I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[PP2]

Your question is meaningless, because it ignores context, which is the whole point. Balance achieved because a team ran 15 consecutive times at the end of a 45-3 win is not the "balance" that you are calling for. It's meaningless.

In order for "balance" to be of any import, it's got to happen with the team is fighting tooth and nail for the win. Go back and look at the Patriots losses in the past 3 years. Find the ones you think are definitely a result of a run/pass ratio problem.

2010 losses to:
Jets
Browns

2011 losses to:
Bills
Steelers
Giants

2012 losses to:
Cardinals
Ravens
Seahawks

I'm going to look at an even bigger picture than that, the following analysis is courtesy of Ponyexpress. What he did here was sort out the data by pass/run ratio, and then examined the W-L record and the results are not surprising:

Patriots offense: Pass-run ratio analysis
Data (in descending order of pass %)
Score Pass % Y/rush (non QB)
17-25 74% 3.6
38-24 69% 4.9
20-24 67% 4.4
34-27 65% 4.4
31-34 63% 4.1
35-21 62% 4
20-16 62% 4
31-24 61% 3.1
27-24 60% 4.6
37-16 58% 2.3
31-19 50% 6.3
30-21 49% 4.4
38-20 49% 2.9
41-23 49% 4.6
34-3 44% 4.5

Note: I define a balanced attack as a pass% < 60%.

Observation:When Patriots have pass % less than 60%, they are 6-0 with average score of 35-16.5
When Pats have pass % greater than 60%, they are 6-3 with average score of 28-23

Causal relationships.
I. It is assumed that the reason the Pats offense is a TD a game better when committing to the run is because (i)the pats tend to favor the run over the pass when leading by a large margin (defined here as two scores) and (ii) In close games the run game was stuffed, and the Pats had to pass to win.

Counterargument: The Past did not favor the run over the pass when leading by a two scores vs Miami in week 1, vs SD in week 2 , vs Buffalo in week 3 (ahead 21-0), vs Indy in week 9. Therefore the run pass ratio is not a clear consequence of having or not having a large lead. In those instances the coaching staff preferred to pass, even when the run game was effective (over 4 yards per non-QB carry in each of those games except Indy).
A stuffed run game here is defined as less than 4 yards per attempt. In 7 of the 9 games in which the pass ratio exceeded 60%, the non-QB rush yards per attempt also exceeded 4. In 5 of the 7 games decided by 1 score or less, the yards per attempt exceeded 4. The only exceptions were Pittsburgh (3.6) and Indy (3.1). I actually believe 3.6 is a respectable YPA vs Pittsburgh, but the running game was not in the game plan (74% pass). Therefore the Pats decision not to run was not a result of the run game being ineffective. It was a strategic choice by the coaching staff.

II. It is assumed that the pats defense performs a TD better in games when the offense commits to the run because in games where the defense performs well, the Pats tend to have a big lead and the offense runs out the clock.

Counterargument: See previous counterargument. Pats are at least as likely to pass as run with two score leads.

Conclusion:When the Pats staff commits to a balanced attack, here defined as less than 60 % passing, the entire team, both offense and defense, seems to perform better. The offense scores a TD per game more and the defense allows a TD per game less than when the pass % exceeds 60 %.
Some assume that pass % declines when the Pats have a big lead, but this is not a trend. the Pats have often shown a preference for passing while holding leads of 2+ scores. This decision to pass when leading by 2+ scores may contribute to worse performance on the defensive side of the ball. This may be because passing with a big lead increases the number of plays available to the opposition, giving them more opportunities to score and come back. Maintaining a balanced offense with a 2+ score lead tends to limit the offensive opportunities of the opposition, helping the defense. That is complimentary football.
When the Pats are in close games, they tend to abandon a balanced attack, even when the run game is working, in favor of the heavy passing attack. I do not understand this strategic decision by the coaching staff. This makes the offense predictable.

IMO If the Pats commit to a balanced offensive game plan in the postseason, even in close games, they have a much better chance to win the SB. It will also help protect a vulnerable defense.

