The final word on "balance".

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to garytx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The game has changed.  Brady is much more accomplished QB.  Gronk and Welker.  Defenses have been handcuffed by rule changes.  Some may argue talent because the Pats have draft late for the past 10 years now. 

    [/QUOTE]


    When you have an elite QB, drafting later in the draft isn't such a handicap because you don't have to use draft resources looking for that elite QB, which so many teams must.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: The final word on

    a good running game helps any team. its good that the pats have gotten good production out of their running backs this season so that in the playoffs they might not have to lean so heavily on brady. id like to continue to see woodhead catching passes out of the backfield and running it sometimes to change it up a bit. as long as ridley is cured of his fumbilitis, he should get plenty of touches in the playoffs.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dapats1281's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The biggest thing to me is that this offense still refuses to run against teams that are above average in run defense. 

    Against SF and SEA, the Pats tried the run for the first couple of drives, then just got rid of the run game and had Brady throw it 50+ times.

    They're more capable of running against below average run defenses though.

    [/QUOTE]

    It will be the reason we don't win the SB.  Seriously. Just like last year or in SB 42.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Dumbo, we didn't win SB 46 because of Gronk being hurt and a collapsing defense at the endgame. We didn't win SB 42 because of poor O-line play and a collapsing defense at the endgame.

    Maybe if we tell you this 1,000,000 more times it might start to sink in.

    [/QUOTE]

    If Andre Carter didn't get hurt, we win SB 46.  We lost SB 42 with borderline HOF players on D.  It's the offense, stupid.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    WHY are you soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dense?

    Do you think that ANY team missing the normal services of the guy who scored a third of their TDs just might not be as prolific on offense as otherwise?

    You are without a doubt the person most unable to understand this game that I have come across. And that is amongst THOUSANDS.

     

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    a good running game helps any team. its good that the pats have gotten good production out of their running backs this season so that in the playoffs they might not have to lean so heavily on brady. id like to continue to see woodhead catching passes out of the backfield and running it sometimes to change it up a bit. as long as ridley is cured of his fumbilitis, he should get plenty of touches in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yep. We all were hoping for a more effective running game, and that we had. But that was never my major concern.

    I have been concerned with the D, but maybe BB has finally pulled off putting a major leage D on the field. Talib seems the missing piece that brought it all together.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    a good running game helps any team. its good that the pats have gotten good production out of their running backs this season so that in the playoffs they might not have to lean so heavily on brady. id like to continue to see woodhead catching passes out of the backfield and running it sometimes to change it up a bit. as long as ridley is cured of his fumbilitis, he should get plenty of touches in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yep. We all were hoping for a more effective running game, and that we had. But that was never my major concern.

    I have been concerned with the D, but maybe BB has finally pulled off putting a major leage D on the field. Talib seems the missing piece that brought it all together.

    [/QUOTE]


    talib and dennard are both very good against physical wide receivers....talib definitely seems to have helped the entire defense. mccourty has also played pretty well at safety, which seems like his true position. arrington can play decent in the slot as well. overall the defense is much improved, we'll see how they hold up in two weeks vs the texans or whoever they play.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont know about these stats. No way we ran more in any game this year than passed. I count 91 more passing attempts in just 3 games this year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont know about these stats. No way we ran more in any game this year than passed. I count 91 more passing attempts in just 3 games this year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for bitchslapping Babe and his diseased minions.

    You know what is the worst? Is when this team has a lead, or even a sizeable lead and the ratio is proportionately in favor of pass.

    Does that drive me nuts. My god.  The stupidity of that is just beyond anything I've seen. To see Brady audible into a shotgun with a 17-7 lead in the 3rd qtr and then get away from the run so much, is dsiturbing to watch.

    [/QUOTE]

    My post was not a 'bitchslap' at anyone, it was just a closer look at the numbers. I like to have fun and post things I think are either relative or humerous. I dont consider this an 'us' against 'them' message board. I gave Babe a few jabs after the Superbowl last year, and he responded in kind and I had some good laughs at his responses (including lumping me in as a you), as I hope he did at mine. I certainly have no hard feelings about it, and I don't wan't to be included in your lifetime arguement with other people on here.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont know about these stats. No way we ran more in any game this year than passed. I count 91 more passing attempts in just 3 games this year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for bitchslapping Babe and his diseased minions.

    You know what is the worst? Is when this team has a lead, or even a sizeable lead and the ratio is proportionately in favor of pass.

