Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Super Bowl participants annually play the most playoff games of any of the 12 postseason participants.  Of course they are going to have the most rushing attempts and touchdowns in the postseason.  They're also going to have the most pass attempts, punt returns, plays from scrimmage and cups of Gatorade drunk.

    I'm not saying your premise of balanced offense is wrong, but the above stats are wildly disingenuous.

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, let me put it another way, from 2001-2004 we played 9 games in the playoffs, we ran more than our opponent in all but one of those games (which was blowout) and won them all.

    Please explain how this is disingenuous?

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Belichick: "I don't think that statistic is that significant . . .  I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points."

    Simple, clear, concise.  The only debate now is whether we think Bill Belichick knows what he's talking about or not. He's not dissembling here, because we know the playcalling has been consistent with him not thinking number of runs matters so much.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, BB always talks strategy and approach with pure transparency to the media and doesn't hold his cards close to his vest. LOL

    You seem to think these canned, generalized answers he gives means something. They don't mean anything.

    I'd bet dollars to donuts he sits there after a crappy loss and looks at the numbers and the gamefilm and wonders why on earth Brady and McDaniels saw what they saw within the game and why the run game was completely ignored.

    Face it, this topic (the elephant in the room with Brady in postseasons) has quietly become so hot, tied to the run game and why it's been ignored for so long by Brady during games, that this is the reason this question was posed.

    BB is not going to throw any coach or any player under the bus publicly. Ever.

    He's right though when he says it's not the count, but how you show yourself as an offense, at the end of the day.

    There is no definitive recipe to this concept. But, there is no way BB is going to admit that his OC and QB tried to get too cute in one part of a game favoring a finesse shotgun spread and over-thinking the match up concept.

    It's not happening.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, what you;re saying is that BB, instead of preaching balance, running game and clock management, is trying to fool everyone by claiming he thinks that points are the most important aspect of an offense?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     




    I don't pretend to know more then BB, like you, murtl, babe, and tcal.

     

     




     

    Don't join Rusty and start lying. We have enough of that here already.

    I have been one of the very last to ever question any of BB's coaching decisions. I have never said I know better than him about how to draft either.

     

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So... err, Belichick just refuted everything that Rusty, TC, and Woz have been saying for awhile, correct?

    Is this really a point of contention?

    We have a certain group of posters who seem to think that success, specfically playoff success, depends solely upon the number of attempted rushes per game. Regardless of circumstances that may arise in a game, or other various factors... the only thing that matters is the number of attempted rushes.

    The majority of people here knew that opinion seemed faellacious... and Belichick has now confirmed this.

    Yet they won't admit they were wrong. 

    Sorry guys, but this war is over. If hearing Belichick's opinion doesn't change your mind, I don't think anything will. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It's NOT attempts per say....it's what those attempts yield. And it's hard to argue that the yield of late has not warrented more attempts....the math is so simple even a caveman can do it...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. You can have an effective run game under 4 YPC. We've seen it.

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

    See?

    We've literally lost SBs and some big games because we never established, showed we wanted to establish a run game or completely ignored even doing it in the first half of a game.

    A gimmick offnese cannot be a base offense vs a good or great D.  

    [/QUOTE]

    So, what you're saying is that it is more important to "establish the run" ie ignore the effectiveness of running the ball, than it is to score points?

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    I would also add that our smashmouth style of offense was substantially different than what we ran from 2009-2011 in the O'Brien years. 

    Stronger, more physical, time consuming, punishing... I could continue with the adjectives but it is unecessary.  Even Obie's best year in 2010 he rode LawFirm to peak efficiency only to go away from him in the playoffs...  flash forward to 2012 and the return of tightends and fullbacks, power sets and varied running plays... a better brand of football.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You seem to think these canned, generalized answers he gives means something. They don't mean anything.

    [/QUOTE]

    They only mean something when you want them to mean something, right liar?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So... err, Belichick just refuted everything that Rusty, TC, and Woz have been saying for awhile, correct?

    Is this really a point of contention?

