Will BenJarvus Green-Ellis Make the 53?

[Ring 6]

Really. Do you mean on a five step drop, a screen pass, a sweep, a run up the middle?

I guess some teams think that way, but the best teams "find a way to win".

Where do they come up with cliches like that anyway?

I doubt BB thought he could just line up and win the physical matchups with the Rams, minus a pretty clever game plan.

The best teams find a way to win, because they are the best teams, and physically superior.
Are you really making these comments seriously?
First BB stuffed the run to beat the Rams, and now you doubt he thought he could win the physical matchups when his game plan to be physical against the finesse team?
My God, the one thing he thought he could do was win the physical battles, and he built his game plan around beating the crap out of them.

 

[RayClay]

The best teams find a way to win, because they are the best teams, and physically superior.
Are you really making these comments seriously?
First BB stuffed the run to beat the Rams, and now you doubt he thought he could win the physical matchups when his game plan to be physical against the finesse team?
My God, the one thing he thought he could do was win the physical battles, and he built his game plan around beating the crap out of them.

So we had more talent than the Rams, it had nothing to do with our game plan.

lol

Running over the Giants great defensive linemen and maybe stepping on their face on the way by is a way of winning the physical battle. Instead, you want to try it on their terms, nobly getting cremated by the best 4 man line in the league.

Their are lots of coaches who only win when they have the superior physical matchup. Too many, in fact.

Other coaches win despite injuries and athletic deficits by forcing the action and making the other team play away from their strength sometimes. Obviously the players need to excel, but they don't need to be the best in the leagur, they merely need to not let the best comfortably play their game like we did the Giants.

 

[Ring 6]

Wow, Captain obvious! How many times do I have to say that the Giants had the best 4 man rush in the league. Crossing our fingers hoping our Oline, not the best pass rushing line by a longshot, would stop them consistently almost guaranteed we'd see more pressure than we'd like.

Am I missing something? Is this not why coaches develop gameplans? To try to neutralize the other teams strength, somewhat. Maybe to surprise them, to take advantage of anything that makes their defense adjust?

I mean if you want to win. I'm assuming coaches act in a way they assume they can win if a good game plan is well executed.

Actually, our pass blocking was much better than our run blocking that season. Thats how we had almost 5000 passing yards and 50 Tds. In fact, we were probably the best pass blocking team in the NFL.
Your argument is weak.
You are saying that since you didnt like the result, what they didn't do would have worked better, and thats simple not a fact. It isnt even likely.
It seems that you think that while Michael Strachan was phyically whipping Nick Kaczurs butt, that he only did it because he guessed that we wouldnt run? He beat him on passes, he beat him on runs, he beat him left he beat him right, he beat him up, he beat him down.

You act as if we were playing the Colts. The Giants run D was also very strong.
If we run, we deal with poor blocking. If we pass, we deal with poor blocking. If they are strong no matter what we do, then we should try to do what we do best. How hard is that to digest?
Their D was dominating us. You think that is a reason to not do what we are best at, and to try to beat them with what we dont do as well?

 

[Ring 6]

Ao we had more talent than the Rams, it had nothing to do with our game plan.

lol

No,you would be wrong with that statement.
We were certainly more physical than them, however. And that had a lot to do with how we gameplanned.
And, by the way, we won the individual battles in that game.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that balance, all things equal is sensible. In a vacuum, I would gameplan balance.
But when my OL cant block their DL whether I run or pass, I am going to choose to do what I do best.
Running to set up the pass is useless if my 5 cant block their 4. I don't set anything up by running that makes it easier to block their DL.
Just as an aside, because it sounds like you never played the game (not a shot, apologize in advance if that is wrong) but a DL does not read run or pass, they react to the blocker. If you run at me 12 straight times the drop into pass blocking, I will rush you as fiercely as if you threw 12 straight times. Defensive lineman play run and pass on every play. You do not slow them down with run plays. Just doesnt happen.
Iagree that if they were getting to the QB by blitzing, then you could try to slow them down with the run, but that isnt what was happening.