    Does that drive me nuts. My god.  The stupidity of that is just beyond anything I've seen. To see Brady audible into a shotgun with a 17-7 lead in the 3rd qtr and then get away from the run so much, is dsiturbing to watch.

    [/QUOTE]

    My post was not a 'bitchslap' at anyone, it was just a closer look at the numbers. I like to have fun and post things I think are either relative or humerous. I dont consider this an 'us' against 'them' message board. I gave Babe a few jabs after the Superbowl last year, and he responded in kind and I had some good laughs at his responses (including lumping me in as a you), as I hope he did at mine. I certainly have no hard feelings about it, and I don't wan't to be included in your lifetime arguement with other people on here.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's fine. Personally, I don't like selfish people who try to ruin these discussions and that's what people like him do.

    Take a look with how Pezzy just tried to lie about my point of BJGE having 13 TDs and a bunch more EARLY in 2011 before getting hurt, leading the NFL through that point in TDs.

    He either misread what I wrote AGAIN, showcasing horrendous reading comprehension or is wildly attempting to troll, follow me around and then lie to try to make it seem like I said something else.

    So, I appreciate it when others stand up to the trolls here.  It's about 5-10 trolls this board needs to get rid of so the discussions don't get railroaded by those kinds of turds.

    [/QUOTE]


    Fact:  Benny had 13 rushing TD"S in 2010 and was tied for 3rd.  That is not first as you  again lied.  The only thing misleading about that is your lie.

    Fact # 2, you might want to look at the rushing YPC in those losses which really tells the story of why they PASSED more in those games.

    The 2.3 against Balt was very impressive and Ridleys 2.2 against Seatle with a long of 6 evidently did not instill confidence in the coaching staff.

    Learn the game and quit with the foolish lies.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In 2012 we ran 1.3 times more per quarter than in 2011, but we had 1.7 more plays per quarter than in 2011.

    We actually passed more in 2012 than 2011.

    In 2012 we ran 43% of the time. In 2011 we  ran 40% of the time.

    3% - That's once in every 34 plays.

    Our running was a little more effective so we ran a little more.

    So much for the myth that our balance dramatically changed.

    [/QUOTE]


    That the running was more effective does not negate the uptick in the running attempts. In fact, taking the increase in the TWO aspects - effectiveness AND attempts - is illustrative of more balance.

    Also, consider this approach to statistics (one which I think is actually meaningful though in this case not the be all end all):  if we had 40% runs and 60% pass in 2011 as you indicate that is a delta of 20%. It also is reflected by saying we passed 50% more times than we ran in 2011. If the runs went up to 43% then the passing went down to 57%. That is a delta of 14% - down from 20%, a significant drop. It also means we passed just under 33% more than we ran - a drop from 50%. Also significant.  And this is not taking into account our effectiveness.

    Furthermore, it is significant that the Pats improved situationally - which is a critical element. We were very good on short yardage running and very good in red zone. That means we took advatage SUCCESSFULLY of having the run as a truly viable option situationally (sorry for the wording). ALso consider that in 3 and long you rarely run anyway, regardless of who you are (unless you are the Vikings perhaps).

    Another aspect that is overlooked is that BB has created a roster that can adjust to different opponenents and weather conditions. Some games we pass and never stop passing. But some games, like the win over Denver, we run a lot, successfully. That translates into a better record and into being able to make teams play more honest or take a larger risk.

    To sum it up, the Pats were more balance and so helped all aspects of offensive effectiveness (ie. helped the passing game and situationally) by a combination of more attempts and being more effective with those attempts, in being very successful when needing short yardage and in the red zone and in being able to aapt to the opponent, the opponent's packages and the weather.

    This my friends is the Final Word on balance, regardless of the thread's first post.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In 2012 we ran 1.3 times more per quarter than in 2011, but we had 1.7 more plays per quarter than in 2011.

    We actually passed more in 2012 than 2011.

    In 2012 we ran 43% of the time. In 2011 we  ran 40% of the time.

    3% - That's once in every 34 plays.

    Our running was a little more effective so we ran a little more.

    So much for the myth that our balance dramatically changed.

    [/QUOTE]


    That the running was more effective does not negate the uptick in the running attempts. In fact, taking the increase in the TWO aspects - effectiveness AND attempts - is illustrative of more balance.

