unmentioned element of run game

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not sure you can rely on those ToP numbers on O right now though. The Pats have been running the no huddle quicker then ever before with a higher frequency so that drops their ToP per series number. However, they have also had long drawn out plays that bring the number back up and help to close out games at times. True the O is on the field for the same amount of time but if say the D is only given on average 4 mins (ST's and stoppages in game included) on every down as compared to being given say 2.5mins on one drive then 6.5mins the next drive that those longer breaks worked in with the shorter breaks can actually keep them fresher then a sustained amount of time after every break. I link it to if you need 45s to catch your breath but you are only given 30s consistently then you'll never catch your breath. However, if you are given 10s one time and 50s another time then you don't build up that lack of rest and can actually catch your breath every so often

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point Eng, and I tend to agree with you that a few longer periods of rest are more valuable to the D than a lot of short ones.  I haven't done a careful analysis of the distribution of long and short drives this season and last (it's a lot of data to pore over), but on a cursory look, I do think the Pats have had a few more 5 and 6 minute drives in the first five games this year than they did in their first five games last year. A lot of their scoring drives last year were more like four minutes than five or six minutes.  

    One has to be careful when making claims about the rest time the D gets, however, based on stated drive times.  There are a number of factors that need to be accounted for and the analysis isn't quite as straightforward as it may seem on the surface.  A few points to consider if you (or me or anybody) are going to try to do the analysis:

    • You've got to keep in mind that actual time passed and game time passed are two different things. The rest the defense gets is based on actual time passed, not game time passed.
    • If the clock doesn't stop during a drive, then game time passed will equal actual time passed. If the clock stops during the drive, however, the actual time passed during the drive will exceed the game time passed.  
    • The clock stops during a drive when there's an incompletion, when the play goes out of bounds, when there's an official or team time out, or when possession changes.  Generally, the clock stops more frequently in drives with a higher percentage of pass plays than in drives with a higher percentage of running plays.  The obvious reason for this is because incomplete passes stop the clock.  A less obvious reason (which I believe to be true, though I've never done the analysis to prove it) is that pass plays are a little more likely to end out-of-bounds than running plays, just because it's easier to get the ball to the sideline on a pass play than on a run.  
    • The consequence of the increased clock stoppage on passing drives is that if two drives use up the same amount of game time, but one is a run-heavy drive and one is a pass-heavy drive, the pass heavy drive is likely to eat up more actual time.  In other words, if you have two drives that are both three minutes long in game time, the pass-heavy drive is likely to take up more actual time (and therefore give the defense more rest).  This is counterintuitive, but it's true.
    • The fact is, however, that pass-heavy drives tend to take up less game time than run-heavy drives. There are two reasons for this.  The first is that most of the transition time between plays counts as game time in drives that are run-heavy (because the clock doesn't stop) while some of the transition time in pass-heavy drives doesn't count as game time because the clock is stopped during it.  The second (and in some ways even more important) reason pass drives tend to be shorter than run drives in game time is that pass plays average more yards (even when incompletions are accounted for, I believe) than run plays.  This means that if two drives cover the same total yards, the pass-heavy drive will likely take fewer plays than the run-heavy drive. 
    • It's worth pointing out that the primary reason run-heavy drives take more game time than pass-heavy drives is because of the transition time and the average yardage per play resulting in more plays for the run-heavy drive.  The actual length of a pass play from snap to incompletion or tackle is usually equal to or longer than the actual length of a running play from snap to tackle.  From snap to tackle on a typical running play is 3 or 4 seconds.  Passing plays if incomplete take roughly the same amount of time (3 or 4 seconds). If a pass is complete it likely eats at least 5 or 6 seconds from snap to tackle. 
    • Finally, while pass-heavy drives tend to take less game time than run-heavy drives of equal yardage, it's not completely clear whether they take less actual time.  The passing plays (from snap to tackle) often take more time than the running plays.  The transition time (actual time) between passing plays may also be as long as the transition time between running plays (even if the clock is stopped during the passing play transition and therefore not counting as game time).  What tends to shorten the actual time used in a pass-heavy drives is the longer average yardage per play, which in turn reduces the number of plays needed to cover the same yardage.   

