I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[Ring 6]

I don't buy the whole "balance" thing at all and am totally on DI's and AJ's side on this one.

That said, however, I prefer it when the Pats come out in formations other than stuff like a 5-wide empty backfield shotgun. I'd like them to be able to show the defense the threat of a run even if they pass it 17 times in a row out of a "mixed" formation.

I see your point, but people also fail to recognize that if you are going to throw, and especially vs a team that blitzes a lot, having 5 receivers that are immediately in the pattern adds as much or more to the likelihood of success than the slight hesitation of some of the defenders that a run could be coming.
5 wide vs 6 DBs is a better chance of success than 2WR/2RB/TE vs a base 43.
Also, it is important to recognize that 5 wide plays are almost never slow developing, so the prupose of the formation is a quick hit pass, and running it from that formation gives it the best chance to work.

 

[Ring 6]

As I said before, how does it benefit us to tip our hand to the opposing defense, telling them if the play is going to be a run or pass? How have the Pats and Packers been proving that doing so doesnt harm you?

see what i just posted

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Balance is being able to run when you must and to throw when you must. That's all it is.

It's not having a 50/50 pass/run split. If you can pass with ease, you'll pass yourself into a nice lead and then run out the clock. That won't reflect a 50/50 split sometimes, but it is balanced.

Running when you have to and passing when you have to are more important than having 50-50 run/pass splits.

50-50 just means you're working toward a stupid statistic.

Yes, you can actually win without the run if you are dominant enough. See: 2011 Patriots, a team with an unstoppable pass offense when healthy, and a mere pedestrian run offense. Packers and Giants proved you can do it - it's just easier (and less of an injury risk) to have a run game than a high flying air attack.

I can't speak for that others who favor more balance, but a good number in my mind is somewhere around 60-40 in favor of passing, at most unbalanced somewhere around 65-35 in a pass heavy approach. Enough to show that you're at least contemplating running the ball. I agree 50-50 in this offense and with Tom Brady at QB isn't very reasonable unless it's like the Buffalo game where we're running at will. I'm not sure if that's exactly what the others are expecting and I'm too lazy to read back through all the posts.

The only # I have a problem with is one like in the Seattle game where there's over 50 attempts when the offense isn't even having that much success. Regardless of our gameplan or how much the run game is struggling, I never want to see that unless we're well into the 2nd half and our offense is just scoring at will with it, which wasn't clearly the case in the Seattle game. And wasn't the case @ Miami while we were seemingly headed toward that # until the last drive.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Oh please. I don't buy this one bit. Being an one-dimensional offense has never served us well, and the numbers show that as well as the fundamental philosophy behind having a multi-threat offense.

I guess "served us well" is a relative phrase. The Patriots have many division championships and many SB appearances. I think most would agree that the Patriots have served us well for many years now.

Yet I don't disagree that it is optimal for an offense to be able to run the ball effectively and pass the ball effectively. But frequently that just isn't how it plays out during the game. If the Texans are stuffing the run in the first two series but we're getting 7 to 9 to 11 yards per pass play at a high completion rate, why would we not go to the pass more often? Why would we not make them adjust to their own weakness and, hopefully, force open a different weakness that can be exploited (maybe runs up the middle)?

Bottom line, philosophically I agree with you for team building but disagree with you when it comes to game time. I want the Patriots to win, and if that means a lot more passing than running (or vice versa) for this particular game? I'm very good with it. I'm good with any game plan, any play calling that results in a victory. And I'm largely unconcerned about how even we were in our play calling.

 

[DocHoliday]

I can't speak for that others who favor more balance, but a good number in my mind is somewhere around 60-40 in favor of passing, at most unbalanced somewhere around 65-35 in a pass heavy approach. Enough to show that you're at least contemplating running the ball. I agree 50-50 in this offense and with Tom Brady at QB isn't very reasonable unless it's like the Buffalo game where we're running at will. I'm not sure if that's exactly what the others are expecting and I'm too lazy to read back through all the posts.

The only # I have a problem with is one like in the Seattle game where there's over 50 attempts when the offense isn't even having that much success. Regardless of our gameplan or how much the run game is struggling, I never want to see that unless we're well into the 2nd half and our offense is just scoring at will with it, which wasn't clearly the case in the Seattle game. And wasn't the case @ Miami while we were seemingly headed toward that # until the last drive.

What I (and others apparently) take issue with is that people are using the split numbers at all. They are meaningless out of context.

Even a 99-1 split can be balanced if you passed the ball effectively and were able to run the ball on that one down you needed to. That's all being balanced is - being able to run the ball when you must do it. Conversely, a 30-30 split for example can be supremely unbalanced if your run attempts didn't achieve the yards and first downs necessary. To put it simply:

Balance is a capability, not a result.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

What I (and others apparently) take issue with is that people are using the split numbers at all. They are meaningless out of context.

