Hypothetical: Running up the score vs. prudence

[DaedalusX]

So, hopefully a fun thread. I was thinking about how fast Manning is able to score when he's in the zone and Belichick's conviction that you can almost never have a lead too large to be safe in this league, and that got me wondering:

If hypothetically the Pats had managed to rack up 52 - 7 against the Colts at the half (2 full quarters left to play) and the Colts offense was fully healthy, just had not yet been in rhythm (consider: 2006 AFCCG)... would such a lead be sufficient to begin to let off the gas?

What lead at the half would be sufficient against the Colts that you would feel safe pulling Brady and putting in Hoyer?

I'll be honest, when it comes to the Colts, I don't care how out of rhythm their offense is for the first part of the game, or how much of a lead we might rack up, I NEVER want the foot off the gas. The score could be 70 - 10 at the end of the 3rd and I'd still want Brady in there slinging passes.

For my part, there are never enough nails in the coffin against certain teams, accusations of running it up be damned.

What does everyone else think?

 

[pherein]

So, hopefully a fun thread. I was thinking about how fast Manning is able to score when he's in the zone and Belichick's conviction that you can almost never have a lead too large to be safe in this league, and that got me wondering:

If hypothetically the Pats had managed to rack up 52 - 7 against the Colts at the half (2 full quarters left to play) and the Colts offense was fully healthy, just had not yet been in rhythm (consider: 2006 AFCCG)... would such a lead be sufficient to begin to let off the gas?

What lead at the half would be sufficient against the Colts that you would feel safe pulling Brady and putting in Hoyer?

I'll be honest, when it comes to the Colts, I don't care how out of rhythm their offense is for the first part of the game, or how much of a lead we might rack up, I NEVER want the foot off the gas. The score could be 70 - 10 at the end of the 3rd and I'd still want Brady in there slinging passes.

For my part, there are never enough nails in the coffin against certain teams, accusations of running it up be damned.

What does everyone else think?

I think warren sapp said it the best ,"This is the NFL, if you didn't come to play quit your whining you deserve to be humiliated."

 

[PittPatriot]

I think warren sapp said it the best ,"This is the NFL, if you didn't come to play quit your whining you deserve to be humiliated."

I agree with you and Warren, but my answer to the original poster is as follows:

I never feel safe against a Manning led team. I made that mistake in the AFCCG. I would keep Brady in the game and work the clock by keeping the ball in the middle of the field and keep mixing in the run. Having said that, I think being up by 6+ TDs at the half is a nearly impossible to lose lead. Unless you fumble every kick off or give up 70yd pass plays with routine, you are going to win that game.

 

[pherein]

I agree with you and Warren, but my answer to the original poster is as follows:

I never feel safe against a Manning led team. I made that mistake in the AFCCG. I would keep Brady in the game and work the clock by keeping the ball in the middle of the field and keep mixing in the run. Having said that, I think being up by 6+ TDs at the half is a nearly impossible to lose lead. Unless you fumble every kick off or give up 70yd pass plays with routine, you are going to win that game.

yes, you have to get your 1st string out of a inherently brutal game if the lead is so great there is no chance of the opposing team winning. You did it vs the Titans and we did it vs the giants. Its not worth the rest of the season.

 

[jmt57]

The absolute minimum of when to 'let up' is one drive after the half - and no, I am not saying that because of the Titans game.

The reasoning for that is this: whatever your team did in one half, the other could do the same in one half. Now go out and at the very least take time off the clock, or better yet add a score, and even if the opponent duplicates what your team did, they still come up short and you win.

 

[Wildo7]

I still don't know what "running up the score" means. If it simply means not calling any passing plays when running the regular offensive playbook is no longer beneficial to the team then the Pats do not run up the score and never have. If it means anything else then who cares.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

I think it is prudent to score as many points as you can. No one would be happier than me if we ran it up against the jets or Colts. What would be way better would be to shut them down, that would be the ultimate..

 

[JohnVM]

The absolute minimum of when to 'let up' is one drive after the half - and no, I am not saying that because of the Titans game.

The reasoning for that is this: whatever your team did in one half, the other could do the same in one half. Now go out and at the very least take time off the clock, or better yet add a score, and even if the opponent duplicates what your team did, they still come up short and you win.

yes. this is too true. and i'd personally like to keep the pedal to the metal a bit longer against manning.

 

[PittPatriot]

I still don't know what "running up the score" means. If it simply means not calling any passing plays when running the regular offensive playbook is no longer beneficial to the team then the Pats do not run up the score and never have. If it means anything else then who cares.

Good point. Putting in your backups and running a spread offense can constitute running it up, also. It goes beyond the players on the field.

 

[spacecrime]

If hypothetically the Pats had managed to rack up 52 - 7 against the Colts at the half (2 full quarters left to play) and the Colts offense was fully healthy, just had not yet been in rhythm (consider: 2006 AFCCG)... would such a lead be sufficient to begin to let off the gas?

So how do you propose letting off the gas?

Tell Brady to throw a lot of incompletions? Deliberately miss receivers, or maybe have the receivers told to drop balls? The Oline to not block?

Or do you instruct the defense to not flow to the ball, or if by accident they get near the ball carrier, they should not tackle him?

