I hope Mcdaniels sticks with the Run against the Texans

[PP2]

Of course I am, if by "balanced offense" you mean some predetermined percentage of snaps hovering somewhere near 50/50.

By "balanced offense" I mean throwing in a healthy amount of runs, that compliment the pass offense so as to:

1) Keep the defense honest.
2) Preserve Brady from too much wear and tear.
3) Add an entire dimension to our offense that makes it even more unpredictable.

But you're trying to shift the discussion again.

Causation v. correlation

That's where you've gone off the rails, time and again.

I've used numbers to show that there indeed is a relationship between the pass/run ratio and how well we've done, especially in the playoffs, and you are completely ignoring that.

 

[Deus Irae]

By "balanced offense" I mean throwing in a healthy amount of runs, that compliment the pass offense so as to:

1) Keep the defense honest.
2) Preserve Brady from too much wear and tear.
3) Add an entire dimension to our offense that makes it even more unpredictable.

But that's not what you're been arguing, at all.

I've used numbers to show that there indeed is a relationship between the pass/run ratio and how well we've done, especially in the playoffs, and you are completely ignoring that.

You've used numbers to try showing something. It's completely failed to show what you're attempting to show. I've given clear examples of precisely that. You're the one ignoring clear factual data.

 

[lamafist]

So you are disagreeing that a balanced offense is the best approach to winning?

The numbers disagree. They show that a) running attempts earlier in the game do not correlate with winning, b) that in all but short-yardage situations, an optimal run-pass ratio is close to 66% pass, 33% run, and c) that being able to run well doesn't correlate particularly strongly to winning, while being able to pass well correlates incredibly strongly.

 

[PP2]

But that's not what you're been arguing, at all.

What I am showing you is that the numbers and the theory of a balanced offense support each other. You will agree that having a balanced offense does not hurt, and gives the offense another threat, in addition to preserving Brady (and lengthening his career) do you not?

And again, the numbers presented by Ponyexpress and the numbers I presented re: playoffs W-L support that.

You're the one ignoring clear factual data.

How can this not be clear factual data:

2007 superbowl: loss

pass: 48
run: 16

2009 wild card: loss

pass: 42
run:18

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

 

[Kontradiction]

The numbers disagree. They show that a) running attempts earlier in the game do not correlate with winning, b) that in all but short-yardage situations, an optimal run-pass ratio is close to 66% pass, 33% run, and c) that being able to run well doesn't correlate particularly strongly to winning, while being able to pass well correlates incredibly strongly.

That percentage is about what I would expect/hope to see with the GOAT lining up at quarterback.

 

[Deus Irae]

What I am showing you is that the numbers and the theory of a balanced offense support each other.

No, that's not what you're showing, at all, which is what we've all been telling you. What the numbers show is that there is some level of correlation. That's it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody here has been arguing that there's absolutely no correlation.

You will agree that having a balanced offense does not hurt, and gives the offense another threat, in addition to preserving Brady (and lengthening his career) do you not?

Of course I won't agree with that. Without a definition of "balance" that doesn't involve the very thing you're insisting it must, "balance" is an outmoded concept.

And again, the numbers presented by Ponyexpress and the numbers I presented re: playoffs W-L support that.

And, again, those numbers are meaningless.

How can this not be clear factual data:

Because it completely ignores context which is essential to the discussion and the determination of whether the numbers mean anything. Again, the Denver playoff game, when looked at in the context of this discussion, suffices to completely destroy your argument, as does the Ravens playoff game, etc...

 

[PP2]

The numbers disagree. They show that a) running attempts earlier in the game do not correlate with winning, b) that in all but short-yardage situations, an optimal run-pass ratio is close to 66% pass, 33% run, and c) that being able to run well doesn't correlate particularly strongly to winning, while being able to pass well correlates incredibly strongly.

I don't see what "running earlier" or "late" has anything to do with my balanced offense philosophy.

If being able to pass well correlates strongly to winning, then why didn't we win in the superbowls since the passing rate was amongst the highest, with 48 in 2007, and 41 in 2011?

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

From a quick look at Brady's gamelog it looks like he actually stays pretty damned efficient until he hits about 40 passes with a pretty big fall off @46 passes.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The numbers disagree. They show that a) running attempts earlier in the game do not correlate with winning, b) that in all but short-yardage situations, an optimal run-pass ratio is close to 66% pass, 33% run, and c) that being able to run well doesn't correlate particularly strongly to winning, while being able to pass well correlates incredibly strongly.