    Getting back to the Pats for a moment, given that their offensive drives are averaging 2:40 minutes (in game time) this year, just as they did last year through five games, a few things are clear:

    • Since they were passing more last year, the actual time spent on their drives likely would have been longer (on average) last year because some of the transition time between plays wouldn't have been included in the 2:40 (because the game clock was likely stopped more during transition time) while this year the 2:40 would include most transition time (because the game clock is likely running during the transition time). This would have meant, on average, that the defense was getting more rest during the Pats' offensive drives last year than this.  However, your point about the average drive length being less important than the number of long drives would still be true--and it's possible that this year's offense is mounting more long drives. 
    • If the Pats really have mounted more long drives this year but their average drive length is still the same, then they either have had more short drives to balance out the long drives or they are actually running more drives. 
    • In fact, it seems like they are running more drives this year than last (though I haven't added it all up).  Given that the average time per drive is the same, the only way they can run more offensive drives is if the defense is keeping their opponents' drives shorter. 
    • This in fact seems to be the case.  The defense seems to be getting itself off the field sooner, which gets to my original point that the improved TOP stats are at least in part due to the defense playing better rather than a change in the offensive approach.

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Wow, my original post didn't provide much meat on the bone, but the more knowledgeable contributors to this forum have certainly made up for the absence of depth on the subject.

    So can anyone answer me this.  How many defensive plays have the Patriots averaged per game this year versus the average number of defensive plays per game in 2011, 2010, 2009 ?

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to dustcover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow, my original post didn't provide much meat on the bone, but the more knowledgeable contributors to this forum have certainly made up for the absence of depth on the subject.

    So can anyone answer me this.  How many defensive plays have the Patriots averaged per game this year versus the average number of defensive plays per game in 2011, 2010, 2009 ?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here you go:

    2012 (through five games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 77.6

    Avg. defensive plays: 64.4

     

    2011 (16 regular season games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 67.6

    Avg. defensive plays: 66.5

     

    2010 (16 regular season games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 61.6

    Avg. defensive plays: 66.0

     

    2009 (16 regular season games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 67.3

    Avg. defensive plays: 58.8

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dustcover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow, my original post didn't provide much meat on the bone, but the more knowledgeable contributors to this forum have certainly made up for the absence of depth on the subject.

    So can anyone answer me this.  How many defensive plays have the Patriots averaged per game this year versus the average number of defensive plays per game in 2011, 2010, 2009 ?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here you go:

    2012 (through five games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 77.6

    Avg. defensive plays: 64.4

     

    2011 (16 regular season games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 67.6

    Avg. defensive plays: 66.5

     

    2010 (16 regular season games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 61.6

    Avg. defensive plays: 66.0

     

    2009 (16 regular season games)

    Avg. offensive plays: 67.3

    Avg. defensive plays: 58.8

     

    [/QUOTE

     

    Wow good data , just out of curiosity how did Pats do Prior to the Bill Poilian whining rule with hindering recievers stack up, ie SB years 2001 2003 2004?

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    2004

    Off: 64.7

    Def: 61.8

     

    2003

    Off: 65.1

    Def: 66.3

     

    2001

    Off: 62.6

    Def: 63.5

     

    2007 (since it was a Super Bowl year)

    Off: 66.1

    Def: 58.3

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The two teams that went to the super bowl in 2011 had below average times of posession. Because two things happen at the same time that obviously does not prove cause or effect. First downs and the prevention of them determines time of posession along with turnovers. We know that this was not a true correlation of success in 2011 because both super bowl teams were below average in time of posession in 2011. The best running team in the NFL last year was also below average in time of posession (Denver), and they had a good defense. In 2009 the Patriots were great in time of posession but nobody claims that was a great defense. Or are you? Time of posession is a contributor to winning most likely, but other factors are clearly more important. Defensive backs blowing coverage in the first quarter could not possible be because of time of posession problems. The Pats had a huge lead and were dominating time of posession yet Bronco recievers were still wide open.  Teams that run well have an advantage for TOP for obvious reasons but great running teams have not been winning superbowls that much lately (unless they have a very good passing attack). The last time a top 5 rushing attempt team made the super bowl it was the 2006 Bears. They had a great defense but were middling in time of posession.