 

[PP2]

Why would that question matter?
Everyone accepts that more runs and more wins go together.
The debate is which is cause and which is effect.
To think you prove causation by saying runs are higher in wins, is to not understand the discussion.
The point being made, that you are trying to refute is:
We run more because we are winning, not we win more because we are running.

No, not everyone accepts that logic, especially your logic which works well in a vacuum, and I suspect that's where you live as well.

In the real world it doesn't work, especially when Brady is having a bad game, or the D has chosen to quarter out the backfield. You don't keep throwing when Brady is having an off-day, or if the defense is choosing to disrespect the run.

You want to have more than one weapon. It's very common sense that the more threats you have, the more chances of winning you have. Bill Parcells was fond of saying that you don't get to the superbowl without being able to win in more than one way.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Texans rank 2nd in YPG, but that is mainly because other teams don't run against them - they rank 1st in least rushing attempts at 257 (21.4 attempts/game). They are tied with 5 teams for 10th in YPC at 4.1, which is more than the Pats allow (3.9 YPC), so it doesn't seem that they can't be run against.

What is more interesting is that the Texans and the 49ers have allowed the fewest rushing touchdowns in the NFL - 2 for the Texans, and 3 for the 49ers - while the Pats lead the NFL with 19 rushing touchdowns.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm going to look at an even bigger picture than that, the following analysis is courtesy of Ponyexpress. What he did here was sort out the data by pass/run ratio, and then examined the W-L record and the results are not surprising:

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before you and the rest of the "balance" people will get it: The ratio is irrelevant if you don't have the context of what was happening in the game. I've demonstrated that in this thread with examples of multiple games.

Now, I'll ask again. Of the 8 regular season losses the Patriots have suffered in the past 2+ seasons, which were lost because of run/pass ratio?

 

[PP2]

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before you and the rest of the "balance" people will get it: The ratio is irrelevant if you don't have the context of what was happening in the game. I've demonstrated that in this thread with examples of multiple games.

Now, I'll ask again. Of the 8 regular season losses the Patriots have suffered in the past 2+ seasons, which were lost because of run/pass ratio?

Do you realize that the games data that Ponyexpress analyzed, he did so only by pass/run ratio, and then examined the corresponding W-L record? That in itself is very telling, coupled with the basic 5th grade logic that you have a better chance of winning if you can win in more than one way (e.g., other than being an one-dimensional offense).

I'll turn your question on it's head and ask you, how many playoffs game did we lose as a result of a disproportionate pass/run ratio, since we implemented the spread offense in 2007?

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you realize that the games data that Ponyexpress analyzed, he did so only by pass/run ratio, and then examined the corresponding W-L record? That in itself is very telling, coupled with the basic 5th grade logic that you have a better chance of winning if you can win in more than one way (e.g., other than being an one-dimensional offense).

It's not telling, at all. It's completely meaningless precisely [highlight]because[/highlight] he only used the run/pass ratio. That's the whole point.

I'll turn your question on it's head and ask you, how many playoffs game did we lose as a result of a disproportionate pass/run ratio, since we implemented the spread offense in 2007?

I've asked you about the regular season games. Give me that answer and we can then look at the games you claim were lost because of the ratio. There are only 8 of them to look at.

Then we can look at the playoff games. There are only 3 of those.

 

[PP2]

It's not telling, at all. It's completely meaningless precisely [highlight]because[/highlight] he only used the run/pass ratio. That's the whole point.

If it were completely meaningless, then the W-L record should be all over the place, but in fact it was not. It is a point of fact that once he organized the games by ratio, the W-L record emerged as a factor that was closely interrelated, and corresponding.

I've asked you about the regular season games. Give me that answer and we can then look at the games you claim were lost because of the ratio. There are only 8 of them to look at.

Then we can look at the playoff games. There are only 3 of those.

Did I make the claim that we lost those games because of the ratio? I don't think so.

I only argue that it has historically been proven that when the pass/run ratio is closer to each other, we stand a much better chance of winning, especially in the playoffs.

The pass/run ratio in comparison to our W-L in the playoffs is pretty glaring.

 

[Deus Irae]

If it were completely meaningless, then the W-L record should be all over the place, but in fact it was not.

This is incorrect, and it's what we've been proving to you ever since you came to this board.

