**Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    And here's why......


    The two constants in the backfield during the Super Bowl championship seasons was Brady and a big, down hill runner who they could pound between the tackles effectively and eat up some clock.

    I was curious what the run/pass splits looked like for their championship seasons and it showed a pretty even balance between run/pass, see below.


    2001 (11-5): 473 Run/482 Pass- 49% Run

    2003 (14-2): 473 Run/537 Pass- 46% Run

    2004 (14-2): 524 Run/485 Pass- 51% Run


    This made me curious to see what the run pass splits looked like during the years they didn't win the title. Maybe it's coincidence, but they weren't as successful during the years where there was a larger delta between run/pass (with the exception of 2006, that year was pretty balanced).


    2002 (9-7): 395 Run/605 Pass- 39% Run

    2005 (10-6): 439 Run/564 Pass- 43% Run

    2006 (12-4): 499 Run/527 Pass- 48% Run

    2007 (16-0): 451 Run/586 Pass- 43% Run


    I'll leave out the 2008 year as Brady wasn't playing so that drastically changed the offense.


    This year they are currently at a 30/70 run/pass split through two games and have looked aweful the majority of the time..

    These stats don't mean everything as defense and special teams are involved as well, but in this large sample size, they show the relative success of a balanced offense......

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mnp3a. Show mnp3a's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    wow! 70/30 looks horrible.

    For comparison, Colts are at about 60/40, Saints 50/50, Giants 55/45, Steelers 65/35, Atlanta 50/50

    Which is interesting because every analyst i've read says that Pittsburgh needs to find a running game and new england needs to improve the passing game (brady accuracy and timing, receivers routes, etc). Well, Pats are running less than Pittsburgh and with a little more efficiency (3.6 ypc vs 3.1)

    Also, Colts and Giants average less ypc and yet run more.

    there must be a reason BB is doing this, any ideas why?

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

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    I'm not sure I would spend too much time trying to get inside Belichick's head -- it's probably dangerous in there -- but I don't believe the Pats have a consistent "scheme" so much as they game plan for each individual opponent. What might work against Buffalo may not work against Green New Jersey (or whomever). When the Pats came here two years ago, I don't think they even tried to run the ball once in the first half. It's all about taking what the defense gives you, and I would be very suprised if you're seeing anything like a 70/30 split by the end of the season.

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

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    Pretty sure we threw like mad against Carolina ... Brady set the record for most completions in a superbowl.

    Pass/run breakdown is misleading.  Good teams that get ahead early will run more to wind down the clock.  Teams run because they're winning more often than they win because they run.  And when you're trying to catch up, you have to pass.  And if you committ penalties and it's 1st and 20, you have to pass. 

    More importantly, it's not the play, it's the player.  You put the ball in the hands of your best player, Tom Brady.  All decade long, in close games, the Pats have let Brady air it out.  We always will.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]Pretty sure we threw like mad against Carolina ... Brady set the record for most completions in a superbowl. Pass/run breakdown is misleading.  Good teams that get ahead early will run more to wind down the clock.  Teams run because they're winning more often than they win because they run.  And when you're trying to catch up, you have to pass.  And if you committ penalties and it's 1st and 20, you have to pass.  More importantly, it's not the play, it's the player.  You put the ball in the hands of your best player, Tom Brady.  All decade long, in close games, the Pats have let Brady air it out.  We always will.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    You pass because the other team has committed to stopping the run, you have to...  Brady can than turn a 3rd and short easily into a first down using a max protect pass, usually to Faulk or Welker.

    That's a real good alternative to the 3rd and longs we were dealing with on Sunday at the Meadowlands.  We got to Sanchez early, but by the end of the game the jitters had worn off, our defense was on the field too long and wasnt providing pressure any longer, subsequently he beat us. 

    A balanced offense is good.  Parity in your offense is good.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    I agree that situational football and taking what the defense gives you comes into play, but these are pretty good figures over a large sample size, so the they can't just be dismissed.   Are they the whole picture?  No, but they show the relative success of a balanced offense.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]I agree that situational football and taking what the defense gives you comes into play, but these are pretty good figures over a large sample size, so the they can't just be dismissed.   Are they the whole picture?  No, but they show the relative success of a balanced offense.
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]

    No, they show the balanced offense that results from success.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    Its a matter of RB talent. They had A Smith and C Dillon in the SB winning seasons, They've had cr*p since therefore too much pass, predictability, that equals no SB
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : No, they show the balanced offense that results from success.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    I will not question that mighty.  BTW (OT), involved with the mighty patriots pw team in the area?  

