I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[PP2]

Not really. We ran on the 1st 3 plays. Then we threw on 13 of 18 to get 3 TD drives. 13/5 is not a balanced offense.
Yet, what does any of that have to do with your argument?
Here is what does:
we threw 13 of the first 21 plays.
We threw 19/30 plays in the first half and 17/24 in the 2nd half to the point we make it 35-7 and it was over.
That is a 36/18 pass to run ratio, which is MUCH higher than we have ever been in any season under BB, ie and UNBALANCED game plan.
However, since we ran the clock out and ended up 37/33 pass run, you will chalk this up as a game that balance was the reason we won, when it fact we won while being unbalanced.

First, you are leaving out the number of play-actions we did which I believe the run set up. I actually think that we were pretty balanced tonight, because we kept the defense on it's toes with a number of misdirection plays, especially that misdirection stretch play which the Texans love to run.

In other words, we were not one-dimensional tonight.

Also, again did I say it must be 50/50? No.

19 passes and 11 runs is balanced to me. I think Reiss said that the sweet spot is around 60/40.

 

[PP2]

You are kidding right?

Back ot the analogy.
Clouds and rain being present neither proves the argument that clouds cause rain or rain causes clouds.
You are arguning it does.
The facts prove which is cause and which is effect, both existing does not.

Then what did you mean by this statement:

It neither supports that winning is a product of balance or balance is a product of winning.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, not every game starts balanced. There are games where Brady just comes out throwing, and the other team just goes right to nickel or dime.

Now it seems you are beginning to understand why you are wrong.
You can't take numbers out of context and discern cause and effect.

The gamebook? Have you got a copy of that? I only have the 2004 copy.

Each games gamebook is on NFL,com

If you want to talk about common sense, then you will know very well that if a defense has to account for both the passing AND run game (which makes possible, the play-action) it will have a lot harder time stopping our offense.

Duh. Are you really saying you think anyone is arguing there is no benefit in unpredictability? Really?
The error of your analysis is you a) are arguing it is all that matters, and b) are using examples that actually support the counter argument to support yours because you are being obtuse about context.

In other words, it's better to be a multi-threat offense, than an one dimensional passing offense.

Maybe. It depends. If your running game sucks, and your passing game is great then no, you should be throwing a ton. The same goes for the defense you face and how they defend you.
I think the biggest misconception you have is that a defense is going to decide to defend you based on what plays you call. It just doesn't work that way. They will defend your strength, and allow you to use your weakness.
A mindless effort at balance for the sake of balance plays into the defenses hands. AQnd every argument you have made is for balance for the sake of balance because all you have offered is the misleading out of context play call tallies and the obstinate commentary that all that matters to play calling is unpredictability.

 

[Ring 6]

Then what did you mean by this statement:

Read what I wrote.
The mere fact that the end result of a game was a close to equal number of runs and passes, by itself neither supports one cause/effect relationship or the other.
The facts, context, sequence, play distribution when the game was close, not the final numbers skewed by the score, are what determines which is correct.

Again, to summarize:

35 runs 35 passes
You say run/pass is balanced therefore it caused the win

I say 1st half was 28/12 pass/run for the victor who led 27=0 at half, then 7/23 in the second half.
Equal pass/run coexists with a win, you stop there, I show unbalanced play calling caused the win, and the lead caused the balance.

Get it YET?

 

[PP2]

Now it seems you are beginning to understand why you are wrong.
You can't take numbers out of context and discern cause and effect.

Fat chance of that.

You are arguing that we start out balanced, and when we fall out of balance is when we lose. That may be true if we got blown out, but we haven't gotten blown out in a long time, and for the most part, our losses have been by close scores, which doesn't justify abandoning the run game as you claim it does.

A mindless effort at balance for the sake of balance plays into the defenses hands. AQnd every argument you have made is for balance for the sake of balance because all you have offered is the misleading out of context play call tallies and the obstinate commentary that all that matters to play calling is unpredictability.

A balanced offense means the full use of the passing and run game plus the play action. What better way to keep the defense off-kilter? How can that be mindless?