    [/QUOTE]


    We don't need to be a 'great' running team. We need to good enough to keep defenses guessing on third and short ( 3 to 1 yards), enable the play action and work the clock in the 4th quarter.

    [/QUOTE]

    Zero disagreement with this. i am happy with the current running game. I just think it's hogwash that a defensive back does better coverage in the first quarter (or any quarter if the team runs the ball). We saw last week that running the ball and time of posession did not prevent wide open Broncos recievers.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to dustcover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Along with Shalise Manza Young's article today on the balance that the effective running game has brought to the Patriots offense, there have been innumerable posts on the forum regarding the much improved running game.  However, one point that has seemingly been overlooked in some instances is how the running game contributes to the defense. 

    Along with the balance that the running game provides and how it makes the passing game so much more effective, it also runs the clock and the sustained drives that ensue and the mounting time-of-possession keep the defense on the sidelines for longer stretches thus keeping the defense, particularly the big guys, fresher for the 4th Q.

    I'm almost certain that Wilfork, Brace, Love, Nink, Spikes, and Mayo absolutely love what the big uglies on the offensive line and Ridley, Bolden, and Woodhead are accomplishing on offense.  (I omitted Chandler Jones name intentionally, not that he is unappreciative, but I believe that with his non-stop motor he could remain on the field for the entire game and still be fresh in the 4th Q.)

    [/QUOTE]


    Running the football doesn't keep the defense on the sidelines any longer. Not drive to drive. Just because the game clock stops moving doesn't mean that time stops in real life. An incomplete pass that stops the clock, followed by a full usage of the 45 seconds to get the next play off on the play clock uses the exact same amount of time as a run where 45 seconds come off the play clock and the game clock. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 15315k. Show 15315k's posts

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Running does keep the defense off the field longer in most cases. Guys like Brady and Manning are so good that many of their scoring drives don't take very long. A scoring drive that features a lot of running and some short passes can take 8 minutes or even longer. It's the long scoring drives that take more time when running. The Pats have increased T.O.P. by over 4 minutes per game this year and rank 7th. Last year they ranked 27th. The last time they were ranked this high was 2004 when they had Dillon running the ball.

    We have the best passer in the league in Brady so it makes sense to throw a lot but it's nice to have that running game to go with it. We finally have the back we've lacked since Corey Dillon to carry out the running game.BJGE was a nice story and all but he isn't going to be a feared weapon running the ball. Ridley is.The NFL Is a passing league but it's good to be able to run the ball too.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    2007 ????   pats play vs opponents... not previous patriots teams !

     

    In response to BubbaInHawaii's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    yes, the more time the offense spends on the field, the less time the defense spends on the field.  Now, on the other hand.....if the defense can get more 3 and outs....it gives the offense more opportunities to score. Oh, one potential bad thing about taking longer to score - is potentially fewer offensive possessions. So, it's unlikely that this Offense will outscore 2007s team.


    Ying and yang.  Hopefully, the D; especially the secondary - will get better as the season goes on. The verdict is still out on the secondary...

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    @zbellino and 15315k

    You both are right.  The actual time used on a passing drive isn't shortened by the fact that the game clock stops, since the transition time between plays is (roughly) the same, even if the game clock isn't running during that transition time.  Since pass plays typically take longer to execute from snap to tackle than run plays, a passing play (even if the game clock stops) often gives the defense more actual rest time than a running play.  

    That said, 15315k is correct that passing drives often require fewer plays than running drives (pass plays average about two yards per play more, even when incompletions are accounted for).  So pass-heavy drives typically have fewer plays and therefore may take less time. 