It is a point of fact that once he organized the games by ratio, the W-L record emerged as a factor that was closely interrelated, and corresponding.

It's a point of fact that his data does nothing to buttress your argument, because it doesn't change the correlation to causation, which is the entire point of these discussions.

Did I make the claim that we lost those games because of the ratio? I don't think so.

I only argue that it has historically been proven that when the pass/run ratio is closer to each other, we stand a much better chance of winning, especially in the playoffs.

The pass/run ratio in comparison to our W-L in the playoffs is pretty glaring.

You completely ignore the actual games. Your entire argument is based precisely upon ignoring what actually happened in the games. There hasn't been a single regular season or playoff game, beginning with the 2007 Super Bowl (cutoff date used per your earlier post: "how many playoffs game did we lose as a result of a disproportionate pass/run ratio, since we implemented the spread offense in 2007?"), that the Patriots lost because of the run/pass ratio.

 

[ralmat55]

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before you and the rest of the "balance" people will get it: The ratio is irrelevant if you don't have the context of what was happening in the game. I've demonstrated that in this thread with examples of multiple games.

Now, I'll ask again. Of the 8 regular season losses the Patriots have suffered in the past 2+ seasons, which were lost because of run/pass ratio?

To me, offensive balance is not really a matter of balancing the numbers but rather balancing the threat in the eyes of a defense. It's not necessary to have an equal number of rushes and passes or an equal amount of yards gained from each. Instead, what is necessary is that an offense can do both well enough and often enough that the opposition defense has to be concerned about defending both components of the offense.

Against good defenses, and I think the Texans have one even with their injuries, it is essential to balance the threat the best you can to keep the defense guessing, and stop them from concentrating on just stopping the run or stopping the pass.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Against good defenses, and I think the Texans have one even with their injuries, it is essential to balance the threat the best you can to keep the defense guessing, and stop them from concentrating on just stopping the run or stopping the pass.

The Patriots and Packers have been proving this theory wrong for years. Theories are fine, but they have to survive contact with reality.

 

[PP2]

This is incorrect, and it's what we've been proving to you ever since you came to this board.

Please show me how.

It's a point of fact that his data does nothing to buttress your argument, because it doesn't change the correlation to causation, which is the entire point of these discussions.

Determining causation is largely subjective, so the next best thing we have is statistics, and the larger the sample pool, the less probability of error there is, and Ponyexpress has come up with a pretty compelling presentation.

Let's just take a sample:

Observation:When Patriots have pass % less than 60%, they are 6-0 with average score of 35-16.5 When Pats have pass % greater than 60%, they are 6-3 with average score of 28-23

How can this data be possibly skewed? The variance in the average score dispels the notion that the run comes as a result of passing success. The variance in score is not consistent, but the passing % in relation to the W-L is consistent.

Your entire argument is based precisely upon ignoring what actually happened in the games. There hasn't been a single regular season or playoff game, beginning with the 2007 Super Bowl (cutoff date used per your earlier post: "how many playoffs game did we lose as a result of a disproportionate pass/run ratio, since we implemented the spread offense in 2007?"), that the Patriots lost because of the run/pass ratio.

What actually happened in the games? Let's take the playoff games because the sample size is small:

2007 superbowl: loss

pass: 48
run: 16

2009 wild card: loss

pass: 42
run:18

(this is the one game where it can be justified that the run was abandoned in favor of the pass because Ravens were up 24-0 in the first quarter).

2010 divisional: loss

pass: 48
run: 28

2011 superbowl: loss

pass: 41
run: 19

Compare this to:

2007 wildcard (Jaguars): win

pass: 28
run: 29 (!)

2007 AFC championship (SD): win

pass:33
run: 31

2011 wildcard (Denver): win

pass: 34
run: 30

2011 AFC championship (Baltimore): win

pass: 36
run: 31

 

[Snake Eyes]

The Patriots and Packers have been proving this theory wrong for years. Theories are fine, but they have to survive contact with reality.

Exactly how have then been "proving" it wrong? Just because you succeed doing something doesnt mean it's be most effective way to do that thing. Is it possible that they would have succeeded even better and won more playoff games if they did something different?

