"Balance" in the playoffs

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    "Balance" in the playoffs

    I looked at the postseason pass-run ratios  for the last 25 Super Bowl champions to see if these teams were all truly "balanced" throughout the playoffs.  I've defined a balanced team as one that passes on between 46% and 54% of its plays, a pass-heavy team as one that passes on 55% or more of its plays, and a run-heavy team as one that passes on 45% or less of its plays.  Here are the results--the percentages are the pass percentages through the entire postseason (all postseason games):

     

    Pass-heavy champions (6)

    Giants 2011-- 61% 

    Packers 2010 -- 56%

    Saints 2009 -- 58%

    Patriots 2003 -- 57% 

    Patriots 2001 -- 61%

    Rams 1999 -- 71%

    Balanced champions (9)

    Steelers 2008 -- 51%

    Giants 2007 -- 52%

    Colts 2006 -- 52%

    Patriots 2004 -- 47%

    49ers 1994 -- 49%

    Cowboys 1993 -- 51%

    Cowboys 1992 -- 50%

    49ers 1988 --50%

    Redskins 1987 -- 46%

    Run-heavy champions (10)

    Steelers 2005 -- 42%

    Buccaneers 2002 -- 32%

    Ravens 2000 -- 38%

    Broncos 1998 -- 45%

    Broncos 1997 -- 40%

    Packers 1996 -- 39%

    Cowboys 1995 -- 44%

    Redskins 1991 -- 40%

    Giants 1990 -- 41%

    49ers 1989 -- 43%

    Not surprising, but it's pretty clear that there has been a shift since 1999.  In the 13 seasons from 1999 through 2011, six of the winners were pass heavy, four were balanced, and three run heavy.  In the 12 sesasons from 1987 through 1998, the break down was zero pass heavy, five balanced, and seven run heavy. 

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GO47. Show GO47's posts

    Re:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I looked at the postseason pass-run ratios  for the last 25 Super Bowl champions to see if these teams were all truly "balanced" throughout the playoffs.  I've defined a balanced team as one that passes on between 46% and 54% of its plays, a pass-heavy team as one that passes on 55% or more of its plays, and a run-heavy team as one that passes on 45% or less of its plays.  Here are the results--the percentages are the pass percentages through the entire postseason (all postseason games):

     

    Pass-heavy champions (6)

    Giants 2011-- 61% 

    Packers 2012 -- 56%

    Saints 2009 -- 58%

    Patriots 2003 -- 57% 

    Patriots 2001 -- 61%

    Rams 1999 -- 71%

    Balanced champions (9)

    Steelers 2008 -- 51%

    Giants 2007 -- 52%

    Colts 2006 -- 52%

    Patriots 2004 -- 47%

    49ers 1994 -- 49%

    Cowboys 1993 -- 51%

    Cowboys 1992 -- 50%

    49ers 1988 --50%

    Redskins 1987 -- 46%

    Run-heavy champions (10)

    Steelers 2005 -- 42%

    Buccaneers 2002 -- 32%

    Ravens 2000 -- 38%

    Broncos 1998 -- 45%

    Broncos 1997 -- 40%

    Packers 1996 -- 39%

    Cowboys 1995 -- 44%

    Redskins 1991 -- 40%

    Giants 1990 -- 41%

    49ers 1989 -- 43%

    Not surprising, but it's pretty clear that there has been a shift since 1999.  In the 13 seasons from 1999 through 2011, six of the winners were pass heavy, four were balanced, and three run heavy.  In the 12 sesasons from 1987 through 1998, the break down was zero pass heavy, five balanced, and seven run heavy. 

     

     Excellent post!

    I do think that it has shifted from a balanced attack to more of the pass. The Patroits have been part of this shift that has made it more difficult for defenses to cover. Last year the NFL had excellent production from it's TEs. The new breed of TEs can't be covered by the LBs because they are too slow. The DBs can cover but most of them are too short. BB has countered this with hybrid safeties that are safeties/LBs who are big enough, fast enough, and tall enough.

    Other teams are trying to do it with 7 DBs especially covering NE's TEs. So if your defense is going to go small then BB will have his offensive run the ball. So it's very possible that we will see the trend shifting again to more balance for these reasons.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re:

    Honestly, I was surprised to see the Pats were so "unbalanced" in 2001.  I expected a fairly high pass percentage in 2003 (and a fairly low one with Dillon in 2004), but I hadn't remembered 2001 as being quite so pass focused.  You can see how Belichick changes up his game plans based on the talent he has.  That's been my argument all along--that last year's game plans had a lot to do with the particular talent the team had and that this year's game plans are different in large part because the talent is different.  I don't think BB is biased one way or the other.  His genius is his flexibility and his open mindedness to different ideas and approaches.  Unlike some here, he doesn't believe there's only one way to win games. 

     

     

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    Most teams err to the side of running more in the playoffs unless they know the pass is working well. It's a bit safer.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Most teams err to the side of running more in the playoffs unless they know the pass is working well. It's a bit safer.