    Also, consider this approach to statistics (one which I think is actually meaningful though in this case not the be all end all):  if we had 40% runs and 60% pass in 2011 as you indicate that is a delta of 20%. It also is reflected by saying we passed 50% more times than we ran in 2011. If the runs went up to 43% then the passing went down to 57%. That is a delta of 14% - down from 20%, a significant drop. It also means we passed just under 33% more than we ran - a drop from 50%. Also significant.  And this is not taking into account our effectiveness.

    Furthermore, it is significant that the Pats improved situationally - which is a critical element. We were very good on short yardage running and very good in red zone. That means we took advatage SUCCESSFULLY of having the run as a truly viable option situationally (sorry for the wording). ALso consider that in 3 and long you rarely run anyway, regardless of who you are (unless you are the Vikings perhaps).

    Another aspect that is overlooked is that BB has created a roster that can adjust to different opponenents and weather conditions. Some games we pass and never stop passing. But some games, like the win over Denver, we run a lot, successfully. That translates into a better record and into being able to make teams play more honest or take a larger risk.

    To sum it up, the Pats were more balance and so helped all aspects of offensive effectiveness (ie. helped the passing game and situationally) by a combination of more attempts and being more effective with those attempts, in being very successful when needing short yardage and in the red zone and in being able to aapt to the opponent, the opponent's packages and the weather.

    This my friends is the Final Word on balance, regardless of the thread's first post.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That isn't even close to the final word. Just looking at the frequency outside of context only renders an opaque statistic. I doesn't matter what the 'delta' is, if it's derived from situations where the offense is compelled to run or pass. There is sooooo much data out there that simply blows away the stats people are posting on this thread. 

    Again, saying "we win whenever we pass X amount of times and run Y amount of times" is the most reductive way of lookng at it. Again, the *amount* of running has a terrible correalation to winning if you subtract the 4th quarter. Just like the amount (high) of passing has a terrible correalation to losing if you subtract the 4th quarter. Teams that win, and are winning run more late in the game just like teams that are losing pass more late in the game. 

    It's been covered, to death, by stats analysts.

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

    The only thing raw run to pass numbers like we have posted in this thread tell you is how often they are ahead. Saying that running causes winning is akin to saying winning causes winning, or that you should kneel on the ball as often as possible because the team with more kneel downs wins the ball game 95% of the time, or more ludicrously, that puddles cause rain because you always see puddles when there is rain.

    Run the numbers on the first two quarters, then the first three quarters, and ignore the 4th quarter, and you'll find out what just about every analyst already knows: abstract run/pass ratios tell you the story of how well the team executed all phases early in the game. That is all.

    Furthermore, 3% is statistically irrelevant over the course of an entire season. A much, much larger shift would be needed to indicate that the difference was more than situational, on a micro level. Better efficiency on 1st down, for instance, will always lead to more running. More games ending in a larger spread. More extremely short yardage plays that call for running.

    The best running indicator correalated to winning is the standard deviation of YPC, which still pales in comparison to the standard deviation of passing, as passing efficiency is the number one offensive statistic that correalates to winning .... yes it matters even more than turnovers.    

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for bitchslapping Babe and his diseased minions.

    You know what is the worst? Is when this team has a lead, or even a sizeable lead and the ratio is proportionately in favor of pass.

    Does that drive me nuts. My god.  The stupidity of that is just beyond anything I've seen. To see Brady audible into a shotgun with a 17-7 lead in the 3rd qtr and then get away from the run so much, is dsiturbing to watch.

    [/QUOTE]

    My post was not a 'bitchslap' at anyone, it was just a closer look at the numbers. I like to have fun and post things I think are either relative or humerous. I dont consider this an 'us' against 'them' message board. I gave Babe a few jabs after the Superbowl last year, and he responded in kind and I had some good laughs at his responses (including lumping me in as a you), as I hope he did at mine. I certainly have no hard feelings about it, and I don't wan't to be included in your lifetime arguement with other people on here.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's fine. Personally, I don't like selfish people who try to ruin these discussions and that's what people like him do.

    Take a look with how Pezzy just tried to lie about my point of BJGE having 13 TDs and a bunch more EARLY in 2011 before getting hurt, leading the NFL through that point in TDs.

    He either misread what I wrote AGAIN, showcasing horrendous reading comprehension or is wildly attempting to troll, follow me around and then lie to try to make it seem like I said something else.