My primary concern, and the numbers do seem to back it up, is eventually you switch from passing well to simply passing a lot. Brady's regular season game logs Y/A vs attempts.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't see what "running earlier" or "late" has anything to do with my balanced offense philosophy.

If being able to pass well correlates strongly to winning, then why didn't we win in the superbowls since the passing rate was amongst the highest, with 48 in 2007, and 41 in 2011?

• In the 2011 Denver playoff game, the game was essentially over at halftime. The score was 35-7, and the run/pass ratio was, barring a slight miscount, at 13:26 (33%:66%). So, in order for your "balance" argument to be valid, you would have to be positive that not evening out the run and pass in the second half would have guaranteed a loss. Are you claiming definitively that the Patriots would have lost that lead, and that game, if they hadn't evened out the run/pass ratio?
  
• In the Ravens 2009 playoff game, the Patriots threw the ball 42 times and ran it 18 times. Using your logic, the Patriots should win that game if they go 50/50, which means that the Patriots would win the game with a 30/30 run/pass split. Well, the Patriots made their 30th pass attempt on their second to last drive of the game, which began with 10:26 left in the game, while they were already trailing 33-14. Are you claiming definitively that the Patriots would definitely have come back and won that game if they'd stopped passing at that time and just run the ball on every play from that 10:26 mark until the end of the game?

If the answers to the two questions above aren't both emphatically "Yes", then even you know that your argument is wrong, and it's just a matter of you drawing the proper lessons from those examples.

 

[ATippett56]

Now, regarding the greater question about the relative correlation of passing and running to winning:
Passing=Winning

With regard to the aforementioned article:

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Yards per Rush Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 13th in rushing yards per attempt

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Yards per Pass Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 7th in passing yards per attempt

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Yards per Rush Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 8th in opponent rushing yards per attempt

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Yards per Pass Attempt on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots rank 27th in opponent passing yards per attempt

 

[PP2]

• In the 2011 Denver playoff game, the game was essentially over at halftime. The score was 35-7, and the run/pass ratio was, barring a slight miscount, at 13:26 (33%:66%). So, in order for your "balance" argument to be valid, you would have to be positive that not evening out the run and pass in the second half would have guaranteed a loss. Are you claiming definitively that the Patriots would have lost that lead, and that game, if they hadn't evened out the run/pass ratio?
  
• In the Ravens 2009 playoff game, the Patriots threw the ball 42 times and ran it 18 times. Using your logic, the Patriots should win that game if they go 50/50, which means that the Patriots would win the game with a 30/30 run/pass split. Well, the Patriots made their 30th pass attempt on their second to last drive of the game, which began with 10:26 left in the game, while they were already trailing 33-14. Are you claiming definitively that the Patriots would definitely have come back and won that game if they'd stopped passing at that time and just run the ball on every play from that 10:26 mark until the end of the game?

If the answers to the two questions above aren't both emphatically "Yes", then even you know that your argument is wrong, and it's just a matter of you drawing the proper lessons from those examples.

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).

Where did I state that the pass/run ratio must be in balance for us to win? I only stated that it gives us the best chance to win.

You argue that the Denver game "completely demolishes" my argument, but that's only one game vs. the list of playoff games I posted.

 

[ATippett56]

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Rushing Attempts per Game on TeamRankings.com

The New England Patriots offense is ranked 2nd in rushing attempts per game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Where did I state that the pass/run ratio must be in balance for us to win? I only stated that it gives us the best chance to win.

Seriously? What argument are you trying to make, then, given the simple fact that the team has only lost 8 games in 3 regular seasons while using the "unbalanced" approach? For crying out loud, when you take out Baltimore game this year, where the problem was clearly the defense's inability to do the job, you're now down to 7 losses in 3 years. Please share your formula for an NFL football team to get better than an 82% win rate over the course of 3 seasons and explain why 32 NFL teams aren't following that formula.

You argue that the Denver game "completely demolishes" my argument, but that's only one game vs. the list of playoff games I posted.