Even a 99-1 split can be balanced if you passed the ball effectively and were able to run the ball on that one down you needed to. That's all being balanced is - being able to run the ball when you must do it. Conversely, a 30-30 split for example can be supremely unbalanced if your run attempts didn't achieve the yards and first downs necessary. To put it simply:

Balance is a capability, not a result.

Yeah the exact #'s aren't terribly important. I'm not saying we should sit there with a pencil and a calculator until we've run the ball enough to be at 40%, just in my mind something around 60-40 is enough to show defenses you are willing to run and run often, . The whole point is unpredictability for me. I think Ridley has done well enough this year that they should at least line him up behind Brady on alot of the passes rather than just coming out in spread so much.

 

[PP2]

Seriously?
Now you are simply philosophizing. Your new theory assumes that the said team is equally able to succeed with the run or pass, which is ridiculous. It further assumes that it is equally able in every game, regardless of the quality, nature and strength and weakness of the opponent D, which is even more ridiculous.
If your argument is that you would like to have an offense that is equally good at running and passing, thats a great wish, but it has nothing to do with a discussion about whether a team that inherently is not balanced in talkent and strength and weakness should mandate balance for the sake of balance. Nor does it mean, as has been your point, that balance for the sake of balance is more likely to produce a win that relying on your strength and/or attacking the opponents weakness.

My argument is that we are most potent when we bring a balanced approach to the offense, and since the record more or less reflects that (with the occasional exception) it is not being balanced just to be balanced.

Brady is Brady every week, but he is facing a different opponent, with different talent, schemes, strengths and weaknesses, so doing his job is harder or easier. None of that says that the Patriots should have a game plan of being balanced. Great idea to be able to do everything well to exploit the opponents weakness, but again that has absolutely nothing to do with being balanced in a specific game. The type of team you are describing would be run heavy vs run weak Ds and pass heavy against pass weak Ds, pretty much without fail, yet you are criticizing when exactly that happens.

Brady is not Brady every week. As great as he is, he is still human. He will have the occasional bad game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think it's pretty much a given that the other team schemes against Brady, and not the run game or play-action, which means it makes all the more sense to be balanced, and our record in the playoffs reflect that.

What? Are you telling me that you think most of or ALL of Brady's 5000+ passing yards last year were on play action? This is another case of being purposely obtuse, because you can't really believe that.
Is your argument now that run/pass ratios assisting the play action game is the key to an offense? That would mean that a poor running team should accept multiple bad play calls (and likely failed drives) in order to set up a potential play action pass?
I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to have read a stat sheet that shows the amount of runs in wins is higher, dismissed all logic and understanding that those numbers are often artificially skewed by the 4th quarter when teams are either running out the clock or playing catch up, and are now reaching and creating explanations to back up a failed conclusion.
Striving to keep the defense guessing is a wonderful thing, but it is only a small piece of an offensive philosophy, and making it your priority is only effective in certain, and somewhat rare cases.

My mistake, I meant to say nearly all of our biggest gains have come out of the play-action.

 

[PP2]

I guess "served us well" is a relative phrase. The Patriots have many division championships and many SB appearances. I think most would agree that the Patriots have served us well for many years now.

You're missing the point here. We converted to the spread offense in 2007, and have not won a superbowl ever since. That is my argument.

In the years that we won the superbowl, e.g., 2004 being the last time we did that, we ran heavily with a different offense. I don't have to tell you how much Dillon rushed for that year.

2004 superbowl (vs. eagles):

pass: 33
run: 28

That is why I maintain that the more balanced our offense is (it doesn't have to be strictly 50/50, but neither should it be 90/10) the better our record has been, and that's been a consistent result over the years.

 

[PP2]

What I (and others apparently) take issue with is that people are using the split numbers at all. They are meaningless out of context.

Even a 99-1 split can be balanced if you passed the ball effectively and were able to run the ball on that one down you needed to. That's all being balanced is - being able to run the ball when you must do it. Conversely, a 30-30 split for example can be supremely unbalanced if your run attempts didn't achieve the yards and first downs necessary. To put it simply:

Balance is a capability, not a result.

Balance is a choice.

The fact that a balanced offense results in a better W-L record just can't be overlooked. To use your example that a 30/30 ratio isn't necessarily a sign of success because the run could have failed to achieve a first down every time is to me, not looking at the big picture.

The big picture is that you won the game. Even if the run didn't succeed, it still contributed in that it may have given the defense fits to the point where passing won the game, or a big play, or a play-action. The bottom line is we still used the run game as a weapon, whether or not it succeeded.

 

[Ring 6]

You're missing the point here. We converted to the spread offense in 2007, and have not won a superbowl ever since. That is my argument.