    So, I appreciate it when others stand up to the trolls here.  It's about 5-10 trolls this board needs to get rid of so the discussions don't get railroaded by those kinds of turds.

    [/QUOTE]


    Fact:  Benny had 13 rushing TD"S in 2010 and was tied for 3rd.  That is not first as you  again lied.  The only thing misleading about that is your lie.

    Fact # 2, you might want to look at the rushing YPC in those losses which really tells the story of why they PASSED more in those games.

    The 2.3 against Balt was very impressive and Ridleys 2.2 against Seatle with a long of 6 evidently did not instill confidence in the coaching staff.

    Learn the game and quit with the foolish lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    FACT: You're a pathological liar and sneak. I am now convinced you don't have crappy reading comprehension, but now use this board to specifically sabotage threads by leaving out things I said that are pertinent to the point, in order to troll.

    Folks, Pezzy has been caught again.

     

    Here is my full sentence from the "Shift in Philosophy" thread for anyone to look at:

    "That came early in the year when BJGE had the most TDs in 2010 and through Week 5 of the 2011 season."

    Pezzy edited the part about "through Week 5 of the 2011 season" to try to troll and lie.

    LOL

    Pezzy caught in the act!

    [/QUOTE]


    Well crusty, you are partially right as foster and Benny were tied with 19 each thru week 5 as foster was injured for much of that time.

    But what we were speaking about was the stats for 2010 & 2011 in which the Pats also rated in the top 3 in rushing TD's. 

    Benny's production in 2011 did not skew the 2011 rushing stats as you claim.  6 TD's in 5 games is no more dominate than the remaining 12 TD's in the remaining 11 games in fact they only account for 33% of the TD's in 32% of the games.. The numbers were not skewed at all and the fact remains that they were 2nd in rushing TD's in 2011 and 1 TD from being 1st, which is what the poster claimed.  Your feeble attempt to dispute that is nonsense,

    As usual!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

    [/QUOTE]

    ZB, excellent post.

    "Passing is indeed far more important than running, and although offense appears more important than defense, they're equally important."

    Not trying to take anything out of context, but...

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

    Re: The final word on

     


    That isn't even close to the final word. Just looking at the frequency outside of context only renders an opaque statistic. I doesn't matter what the 'delta' is, if it's derived from situations where the offense is compelled to run or pass. There is sooooo much data out there that simply blows away the stats people are posting on this thread. 

    Again, saying "we win whenever we pass X amount of times and run Y amount of times" is the most reductive way of lookng at it. Again, the *amount* of running has a terrible correalation to winning if you subtract the 4th quarter. Just like the amount (high) of passing has a terrible correalation to losing if you subtract the 4th quarter. Teams that win, and are winning run more late in the game just like teams that are losing pass more late in the game. 

    It's been covered, to death, by stats analysts.

    Not that I think there is one way to skin a cat, because we've seen all kinds of teams win in the NFL with all kinds of approaches, but here is one website that covers this topic in depth. 

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-3.html

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/label/run-pass%20balance?max-results=100

    The only thing raw run to pass numbers like we have posted in this thread tell you is how often they are ahead. Saying that running causes winning is akin to saying winning causes winning, or that you should kneel on the ball as often as possible because the team with more kneel downs wins the ball game 95% of the time, or more ludicrously, that puddles cause rain because you always see puddles when there is rain.

    Run the numbers on the first two quarters, then the first three quarters, and ignore the 4th quarter, and you'll find out what just about every analyst already knows: abstract run/pass ratios tell you the story of how well the team executed all phases early in the game. That is all.

    Furthermore, 3% is statistically irrelevant over the course of an entire season. A much, much larger shift would be needed to indicate that the difference was more than situational, on a micro level. Better efficiency on 1st down, for instance, will always lead to more running. More games ending in a larger spread. More extremely short yardage plays that call for running.

    The best running indicator correalated to winning is the standard deviation of YPC, which still pales in comparison to the standard deviation of passing, as passing efficiency is the number one offensive statistic that correalates to winning .... yes it matters even more than turnovers.    

    [/QUOTE]

    I knew puddles caused rain, if people can just accept that the leaves falling off the trees makes it cold.

