Re: Interesting Question Posed... Thoughts?
posted at 1/15/2014 5:23 PM EST
In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
Listening to Felger and Mazz, someone just called in saying losing Gronk was the best thing that happened to this team because we've been forced to run the ball.
And this guy goes on and on with a yelling rant how running the ball is the way to go and it's what the oline wants to do and how we move the chains effectively.
But, then Felger asks him a great question: if they Pats are down 17-3 in the first half, so you continue to run? How long into the game if we are sown 2 scores to them? He answered, until the mid third.
Now the reason I post this thread is because:
1) this guy could've been rusty lol (nothing against you Russ, just playing around)
2) the guy is a little crazy for thinking Gronk being out is good. No way that it is, Gronk made everyone around him so much more lethal. And Gronk would be a huge factor this weekend if healthy but anyways
3) the great point here is: how far into the game do we run it? Say the score is 17-6 2nd Q? I say yes. 21-10 2nd Q? Yes 24-10 3rd Q? Early, yes. Late, no
So I'm just wondering what the board thinks about this. Saying our offense is scoring only FGs while Denver is putting up TDs, how far do we run the ball into the game if down, if they decide to pound it Sunday.
We run until 2006. Then we realize that the league just changed the rules to favor the quick strike passing teams. We respond with a passing attack that uses quick, short passes as a running game substitute. Now, we rediscover play action.
Running back by committee works! It's all good. We don't have our big pass catching TE. Belichick responds again.
If the Pats don't fumble 3 times in the first quarter they won't be 2 scores down.
The Ravens felt like a scarier team to face than this Sunday. Not that this isn't a tough game to win.
Haha. A little ramble there.
I guess the answer is; "it depends". Bill will know when.