    We have a certain group of posters who seem to think that success, specfically playoff success, depends solely upon the number of attempted rushes per game. Regardless of circumstances that may arise in a game, or other various factors... the only thing that matters is the number of attempted rushes.

    The majority of people here knew that opinion seemed faellacious... and Belichick has now confirmed this.

    Yet they won't admit they were wrong. 

    Sorry guys, but this war is over. If hearing Belichick's opinion doesn't change your mind, I don't think anything will. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It's NOT attempts per say....it's what those attempts yield. And it's hard to argue that the yield of late has not warrented more attempts....the math is so simple even a caveman can do it...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. You can have an effective run game under 4 YPC. We've seen it.

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

    See?

    We've literally lost SBs and some big games because we never established, showed we wanted to establish a run game or completely ignored even doing it in the first half of a game.

    A gimmick offnese cannot be a base offense vs a good or great D.  

    [/QUOTE]


    True but the here and now has them averaging nearly 5 yds per carry so the attempts clearly show we have the ability to hurt teams in a way they are not expecting. And to your point I believe it makes Brady far more dangerous as he will strike at the time when the D begins to pay too much attention to the run.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Super Bowl participants annually play the most playoff games of any of the 12 postseason participants.  Of course they are going to have the most rushing attempts and touchdowns in the postseason.  They're also going to have the most pass attempts, punt returns, plays from scrimmage and cups of Gatorade drunk.

    I'm not saying your premise of balanced offense is wrong, but the above stats are wildly disingenuous.

    [/QUOTE]

    OK, let me put it another way, from 2001-2004 we played 9 games in the playoffs, we ran more than our opponent in all but one of those games (which was blowout) and won them all.

    Please explain how this is disingenuous?

    [/QUOTE]

    This is a completely different statistic than the one you provided earlier.  It is not disingenuous (although it could use some context of game situations that led to running more as well as total plays run from scrimmage), and was the one you should have provided in your first post.  The previous one was disingenuous for the exact reasons I listed in my previous post.

    I'm glad that I could improve your debating skills.  You're welcome. :)

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     




    I don't pretend to know more then BB, like you, murtl, babe, and tcal.

     

     




     

    Don't join Rusty and start lying. We have enough of that here already.

    I have been one of the very last to ever question any of BB's coaching decisions. I have never said I know better than him about how to draft either.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying? How many times have you posted a whine about how you're leaving this site 'for good' then come back days later?

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So... err, Belichick just refuted everything that Rusty, TC, and Woz have been saying for awhile, correct?

    Is this really a point of contention?

    We have a certain group of posters who seem to think that success, specfically playoff success, depends solely upon the number of attempted rushes per game. Regardless of circumstances that may arise in a game, or other various factors... the only thing that matters is the number of attempted rushes.

    The majority of people here knew that opinion seemed faellacious... and Belichick has now confirmed this.

    Yet they won't admit they were wrong. 

    Sorry guys, but this war is over. If hearing Belichick's opinion doesn't change your mind, I don't think anything will. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It's NOT attempts per say....it's what those attempts yield. And it's hard to argue that the yield of late has not warrented more attempts....the math is so simple even a caveman can do it...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. You can have an effective run game under 4 YPC. We've seen it.

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

    See?

    We've literally lost SBs and some big games because we never established, showed we wanted to establish a run game or completely ignored even doing it in the first half of a game.

    A gimmick offnese cannot be a base offense vs a good or great D.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually we lost the first SB against the Giants because the refs let them get away with holding a half dozen times on their final scoring drive.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So... err, Belichick just refuted everything that Rusty, TC, and Woz have been saying for awhile, correct?

    Is this really a point of contention?

    We have a certain group of posters who seem to think that success, specfically playoff success, depends solely upon the number of attempted rushes per game. Regardless of circumstances that may arise in a game, or other various factors... the only thing that matters is the number of attempted rushes.

    The majority of people here knew that opinion seemed faellacious... and Belichick has now confirmed this.

    Yet they won't admit they were wrong. 

    Sorry guys, but this war is over. If hearing Belichick's opinion doesn't change your mind, I don't think anything will. 