 

[RayClay]

There's really no point to this. I said at the time we should run when we weren't scoring as we hoped in the third quarter.

You think we should have passed until we lost because it was inevitable.

Fine. We do not have the best pass protecting line, it was never built or paid for like the best pass protection line, we knew the Giants 4 man rush was the best.

I think a change in strategy in the second half would have had many benefits. You are just going to say everything I say is wrong. We're not replaying the game and I really don't need the typing practice.

 

[Ring 6]

So we had more talent than the Rams, it had nothing to do with our game plan.

lol

Running over the Giants great defensive linemen and maybe stepping on their face on the way by is a way of winning the physical battle. Instead, you want to try it on their terms, nobly getting cremated by the best 4 man line in the league.

Their are lots of coaches who only win when they have the superior physical matchup. Too many, in fact.

Other coaches win despite injuries and athletic deficits by forcing the action and making the other team play away from their strength sometimes. Obviously the players need to excel, but they don't need to be the best in the leagur, they merely need to not let the best comfortably play their game like we did the Giants.

You are living in a fantasy world. We were INCAPABLE of
Running over the Giants great defensive linemen and maybe stepping on their face on the way
didnt you watch the game?

You are now making up a scenario where an OL that was physically manhandled could have dominated if the sequence of plays called was different.
Once again, strategy is important, but if you cannot win in the trenches, and get dominated in the trenches, you lose, no matter who your coach is.

 

[Ring 6]

Ha ha. So now where the best pass blocking team in the NFL, because we need to be to make your argument.

lol

Yeah we invested heavily in our pass blocking O line, they're incredible.

We absolutely were the best pass blocking line in theNFL in 2007.
My god, we threw for almost 5000 yards, set an alltime points scored record had 50 TD passes, and sent 3 OL to the probowl, had very few sacks, and if you had watched the games you would have heard commentators say in at least 10 of them "Tom Brady has barely been touched all day"
Are you and I talking about different football teams?

 

[RayClay]

We absolutely were the best pass blocking line in theNFL in 2007.
My god, we threw for almost 5000 yards, set an alltime points scored record had 50 TD passes, and sent 3 OL to the probowl, had very few sacks, and if you had watched the games you would have heard commentators say in at least 10 of them "Tom Brady has barely been touched all day"
Are you and I talking about different football teams?

It's all just circular arguments. Without any major additions, the line is all of a sudden the greatest line of all time for one year, forget about what effect Brady and Co. had on the defense.

No, it's all isolated, best pass protecting line ever, except for one game where they totally sucked.

Yup, hard to argue with that logic, statistics explains it all.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's all just circular arguments. Without any major additions, the line is all of a sudden the greatest line of all time for one year, forget about what effect Brady and Co. had on the defense.

No, it's all isolated, best pass protecting line ever, except for one game where they totally sucked.

Yup, hard to argue with that logic, statistics explains it all.

Stephen Neal got hurt very early in the SB. Our line gets much, much worse when Neal is out (for example, see the beginning of '08 versus the end of '08). This isn't rocket science.

I don't agree that the 2007 OL was the best pass-blocking line in history, but the reasons why our pass protection was much worse in the SB are readily apparent to anyone who was paying any attention at all. Brady's injury also made him more immobile than usual, and less able to evade the rush, so that didn't exactly help either.

You're still relying on the assumption, though, that running in the third quarter would have *worked*. The Patriots showed an obvious willingness to dominate on the ground in the weeks leading up to the SB- FFS, Maroney had 550 yards and 6 TDs in the 5 games prior to the SB. So either a) Bill Belichick is ******ed, and just pulled a Mike Martz for no real reason, or b) Belichick decided that, with Neal out and Kyle Brady and Mankins both sucking, a power running game wasn't going to work.