 

[Ring 6]

First, you are leaving out the number of play-actions we did which I believe the run set up.

YOU are the one reducing the argument to total run calls and pass calls.

I actually think that we were pretty balanced tonight, because we kept the defense on it's toes with a number of misdirection plays, especially that misdirection stretch play which the Texans love to run.

We were more pass happy this game, up until it was 35-7 than we have been over the course of any season since 2007, the evil years in your estimation. You can't just make things up. If the spread offense causes to much passing and imbalance and is bad in your opinion, you cannot take a game that is passhappy for the team that you call passhappy and then call it balanced because it worked.

We seem to have now reached the point where you define balance as whatever worked.

In other words, we were not one-dimensional tonight.

More one-dimensional than the philosophy you say sucks has ever been over a season.

Also, again did I say it must be 50/50? No.

You can't call an offense that is less than 60/40 pass unbalanced and then say 67/33 is balanced. Well you can, but you look foolish.

19 passes and 11 runs is balanced to me. I think Reiss said that the sweet spot is around 60/40.

It was 36/18. which is not 60/40
If we lost tonight with a 36/18 ratio you would be crying we should have been more balanced, and you know it.
Your argument now is Successful offense = balance, unsuccessful offense = not balance
You have jumped the shark

 

[Ring 6]

Fat chance of that.

You are arguing that we start out balanced, and when we fall out of balance is when we lose. That may be true if we got blown out, but we haven't gotten blown out in a long time, and for the most part, our losses have been by close scores, which doesn't justify abandoning the run game as you claim it does.

Why would you make things up and call them my argument instead of just reading what I say?

A balanced offense means the full use of the passing and run game plus the play action. What better way to keep the defense off-kilter? How can that be mindless?

You cannot define balance by saying the number or runs and passes, regardless of the game situation determines whether we were balanced or not, then try to use a game that is unbalanced by your own defintion to support your argument by making up a new defintion.

What you just typed says tonights game was not a balanced offense, but the final numbers make it look like one, so therefore if it went well you can use to as balance is good, and if it didn't you can use it as unbalanced is bad.

You are either purposely playing dumb or you just are incapable of understanding the concept.
In either case, I'm done.

 

[PP2]

Read what I wrote.
The mere fact that the end result of a game was a close to equal number of runs and passes, by itself neither supports one cause/effect relationship or the other.
The facts, context, sequence, play distribution when the game was close, not the final numbers skewed by the score, are what determines which is correct.

Again, to summarize:

35 runs 35 passes
You say run/pass is balanced therefore it caused the win

I say 1st half was 28/12 pass/run for the victor who led 27=0 at half, then 7/23 in the second half.
Equal pass/run coexists with a win, you stop there, I show unbalanced play calling caused the win, and the lead caused the balance.

Get it YET?

The fact is that doesn't happen every game. Each game is different, and keeping that in mind, you look at the numbers and see that there indeed is a relationship between the number of wins we have and the balance of the offense.

 

[lamafist]

Here are two (1,2) more statistical analyses of league-wide correlation between rush attempts and wins that focus on the first half of games, when teams' play-calling is not influenced by whether they're leading or trailing.

Both find that there is no significant correlation between number of rush attempts and wins in the first halves of games. Additionally, the more in-depth study determines that having an advantage in rushing yards in the first half does not significantly correlate with winning.

If pass/run balance were truly a causal factor in winning games, you'd see correlation in both halves. That's not the case. The fact that run attempts only correlates with wins in the 2nd half (and even then, really only in the 4th quarter) clearly shows that any perceived correlation between pass/run balance and winning an effect and not a cause of winning.

 

[PP2]

It was 36/18. which is not 60/40

Where is the 36/18 coming from? Tonight was 35/33.

 

[PP2]

Here are two (1,2) more statistical analyses of league-wide correlation between rush attempts and wins that focus on the first half of games, when teams' play-calling is not influenced by whether they're leading or trailing.

Both find that there is no significant correlation between number of rush attempts and wins in the first halves of games. Additionally, the more in-depth study determines that having an advantage in rushing yards in the first half does not significantly correlate with winning.