In the years that we won the superbowl, e.g., 2004 being the last time we did that, we ran heavily with a different offense. I don't have to tell you how much Dillon rushed for that year.

2004 superbowl (vs. eagles):

pass: 33
run: 28

That is why I maintain that the more balanced our offense is (it doesn't have to be strictly 50/50, but neither should it be 90/10) the better our record has been, and that's been a consistent result over the years.

In 2007 we had possibly the best team in NFL history that made it to the SB and had one bad game which would have been a win if the D had not allowed 2 long TD drives in the 4th quarter.
In 2008 we won 11 games with a QB who hadn't started an NFL OR COLLEGE game.
In 2009 we had a decent season by most teams standards and a poor one by ours, highlighted by dysfunction in the lockerroon, defensive struggles, and the loss of one of our most vital players in the last game of the season.
In 2010 we were 14-2 and had a bad playoff game, which would have been a win if the D could have not allowed a long TD drive in the 4th quarter.
In 2011 we were 13-3 and went to the SB which we would have won if the defense didn't allow a long 4th quarter TD.

Not only are you offering an entitled to a SB attitude, but you don't even understand where to place the blame.
But please show us the style of offense that has proven more successful.

 

[Ring 6]

My argument is that we are most potent when we bring a balanced approach to the offense, and since the record more or less reflects that (with the occasional exception) it is not being balanced just to be balanced.

That is simply not consistent with the facts.
Once again when we win we END UP balanced because we build a lead then become run heavy. You are taking the end result of play calls and calling it meaningful to the win. If we throw 30 times and run 12 in the first half and built a huge lead, then run 30 and pass 12 in the second half, your approach credits balance for the win. Conversely if we pass 20 and run 20 in the first half, fall behind by 3 TDs, then throw 35 and run 5 times in the second half you blame imbalance on the loss.
Your theory is only valid if you limit it to the parts of the game that decided the outcome. Instead you are using the lazy approach of taking the statsheet, and allowing it to make you believe things that didn't happen.

Brady is not Brady every week. As great as he is, he is still human. He will have the occasional bad game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

He is still the same guy every week. Whether he has a good or bad game is about the game plan, how his teammates play and how the defense that is paid to stop him does. He doesn't just show up and play well or poorly in a vaccuum.

I think it's pretty much a given that the other team schemes against Brady, and not the run game or play-action, which means it makes all the more sense to be balanced, and our record in the playoffs reflect that.

This of course makes absolutely no sense. Its a 'given' becuase believing it helps your argument? So your argument is now that defenses ignore the run against us?
By the way a defense focussing on the pass would make play action less effective against them.
But that isn't really the point here. Regardless of how a team tries to defend you they have strengths and weakness. When you have Tom Brady it is very likely that the quality of their pass defense makes it a mismatch for us to throw. Good offense does what works, not what puts balance on a stat sheet.
Unpredictability is one not so huge factor in designing and running an offense. You have decided it is the only one, and we would fail miserably with that attitude.

My mistake, I meant to say nearly all of our biggest gains have come out of the play-action.

Yet, that is still incorrect, but if it were, why are you complaining about the balance, it would be working just fine.

 

[Thunderkyss]

In all honesty, I hope New England keeps running the ball too. If you're running it, you're not throwing it.

Points come out of the passing game.

 

[Ring 6]

Balance is a choice.

The fact that a balanced offense results in a better W-L record just can't be overlooked.

First, that 'fact' is only true if you move the goalposts to what balanced means. It wasn't long ago that what is balanced today would be considered pass happy.
Secondly, once again, balance is a result of winning, not a cause.

To use your example that a 30/30 ratio isn't necessarily a sign of success because the run could have failed to achieve a first down every time is to me, not looking at the big picture.

This is very true, and would be a good example of balance being effective.
The scenario that conflicts with your model, and the one that actually happens is when a team exploits an opponent by throwing then builds up the implication of balance while running out the clock, or the team that strives for balance fails, then gives the impression of imbalance by throwing to catch up.

The big picture is that you won the game. Even if the run didn't succeed, it still contributed in that it may have given the defense fits to the point where passing won the game, or a big play, or a play-action. The bottom line is we still used the run game as a weapon, whether or not it succeeded.

Again, using the run to set up the pass has merit. (As do many other approaches) Passing to set up a big lead and running out the clock is not, however, an example of balance.

 

[Ring 6]

In all honesty, I hope New England keeps running the ball too. If you're running it, you're not throwing it.

Points come out of the passing game.

Very true. But when you throw, you open up opportunities in the running game, which you should take advantage of. There is no doubt spending all day in 3rd and 4 is much better than spending it in 3rd and 10, but there are many ways to skin that animal, and ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of your own team as well as the opponent because you think balance is more important is foolhardy.

 

[Snake Eyes]

see what i just posted

What are you basing that conclusion on? Also, what if one didnt use the 2RB/2WR/TE set? I'm thinking that with just 1 RB in the backfield it would change what the defense has to do and keep them honest.