To go back to your initial point, though, the reason why the Pats didn't fall back on the running game had NOTHING to do with Maroney. How do I know this? Because Maroney had been spearheading a dominant running attack for the previous month and a half. Either Maroney forgot how to run between the AFCCG and the SB, or one of the injuries forced Belichick to go in a different direction. And if you think that the former is a plausible explanation, then you might want to keep it to yourself, since that would be one of the dumbest things ever proposed on this board.

 

[RayClay]

Stephen Neal got hurt very early in the SB. Our line gets much, much worse when Neal is out (for example, see the beginning of '08 versus the end of '08). This isn't rocket science.

I don't agree that the 2007 OL was the best pass-blocking line in history, but the reasons why our pass protection was much worse in the SB are readily apparent to anyone who was paying any attention at all. Brady's injury also made him more immobile than usual, and less able to evade the rush, so that didn't exactly help either.

Injuries happen. I'm a Neal fan, but he's a better run blocker IMO. We have a good, somewhat light versatile line.

I think I've said I thought watching, that running in quarter three would have had benefits. I could see we were bogged down.

If anyone thinks there was something else that would have kept us out of a tight game that could be lost, there's a topic.

If there's nothing that could be done, then I'm done, I'm really not into saying the same thing over and over.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Injuries happen. I'm a Neal fan, but he's a better run blocker IMO. We have a good, somewhat light versatile line.

I think I've said I thought watching, that running in quarter three would have had benefits. I could see we were bogged down.

If anyone thinks there was something else that would have kept us out of a tight game that could be lost, there's a topic.

If there's nothing that could be done, then I'm done, I'm really not into saying the same thing over and over.

I don't know what could have been done, but I trust that Belichick made a more well thought out and informed decision than you or I can speculate on, given how little we really know about why he chose what he chose.

Really, though, this whole argument has just moved so far off topic that it no longer even has anything to do with the original hijack. Initially, you were saying that the running game stalled because Maroney isn't the right 'type' of runner, which was disproved in multiple different ways. If you've acknowledged that it wasn't because of Maroney, then the rest doesn't even matter as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RayClay]

I don't know what could have been done, but I trust that Belichick made a more well thought out and informed decision than you or I can speculate on, given how little we really know about why he chose what he chose.

Really, though, this whole argument has just moved so far off topic that it no longer even has anything to do with the original hijack. Initially, you were saying that the running game stalled because Maroney isn't the right 'type' of runner, which was disproved in multiple different ways. If you've acknowledged that it wasn't because of Maroney, then the rest doesn't even matter as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, I looked back at the San Diego game during maroney's great run and he had a ton of 2,3,4,5 yard runs mixed into one of his best games.

I actually wasn't even talking about Maroney, but in general about the relative usefulness of a north south runner to a home run hitter.

I should know better, especially in a thread involving maroney, that people would be like rabid dogs. I did mention Maroney, but stopped and tried to have a hypothetical discussion, you can check.

Anyway, I think Maroney is all pro caliber if he runs like he did in the San Diego game, leave it at that. He's had a lot of injuries, I'm not down on him. I just think BJ can be a decent utility runner. He's young and could team with Maroney, or back up like a Patrick Pass. No room for him this year, but they can juggle for a kid with the right attitude.

Attitude is the key too, because all these available backs that are always around as good as him, never seem to work out for much when we need one, and we've had awful RB injury situations. I like to see a kid force his way onto a roster when there's no real need. that's what preseason is all about for me.

 

[Ring 6]

It's all just circular arguments. Without any major additions, the line is all of a sudden the greatest line of all time for one year, forget about what effect Brady and Co. had on the defense.

No, it's all isolated, best pass protecting line ever, except for one game where they totally sucked.

Yup, hard to argue with that logic, statistics explains it all.

Well, whats the point of discussion if you are going to make up what I said.
I didnt call them the best line ever.
I said they were the best pass blocking line in the NFL that season, and the numbers support that.
I also said that they were manhandled in the SB, and the film supports that.