    [/QUOTE]

    The trend though is definitely toward more passing (no surprise there).  Six of the last 13 Super Bowl champions were pass heavy in the playoffs, passing 55% of the time or more.  This includes both the 2001 and 2003 Patriots championship teams.  The idea that those teams won with "balance" in the playoffs doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.  And despite what Wozzy and True Champ repeatedly claim, the Giants last year passed just as much in the playoffs as they did in the regular season.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re:

    Teams pass more now, that's the way the game has evolved.  The better teams can do both. The miners made it pretty far without a passing game but in most cases you need  both. A running game with the Patriots prolific passing game makes them deadly. They will still throw more than run but they need it in there too. I really like this offense which IMO hasn't even got rolling yet. 

     

    This is our year!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Most teams err to the side of running more in the playoffs unless they know the pass is working well. It's a bit safer.

    [/QUOTE]

    The trend though is definitely toward more passing (no surprise there).  Six of the last 13 Super Bowl champions were pass heavy in the playoffs, passing 55% of the time or more.  This includes both the 2001 and 2003 Patriots championship teams.  The idea that those teams won with "balance" in the playoffs doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.  And despite what Wozzy and True Champ repeatedly claim, the Giants last year passed just as much in the playoffs as they did in the regular season.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Polian. Contact rules.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    Of course these are teams that went undefeated in the post-season. So that includes a bunch of runs that were garbage time run out the clock carries.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re:

    haha, Prolate has the 2003 Pats as a pass heavy one when despite having the worst rushing offense of any team BB has fielded in his Patriots career we ran Antowain Smith 28 times to pound an aggressive 4-3 D-line(remind anybody of the Giants?). Brady had to chuck it up in the end because our defense that you guys say we need to get back to got shelled by Delhomme. We don't win that game without Smith and his 3.5 ypc wearing down the gigantic D-line. Notice the game was scoreless for most of the st half and then went on to be the most points we scored in SB history. Must just be a coinkidink.

     

    Anyway, you guys are right and I am wrong. We don't need balance, and the way to win is to have Brady throw it 600 times a year and hope we keep Pollard type players away from him. Discussion is over. Well played gentlemen. I have seen the light!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    haha, Prolate has the 2003 Pats as a pass heavy one when despite having the worst rushing offense of any team BB has fielded in his Patriots career we ran Antowain Smith 28 times to pound an aggressive 4-3 D-line(remind anybody of the Giants?). Brady had to chuck it up in the end because our defense that you guys say we need to get back to got shelled by Delhomme. We don't win that game without Smith and his 3.5 ypc wearing down the gigantic D-line. Notice the game was scoreless for most of the st half and then went on to be the most points we scored in SB history. Must just be a coinkidink.

     

    Anyway, you guys are right and I am wrong. We don't need balance, and the way to win is to have Brady throw it 600 times a year and hope we keep Pollard type players away from him. Discussion is over. Well played gentlemen. I have seen the light!

    [/QUOTE]


    Truechamp, I have no argument with you that at Brady's age it's a good idea to keep his exposure down a bit. My argumant with you is about what acceptable balance is. My other argument with you is about running when the run just isn't working, balance be damned.

     

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You must have loved Air Coryell. Did it work?

    [/QUOTE]


    The Pats ran the ball 499 times in 2006. Did that work?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You must have loved Air Coryell. Did it work?

    [/QUOTE]


    The Pats ran the ball 499 times in 2006. Did that work?

    [/QUOTE]
    Thats 1 year thats stupid, how many years did Coryell and Fouts were together.

    [/QUOTE]


    Calling people stupid I see. Were you one of the ones b!tching so much about name calling?

     

    Has it occurred to you Air Coryell migh have had more problems than passing too much?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re:

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In the 01 Superbowl, if Ty Law didn't bring back that INT back for a TD, would they have won, with just Brady?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ahh, no. What's your point?

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re:

    Interesting.  I think the key is that you can run it when you have to.  Teams with a mediocre running attack but a good passing attack tend to have a common trait; they can get lots of first downs except when they need to get a first down.  For example, you are trying to run out the clock but can't.  I thought this way about the Pats in recent years.  Crossing my fingers this year.  I don't really care if we tend to pass more when playing teams that allow it.  I just want to know that when we are playing a team whose D has rendered Brady mediocre, we can run it down their throat.

    I'm going to use a really bad example (Maroney) to clarify my point.  In the 2007 AFC Championship game Brady played very mediocre.  He had 209 yards, 2 TD's, and 3 Ints.  Nothing to write home about.  Keep in mind that this was the 2007 team that broke all these offensive records.  Maroney stepped up in that game and ran for 122 yards.  We were all hoping that was the real Maroney.  Ever since Dillon left, we never had a running attack we could rely upon to win a game for us when Brady isn't playing well.  We haven't have a run game that could pound the rock to run out the clock.  I'd argue we'd have 2 or 3 more rings if we did.  I'll argue that if we continue to prove we can run the ball when we must, we will win it all this year.

     

Share