 

[Ring 6]

What are you basing that conclusion on? Also, what if one didnt use the 2RB/2WR/TE set? I'm thinking that with just 1 RB in the backfield it would change what the defense has to do and keep them honest.

I'm not sure what you think the gain of 'keeping them honest' is. When we spread the field and spread the defense we negate the pass rush with quick developing plays which are about all we run from there. So the advantage is what? The LBs taking a millisecond to see their read?
The advantage of 5 wides is obvious.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are referring to.

 

[Ring 6]

You're missing the point here. We converted to the spread offense in 2007, and have not won a superbowl ever since. That is my argument.

In the years that we won the superbowl, e.g., 2004 being the last time we did that, we ran heavily with a different offense. I don't have to tell you how much Dillon rushed for that year.

2004 superbowl (vs. eagles):

pass: 33
run: 28

That is why I maintain that the more balanced our offense is (it doesn't have to be strictly 50/50, but neither should it be 90/10) the better our record has been, and that's been a consistent result over the years.

You missed a sack.
And we ran 6 of the last 7 plays to kill the clock, so before offense became defense it was
pass 33
run 22
That is exactly the run/pass ratio that you say is too high and is sigingificantly higher than we have had since 2007.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I'm not sure what you think the gain of 'keeping them honest' is. When we spread the field and spread the defense we negate the pass rush with quick developing plays which are about all we run from there. So the advantage is what? The LBs taking a millisecond to see their read?
The advantage of 5 wides is obvious.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are referring to.

We negated the pass rush in SB42? If they know it's a pass they dont have to worry about the run, they can just tee off on the QB.

For years on this board I kept on hearing about how important and difficult it was to find D-lineman who could "read and react", because without that we'd be at risk for getting gashed, yet somehow it's not a big deal when we allow the defense the favor of not having to read the play as it's happening

Anyway, what is the data you based your previous assertion on?

 

[Ring 6]

We negated the pass rush in SB42? If they know it's a pass they dont have to worry about the run, they can just tee off on the QB.

In many cases they are rushing the QB regardless of how we align.
The point of 5 wides is to make all 5 players an immediate receiving threat, so that we can get the ball out before the rush gets there. Not much of the pass blocking issues in SB 42 were in 5 wides, which is what we are discussing.

For years on this board I kept on hearing about how important and difficult it was to find D-lineman who could "read and react", because without that we'd be at risk for getting gashed, yet somehow it's not a big deal when we allow the defense the favor of not having to read the play as it's happening

Huh? When you run a 2gap defense you need 2 gap run defenders. What does that have to do with this topic?
I think you are looking at this from WAY too narrow a viewpoint, which would be correct if we ran empty backfield on every play.
The point of empty backfield is to have 5 receivers immediately in the pattern. It is used to run quick developing pass plays. The negative is that you tip your hand that it is a pass, but since you are in the gun and its a quick throw, the pass rush isn't really a concern.
It is also most often used in obvious passing situations where the alignment influence on the defense respecting the run is immaterial.

Anyway, what is the data you based your previous assertion on?

One more time, what assertion or conclusion are you referring to?
I can't answer what did you mean by ________ if you don't tell me what _________ is. If you are referring to the post right before 'see what i just posted' it was simply common sense and basic football knowledge, there is nothing in it that would require data.

 

[supafly]

And we ran 6 of the last 7 plays to kill the clock, so before offense became defense it was
pass 33
run 22
That is exactly the run/pass ratio that you say is too high and is sigingificantly higher than we have had since 2007.

And that is also the exact point that some like yourself and Deus are trying to make...

The actual number of pass/run plays tend to me much different during the time when the game is in the balance, but many times the rush numbers are built up down the stretch of the clock killing time which comes later in the game (much like we saw last week vs MIA).

I think it comes down to the fact that our passing game is still and will always be our biggest weapon, therefore even those who want more balance shouldn't expect anything more than about 60/40, at least during this current positional grouping era. I don't think it was necessarily the overall lack of rushes last year, but more as to how successful we were in those rushing attempts. This season has seen more effectiveness in those rushes and situations, and that is something that was needed and could lead to great results.

The main point is that Belichick will not be afraid to exploit any and all matchups that tend to fall in our favor. Sometimes that tends to be more run heavy depending upon the matchups, but as a whole often it doesn't.

I can certainly see the points provided by those like mayoclinic and PP2 who are stating their cases too, as "balance" is great on many levels. One of the aspects that they may be slightly overlooking a bit is the fact that the numbers will tend to balance themselves out more during certain situational football, much like the example from the 2004 season's SB vs Philly that ended up being 33 plays of pass vs 28 plays of run, but was not quite as balanced when the game was necessarily on the line.