 

[Ring 6]

There's really no point to this. I said at the time we should run when we weren't scoring as we hoped in the third quarter.

You think we should have passed until we lost because it was inevitable.

Fine. We do not have the best pass protecting line, it was never built or paid for like the best pass protection line, we knew the Giants 4 man rush was the best.

I think a change in strategy in the second half would have had many benefits. You are just going to say everything I say is wrong. We're not replaying the game and I really don't need the typing practice.

Again you are making up what I said.
Where did I say we should have passed until we lost because it was inevitable?
I said:
Their DL was dominating our OL.
They were doing so whether we ran or passed.
Given that, I agree with an approach that says go with your strength in that scenario.
I see no evidence that running more would have changed the outcome, becuase we werent running EFFECTIVELY. As it was we stayed in the game, and took the lead with 2 minutes to go. If any of the numerous intereceptions Manning tried to throw were held onto the strategy would have been a success.
I think you are trying to make this Madden or StratOMatic and think that we would have gained some edge by trickery in play calling.
I agree that there are situations where you can take advantage of strengths and weaknesses, and set things up through play sequence. Its a tenant of NFL offensive strategy.
However, that was not the problem in that particular game. The problem was our blockers were doing a bad job of blocking. Play calling cant fix that.
Whatever the reason, thats the fact.
You seem to equate throwing when they were doing a good job rushing the passer as giving up and stupid, but running when they were stuffing the run as trying to win and ingenious.
The only reason you have any argument to make is that you are simply arguing that what happened wasn't good, so something else had to be better, and thats an awful argument.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, I looked back at the San Diego game during maroney's great run and he had a ton of 2,3,4,5 yard runs mixed into one of his best games.

I actually wasn't even talking about Maroney, but in general about the relative usefulness of a north south runner to a home run hitter.

I should know better, especially in a thread involving maroney, that people would be like rabid dogs. I did mention Maroney, but stopped and tried to have a hypothetical discussion, you can check.

Anyway, I think Maroney is all pro caliber if he runs like he did in the San Diego game, leave it at that. He's had a lot of injuries, I'm not down on him. I just think BJ can be a decent utility runner. He's young and could team with Maroney, or back up like a Patrick Pass. No room for him this year, but they can juggle for a kid with the right attitude.

Attitude is the key too, because all these available backs that are always around as good as him, never seem to work out for much when we need one, and we've had awful RB injury situations. I like to see a kid force his way onto a roster when there's no real need. that's what preseason is all about for me.

Actually that is not true about the SD game, really.
He ran 25 for 122.
6 of those went for 78, leaving 19-44.
He had 9 runs of 2-5 yards, but 5 of them were on the last drive that ran out the clock when the game was over.
Before that last drive he had 18 rushes for 85 yards.
5 of them went for 66 yards.
4 of them were 2 to 5 yards.
9 of them were other.

Your reference to this game was supposedly an example of "See Maroney played like I want and we won" but in fact he played like you say is his problem.
Very ironic that you choose a game where he exhibited the weakness you disdain as your proof of why the opposite is good.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Actually, I looked back at the San Diego game during maroney's great run and he had a ton of 2,3,4,5 yard runs mixed into one of his best games.

All running backs, including Maroney, have an awful lot of those.

I actually wasn't even talking about Maroney, but in general about the relative usefulness of a north south runner to a home run hitter.

And that's a valid and worthwhile discussion. Home run hitters tend to be characterized by sub-50% success rates, and I agree that those guys don't do your offense any favors. They're just as likely to kill a drive as they are to move the chains, and that's obviously not what you want your ground game to do.

The disconnect between us, clearly, is that you think that Maroney falls into that group. I used to think the same thing, but I can clearly, objectively, and with 100% certainty (with a mountain of supporting evidence) tell you that he does not fall into that category. Maroney, in fact, is--when healthy--one of the best RBs in the league at 'hitting for average' (dunno what else to call it, so might as well stick with the baseball analogies'.