The only think certain about letting off the gas is you must keep the starters in the whole game. When you put in backups they are fighting for playing time or even their jobs, so they are NOT going to let off the gas.

Just curious as to what options you have in mind for the act of not trying to play well.

 

[spacecrime]

aving said that, I think being up by 6+ TDs at the half is a nearly impossible to lose lead. Unless you fumble every kick off or give up 70yd pass plays with routine, you are going to win that game.

I'm no mathematician, but saying that if you score 6 TDs in the first half is an insurmountable lead because no team can score 6 TDs in the second half seems to have a logic flaw somewhere


EDIT: JMT57 addresses this. At the very least you must play into the second half.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The absolute minimum of when to 'let up' is one drive after the half - and no, I am not saying that because of the Titans game.

The reasoning for that is this: whatever your team did in one half, the other could do the same in one half. Now go out and at the very least take time off the clock, or better yet add a score, and even if the opponent duplicates what your team did, they still come up short and you win.

Agreed. With all the adjustments that go on at halftime, you never know what will happen to start the second half. It keeps the starters in rhythm too, rather than expecting them to sit for a quarter and a bit and then come back in if required. If an opponent is on the ropes, knock them out. But if it starts to get ugly, definitely sit the guys. It's a long season.

The Colts game isn't really a great example for needing to run up the score to win. I mean, we were only up 2 possessions at the half. It seemed like a lot more because of how feeble Indy looked in the first half, but 21-6 at halftime on the road is hardly an insurmountable lead.

 

[eagle eye]

Running up the score is the way to go imo. Reason being that you terrify other teams who are more likely to play safe and try and keep the score down than try and get back in the game.

 

[jmt57]

One (flawed) argument I've heard from opposing fans is that the Pats were 'wrong' to still be passing the ball. There are multiple holes in this logic.

First, they are lumping together 40-yards passes down the field with screen passes and five-yard slants. Ask them to expand on why passing with a big lead is somehow unsportsmanlike, and eventually that they will imply that the Pats were continuously passing deep.

Second, in the Pats offense those short passes are nearly equivalent to other team's running game. If anything this is what opposing defenses have practiced the most to try to stop, and should be most prepared to defend.

Apparently the only acceptable plays are runs between the tackles to these people. But on a team with no fullback and two running backs out with injuries, doing that on every down makes no sense. The folks that like to point fingers because the Pats passed the ball would be the same ones pointing fingers at the coach's decision to run the ball if another running back got hurt.

Along the same lines, why should the offense be limited to a point where three and outs would be the only acceptable outcome? And if the point is to avoid further embarrasment, why assume that would only happen on one side of the ball? Seems to me that in the Tennessee game, it was the Titans' offense that was having the most problems and had the largest number of bad plays. Keep putting them on the field and the likelihood of another turnover just increases - as evidenced by the play that should have been a safety.

Finally, what about other teams; specifically, a team that has the best offensive line and running game in the league. If they have a huge lead and continue to do what they do best - say a power sweep - is that acceptable? If the Pats are supposed to remove quick slants and screen plays from their playbook at a certain point, shouldn't teams with a strong rushing game be expected to remove their top running play at a certain point as well?


I really believe that the vast majority of people who complained about running up the score two weeks ago didn't even watch the game.

 

[patriots pam]

...First, they are lumping together 40-yards passes down the field with screen passes and five-yard slants. Ask them to expand on why passing with a big lead is somehow unsportsmanlike, and eventually that they will imply that the Pats were continuously passing deep.

Second, in the Pats offense those short passes are nearly equivalent to other team's running game. If anything this is what opposing defenses have practiced the most to try to stop, and should be most prepared to defend.

Apparently the only acceptable plays are runs between the tackles to these people. But on a team with no fullback and two running backs out with injuries, doing that on every down makes no sense. The folks that like to point fingers because the Pats passed the ball would be the same ones pointing fingers at the coach's decision to run the ball if another running back got hurt...

And if the Pats did that (succesfully) those same people would say that the Pats should have passed the ball deep (but willy-nilly into triple coverage or something) to allow the other team opportunities for interceptions. No winning with Pats haters, you know.

And yes, I say keep the pedal to the metal against the Colts. What the Pats did was perfect in the Titans game, IMO. Once the game was essentially decided by the second half, pull the starters after the first series in the 3rd Q to avoid injuries to key players. The Colts, however, you just never know with Peyton at the helm. The Colts/Fish game this season is a good example.

EDIT: Although somehow managing to blow out the Colts that much is the stuff that only dreams are made of, unfortunately. But an awesome dream to have, at least.

 

[Patstopia]

Once a team has admitted defeat by putting in the backup QB, then it is time to start playing the backups. Until then, the best strategy would be to run the ball and eat the clock up. If you score doing this then it's on the defense for not stopping you. I think to do anything else would embarass the other team even more than the score. For instance you cannot start taking a knee with 10 minutes left in the game. That is just an insult.

 

[Fixit]

In my opinion, "running up the score" only occurs when:

1) a team runs trick plays late in the fourth with a huge lead
2) a team kicks field goals late in the fourth with a huge lead
3) a team scores when they could have taken knees to end the game

That's it. Anything else is the defense's fault.

To answer the question, we can't possibly score enough points against the Colts (keeping the above in mind), especially if we're playing in Indy.