    [/QUOTE]


    It's NOT attempts per say....it's what those attempts yield. And it's hard to argue that the yield of late has not warrented more attempts....the math is so simple even a caveman can do it...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. You can have an effective run game under 4 YPC. We've seen it.

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

    See?

    We've literally lost SBs and some big games because we never established, showed we wanted to establish a run game or completely ignored even doing it in the first half of a game.

    A gimmick offnese cannot be a base offense vs a good or great D.  

    [/QUOTE]

    The way I do math 26 carries and 126 yards is 4.8 yards per carry and 22 carries 122 yards is 5.5 yards per carry. I may be wrong, but I did major in Math, and can use a 10 key calculator fairly well, even though I am not Six Sigma. Those are outstanding averages, not mediocre or 'not great but not bad'. If the Pats were averaging 3 YPC in those games, they would have run less. 

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is a completely different statistic than the one you provided earlier.  It is not disingenuous (although it could use some context of game situations that led to running more as well as total plays run from scrimmage), and was the one you should have provided in your first post.  The previous one was disingenuous for the exact reasons I listed in my previous post.

    I'm glad that I could improve your debating skills.  You're welcome. :)

    [/QUOTE]

    This is exactly what I provided earlier, only earlier I broke it down game by game (in more detail) like the original poster did. 

    In fact the way you cut and pasted my post in your response was the only disingenuous part because it left out the game by game breakdown and my follow up explanation that passing less was not at all what the proponents of a strong running game intended. 

    This is commonly referred to as "cherry picking," misrepresenting, taking out of context... there's only so many phrases to describe it.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    Didn't glenr say he was leaving here for some other great board?

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

     



    BB knows that balance is important, he also knows that scoring points and stopping teams from scoring is more important than yards.  

     

    As far as what it takes to have great offense I would say that is not his specialty and he of all people is keenly aware of this which is why he leaves it to his offensive coaches and can always be found on gameday coaching the defense and special teams.

    And the fact remains, the Pats are 9-0 when they run thirty times or more, I would add there is probably data that can support the notion that the more they have run the more they have won, at least that's what my eyes tell me and I have watched every game over the last decade.  I would also add that running in the playoffs is substantially more important in the playoffs where snow and the elements play a factor.

    All I know for sure is that from 2001-2004 the Patriots ran the ball in the playoffs more than almost every other team, we all know the result.

    [/QUOTE]

    Let's look at this.

    2001 Raiders Game 52 passes to 30 runs.

    2001 Steelers Game 39 passes to 25 runs.

    2001 Rams Game  27 passes to 25 runs.

    So far you are 0 for 3 should I continue.

    2003 Titans game 41 passes to 27 runs.

    2003 Colts game 37 passes to 32 runs. (5 Colts turnovers)

    2003 Panthers  48 passes to 35 runs.

    Now you are 0 for 6, should I continue.

    2004 Colts game 27 passes to 39 runs (Corey Dillon gets you one).

    2004 Steelers game 21 passes to 32 runs (Corey Dillon gets you two).

    2004 Eagles game 33 passes to 28 runs.

    What does this prove. Your eyes were telling you wrong except for when Corey Dillon was on the team. The Pats won plenty of playoff games throwing 35+ passes. Since the Pats had good sized leads in several of these games the running stats were probably skewed a bit in your favor with 4th quarter runs (as Bill Belichick mentions in his quote). Especially in 2004 when Pats rather handily beat the Colts and Steelers. For example I count 14 runs against the Steelers in 2004 during the 4th quarter with a two score lead. Against the Colts with a two score lead in the 4th quarter I counted 12 runs. So while I agree a good running game is important it was not more important than the passing game during the super bowl years. If anything it was the defense that was key in most of these games.

    [/QUOTE]


    Wait a minute. Those are good pass to run ratios. And by the way, I will borrow a line I hear often on this forum, those numbers were skewed in all 3 super bowl wins because in all 3 super bowls our vaunted dynasty defense gave up the lead in the 4rth quarter and forced the great one to put the team on his back in the last minute by throwing to win.