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

    Re: The final word on

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont know about these stats. No way we ran more in any game this year than passed. I count 91 more passing attempts in just 3 games this year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

    [/QUOTE]

    This is, of course, what you'd expect because in the second half teams tend to pass when they are behind and run when they are ahead.  The Arizona game is actually a perfect example.  In the first half of that game, the Pats ran 16 times and passed 15 (I am including the 3 sacks as passes).  Behind with 5 and a half minutes left to play, they went to pass heavy approach and threw 11 straight times on one drive (and scored their only TD of the game).  Did they lose because they passed too much?  No, they passed a lot because they were behind with less than six minutes left to play.  

    What SportsFans stats do show, however, is that the Pats have relied heavily on the run game when it's working. They did this rarely, if at all, last year, relying on their pass game primarily and using the run game more as a supplementary option.  Last year, their pass-run mix was more consistent from game to game.  This year, there's more variation, with the run predominating when it's working and the pass predominating when the run isn't working or the team is behind.  In my opinion, this has a lot to do with Ridley being much more effective than BJGE.  It also has something to do with offensive philosophy.  In 2011, the team didn't have great running personnel and clearly built their offense around the passing talent they did have.  In 2012, they've made an effort to create a better running game by adding additional TEs, by letting BJGE go, and by deciding to commit to Ridley.  

    The improved running game has created a new dimension to a team that was fairly one-dimensional last year and that should make the offense harder to defend.  At the same time, I don't think it is accurate to say the Pats have completely changed their offensive approach. They still use spread, shotgun formations about half the time and a lot of their runs continue to be from these formations.  They continue to have a large role in the offense for a passing-down back (Woodhead and sometimes Vereen). They continue to use two TEs to maximize formation flexibility.  And they continue to use the hurry-up as a key part of their offensive strategy. In fact, they still look a lot like last year's offense, but with more running plays utilized and more production in general from the running game. Making the running game more effective was clearly an emphasis for the team in the offseason, but the change has been more an evolution from what they did last year than a wholesale change in approach. The nice thing this year, though, is with the improved running game they do have the option to develop game plans that treat the run as a primary strategy rather than a complementary one and they have shown willingness to go that way when the run is effective against a particular defense.  Last year, they had to live or die with the short passing game.  It was pretty much all they had. 

    In the ongoing debates on this site about "balance," one side has tended to look at the shotgun, spread offense as "finess" and blame it for any problems the Pats have on offense.  This same side wanted to see the Pats switch to a "smashmouth" run-oriented approach, "reining in" Brady, and abandoning the use of Woodhead and spread formations.  What really has happened is the Pats have learned to add a better running game on top of the spread approach.  So rather than replacing one approach with another, they've expanded the approaches they have at their disposal.  This is the very definition of becoming more diverse.  They continue to be a spread team when they want to be, but they now can add a more effective running game when they want. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for bitchslapping Babe and his diseased minions.

    You know what is the worst? Is when this team has a lead, or even a sizeable lead and the ratio is proportionately in favor of pass.

    Does that drive me nuts. My god.  The stupidity of that is just beyond anything I've seen. To see Brady audible into a shotgun with a 17-7 lead in the 3rd qtr and then get away from the run so much, is dsiturbing to watch.

    [/QUOTE]

    My post was not a 'bitchslap' at anyone, it was just a closer look at the numbers. I like to have fun and post things I think are either relative or humerous. I dont consider this an 'us' against 'them' message board. I gave Babe a few jabs after the Superbowl last year, and he responded in kind and I had some good laughs at his responses (including lumping me in as a you), as I hope he did at mine. I certainly have no hard feelings about it, and I don't wan't to be included in your lifetime arguement with other people on here.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's fine. Personally, I don't like selfish people who try to ruin these discussions and that's what people like him do.

    Take a look with how Pezzy just tried to lie about my point of BJGE having 13 TDs and a bunch more EARLY in 2011 before getting hurt, leading the NFL through that point in TDs.

    He either misread what I wrote AGAIN, showcasing horrendous reading comprehension or is wildly attempting to troll, follow me around and then lie to try to make it seem like I said something else.

    So, I appreciate it when others stand up to the trolls here.  It's about 5-10 trolls this board needs to get rid of so the discussions don't get railroaded by those kinds of turds.

    [/QUOTE]


    Fact:  Benny had 13 rushing TD"S in 2010 and was tied for 3rd.  That is not first as you  again lied.  The only thing misleading about that is your lie.

    Fact # 2, you might want to look at the rushing YPC in those losses which really tells the story of why they PASSED more in those games.