When is it EVER a good idea to tell your opponent what you're going to do? All those famous military generals throughout history talking about 'the element of surprise' and how important it was, how silly of them

 

[Deus Irae]

Please show me how.

We've been doing it for years.

Determining causation is largely subjective, so the next best thing we have is statistics, and the larger the sample pool, the less probability of error there is, and Ponyexpress has come up with a pretty compelling presentation.

Pony's presentation is useless.

How can this data be possibly skewed? The variance in the average score dispels the notion that the run comes as a result of passing success. The variance in score is not consistent, but the passing % in relation to the W-L is consistent.

It's useless because it ignores the game factors. You are smart enough to know this, yet you choose to ignore it every time you go off *****ing about run/pass.

What actually happened in the games? Let's take the playoff games because the sample size is small:

No, let's take the regular season because that was the first thing I asked about, and let's stop with the nonsense of just looking at the final run totals. In fact, let's compromise. Let's look at all 14 losses, one at a time, and let's begin with the 2007 Super Bowl loss.

Without just throwing out final run/pass totals, and pointing to examples within the game itself, explain how
a.) run/pass ratio was a problem
b.) no other cause was the problem, or run/pass ratio was clearly the predominant issue

 

[RodThePat]

We've been doing it for years.



Pony's presentation is garbage.



It's useless because it ignores the game factors. You are smart enough to know this, yet you choose to ignore it every time you go off *****ing about run/pass.



No, let's take the regular season because that was the first thing I asked about, and let's stop with the nonsense of just looking at the final run totals. In fact, let's compromise. Let's look at all 14 losses, one at a time, and let's begin with the 2007 Super Bowl loss.

Without just throwing out final run/pass totals, and pointing to examples within the game itself, explain how
a.) run/pass ratio was the problem
b.) no other cause was the problem

Deus, let it go. This exercise is futile. Some people here will continue to cling onto numbers and not look at the context in which football games are played. Might as well argue Brady should take a knee on every down, seeing as the Patriots have a perfect record when he kneels 2+ times.

When you're ahead, you tend to run more, when you're behind you throw more. It's that simple. No need to overcomplicate things. It's not shocking in the least that the Patriots have had better results when they run the ball more, but to say that's the reason they were successful is asinine. Yeah, the Pats have a worse record when Brady has 40+ attempts. No ****, Sherlock! I wonder why that is? It's almost as if the majority of games in which he dropped back to pass more than 40 times the Pats were behind, forcing them to go to the air to catch up, and sometimes they didn't. What an alien concept!

 

[Observer]

Pass run ratio has nothing to do with winning. Much more significant factor is Offensive Line performance. If the line performs well, we can pass how we want and run how we want and we win. If the line performs poorly then we can't run and then we try to pass but can't pass either, then we lose.

 

[PP2]

We've been doing it for years.

Please illuminate me. Obviously I'm dumb.

Pony's presentation is useless.

How so?

It's useless because it ignores the game factors. You are smart enough to know this, yet you choose to ignore it every time you go off *****ing about run/pass.

Game factors are largely subjective because of the limited interpretations we have. We don't have all-22 film, we don't have the playbooks, and we certainly don't have the calls, so the next best thing we have are the numbers. The numbers are pretty consistent: when the ratio is closer to 50/50, we win, period.

No, let's take the regular season because that was the first thing I asked about, and let's stop with the nonsense of just looking at the final run totals. In fact, let's compromise. Let's look at all 14 losses, one at a time, and let's begin with the 2007 Super Bowl loss.

Without just throwing out final run/pass totals, and pointing to examples within the game itself, explain how
a.) run/pass ratio was a problem
b.) no other cause was the problem, or run/pass ratio was clearly the predominant issue

The reason I'm electing to look at the playoff samples is because playoffs are what matters, it's what you play for, during the regular season.

No matter how you want to spin it, you cannot ignore the numbers below. Are you telling me you do not see a clear, concise pattern?

2007 superbowl: loss

pass: 48
run: 16

2009 wild card: loss

pass: 42
run:18

(this is the one game where it can be justified that the run was abandoned in favor of the pass because Ravens were up 24-0 in the first quarter).