In fact, Football Outsiders abbreviates success rate as RBBA, for running back batting average, because that's what it is. In general, they've found that running backs with over 100 carries have success rates that almost always fall between 36% (the absolute worst) and 60% (the absolute best), so if you want to keep up with the baseball reference you can subtract .200 off of a RB's success rate to get his 'batting average'.

In 2007, Maroney had a 58% success rate: a .380 batting average, and it was the best in the entire NFL. Brandon Jacobs came in right behind him at .370. Fred Taylor (and this was in a really good year for him) hit .250, which was about league-average, before falling to an abysmal .210 in 2008. Morris 'hit' .290.

So yeah, in the hypothetical, I absolutely agree with you- you want some 'home run' potential in your running backs, which Maroney has, but you absolutely need a 'singles hitter' too. The point where we differ, I guess, is in that Maroney not only is a singles hitter, but he's one of the better (or even best) ones in the NFL.

Anyway, I think Maroney is all pro caliber if he runs like he did in the San Diego game, leave it at that. He's had a lot of injuries, I'm not down on him. I just think BJ can be a decent utility runner. He's young and could team with Maroney, or back up like a Patrick Pass. No room for him this year, but they can juggle for a kid with the right attitude.

Attitude is the key too, because all these available backs that are always around as good as him, never seem to work out for much when we need one, and we've had awful RB injury situations. I like to see a kid force his way onto a roster when there's no real need. that's what preseason is all about for me.

I think we've found some common ground on this one. I agree that someone like BJGE is an asset, but I look at the guys on the bubble, and the question, to me, becomes which of these guys do you take: Ninkovich, Crable, Alexander, BJGE, Ventrone, McGowan, etc. Realistically, of that group that I just named, it's unlikely that more than one of them will make the team. Maybe two. As much as I like BJGE, I'd rather see someone like Ninkovich (who has showed some versatility at areas of need, and some real talent off the edge) or McGowan (who I think can be our primary backup safety while Chung learns the ropes).

It has less to do with not liking BJGE, and more to do with simply valuing some other guys higher. Namely guys who don't play the most easily replaceable position in the NFL (which RB has been statistically shown to be), and who can step in and contribute right away, with or without injuries.

 

[Ring 6]

All running backs, including Maroney, have an awful lot of those.



And that's a valid and worthwhile discussion. Home run hitters tend to be characterized by sub-50% success rates, and I agree that those guys don't do your offense any favors. They're just as likely to kill a drive as they are to move the chains, and that's obviously not what you want your ground game to do.

The disconnect between us, clearly, is that you think that Maroney falls into that group. I used to think the same thing, but I can clearly, objectively, and with 100% certainty (with a mountain of supporting evidence) tell you that he does not fall into that category. Maroney, in fact, is--when healthy--one of the best RBs in the league at 'hitting for average' (dunno what else to call it, so might as well stick with the baseball analogies'.

In fact, Football Outsiders abbreviates success rate as RBBA, for running back batting average, because that's what it is. In general, they've found that running backs with over 100 carries have success rates that almost always fall between 36% (the absolute worst) and 60% (the absolute best), so if you want to keep up with the baseball reference you can subtract .200 off of a RB's success rate to get his 'batting average'.

In 2007, Maroney had a 58% success rate: a .380 batting average, and it was the best in the entire NFL. Brandon Jacobs came in right behind him at .370. Fred Taylor (and this was in a really good year for him) hit .250, which was about league-average, before falling to an abysmal .210 in 2008. Morris 'hit' .290.

So yeah, in the hypothetical, I absolutely agree with you- you want some 'home run' potential in your running backs, which Maroney has, but you absolutely need a 'singles hitter' too. The point where we differ, I guess, is in that Maroney not only is a singles hitter, but he's one of the better (or even best) ones in the NFL.