    But let's look at how Antowian Smith pounded a dominate panthers d line for 28 carries at barely 3.5 yards per clip to wear that D down and open up our offense to score the most points they ever had in their super bowl history.

    Or 2001 when we had 27 passes for 134 yards, and 25 rushes for 133 yards and won the game.

    Or 2004 when we had 33 passes to 27 runs for 112 yards which lead to the 2nd most points scored in our super bowl history.

    Now lets's take a look at the 2 super bowl losses. 90 passes to 33 rushes = 15.5 ppg scored...oh but it's the defense's fault.

    You know why our defense in all 5 super bowl appearances couldn't stop the other team? Because the other team was 1 of 2 of the best teams in the league. They were going to score. Unfortunately for us, our open book offense with a 3-1 pass to run ratio could only score 14 and 17 points with the same game plans.After scoring the most points in NFL history in the regular season and averaging 35 ppg the 2nd game.

    Yes Maroney was limited in 07 but only had 11 carries, How did Faulk do you ask? Well he only had 1 carry. BJGE ran for 4.5 ypc in 2011 but only received 10 of them, why? Because we wanted to go pass heavy against a weak run defense who, had the best pass rush in the NFL. So we gave Woodhead 7 carries for 18 yards. I guess the gints knew what we were doing....again.

    Hey, I got 1 more for ya. All of those playoff games you listed we had more runs in all of them then our 2 power backs had combined in both super bowl losses. How did that work out?

    Trying to sell us that we were not a more balanced offense in our dynasty years is as erroneous as the 4 horsemen trying to tell us BB doesn't know how to build a good football team, or rusty trying to say that Brady is some ego maniac who is only about his passing stats.

    All 3 agendas are equally fallacious.

    [/QUOTE]

    Talk about cherry picking. You complain when others put words in your mouth but you are more than happy to have preconceived notions of others. When did I say the Pats were unbalanced in the "glory" years. I never said anything bad about running the ball. I could have pointed out the pathetic YPC averages in the Raider game and the Steeler game in 2001 but I avoided it.  The Stats prove that the Pats were pass first during the super bowl years in the playoffs except for maybe in 2004. In 2004 they got the big lead and then Dillon killed the clock. If a young Dillon had been on the 2011 Pats we would probably have seen a much diferrant game plan than we did. Don't complain to me about
    the balance. They had one year with low balance and people act like the head coach forgot how to coach. What's funny is they lost the superbowl to a team even less balanced in 2011. You get mad when someone criticizes BB as a GM (which I very rarely do) yet you and Wozzy criticize him constantly as a head coach. You preface it by saying it's the coordinator's fault which is slightly better than Rusty who claims TB has been running some secret offensive cabal behind BB's back until two weeks ago. Either way, the Pats coaching staff does what the head coach wants or maybe BB has been getting way too much credit in these parts.

    To make this clear. I could care less about balance. I want wins. If balance gets wins,like in 2004 great. If it produces losses like in 2010 against the Jets that's bad. In fact I will be surprised to see a lot of balance from here on out. I suspect the Pats are now a run team first. Their Oline's strength appears to be run blocking and the receiving core is below average while the running backs have been outstanding in recent weeks. 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    This isn't the first time Belichick has been asked about running the ball - he was asked around the same time truechamp and rusty were peeing themselves over BJGE's averageness. Belichick said he would run it more if he had a Jim Brown or Corey Dillion in his locker room...then he went on to say we don't have one of those. To this day truechamp and rustolium still think they knew better than Belichick and should of fed the 149th ranked runner in yards per carry average, Benny (I'm serious, he's 149th this season).

    Truth is Bill knows what these players can (and can't do). He knows what the defense he is facing can and can't do too. He's not going to force a square peg into a round hole in either situation.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again...running well=good!! Trying to run when you can't run well=bad.