    One thing that also needs to be taken into account is that if the clock doesn't stop during the transitions between plays (i.e., as on most running plays), then the game time remaining during which plays can be run will be reduced.  (In other words, if the clock runs during transitions, you are reducing the amount of time available for plays to be run; if the clock stops during transitions, then the amount of time available for plays to be run isn't reduced by the transition time).  This suggests that games with lots of running will typically end up with fewer drives overall. Whether the number of plays will also be fewer is hard to tell, since pass plays tend to take longer to execute than running plays.  

    I know this is a lot of information (probably way too much), but the main point is you can't jump to conclusions about the defense's rest time based solely on the run-pass ratio.  There are a lot of other factors that affect the time the defense is sitting on the sideline. 

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    There's so many advantages to having a GOOD running game, I'm just glad that it appears we have one. I think the real question will become...can we run it against good defenses? And can we run it when they load the box? The good part is we have a QB that can audible out of a run if they look like they're gearing up to stop it.

    I'm real curious to see if Ridley is what he appears to be. I think he has improved some over last season - he looks lower and he seems to be getting yards that aren't really there. More than once last week he was being tackled or was about to be tackled and he got very low and slithered ahead for a couple of extra yards. This is what impressed me most about his play and to think he is 4th in the league in rushing yardage without the advantage of breaking a long garbage time run (almost all his stuff has been from hard running four to seven yard runs). I hope they keep giving him the ball 25 times a game.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's so many advantages to having a GOOD running game, I'm just glad that it appears we have one. I think the real question will become...can we run it against good defenses? And can we run it when they load the box? The good part is we have a QB that can audible out of a run if they look like they're gearing up to stop it.

    I'm real curious to see if Ridley is what he appears to be. I think he has improved some over last season - he looks lower and he seems to be getting yards that aren't really there. More than once last week he was being tackled or was about to be tackled and he got very low and slithered ahead for a couple of extra yards. This is what impressed me most about his play and to think he is 4th in the league in rushing yardage without the advantage of breaking a long garbage time run (almost all his stuff has been from hard running four to seven yard runs). I hope they keep giving him the ball 25 times a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.  I think we witnessed Ridley's running talent last year too.  The questions are really about ball security and ability to contribute on pass plays, I think.  

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's so many advantages to having a GOOD running game, I'm just glad that it appears we have one. I think the real question will become...can we run it against good defenses? And can we run it when they load the box? The good part is we have a QB that can audible out of a run if they look like they're gearing up to stop it.

    I'm real curious to see if Ridley is what he appears to be. I think he has improved some over last season - he looks lower and he seems to be getting yards that aren't really there. More than once last week he was being tackled or was about to be tackled and he got very low and slithered ahead for a couple of extra yards. This is what impressed me most about his play and to think he is 4th in the league in rushing yardage without the advantage of breaking a long garbage time run (almost all his stuff has been from hard running four to seven yard runs). I hope they keep giving him the ball 25 times a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.  I think we witnessed Ridley's running talent last year too.  The questions are really about ball security and ability to contribute on pass plays, I think.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah hopefully he gets better there - he did have that ball out there too far last year, it looks like he holds it closer to his body now (he's got to run under control a bit more still though). They put him out wide probably 7 times last week - which I thought was a waste of time - but he should be able to give you those simple swing passes and screens in time. 

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    They like to flex the RB out wide.  I think they adjust at the LOS from a one-back set to an empty backfield based on the defense.  If they decide they should go empty backfield, then the RB always swings out wide.  They used to do this with Faulk a lot, but they also threw to Faulk from that position a lot.  They did it with Benny last year too a few times . . . but I don't think they ever threw it to him.  Ideally, your back can actually catch a few from that position.  I think the big reason they do it, though, is to force someone on the defense (LB or corner) to pay attention to the RB, which may open up something else for one of the "real" receivers.  If no one covers the RB, then you've got a wide open outlet receiver. 

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    The "unmentioned" part is what LittleTimmy31 was talking about, in the 4th quarter of a game when we've been pounding them with the run, the opposing defense just wants to go home.  

    Very few here give that the attention it deserves, which leads me to believe the majority of those who can't understand it never played organized football on any level.  A physical run game serves up a physical beating, while a passing attack regardless of how potent, has O Linemen falling back on their heels receiving the beating.