I should know better, especially in a thread involving maroney, that people would be like rabid dogs. I did mention Maroney, but stopped and tried to have a hypothetical discussion, you can check.

Anyway, I think Maroney is all pro caliber if he runs like he did in the San Diego game, leave it at that. He's had a lot of injuries, I'm not down on him. I just think BJ can be a decent utility runner. He's young and could team with Maroney, or back up like a Patrick Pass. No room for him this year, but they can juggle for a kid with the right attitude.

Attitude is the key too, because all these available backs that are always around as good as him, never seem to work out for much when we need one, and we've had awful RB injury situations. I like to see a kid force his way onto a roster when there's no real need. that's what preseason is all about for me.

[/quote]

IMO, the entire issue eminates from the fact that when there is nowhere to run, Maroney tries to look for another place to run (and usually is unsuccessful) while another back will stick his head into the pile.
Fans see the other guy as having nowhere to run, and Maroney as refusing to run to the hole (because when you watch that play on TV you don't see the hole didnt exist). So you get the exact same result. In one case you can see the line didn't open a hole, in the other you never notice because the RB abandons the hole that isnt there.
People seem to think this description means they are trying to blame Maroney, which is just not true.
Ironically, when you have the head banging RB, mostly you get complaints that the OC has no imagination and just stubbornly run up the middle when there is nowhere to run.

 

[BradyFTW!]

IMO, the entire issue eminates from the fact that when there is nowhere to run, Maroney tries to look for another place to run (and usually is unsuccessful) while another back will stick his head into the pile.
Fans see the other guy as having nowhere to run, and Maroney as refusing to run to the hole (because when you watch that play on TV you don't see the hole didnt exist). So you get the exact same result. In one case you can see the line didn't open a hole, in the other you never notice because the RB abandons the hole that isnt there.
People seem to think this description means they are trying to blame Maroney, which is just not true.
Ironically, when you have the head banging RB, mostly you get complaints that the OC has no imagination and just stubbornly run up the middle when there is nowhere to run.

Yeah, and that's why I like stats like success rate. Plowing straight ahead for 3 yards on second and ten is a failure of a play. It's slightly better than getting stopped for no gain, but realistically it's the same: you've failed, and now the opposition knows that you pretty much have to pass. Every coach in the league would rather the RB waited patiently for the hole to developed, and, if no hole developed, he'd want his RB to take it outside and try to get around the edge and get 5+. The guy who runs straight ahead for 3 yards doesn't deserve any more credit than the guy who gets stopped for no gain trying to make something happen, and in fact probably deserves *less* credit.

Success rate, at least, doesn't penalize the RB in the second scenario, since the play is considered a fail either way.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, and that's why I like stats like success rate. Plowing straight ahead for 3 yards on second and ten is a failure of a play. It's slightly better than getting stopped for no gain, but realistically it's the same: you've failed, and now the opposition knows that you pretty much have to pass. Every coach in the league would rather the RB waited patiently for the hole to developed, and, if no hole developed, he'd want his RB to take it outside and try to get around the edge and get 5+. The guy who runs straight ahead for 3 yards doesn't deserve any more credit than the guy who gets stopped for no gain trying to make something happen, and in fact probably deserves *less* credit.

Success rate, at least, doesn't penalize the RB in the second scenario, since the play is considered a fail either way.

You are also assuming that Maroney 0 while PlowGuy gets 3, but that isnt really the case either.
The result ends up pretty much the same no gain only PlowGuy didn't have blocking, Maroney danced, and the defense got him.
When there is a hole both players hit it.
When there isnt, and none opens both players gain nothing.
When there isnt and one opens, Maroney gets to the hole he was patient enough to wait for Plow Guy gains nothing.

That is the irony. The reason Maroneys #s are better is the exact part of his game he gets criticized for. The best RBs in the NFL have a 40% fail ratio, and the average is 50+.
Maroney turns nothing into something sometimes, but the times there are nothing, he danced, as if that caused the blocking to not be there.