    I think they'll try to run it against the Colts. I think the colts are going to gear up to stop the run...that will cause us to pass more. Of course Belichick may be expecting this and come out throwing...either way Belichick will do what's best for the team. He's smarter than rusty and truechamp.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    BB: There's always an element to if you can balance off your offense to try to balance it off and give the defense more things to work on that, again, in some of those games when a team is playing you more to throw the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to run it. If a team is playing you more to run the ball, then that gives you more opportunities to throw it. Again, I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points. I think that's really the measure of what you do offensively. Can you score points and score enough points to win? All the other stats you want to throw in there are relevant but they're not as important as scoring. On the flip side of it of course is the turnovers. If you can score points and not turn the ball over, you're probably going to win a lot of games in this league. If you're not scoring a lot of points and you're turning the ball over, then you're probably not wining very many games. To me, that's really what it comes down to. However that happens, whether you throw it 50 times or run it 50 times. Either one could be good as long as you're achieving your goal of moving the ball and scoring points and not turning it over.

     

     



    BB knows that balance is important, he also knows that scoring points and stopping teams from scoring is more important than yards.  

     

     

    As far as what it takes to have great offense I would say that is not his specialty and he of all people is keenly aware of this which is why he leaves it to his offensive coaches and can always be found on gameday coaching the defense and special teams.

    And the fact remains, the Pats are 9-0 when they run thirty times or more, I would add there is probably data that can support the notion that the more they have run the more they have won, at least that's what my eyes tell me and I have watched every game over the last decade.  I would also add that running in the playoffs is substantially more important in the playoffs where snow and the elements play a factor.

    All I know for sure is that from 2001-2004 the Patriots ran the ball in the playoffs more than almost every other team, we all know the result.

    [/QUOTE]

    Let's look at this.

    2001 Raiders Game 52 passes to 30 runs.

    2001 Steelers Game 39 passes to 25 runs.

    2001 Rams Game  27 passes to 25 runs.

    So far you are 0 for 3 should I continue.

    2003 Titans game 41 passes to 27 runs.

    2003 Colts game 37 passes to 32 runs. (5 Colts turnovers)

    2003 Panthers  48 passes to 35 runs.

    Now you are 0 for 6, should I continue.

    2004 Colts game 27 passes to 39 runs (Corey Dillon gets you one).

    2004 Steelers game 21 passes to 32 runs (Corey Dillon gets you two).

    2004 Eagles game 33 passes to 28 runs.

    What does this prove. Your eyes were telling you wrong except for when Corey Dillon was on the team. The Pats won plenty of playoff games throwing 35+ passes. Since the Pats had good sized leads in several of these games the running stats were probably skewed a bit in your favor with 4th quarter runs (as Bill Belichick mentions in his quote). Especially in 2004 when Pats rather handily beat the Colts and Steelers. For example I count 14 runs against the Steelers in 2004 during the 4th quarter with a two score lead. Against the Colts with a two score lead in the 4th quarter I counted 12 runs. So while I agree a good running game is important it was not more important than the passing game during the super bowl years. If anything it was the defense that was key in most of these games.

    [/QUOTE]


    Wait a minute. Those are good pass to run ratios. And by the way, I will borrow a line I hear often on this forum, those numbers were skewed in all 3 super bowl wins because in all 3 super bowls our vaunted dynasty defense gave up the lead in the 4rth quarter and forced the great one to put the team on his back in the last minute by throwing to win.

    But let's look at how Antowian Smith pounded a dominate panthers d line for 28 carries at barely 3.5 yards per clip to wear that D down and open up our offense to score the most points they ever had in their super bowl history.

    Or 2001 when we had 27 passes for 134 yards, and 25 rushes for 133 yards and won the game.

    Or 2004 when we had 33 passes to 27 runs for 112 yards which lead to the 2nd most points scored in our super bowl history.

    Now lets's take a look at the 2 super bowl losses. 90 passes to 33 rushes = 15.5 ppg scored...oh but it's the defense's fault.

    You know why our defense in all 5 super bowl appearances couldn't stop the other team? Because the other team was 1 of 2 of the best teams in the league. They were going to score. Unfortunately for us, our open book offense with a 3-1 pass to run ratio could only score 14 and 17 points with the same game plans.After scoring the most points in NFL history in the regular season and averaging 35 ppg the 2nd game.