    The 2.3 against Balt was very impressive and Ridleys 2.2 against Seatle with a long of 6 evidently did not instill confidence in the coaching staff.

    Learn the game and quit with the foolish lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    FACT: You're a pathological liar and sneak. I am now convinced you don't have crappy reading comprehension, but now use this board to specifically sabotage threads by leaving out things I said that are pertinent to the point, in order to troll.

    Folks, Pezzy has been caught again.

     

    Here is my full sentence from the "Shift in Philosophy" thread for anyone to look at:

    "That came early in the year when BJGE had the most TDs in 2010 and through Week 5 of the 2011 season."

    Pezzy edited the part about "through Week 5 of the 2011 season" to try to troll and lie.

    LOL

    Pezzy caught in the act!

    [/QUOTE]


    Well crusty, you are partially right as foster and Benny were tied with 19 each thru week 5 as foster was injured for much of that time.

    But what we were speaking about was the stats for 2010 & 2011 in which the Pats also rated in the top 3 in rushing TD's. 

    Benny's production in 2011 did not skew the 2011 rushing stats as you claim.  6 TD's in 5 games is no more dominate than the remaining 12 TD's in the remaining 11 games in fact they only account for 33% of the TD's in 32% of the games.. The numbers were not skewed at all and the fact remains that they were 2nd in rushing TD's in 2011 and 1 TD from being 1st, which is what the poster claimed.  Your feeble attempt to dispute that is nonsense,

    As usual!

    [/QUOTE]


    I am a 100% right.  Again, the announcer in the Jets game in 2011 brought up the point of BJGE having his 13 TDs in 2010 and then off to a HOT start in 2011, leading the NFL up through Week 5 in TDs in the entire NFL.

    The fact is, his turf toe injury completely hampered our offense's balance in 2011, which is what these threads are about, with you and Grampa Babe running around here trying like all hell to disparage BJGE's value to our offense, even TOM BRADY.

    Brady was on pace to BREAK his personal INT record in 2002 last year, before he smartened up in the second half of that Jets game in November in NY.  That happened because Woodhead is not lead back material and BJGE was better for this offense, hence why he was the starter. Duh.  The argument has never been about how great BJGE is compared to the best RBs in the league, but how he HELPED this offense a lot by being our lead back.

    When this offense leans on Woodhead too much, uses too much shotgun spread base, the entire TEAM is WORSE.

    WORSE.

    FACT.

    Just forgert it. Every time you try to challenge me, I bludgeon the bejesus out of you and your boyfriends. The deflections and lies BY YOU will not work.

    Game, set and match and end thread.  Thank you and goodnight.

    [/QUOTE]


    The only one you EVER bludgeon is yourself, everytime you open your mouth.

    Fact Benny and Foster were tied for Td's if you want to count all of 2010 and only 5 games in 2011. 

    Benny's 6 TD's in 5 games in 2011 were no more dominate than the remaining 12 TD's in 11 games and does not skew anything.  The Pats were still 3rd in TD's for 2011 and if anything disproves your point. (if Benny had continued at that pace, it would not have changed the TD total, they merely spread them) The Pats were competetive in TD's in 2011 which is what you are disputing.  If your point were true, which it isn't)  that would only mean that the Pats rushing TD's would have been MORE in 2011, which would mean they would have actually been MORE competitive (which is what you are actually trying to disprove)

    BTW, on your other post in you saying Balty is the worst 11-5  p/o team since the 10-6 Jets.

    Maybe that's because Balty is a 10-6 team and not a 11-5 team, DOPE!

     Oh, and please explain to us normal folks what "on pace" means.   Brady was on pace to record the least amount of picks this year........until he wasn't

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

    Re: The final word on

    lot's of solid analysis and zbellino's post is spot on...myself I like to use the old eye test...This season with Ridley they have the type of lead back that keeps defenses honest. When you add Vereen and Woodhead to the equation along with Bolden. At anytime we have a back in the game that the opposition has to account for... All have the ability to gash a defense that tries to defend us with their front seven or try's to use nickel on early downs when we're in spread formation with 3 receiver sets. No disrespect intended but last year BJGE was never a threat to break a big run. His role in the offense was simply to hit the hole hard, hold on to ball and keep the defense honest. Classic between the tackles north south runner. 