    "Finesse" is for wussys.... it's soft.  In the playoffs when rubber meets the road, if the team across from the Pat's is good, they'll stop the run, that's when passing becomes important but you never abandon the run.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Woz, I don't think anyone wants to "abandon" the run.  And, yeah, running the ball certainly can physically exhaust a defense, especially linemen and LBs who are taking the brunt of the collisions. But I think this thread is about how our running game impacts our own defense.  Not how it impacts the other team's defense, right?

    Also, I don't agree that passing is a secondary feature of the game.  I think you need both to win and the reality is for most of the past decade or so, you've needed a lot more passing than running to win.  Maybe the pendulum is swinging back as defenses adjust to spread offenses, but I have no bias against either passing or running.  

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The "unmentioned" part is what LittleTimmy31 was talking about, in the 4th quarter of a game when we've been pounding them with the run, the opposing defense just wants to go home.  

    Very few here give that the attention it deserves, which leads me to believe the majority of those who can't understand it never played organized football on any level.  A physical run game serves up a physical beating, while a passing attack regardless of how potent, has O Linemen falling back on their heels receiving the beating.

    "Finesse" is for wussys.... it's soft.  In the playoffs when rubber meets the road, if the team across from the Pat's is good, they'll stop the run, that's when passing becomes important but you never abandon the run.

    [/QUOTE]


    That theory works great, assuming the run has been effective. If you keep going to that dry well you're apt to be down 2 TDs or more by the 4th quarter. A run game that isn't working yet keeps being used is a recipe for being beaten.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's so many advantages to having a GOOD running game, I'm just glad that it appears we have one. I think the real question will become...can we run it against good defenses? And can we run it when they load the box? The good part is we have a QB that can audible out of a run if they look like they're gearing up to stop it.

    I'm real curious to see if Ridley is what he appears to be. I think he has improved some over last season - he looks lower and he seems to be getting yards that aren't really there. More than once last week he was being tackled or was about to be tackled and he got very low and slithered ahead for a couple of extra yards. This is what impressed me most about his play and to think he is 4th in the league in rushing yardage without the advantage of breaking a long garbage time run (almost all his stuff has been from hard running four to seven yard runs). I hope they keep giving him the ball 25 times a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.  I think we witnessed Ridley's running talent last year too.  The questions are really about ball security and ability to contribute on pass plays, I think.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    One more thing -- running in the winter. Important since our most likely playoff games will be in cold weather outdoors. It also connects somewhat to your ball security question

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's so many advantages to having a GOOD running game, I'm just glad that it appears we have one. I think the real question will become...can we run it against good defenses? And can we run it when they load the box? The good part is we have a QB that can audible out of a run if they look like they're gearing up to stop it.

    I'm real curious to see if Ridley is what he appears to be. I think he has improved some over last season - he looks lower and he seems to be getting yards that aren't really there. More than once last week he was being tackled or was about to be tackled and he got very low and slithered ahead for a couple of extra yards. This is what impressed me most about his play and to think he is 4th in the league in rushing yardage without the advantage of breaking a long garbage time run (almost all his stuff has been from hard running four to seven yard runs). I hope they keep giving him the ball 25 times a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.  I think we witnessed Ridley's running talent last year too.  The questions are really about ball security and ability to contribute on pass plays, I think.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    One more thing -- running in the winter. Important since our most likely playoff games will be in cold weather outdoors. It also connects somewhat to your ball security question

    [/QUOTE]


    More childish logic from a football neophyte. Brady enjoys a 96 passer rating in the cold. It's the other guys who aren't used to it that are at a disadvantage in winter. But don't let a pesky fact like that interfere with your enjoyment of your cliche based football acumen.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    Bad running keeps the D on the field longer. Good running keeps them on the field less. Unfortunately our backs ran poorly in both SB losses so the D probably did get a bit more tired.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bad running keeps the D on the field longer. Good running keeps them on the field less. Unfortunately our backs ran poorly in both SB losses so the D probably did get a bit more tired.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny the Giant's runningbacks ran poorly in last year's Super Bowl, worse than ours in fact, but they still won?  That team kept running despite being held to fewer yards per carry and won.  Kind of shoots holes in that doesn't it.  Play action only works when the run is a threat, team only have to pass if the run isn't working.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bad running keeps the D on the field longer. Good running keeps them on the field less. Unfortunately our backs ran poorly in both SB losses so the D probably did get a bit more tired.

