Re: Zbellino School of Football
posted at 12/11/2012 9:32 PM EST
In response to wozzy's comment:
Let me try again if that last post was heavy handed, for which I apologize, and in the hopes I haven't been banned?
In response to themightypatriots' comment:
Listen up - This is from another thread but is too good to be left buried there:
- Posts: 8326
- First: 03/20/2006
- Last: 12/11/2012
I disagree that a.) NE was 1 dimensional last season.
They were pass heavy and their run game was finesse, it relied on trickery instead of anything substantive. There were three run plays from my recollection; draw, sweep and the dive on very rare occasion, but those occasions were always on short and goal obvious running situations and we always ran and got stuffed because we were predictable. An opposing defensive coordinator said we had become predictable over the past few years, who do you think was manning the helm offensively at that time? Maybe as a former coach you don't like my critcism but you can't deny the possiblity that opposing coach was correct?
Play action was non existent and not really a threat when you never actually call your bluff and run.
b.) You need to run the football in order to win.
No, you don't.
But the statistical odds of you winning the first round bye, getting home field advantage throughout the playoffs and inside your domed stadium, that is unless you have all of these factors worked out (the Razor doesn't have a roof does it?) dictates that the odds are highly unlikely.
Have you ever thrown or caught a football in the snow, I'll assume you have. The ball is slick and hard, the ground cold and wet, the Pat's would be silly to consciously move to this type of offensive philosophy playing in the NE elements.
c.) That running BJGE more would have made a lick of difference in decisive losses. Getting Gronk back in the SB would have made a decisive difference. Welker and Brady connecting on a pass would have, Hern and Welk not have a few drops a piece, BJGE running better on his reps. That makes a differnce.
Gronk played something like 75% of the offensive snaps, caught a 20 yard pass, yeah he wasn't healthy but are we really leaning on that crutch? Everybody had injuries...
The Giant's averaged fewer yards per carry than us but continued to attempt the run, they controlled the time of possession this way, converted short, manageable 3rd downs this way, wore out our defense this way, they had the ball last but actually made a mistake by leaving us 1 minute... 3 dropped passes ended our finesse team's last chance of victory.
There is no "magic game plan" .... you win based on execution first ... 90% of football is execution.
The game was lost in execution, poor execution by it's offense and offensive coordinator. Two turnovers, 17 points by our offense, the opposing team's defense imposed it's will on our offense. Owned it if you will.
Why can't you just admit that instead of stubbornly trying to wriggle and wrangle around games that are anomalous to your "theory." Like this game ... ro the Ravens loss where they ran and ran and ran and still the defense collapsed.
Here is what I say and I repeat most of these for the 100000th time.
1.) First and foremost. There is no magic game plan -- sometimes passing twice as much as you run is a good game plan. Sometimes running 45-50 of the time is a good game plan. It DEPENDS ON THE TEAM AND SITUATION. Balance for balance sake is just silly. If they ran 50% of the time in the first 3 quarters this week ... they would not have had all those points. The Texans can be thrown against and are hard to run against. It's about MATCHUPS.
2.) Run pass balance is dictated by situtation not abstract and arbitrary ratios. You don't run on 3rd and 9 just to say you are balanced.
3.) PA/misdirection etc gains effectiveness based on how good you are at selling it and how much of a threat your RB is to the defense. Running more ... but running terribly won't make defenders "bite".
4.) Running more does nothing to improve the defense, getting better defenders improve the defense. Better defense improves defense.
5.) 90% of football is EXECUTION and gameplans minor changes (4 plays here or there) are meaningless compared to 4 plays poorly or well executed .... which creates a MAJOR swing.
It's you that pushes your argument waaay past where it should end man. Running the football is not the sole deciding factor in whether a team wins or loses. And the number of times you run is usually based on the kind of situations you find yourself in rather than arbitary wishes of fans.
Sorry... I have coached and played. That's how it works dude.
And for the record I love the improved (ie more effective, not more reps) running game .... but it is meaningless compared to how much an improved defense increases stands to increase their chances.
Nobody ever said there was a magic ratio of runs to passes, certainly I never implied that, some of us merely stated that the Patriots needed to run more and become more physical, which we obviously have so I'll assume McDaniels and BB must also agree with what I've been preaching for the last four years.
Saying the run game is magically improved because of Ridely alone is also wrong, it's improved by all the tightends getting very little recognition; Fells, Huey as well as the timely blocking by Gronk, Hern and the rest of the receivers and linemen.
Saying there's no such thing as talented coordinators or timely play calling is also wrong, play action requires timing and guile as well as selling the actual fake. If you never run or are a threat to run, then the play action becomes a meaningless time consuming move that just results in sacks. Misdirection has to be sold by more than a good fake. Sorry I know you coach so I'm not trying to tell you your business but some coordinators travel team to team selling themselves and producing wherever they go... that's not uncommon and there's a reason they get paid a lot of money; success.
I read you loud and clear