    Yes Maroney was limited in 07 but only had 11 carries, How did Faulk do you ask? Well he only had 1 carry. BJGE ran for 4.5 ypc in 2011 but only received 10 of them, why? Because we wanted to go pass heavy against a weak run defense who, had the best pass rush in the NFL. So we gave Woodhead 7 carries for 18 yards. I guess the gints knew what we were doing....again.

    Hey, I got 1 more for ya. All of those playoff games you listed we had more runs in all of them then our 2 power backs had combined in both super bowl losses. How did that work out?

    Trying to sell us that we were not a more balanced offense in our dynasty years is as erroneous as the 4 horsemen trying to tell us BB doesn't know how to build a good football team, or rusty trying to say that Brady is some ego maniac who is only about his passing stats.

    All 3 agendas are equally fallacious.

    [/QUOTE]

    Talk about cherry picking. You complain when others put words in your mouth but you are more than happy to have preconceived notions of others. When did I say the Pats were unbalanced in the "glory" years. I never said anything bad about running the ball. I could have pointed out the pathetic YPC averages in the Raider game and the Steeler game in 2001 but I avoided it.  The Stats prove that the Pats were pass first during the super bowl years in the playoffs except for maybe in 2004. In 2004 they got the big lead and then Dillon killed the clock. If a young Dillon had been on the 2011 Pats we would probably have seen a much diferrant game plan than we did. Don't complain to me about
    the balance. They had one year with low balance and people act like the head coach forgot how to coach. What's funny is they lost the superbowl to a team even less balanced in 2011. You get mad when someone criticizes BB as a GM (which I very rarely do) yet you and Wozzy criticize him constantly as a head coach. You preface it by saying it's the coordinator's fault which is slightly better than Rusty who claims TB has been running some secret offensive cabal behind BB's back until two weeks ago. Either way, the Pats coaching staff does what the head coach wants or maybe BB has been getting way too much credit in these parts.

    To make this clear. I could care less about balance. I want wins. If balance gets wins,like in 2004 great. If it produces losses like in 2010 against the Jets that's bad. In fact I will be surprised to see a lot of balance from here on out. I suspect the Pats are now a run team first. Their Oline's strength appears to be run blocking and the receiving core is below average while the running backs have been outstanding in recent weeks. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, since all you care about is winning what did you think of the 90 pass to 33 runs we put up in both super bowl losses? All good? 

    Against the jets we ran our power back 9 times for 45 yards, but elected to once again go with woody for 14 carries at like 3 ypc out of a spread offense.Instead of throwing the interception on the 1st drive maybe we keep giving our power back the ball who was moving chains.

    Same in the 2011 SB, run power back for 5, run power back for 7, then on 1st down against the best pass rush in football we run 30yard routes and throw an interception to a DE 40 yards down field. Was that BB's fault? No, because he was doing what he always does, coaching the defense.

    And to be fair, balance got SB wins in 01, 03, and 04.

    A one dimensional offense got 15.5 ppg and 2 losses in 07 and 11.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    2001:  Patriots had the 2nd most rushing attempts in the postseason, Rams were 3rd not coincidentally.  Both were Super Bowl participants..

    2003:  Pathers were #1 in rushing attempts, Patriots were #2; both were Super Bowl participants, Patriots ran more in the big game and won..

    2004: Patriots were #1 in rushing attempts and #1 in postseason rushing TD's, Eagles were #3, both were Super Bowl participants..

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The Super Bowl participants annually play the most playoff games of any of the 12 postseason participants.  Of course they are going to have the most rushing attempts and touchdowns in the postseason.  They're also going to have the most pass attempts, punt returns, plays from scrimmage and cups of Gatorade drunk.

    I'm not saying your premise of balanced offense is wrong, but the above stats are wildly disingenuous.

    [/QUOTE]

    How are they "wildly" disingenuous if he gives 3 examples, which shows a pattern, to support the premise?

    I love how people borrow my word choices, too.  LOL

    We have a the intelligent part of our fanbase all but beginning for Brady not to abuse what he prefers (the shotgun) and to establish a base run game to work from, when that concept is intended to HELP Brady!