If pass/run balance were truly a causal factor in winning games, you'd see correlation in both halves. That's not the case. The fact that run attempts only correlates with wins in the 2nd half (and even then, really only in the 4th quarter) clearly shows that any perceived correlation between pass/run balance and winning an effect and not a cause of winning.

Understood but both studies did not set out to prove or disprove the notion that a balanced offense results in wins. They're asking the question of whether running the ball a lot wins more than passing.

 

[lamafist]

The fact is that doesn't happen every game. Each game is different, and keeping that in mind, you look at the numbers and see that there indeed is a relationship between the number of wins we have and the balance of the offense.

You'll also note that there is a very strong correlation between wins and the number of times Brady kneels on the ball.

So by your logic, if we want to win, we should have Brady start taking a knee more in the 1st quarter of games.

 

[lamafist]

Understood but both studies did not set out to prove or disprove the notion that a balanced offense results in wins. They're asking the question of whether running the ball a lot wins more than passing.

Yes. They do. And they find that it doesn't.

 

[Off The Grid]

LMAO at the last few pages of this!!

 

[PP2]

Yes. They do. And they find that it doesn't.

They are asking this question:

To evaluate whether controlling the running game or the passing game contributes more to winning in the NFL.

My argument is that a balanced combination of both does. No relevancy here.

 

[RodThePat]

Man, if only the Patriots had run the ball more, instead of air-raping the Texans, then maybe they could've scored 60. I was going to say this game proves my point, but if you look at the scoreboard, the Patriots had a 36/30 pass/run spread, so that's obviously why they won. They were balanced! Nevermind the fact that 11 of those runs came when they were ahead 35-7, it's all in the numbers, folks!

 

[everlong]

1st-10, NE44 12:39 Ridley rushed to the left for 4 yard gain
2nd-6, NE48 12:10 Ridley rushed to the right for 14 yard gain
1st-10, HOU38 11:41 Ridley rushed up the middle for 4 yard gain

While they didn't run a lot while the game was still on the line these three rushes to start the game did so much to set the tone. I don't believe you need to be balanced but I do believe you need the other team to respect your run game. Those runs set up those beautiful play action mis-direction play where they got the aggressive defense flowing right and Brady threw back to the left.

Everybody should stand up and applaud Josh and Donte for last night. That was an amazing game plan and what a great job for the line. JJ Watt is an amazing talent and that come from behind punch out on Woodhead was such a great hustle play but last night he drew the triple zero for the first time all year. No sacks, no pass deflections and no tackles for a loss. To use a Gruden-ism if you do neutralize that guy in that matter you're doing your job. Not to say Watt wasn't the one guy who flashed for the Texans but still that's about as good as you could hope for vs that guy.

 

[Ring 6]

Where is the 36/18 coming from? Tonight was 35/33.

36//18 before the game was out of hand. (I may have counted sacks and penalties, or could be off by 1 or 2, I counted up from play by play)
This is the exact point.
The game was decided when we were 2:1 pass to run, and you want to chalk it up as a 50/50 or just about game.
This game exactly points to the flaw in your backward method of causation.

 

[PP2]

36//18 before the game was out of hand. (I may have counted sacks and penalties, or could be off by 1 or 2, I counted up from play by play)
This is the exact point.
The game was decided when we were 2:1 pass to run, and you want to chalk it up as a 50/50 or just about game.
This game exactly points to the flaw in your backward method of causation.

So we got a pass subtracted at the end?

Again you seem to be deadlocking on the idea that I am arguing the offense must be balanced exactly 50/50. I have pointed out numerous times that that is not the case.

 

[lamafist]

So I used the Play-Finder at Pro-Football-Reference.com, and took a look at the relative pass-run ratio in the 1st half of Patriots wins and losses since 2007.

In wins, the Patriots passed on 58.9% of snaps. In losses, they passed on 59.7% of snaps. (The 00.8% difference is statistically insignificant.)

Once again, we see zero correlation between run-pass balance and our wins and losses.