Re-establishing the run game

[Patspsycho]

An eye-opening tidbit by Reiss:

According to ESPN’s Stats & Information tracking, the Patriots have the NFL’s best record since 2001 when one running back has more than 20 carries in a game – at 42-1.

From:

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I am in favor of going back to the bell cow RB, and hopefully we can have one next year, whether from the draft, a big trade, or internally (however implausible it seems).

I am not really in favor of the RB by committee because no player gets enough reps to get into a rhythm.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

All that matters is a greater commitment to run, doesn't matter what the yards per carry is.

The 2003 Patriots team was a balanced offense, and that 2003 Patriots rushing offense was the worst in the league. It had the lowest yards per carry, but they still had a commitment to the run (and not always on 1st down) to avoid being predictable.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'd prefer to have that primary back as well. I was hoping it'd be Maroney, but he started fumbling and then lost the faith of the coaching staff.

Whoever it is, I'd like to see us get a proper fullback as well to help lead the way.

 

[RayClay]

Agree with both. I do think RBs can prepare to give top effort in a rotation, though the rhythm guy wearing down the defense is the model.

To me, the big thing is forcing the run down their throats at certain junctures and not stopping until you force the defense to adjust. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

All that matters is a greater commitment to run, doesn't matter what the yards per carry is.

The 2003 Patriots team was a balanced offense, and that 2003 Patriots rushing offense was the worst in the league. It had the lowest yards per carry, but they still had a commitment to the run (and not always on 1st down) to avoid being predictable.

I guess that's why they felt they had to go and get Corey Dillon the following season.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Misleading stat. The pats run when they're way ahead so that's why 20 carries means victory. It's really the other way around, victory = 20 carries.

I don't know if we have the line to consistently get yards. It would be a great idea. I don't think you can win without a good running game, long term.
I'd hate them to get another 'great runner' and have it be Maroney up the middle for a 2 yard loss again and again. That doesn't count as a running game.

On the other hand a less fragile Fred Taylor might be able to do a lot for us.

 

[jmt57]

Is that 42-1 stat due to the fact the Pats went with one back rather than a RBBC approach, or because the rest of the team was very good during those games?

Without looking it up I would imagine the vast majority of those 43 games were when either Antowain Smith or Corey Dillon was the starting RB, and while both contributed to the team's success I don't know that the team's record the past couple of years would improve all that much if one of the backs continually got a larger percentage of carries. In addition one back getting a lot of carries could be a result of playing with a lead and trying to work the clock, while fewer carries could be the result of playing from behind and therefore passing more often.


I don't disagree with the concept of running backs get into a rhythm. Perhaps a hybrid RBBC approach is the answer, especially with a couple of older guys on the roster: give one back the majority of carries one week, then essentially give him a week off by primarily going with another RB the next week. I was hoping the Pats would do something like that last year but injuries resulted in team more often simply going with whoever was healthy.

 

[Patspsycho]

Misleading stat. The pats run when they're way ahead so that's why 20 carries means victory. It's really the other way around, victory = 20 carries.

Not true, because in garbage time the 2nd or 3rd RB sees playing time. This stat concerns the starting RB.

You would not risk injury to your starting RB by playing him in garbage time.

 

[Patspsycho]

Is that 42-1 stat due to the fact the Pats went with one back rather than a RBBC approach, or because the rest of the team was very good during those games?

The stat concerns just one RB having more than 20 carries, and so we know it is the starting RB.

 

[jmt57]

The stat concerns just one RB having more than 20 carries, and so we know it is the starting RB.

Poor communication on my part. The question I was trying to ask was whether that overwhelming record was due to one RB being a better strategy than RBBC, or other factors. When the Pats had one RB often getting 20+ carries the entire team was very good. For example the defense was better when Dillon and Smith were running the ball than the defense has been the last couple of years.

 

[RayClay]

The stat concerns just one RB having more than 20 carries, and so we know it is the starting RB.

The stat lacks context, though. Having watched those teams, we know Weis was calling the plays and using the run to set up things (very doubtful the last few years).

Also, who were running backs when we didn't have Dillon and Smith with twenty plus carries? Mike Cloud, Patrick Pass, Dillon on one leg with a high ankle sprain?

You'd need a lot more statistics to sift out the "20 carries by a starter" as the only thing contributing to that stat.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

This offense has only ever needed one thing from a RB...positive yardage and ball control. This is why maroney failed.

Law Firm can get the job done at least as well as Antwain Smith did, IMHO. And that is all we really need. Yeah Dillon was great, but we can get the job done through the air this year.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I guess that's why they felt they had to go and get Corey Dillon the following season.

The 2003 Patriots won the Superbowl with the worst rushing offense in the NFL, with the lowest yards per carry.

They got Corey Dillon in 2004 because they paid very little to get a very talented player. It was a good deal. It wasn't like they broke the piggy bank and made it an absolute priority.

The original point still stands. This franchise has already proved that it can win a championship even with a horrific league-worst running game, so long as the offense stays committed to the run and keeps the defense guessing and off balance.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The stat lacks context, though. Having watched those teams, we know Weis was calling the plays and using the run to set up things (very doubtful the last few years).

Also, who were running backs when we didn't have Dillon and Smith with twenty plus carries? Mike Cloud, Patrick Pass, Dillon on one leg with a high ankle sprain?

You'd need a lot more statistics to sift out the "20 carries by a starter" as the only thing contributing to that stat.

The biggest thing for me is the lack of using the run to set up play action. It's pretty predictable now that we run a lot on 1st down in the 1st half, and end up passing a lot on 2nd and 3rd down, especially in the 2nd half.

The team has taken the immense talents of Brady, Moss, and Welker for granted.

This team could be absolutely lethal, especially with better 2nd half performances, if opposing defenses at least had to respect the run on every single down. Play action after establishing a credible run commitment would open up so much for Welker, Hernandez, and Moss.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

The 2003 Patriots won the Superbowl with the worst rushing offense in the NFL, with the lowest yards per carry.

They got Corey Dillon in 2004 because they paid very little to get a very talented player. It was a good deal. It wasn't like they broke the piggy bank and made it an absolute priority.

The original point still stands. This franchise has already proved that it can win a championship even with a horrific league-worst running game, so long as the offense stays committed to the run and keeps the defense guessing and off balance. Coupled with one of the best defenses of all time

Fixed your post for ya

 

[RayClay]

The biggest thing for me is the lack of using the run to set up play action. It's pretty predictable now that we run a lot on 1st down in the 1st half, and end up passing a lot on 2nd and 3rd down, especially in the 2nd half.

The team has taken the immense talents of Brady, Moss, and Welker for granted.

This team could be absolutely lethal, especially with better 2nd half performances, if opposing defenses at least had to respect the run on every single down. Play action after establishing a credible run commitment would open up so much for Welker, Hernandez, and Moss.

Well said. They have actually used the run, the tight ends and play action successfully, then just totally dropped it in the second half.

I'm sure other teams are aware of that pattern. It's been going on for years. Buffalo is the first game I've seen them really try to establish the run, rather than show the run. No team believes we will stick with the run long enough to hurt them, and for good reason.