    It's just so simple.

    If you ignore doing it or don't really commit or stick to it, you've been compromised as an offense.

    It's why teams want to stop someoen's run game!  Duh!  We stop it FOR the opponent.

    Until I see every postseason game with Brady under Center, a lead back who can get into a running rhythm in the first half, I won't believe McDaneles and Brady get this.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    None of it matters. We can run the ball all day and own the clock but if all we get is FGs we will lose.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is all over the radio and in chat rooms, etc. Blount running amuck here late in the year, late, on the heels of the Miami loss and people seeing so many games lost because of this festering problem, is a MAJOR hot topic.

    Gresh and ZO were talking about it yesterday.  They said something to the effect of "I love it (sarcastically), when the Pats run it for 5 yard to the 5 yard line and then line up in the shotgun from there."

    I've been saying it for years and years and years.

    I suspected it might be Brady chasing stats like Gomie does, which may or may not be the case.

    It just have never made sense, nor has making it harder on Brady simply because he wants to the shotgun and ignore the run in first halves against good defenses.

    Fight fire with fire. There is no other way.

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ Ravings of a lunatic.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Antowain Smith had 26 carries and 126 yards in SB 38.

    MAroney 22 carries 122 yards in 2007 AFC title game.   Not great, but not bad either.

    In each example, a lead back is there and they get to 20 carries. NE was behind or barely in a lead in each  game.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ The mad ravings continue.


    Brady threw 48 times in SB 38.

    In the 2007 AFCCG Brady threw only 33 times, two under your revised magic number, but you still cherry pick that game to knock him.

    Face it dumbkoff, you're nothing but a lying cherry picking nutjob.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't glenr say he was leaving here for some other great board?

    [/QUOTE]

    No, but you did.

    [/QUOTE]


    Lying again. He certainly did.

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh, since all you care about is winning what did you think of the 90 pass to 33 runs we put up in both super bowl losses? All good? 

    Against he jets we ran our power back 9 times for 45 yards, but elected to once again go with woody for 14 carries at like 3 ypc out of a spread offense.Instead of throwing the interception on the 1st drive maybe we keep giving our power back the ball who was moving chains.

    Same in the 2011 SB, run power back for 5, run power back for 7, then on 1st down against the best pass rush in football we run 30yard routes and throw an interception to a DE 40 yards down field. Was that BB's fault? No, because he was doing what he always does, coaching the defense.

    And to be fair, balance got SB wins in 01, 03, and 04.

    A one dimensional offense got 15.5 ppg and 2 losses in 07 and 11.

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't Belichick just say yesterday?: "I don't think that statistic is that significant . . .  I think the most important thing for us has always been moving the ball and scoring points. It's not about how many runs or how many passes or how many times we throw the ball to this guy or how many times that guy carries the ball. It's about trying to match up and attack our opponents and score points."

     

    Run pass ratios do not and never did explain why we won or lost any game.  

     

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

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This isn't the first time Belichick has been asked about running the ball - he was asked around the same time truechamp and rusty were peeing themselves over BJGE's averageness. Belichick said he would run it more if he had a Jim Brown or Corey Dillion in his locker room...then he went on to say we don't have one of those. To this day truechamp and rustolium still think they knew better than Belichick and should of fed the 149th ranked runner in yards per carry average, Benny (I'm serious, he's 149th this season).

    Truth is Bill knows what these players can (and can't do). He knows what the defense he is facing can and can't do too. He's not going to force a square peg into a round hole in either situation.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again...running well=good!! Trying to run when you can't run well=bad.

    I think they'll try to run it against the Colts. I think the colts are going to gear up to stop the run...that will cause us to pass more. Of course Belichick may be expecting this and come out throwing...either way Belichick will do what's best for the team. He's smarter than rusty and truechamp.

    [/QUOTE]


    Wozzy actually linked BB comments after an Oakland game where he emphatically stated he wanted balance, if the run was being effective.

    You still have that link wozzy?

     

Share