    I do have one question though.  In the last 20 years, how many pass-oriented unbalanced teams have won the SB?  There were some real good offenses to be sure, but nearly every team, if not every team, could also run it down your throat at will.  Point taken about their run success being a product of their pass success though.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : No, they show the balanced offense that results from success.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]


    They go hand in hand......
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : They go hand in hand......
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]

    Obviously helps but it's not the most important thing.  Arizona and NE both almost won the Super Bowl in back to back years and neither was a huge rushing machine.  It's not like the defenses of both teams failed in the final minutes because their offense couldn't run the ball. 

    A real analysis would look at running results in different situations.  How does success correlate with running the ball on 1st and 10, 2nd 7 in the first quarter?   Second quarter?  When you're leading?  When you're trailing?  By how much?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    It goes both ways, teams that run the ball all day and control the clock like say the Dolphins did against the Colts and they still lose the game so it goes both ways. You cant run too much and you cant pass too much you have to find a grove and get both the run game and the passing game going in sync and then it will be a good offense.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : Obviously helps but it's not the most important thing.  Arizona and NE both almost won the Super Bowl in back to back years and neither was a huge rushing machine.  It's not like the defenses of both teams failed in the final minutes because their offense couldn't run the ball.  A real analysis would look at running results in different situations.  How does success correlate with running the ball on 1st and 10, 2nd 7 in the first quarter?   Second quarter?  When you're leading?  When you're trailing?  By how much?
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    Good, successful teams generally have a balanced offense that can be used in a needed situation, you need to run, you run, you need pass, you pass.  No?

    Run your "real analysis" and what you'll find is that a team needs to be able to run AND pass to have long term success on offense.....if teams don't have to fear one, eventually they will shut down the other.  Which is what happened to them against the Giants in the 2008 Super Bowl.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : Good, successful teams generally have a balanced offense that can be used in a needed situation, you need to run, you run, you need pass, you pass.  No? Run your "real analysis" and what you'll find is that a team needs to be able to run AND pass to have long term success on offense.....if teams don't have to fear one, eventually they will shut down the other.  Which is what happened to them against the Giants in the 2008 Super Bowl.
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]

    Hey, you're the one who said he had compelling data.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mnp3a. Show mnp3a's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : Obviously helps but it's not the most important thing.  Arizona and NE both almost won the Super Bowl in back to back years and neither was a huge rushing machine.  It's not like the defenses of both teams failed in the final minutes because their offense couldn't run the ball...
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    i almost agree with you, but you have to take into account that while Arizona and NE were succesful without a running attack and had the lead in the closing minutes, the fact that they couldn't run took away clock management options.

    take the Pat's last TD, first and goal with ... what, 3mins left?  they went pass, pass, pass and left plenty of time in the clock for NY. yes, there were many other factors in that game, but in that last drive the ability to run the ball would have made a big difference in the game.

    wasn't the arizona game very similar? (i couldn't watch it)
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    you need both if its the style of play the team uses.IF there is a good running game,it opens the passing game,yes its nice to dream of haveing that running back who can rush for over 100 yrds a game,but a running game by committee does the same if you add all the totals.IF there is a good passing game,it will open the running game.but neither are good right now,so we are not seeing much.rather its brady trying to get the chemistry down,or trying to get more comfortable with his knee,or the o-line.IS the o-line built for the run,or pass blocking?,OR maybe the receivers are not putting the full effort on there routes.until everyone plays to there full abilities,the offense will not improve.

    http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&line=152351&id=1163
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**

    In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.**:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: **Compelling data that supports the need for a balanced offense.** : i almost agree with you, but you have to take into account that while Arizona and NE were succesful without a running attack and had the lead in the closing minutes, the fact that they couldn't run took away clock management options. take the Pat's last TD, first and goal with ... what, 3mins left?  they went pass, pass, pass and left plenty of time in the clock for NY. yes, there were many other factors in that game, but in that last drive the ability to run the ball would have made a big difference in the game. wasn't the arizona game very similar? (i couldn't watch it)
    Posted by mnp3a[/QUOTE]

    I think the reason we went pass pass pass is because the Super Bowl was on the line and in that situation you put the game in the hands of your best player.  Same thing we did a year earlier when we went pass pass (incomplete) pass to try to keep Manning off the field.  Running in those situations is playing to avoid losing.  BB plays to win.
     

Share