2010 divisional: loss

pass: 48
run: 28

2011 superbowl: loss

pass: 41
run: 19

Compare this to:

2007 wildcard (Jaguars): win

pass: 28
run: 29 (!)

2007 AFC championship (SD): win

pass:33
run: 31

2011 wildcard (Denver): win

pass: 34
run: 30

2011 AFC championship (Baltimore): win

pass: 36
run: 31

 

[RodThePat]

Please illuminate me. Obviously I'm dumb.



How so?



Game factors are largely subjective because of the limited interpretations we have. We don't have all-22 film, we don't have the playbooks, and we certainly don't have the calls, so the next best thing we have are the numbers. The numbers are pretty consistent: when the ratio is closer to 50/50, we win, period.



The reason I'm electing to look at the playoff samples is because playoffs are what matters, it's what you play for, during the regular season.

No matter how you want to spin it, you cannot ignore the numbers below. Are you telling me you do not see a clear, concise pattern?

2007 superbowl: loss

pass: 48
run: 16

2009 wild card: loss

pass: 42
run:18

(this is the one game where it can be justified that the run was abandoned in favor of the pass because Ravens were up 24-0 in the first quarter).

2010 divisional: loss

pass: 48
run: 28

2011 superbowl: loss

pass: 41
run: 19

Compare this to:

2007 wildcard (Jaguars): win

pass: 28
run: 29 (!)

2007 AFC championship (SD): win

pass:33
run: 31

2011 wildcard (Denver): win

pass: 34
run: 30

2011 AFC championship (Baltimore): win

pass: 36
run: 31

If you really believe there's a correlation between running the ball and winning in the playoffs, I'd wager you were yelling at them to run the football when they were behind or in a dogfight on all those losses, correct? Didn't think so.

 

[PP2]

If you really believe there's a correlation between running the ball and winning in the playoffs, I'd wager you were yelling at them to run the football when they were behind or in a dogfight on all those losses, correct? Didn't think so.

Look at the numbers, or did you flunk 5th grade math?

 

[Deus Irae]

Please illuminate me. Obviously I'm dumb.



How so?



Game factors are largely subjective because of the limited interpretations we have. We don't have all-22 film, we don't have the playbooks, and we certainly don't have the calls, so the next best thing we have are the numbers. The numbers are pretty consistent: when the ratio is closer to 50/50, we win, period.



The reason I'm electing to look at the playoff samples is because playoffs are what matters, it's what you play for, during the regular season.

No matter how you want to spin it, you cannot ignore the numbers below. Are you telling me you do not see a clear, concise pattern?

2007 superbowl: loss

pass: 48
run: 16

2009 wild card: loss

pass: 42
run:18

(this is the one game where it can be justified that the run was abandoned in favor of the pass because Ravens were up 24-0 in the first quarter).

2010 divisional: loss

pass: 48
run: 28

2011 superbowl: loss

pass: 41
run: 19

Compare this to:

2007 wildcard (Jaguars): win

pass: 28
run: 29 (!)

2007 AFC championship (SD): win

pass:33
run: 31

2011 wildcard (Denver): win

pass: 34
run: 30

2011 AFC championship (Baltimore): win

pass: 36
run: 31

Since you can't be bothered to actually look at the games, this is completely useless. Your argument is wrong. It's been demonstrably shown to be wrong, time and again, just by going to the actual play-by-play of games and showing that the numbers don't reflect the claims of the "balance!" people. I, myself, demonstrated that with 2 games in this very thread.

You can't find one single Patriots loss with Brady under center, from 2007 to the present, where the loss was because of the run/pass ratio.

No such game exists.

 

[RodThePat]

Look at the numbers, or did you flunk 5th grade math?

The american public school system must be pretty horrendous if you only learn which numbers are greater than others in 5th grade. If you think those numbers tell the whole story, and that calling a higher amount of running plays is, per se, without any contextual analysis needed, a statistically infalible way to win more football games, then I don't know what to tell you, other than you obviously don't understand the game of football all that well.

Once again, look at the win/loss ratio when the Patriots take a knee more than 2 times, it's obvious that's what we should do to win more games. More kneel downs = more wins, that's what the numbers tell us, so it should a foolproof strategy, right?