It's not just one game, considering I also point to the Ravens game coming from the losing perspective and I pointed to the Packers/Texans game as a non-Patriots example. As for the list, you haven't bothered even trying to break down one game as a counter. All you've done is toss out the final numbers.

 

[lamafist]

I don't see what "running earlier" or "late" has anything to do with my balanced offense philosophy.

Because it helps determine whether you "win because you run" or whether you "run because you're winning." The longer the game goes on, the more run/pass play-calling is determined by the score differential. If you already have a comfortable lead, you run more. If you're behind, you pass more.

If run-pass balance is actually helping cause teams to win, running should correlate with winning when play-calling is most situation-neutral, viz. the first quarter. (The 2nd quarter will be influenced by teams going pass-heavy to get a score in before the end of the half.)

The fact that running only correlates with winning in the 4th quarter is strong evidence that it is a byproduct of late-game circumstances and not that important factor in helping put the team ahead in the first place.

If being able to pass well correlates strongly to winning, then why didn't we win in the superbowls since the passing rate was amongst the highest, with 48 in 2007, and 41 in 2011?

A few reasons.

1) Just because we were passing a lot in those games doesn't mean we were passing well.

2) We passed a lot in those games because we found ourselves in situations that required passing. When you're neither running nor passing well, you find yourself facing 3rd-and-long a lot, forcing you to pass. When you don't have a comfortable lead in the 2nd half, there's no incentive to run to take time off the clock.

3) It's two games. That's an incredibly small sample size. Also, let's remember that if not for the Tyree helmet catch play in '02 or Welker dropping a pass he catches 95% of the time, we're holding those seasons up as examples of what we should be doing, not looking for what went wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't see what "running earlier" or "late" has anything to do with my balanced offense philosophy.

If being able to pass well correlates strongly to winning, then why didn't we win in the superbowls since the passing rate was amongst the highest, with 48 in 2007, and 41 in 2011?

Seriously do you not understand that pass/run ratios are influenced by the fact that when you have a lead you run and when you are behind you pass?
You seem to just want to totally ignore the fact that the pass/run ratio is a result of the score. You are saying more runs LEAD TO WIN but the reality is that more runs RESULT FROM being ahead in the game.
Therefore, when you cite that a team lost because of run/pass ratio you are ignoring that the run/pass ratio was a result of being behind. Conversely if you have a big lead and run 15 of the last 17 plays of the game, you have also distorted the run/pass ratio. You simply cannot use those as CAUSE when they have been proven over and over again to be EFFECT.
You seem to just pretend this argument isn't being made every time you see it. Are you hiding from it, or do you have a response?

 

[JoeSixPat]

With Houston 19th against the pass and 2nd against the run, I would assume that taking the ball out of Brady's hands would not be to our advantage! That being said, with Bolden back, a nice 55/45 would be nice once we get up by a few

They'll run but you'll see a lot of multiple WR sets. That's the better matchup for the Patriots against them no matter what the weather.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Stallworth out there quite a bit. How many passes might come his way is another matter.

 

[JoeSixPat]

That percentage is about what I would expect/hope to see with the GOAT lining up at quarterback.

Especially when most of the passes are low risk short passes to guys like Welker and our TEs

 

[coolguy]

Running the ball may not be the best game plan here. If the patriots can throw the ball on them with great success in the no huddle....THEN THE RATIO WON'T MATTER BECAUSE THE DEFENSE WILL GET WORN OUT!!!

However, the patriots can't start getting 3 & outs that only last 50 seconds...

 

[PP2]

Seriously? What argument are you trying to make, then, given the simple fact that the team has only lost 8 games in 3 regular seasons while using the "unbalanced" approach? For crying out loud, when you take out Baltimore game this year, where the problem was clearly the defense's inability to do the job, you're now down to 7 losses in 3 years. Please share your formula for an NFL football team to get better than an 82% win rate over the course of 3 seasons and explain why 32 NFL teams aren't following that formula.

Who cares about 8 losses over the last 3 years? My view of it is that you don't get far with an one-dimensional offense, and the number of Lombardi's we've taken home lately shows that clearly.

As Bill Parcell says, you don't get anywhere without the ability to win in more than one way.

I have demonstrated, using ALL the playoff games since 2007 just how far one dimensional offense takes us. You have zeroed on one game, and even then, that one game is a statistical abnormality because it was a blowout.