Patriots offense: Pass-run ratio

[supafly]

I think we had a thread a couple/few weeks back on this topic, and I looked at the passing/running ratio for the 2011 Pats. It was actually better than I had originally expected, as it was 60/40 pass (at the time, 2-3 games ago).

In comparison the 2010 Patriot team had a ratio of 55/45 passing last yr, which obviously proved better balance on the 2010 squad. The telling number from last yr however, was the overall effectiveness of the RB's, and that has not been duplicated with as much success this season.

I think most of us expected a bit of a shift towards the run in the last few games down the stretch, that would have put this yr's ratio at around 58/42, or maybe even 57/43.

When you consider that our biggest weapons are in the passing game, I really have no problem with that kind of ratio, and I think many/most of us would expect numbers in that range.

I think as we discussed previously, the problem was the overall effectiveness of the run. The problem is that Woodhead was averaging approx. 39.1 yds a game for us last yr, whereas this yr he is only contributing about 24.7 yds a game. The same goes for BJGE, who was contributing 63 yds a game last yr, and now is only contributing 43 yds a game. Between those 2 players, we are down 35 yards a game.

The positive is that Ridley is contributing approx. 25.7 yds per game, and he is taking the place of some of that missing yardage that we saw from last yr.

With the hopeful emergence of Ridley, combined with the good YPC average of the Woodhead scampers, we could be in better shape this yr, come post-season time.

I think that Ridley has earned himself some added reps, even in a playoff scenario, and by holding onto the ball has gained some trust with the coaches and teammates.

Here's hoping that Ridley can continue to execute effectively, and that Woodhead continues to gain his 4.6 YPC average.

 

[supafly]

With all due respect, he did. We did not put together a sustained drive until the 2nd half and that was only because BJGE was in there. BJGE had a 4.8 YPC average yet only got 9 snaps the entire game. Woody got 14 snaps and managed to eke out a 3.3 YPC

Even a grade school kid can identify when a defense plays quarter coverage with only 3 DE's on the line. Why throw against this? Especially when you have 6 man protection leaving you only 4 receivers each of which can literally be doubled up in the Jets backfield (8 DBs).

I think the problem (just my opinion of course) was that they were already too far behind at the half.

They may have panicked, and could not stick to their gameplan as much.

IIRC, the Chung botched punt attempt really turned the game around, as it took the score from a potential 7-3 game at the half, to a 14-3 game. That of course, gave all of the momentum to the Jets, and they were already pumped up plenty.

When we cut the lead to 14-11 with a successful 2 pt conversion, it seemed as though there was a renewed sense of hope, and that the momentum may have shifted our way. I believe the runs were being called more at that time.

The defense promptly allowed the NYJ team to gain a huge 65 yard RAC, and that enabled them to score another TD that was pretty much the nail in the coffin, as they went up 21-11, and took back all of the momentum that we may have gained.

It should be noted that the defense allowed 4 TD's in 5 red area trips, and did not come up with a single sack or a single turnover. They also could not make a stop when we needed to, even when the offense pulled close within reach.

I distinctly remember Bill O'Brien calling a lot of run plays later in the game with the offense desperately needing to score. But it was too late, and even Belichick could be seen saying "throw the ball..."

It was probably just one of those games where they couldn't remain close enough, and had to throw too much to try and come back quickly. At least that's what I would imagine anyway.

 

[Ring 6]

No, it is not the result of the success of the passing offense. Being pass-heavy and one dimensional has gotten this team nowhere when it counts the most.

This is a pass first team, and it has been tremendously successful offensively. I'm not sure what you mean here.

What constitutes success is mixing up the game plan and keeping the defense honest.

I recognize that is your opinion and has been for a long time. Simply stating it does not make it correct however.
There is no question that balance is advantageous. There is also no question that doing what you do best is advantageous too. This team passes better than it runs, and has for quite some time.

Of course we've gone pass heavy the past few years and while that gets the team by in the regular season, it's done ZIP for us in the postseason, those same few years.

That is a lame argument that is totally unsupported. Because the team lost in the playoffs the last 2 years, you use whatever you want to complain about as the reason. Its silly.

The Jets were practically begging us to run last postseason by being in the nickel, dime, and even quarter, and we didn't because BOB choked. They instituted this same defense plan in game #1 this year and we finally rode roughshod all over them.

Brady completed 29 of 45 (64%) for 299 yards. What would make you think we would have moved the ball better than that by running, other than your opinion that you like us running? Our RBs ran 23 times for 89 yards. How is that impressive? How does more of that get a better result?
The Patriots had 26 first downs. Do you realize how big a number 26 1st downs is? And 372 yards of offense. An average game by the defense would have easily resulted in a win. But your answer is the OC 'choked' because he didn't take the ball out of Tom Bradys hands and run it more than 28 times while his RBs were getting 3.8 a carry?

Am I saying we should go run heavy? No, I'm saying we should just mix in enough runs and play actions to keep from being one-dimensional. I guarantee you our biggest success (and gains) has come from the play-action.

That is exactly what we do. We run the ball 40% of the time.
If this is your true stance, what are you arguing about?