    [/QUOTE]


    Funny the Giant's runningbacks ran poorly in last year's Super Bowl, worse than ours in fact, but they still won?  That team kept running despite being held to fewer yards per carry and won.  Kind of shoots holes in that doesn't it.  Play action only works when the run is a threat, team only have to pass if the run isn't working.

    [/QUOTE] Eli completed 75% of 41 passes.  That kind of makes their poor running game with more rushes, irrelevant.  Too bad the D couldn't keep him to his yearly average of  63%.

    Those 5 extra passes he completed with the 12% increase might have made the difference in helping the D to get at least 1 3 & out.  Maybe more...don't ya think???  That's why they won, in conjuction with being on the field for 2/3rds the game.

    Oh, and they weren't that much poorer in running.  If memory serves me they got 2/10ths per yard, per carry less.  That ='s  7.2 inches less per drive. Not significant especially when you consider they only needed a couple of yards to score on their last drive or a yard or 2 to convert downs.

    Oh and teams pass when they want to score quickly, are behind or don't trust their D to hold a lead.  See Cards game when they abandoned  the run in the 4th qtr after scoring 9 whole points during the 3+ qtrs they were commited to the run.  Or are you finally admitting they passed a bit more in 2011 because the run didn't work?.

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    The Giants passed on 61% of their snaps in the Super Bowl and ran on just 39%. Wozzy keeps talking like they went ground and pound, but they ran 43 pass plays to 28 rushing plays (and one of those rushing plays was Manning taking a knee.)  That pass-run ratio is the same as the Giant's regular season ratio and actually slightly more pass-heavy than the Pats' regular season record.  

    I simply can't understand why a pass-run ratio that is bad for the Pats is good for the Giants.  Maybe Wozzy is just a Giants fan.  I'm beginning to think that's it. 

     

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

    Re: unmentioned element of run game

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There's so many advantages to having a GOOD running game, I'm just glad that it appears we have one. I think the real question will become...can we run it against good defenses? And can we run it when they load the box? The good part is we have a QB that can audible out of a run if they look like they're gearing up to stop it.

    I'm real curious to see if Ridley is what he appears to be. I think he has improved some over last season - he looks lower and he seems to be getting yards that aren't really there. More than once last week he was being tackled or was about to be tackled and he got very low and slithered ahead for a couple of extra yards. This is what impressed me most about his play and to think he is 4th in the league in rushing yardage without the advantage of breaking a long garbage time run (almost all his stuff has been from hard running four to seven yard runs). I hope they keep giving him the ball 25 times a game.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with this.  I think we witnessed Ridley's running talent last year too.  The questions are really about ball security and ability to contribute on pass plays, I think.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    One more thing -- running in the winter. Important since our most likely playoff games will be in cold weather outdoors. It also connects somewhat to your ball security question

    [/QUOTE]


    More childish logic from a football neophyte. Brady enjoys a 96 passer rating in the cold. It's the other guys who aren't used to it that are at a disadvantage in winter. But don't let a pesky fact like that interfere with your enjoyment of your cliche based football acumen.

    [/QUOTE]


    I see babe is stalking me again with idiotic whining about everthing I say. What Brady's passer rating has to do with how well Ridley performs in the winter I don't know. I guess this is an example of his vast football knowledge that a cliche based person like me doesn't know. I guess running the ball in cold weather is a cliche and isn't any different from running in good weather.  You can cut the same on frozen icy turf as you can on warm dry turf. The ball doesn't get hard and slippery either.

    Babe....Human beings breath air. Time for you to show your superior intellect and tell me they breath dirt. Breathing air is just a cliche. Anything to disagree no matter how stupid you sound.

     

Share