory of 23.25 PPG. The offense is averaging 40.5 PPG in those 4 games and the defense is giving up a measly 17.25 PPG when the team rushes for over 150 yards.

In the other 4 games the Pats have gone 1-3 and have averaged 25PPG, while being outscored 101-100 in those 4 games. The only game that they won of those 4 was the one in which they had the best rushing effort, rushing for 131 yards in their overtime win against the Jets. The Seattle and Baltimore games were the two games in which the team rushed for less than 100 yards.

While 8 games may not be enough to be dispositive, what this suggests is that perhaps the Pats should simply stick with a reasonably balanced offensive approach rather than adjusting their weekly game plan to "take what the other team gives them". Tweaking the balance is fine, but going to extremes hasn't wored very well so far this year. The team pretty much abandoned the run against Baltimore and Seattle at least in part out of respect for those team's supposedly formidible rushing defenses. Given that San Francisco rammed the ball down Seattle's throat 4 days after we lost by 1 point to them and given that Baltimore's defense was gashed for big rushing games by several opponents this year (I believe giving up over 200 yards rushing at least twice), perhaps they were giving those teams too much respect.

So far this year no one has been able to stop the Pats' balanced offensive juggernaut except for our own coaching staff. When we abandon balance and go to a more pass-happy approach, it's been an entirely different matter.

 

[PP2]

If this team starts executing and playing with confidence and consistency ... watch out.

The bye couldn't have come at a better time.

I think they'll finish out the 2nd half of the season 8-0 and end up 13-3.

 

[Kontradiction]

The bye couldn't have come at a better time.

I think they'll finish out the 2nd half of the season 8-0 and end up 13-3.

I'm calling 12-4. We'll drop one of the back to back Houston/San Fran games as both of those are likely to be extremely physical.

 

[dannydyn]

First TD, I was sitting there not even pissed anymore.... My brain was numb. I was just sitting there thinking.... oh well, the game is lost, at least I have a good set of Buffalo wings and a couple of Guinnesses...

 

[Off The Grid]

I think they'll finish out the 2nd half of the season 8-0 and end up 13-3.

Welcome aboard.

 

[mayoclinic]

Welcome aboard.

Stop it! You are a delusional crazed, maniac, and you should be ashamed of corrupting others into drinking the same brand of cool aid.

:spygate:

 

[1960Pats]

So far this year no one has been able to stop the Pats' balanced offensive juggernaut except for our own coaching staff. When we abandon balance and go to a more pass-happy approach, it's been an entirely different matter.

As Professor Terguson said to Thornton Mellon, "I like the way you think."

It's all about the balance.

To put it in numbers, the Pats have now played 61 games since 2009 began.

Their record in games in which 40% of the plays were running plays is 36-5.
Their record in games with less than 40% running plays is 8-12.

The amount of yards per carry has been mostly meaningless. There are +40% games in which they ran for less than 2 ypc but still won and -40% games in which they ran for more than 4 ypc but still lost. It's the number of running plays that keep the defense off balance (there's that word again).

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Im not trying to sound pessimistic, but it's 1 win against an inferior opponent. No doubt the team played great yesterday - offense, special teams and defense. However, I'm going to save my enthusiasm for if they beat Houston and SF. Right now I don't want to be too high or too low.

 

[Gumby]

As Professor Terguson said to Thornton Mellon, "I like the way you think."

It's all about the balance.

To put it in numbers, the Pats have now played 61 games since 2009 began.

Their record in games in which 40% of the plays were running plays is 36-5.
Their record in games with less than 40% running plays is 8-12.

The amount of yards per carry has been mostly meaningless. There are +40% games in which they ran for less than 2 ypc but still won and -40% games in which they ran for more than 4 ypc but still lost. It's the number of running plays that keep the defense off balance (there's that word again).

Although I agree with Mayo and your point, some of that data is potentially suspect as to whether it actually supports the point.

In any game where a team gets up by a large margin (say 2+ tds); the team is going to start running the ball more to burn clock and get it over with. In a couple of the 4Q collapses this season it was actually either too much run or at least mis-timed runs that led to 3 and outs and giving the other team a chance to come back.

Not sure how to blow into more detail to figure out which came first chicken or the egg (maybe w/L by games that had 40% of runs in Q1-Q3), but I dont think your stat is truly conclusive.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Although I agree with Mayo and your point, some of that data is potentially suspect as to whether it actually supports the point.

In any game where a team gets up by a large margin (say 2+ tds); the team is going to start running the ball more to burn clock and get it over with. In a couple of the 4Q collapses this season it was actually either too much run or at least mis-timed runs that led to 3 and outs and giving the other team a chance to come back.

Not sure how to blow into more detail to figure out which came first chicken or the egg (maybe w/L by games that had 40% of runs in Q1-Q3), but I dont think your stat is truly conclusive.

Well, it's fairly convincing evidence of a correlation, but which way the causality goes is clearly an open question.

 

[patfanken]

Come on. 19-27 for 136 yard is not impressive at all.
2/9 on 3rd downs is pathetic.
You don't score points by completing passes that don't result in first downs.
19-27-136 with a pick, 2 sacks and 2/9 on 3rd downs adding up to zero points, a missed FG, and going for it on 4th from around the 35 and failing, is about what is should add up to.
Your statement was that those passing stats make it surprising they only put up 7 points, and it really isn't surprising at all. Are you saying that teams put up great point totals completing 70% of passes for 7 yards per completion and converting 2 3rd downs all day? The numbers add up to the score.

You might also want to point out to the "imperious one" that fully half the Rams passing yardage for the game was attained in just 2 drives. The first one and the last one

 

[Ring 6]

You might also want to point out to the "imperious one" that fully half the Rams passing yardage for the game was attained in just 2 drives. The first one and the last one

Nah, I've made my point, no need to belabor it.

 

[everlong]

I don't know why everybody is so bent each week on the extremes. Bottom line they held the Rams to ten points less than their season average and held Bradford to under his season's average in passing yards. It's a sign of progress and growing not a signal they've arrived. Just like last week vs the Jets wasn't a sign of the impending apocalypse.

If they can build on this every week and we get to the Houston game and they hold them to ten points under their season average and under their average yards and then we're really looking at something.

 

[goheels22002]

To put it in numbers, the Pats have now played 61 games since 2009 began.

Their record in games in which 40% of the plays were running plays is 36-5.
Their record in games with less than 40% running plays is 8-12.

Great statistic!

One of those losses was the most recent Super Bowl when the Patriots passed 41 times (68%) and rushed 19 times (32%). Five more rushing plays and, more likely than not, the Patriots would have won.