    On the topic of run pass ratio's and there relevance to the overall success of the team. Given Belicheck's mo over the years he game plans based on the opponant. It makes little sense to play gound and pound against stout run defenses. The Pat's have for the better part of the last decade used a myriad of screen plays as an extension of the run game too...In the end, it's pretty clear that this years team has improved it's ability to run the ball. every pundit on the networks has cited that and our improved defense as chief among why they are bullish on ours chances to advance to and win the Super Bowl.  

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: The final word on

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmmm, why don't you just look it up for yourself.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17

    [/QUOTE]

    Babe, for what its worth, as a data analyst I know that there is much more in the numbers than the aggregate might show. Looking at the individual games, in 3 of the 4 losses they threw the ball WAY more than they ran it, and these 3 games pretty much tipped the run/pass ratio down to the 43% you mentioned. In the ARI, SEA and SF games combined, they threw 91 more passes than they had rushes. Admittedly 2 of those games were in rainstorms (against very good run defenses), and they could not get the running game going. In the SF game in particular, they were so far down they had no choice but to pass. But looking at the best wins they had (10 points or more), they were much more equal in the run/pass ratio.

    35 rushes/31 passes vs. TEN week 1 - WIN 34-13

    28 rushes/46 passes vs. ARI week 2 - LOSS 28-18

    34 rushes/41 passes vs. BAL week 3 - LOSS 30-31

    40 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 4 - WIN 52-28

    53 rushes/31 passes vs. DEN week 5 - WIN 31-21

    26 rushes/58 passes vs. SEA week 6 - LOSS 24-23

    31 rushes/42 passes vs. NYJ week 7 - WIN 29-26

    28 rushes/38 passes vs. STL week 8 - WIN 45-7

    29 rushes/38 passes vs. BUF week 10 - WIN 37-31

    25 rushes/35 passes vs. IND week 11 - WIN 59-24

    39 rushes/29 passes vs. NYJ week 12 - WIN 49-14

    32 rushes/40 passes vs. MIA week 13 - WIN 23-16

    33 rushes/36 passes vs. HOU week 14 - WIN 42-14

    24 rushes/65 passes vs. SF week 15 - LOSS 41-34

    27 rushes/41 passes vs. JAX week 16 - WIN 23-16

    38 rushes/36 passes vs. MIA week 17 - WIN 28-0

    Happy New Year to all!! Go PATS!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for bitchslapping Babe and his diseased minions.

    You know what is the worst? Is when this team has a lead, or even a sizeable lead and the ratio is proportionately in favor of pass.

    Does that drive me nuts. My god.  The stupidity of that is just beyond anything I've seen. To see Brady audible into a shotgun with a 17-7 lead in the 3rd qtr and then get away from the run so much, is dsiturbing to watch.

    [/QUOTE]

    My post was not a 'bitchslap' at anyone, it was just a closer look at the numbers. I like to have fun and post things I think are either relative or humerous. I dont consider this an 'us' against 'them' message board. I gave Babe a few jabs after the Superbowl last year, and he responded in kind and I had some good laughs at his responses (including lumping me in as a you), as I hope he did at mine. I certainly have no hard feelings about it, and I don't wan't to be included in your lifetime arguement with other people on here.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's fine. Personally, I don't like selfish people who try to ruin these discussions and that's what people like him do.

    Take a look with how Pezzy just tried to lie about my point of BJGE having 13 TDs and a bunch more EARLY in 2011 before getting hurt, leading the NFL through that point in TDs.

    He either misread what I wrote AGAIN, showcasing horrendous reading comprehension or is wildly attempting to troll, follow me around and then lie to try to make it seem like I said something else.

    So, I appreciate it when others stand up to the trolls here.  It's about 5-10 trolls this board needs to get rid of so the discussions don't get railroaded by those kinds of turds.

    [/QUOTE]


    Fact:  Benny had 13 rushing TD"S in 2010 and was tied for 3rd.  That is not first as you  again lied.  The only thing misleading about that is your lie.

    Fact # 2, you might want to look at the rushing YPC in those losses which really tells the story of why they PASSED more in those games.

    The 2.3 against Balt was very impressive and Ridleys 2.2 against Seatle with a long of 6 evidently did not instill confidence in the coaching staff.

    Learn the game and quit with the foolish lies.

    [/QUOTE]

    FACT: You're a pathological liar and sneak. I am now convinced you don't have crappy reading comprehension, but now use this board to specifically sabotage threads by leaving out things I said that are pertinent to the point, in order to troll.

    Folks, Pezzy has been caught again.

     

    Here is my full sentence from the "Shift in Philosophy" thread for anyone to look at:

    "That came early in the year when BJGE had the most TDs in 2010 and through Week 5 of the 2011 season."

    Pezzy edited the part about "through Week 5 of the 2011 season" to try to troll and lie.

    LOL

    Pezzy caught in the act!

    [/QUOTE]


    Well crusty, you are partially right as foster and Benny were tied with 19 each thru week 5 as foster was injured for much of that time.

    But what we were speaking about was the stats for 2010 & 2011 in which the Pats also rated in the top 3 in rushing TD's. 

    Benny's production in 2011 did not skew the 2011 rushing stats as you claim.  6 TD's in 5 games is no more dominate than the remaining 12 TD's in the remaining 11 games in fact they only account for 33% of the TD's in 32% of the games.. The numbers were not skewed at all and the fact remains that they were 2nd in rushing TD's in 2011 and 1 TD from being 1st, which is what the poster claimed.  Your feeble attempt to dispute that is nonsense,

    As usual!

    [/QUOTE]


    I am a 100% right.  Again, the announcer in the Jets game in 2011 brought up the point of BJGE having his 13 TDs in 2010 and then off to a HOT start in 2011, leading the NFL up through Week 5 in TDs in the entire NFL.

    The fact is, his turf toe injury completely hampered our offense's balance in 2011, which is what these threads are about, with you and Grampa Babe running around here trying like all hell to disparage BJGE's value to our offense, even TOM BRADY.

    Brady was on pace to BREAK his personal INT record in 2002 last year, before he smartened up in the second half of that Jets game in November in NY.  That happened because Woodhead is not lead back material and BJGE was better for this offense, hence why he was the starter. Duh.  The argument has never been about how great BJGE is compared to the best RBs in the league, but how he HELPED this offense a lot by being our lead back.

    When this offense leans on Woodhead too much, uses too much shotgun spread base, the entire TEAM is WORSE.

    WORSE.

    FACT.

    Just forgert it. Every time you try to challenge me, I bludgeon the bejesus out of you and your boyfriends. The deflections and lies BY YOU will not work.

    Game, set and match and end thread.  Thank you and goodnight.

    [/QUOTE]


    The only one you EVER bludgeon is yourself, everytime you open your mouth.

    Fact Benny and Foster were tied for Td's if you want to count all of 2010 and only 5 games in 2011. 

    Benny's 6 TD's in 5 games in 2011 were no more dominate than the remaining 12 TD's in 11 games and does not skew anything.  The Pats were still 3rd in TD's for 2011 and if anything disproves your point. (if Benny had continued at that pace, it would not have changed the TD total, they merely spread them) The Pats were competetive in TD's in 2011 which is what you are disputing.  If your point were true, which it isn't)  that would only mean that the Pats rushing TD's would have been MORE in 2011, which would mean they would have actually been MORE competitive (which is what you are actually trying to disprove)

    BTW, on your other post in you saying Balty is the worst 11-5  p/o team since the 10-6 Jets.

    Maybe that's because Balty is a 10-6 team and not a 11-5 team, DOPE!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He still had the most TDs, though. You said that was a lie, which again, you were caught only using part of my sentence, cutting and pasting it, trying to lie. You intentionally left off my point about "into 2011" for a reason, Mr. Sneaky. lmao

    How embarrassing for you.

    Still trying to regain your footing these days after repeat plasterings by myself on you, eh?

    Keep trying. The reason why you lose is because you try to get cute, then get caught, because you just aren't as intelligent as you originally thought.

    As for Baltimore, being 10-6, my mistake. I should have simply looked it up to see how much they've fallen before I said they were the worst 9-2 team I;ve seen a few weeks ago. Point is, they are overrated and have been all year.

    Any other nonsensical, sidebar deflections you wish to hop into that still don't get you off the hook for being  Brady Ballwasher Deluxe who needs psyhological help and would be Freud's wet dream?

    Keep trying to ruin the board for others, Pezzy. You, Rkarp, Babe and others in your little group are losing ground by the day.

    BB's rebuild was a masterpiece and we wait on your boyfriend Brady in the postseason. That's something you can't spin.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I said that you were partially correct.  The biggest lie is you saying the stats were deceiving as they were not.  That is just you twisted imagination on over drive.

    Beyond that, your lies are plentiful and once labeled as a liar, always a liar!  Case closed!

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share