Interesting observation from a Pats fan about our new pass happy coach.

[lex]

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...els_inter.html

Jared, I saw that last year right away. I knew we would have a tough time with this
16-0 thing with all the stress in the interviews and playing not to lose at times, but what got me right away was we showed the league what we were about right away as if no one could stop us. We completely gave up on the running game, no backs in the back field, and by midseason the league figured us out, and came at Brady full force. We struggled the rest of the season, becoming more of a finesse team, and not able to play well in bad weather. I knew we needed to be more physical this year and we have. Brady or no Brady, we need a running game much like we saw this year to keep the defense honest. Then if Brady lets the backs run more, tabout 40% or more, the defense has to start guessing, making him and Moss in particulary, more dangerous. Phil Simms could score with anyone, and with Parcels he became much more run oriented making him even more dangerous, at least if you want to win the big games. I agree with you. The past two years we are becoming more Peyton like and he was big in the regular season, but in his losses in 8 or so playoff games, his team avg about 12 points in those losses, and they always blamed the ir defense, and Brady's loss being a Manning like QB last year was14 points in the SB. So much for big time regular season offenses.

This guy really gets it.

[Rock Chalk]

Originally Posted by lex

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...els_inter.html



This guy really gets it.

The thing is, its kind of a myth McKid's offense were pass happy. Sure, they passed more than they ran, but not 2:1 ala Bates. In their remarkable record setting season they ran roudhly 40% of the time.

[tsiguy96]

yea the thing is, there is a reason he kept the ZBS. its effective, it opens up the pass, and he knows he cant do better.

[_Oro_]

New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

[montrose]

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

The thing is, its kind of a myth McKid's offense were pass happy. Sure, they passed more than they ran, but not 2:1 ala Bates. In their remarkable record setting season they ran roudhly 40% of the time.

44% of the time actually. 49% this season. For comparison, the Broncos ran 39% of the time this year.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by tsiguy96

yea the thing is, there is a reason he kept the ZBS. its effective, it opens up the pass, and he knows he cant do better.

I think its more about leaving in tact the most successful part of our team.....The O-line.

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Originally Posted by Casson

New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

Amen. Heck of a lot better than losing 3-4 games we should easily win every year. cough...Raiders...cough

[chrisp]

Originally Posted by Casson

New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

It was a close game for sure, and without some key 3rd- and 4th- down conversions the Giants would have been sunk. The way these games tend to go is that when a defense shuts down a high-powered offense they rarely do it for the whole game, they just do it for enough of the game to get their noses in front. Usually by the end of the game the offense is scoring again and its a race against time.

I do however firmly believe that a truly great offense can do it all. I'd love us to be a pass-happy offense that is capable of going to somewhere like Pittsburgh in the playoffs and suddenly start grinding it out on the ground. thing is, most defenses in the playoffs are pretty adept at taking the run away - that's why they're in the playoffs...

[AbileneBroncoFan]

Yeah, that pass happy team that "didn't" run always beats San Diego's ass when it really matters. Better than I can say for us lately. Until we start doing that consistently, it's not going to matter what else we do. That being said, are we going to complain if Cutler puts up a 4800 yard, 50 TD season? Do we really think that the ball should've been in the hands of whoever we started at RB down the stretch just as often as Cutler/Marshall/Royal's? You can dictate your philosophy of a power running game, west coast, or whatever, but I'll tell you right now the best philosophy is a lot more simple than that: put the ball in the hand's of your best players early and often. If your QB can throw for 350 yards and 5 TDs against a team, by all means, do it. If your RB can run for 200 and 3 TDs, do it. Do whatever works on both sides of the ball until the opponents can prove otherwise.

[BroncoMan4ever]

i have no problem with jay throwing the ball over 500 times this year, if we also run the ball about 400 times at an average of around 5 ypc. it would be kind of a 60-40 pass to run ratio. enough to showcase Jay's arm and our aeriel attack, but enough balance from the running game that it keep defenses from being able to just play the pass.

[lex]

Originally Posted by Casson

New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." . Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

[lex]

Originally Posted by AbileneBroncoFan

Yeah, that pass happy team that "didn't" run always beats San Diego's ass when it really matters. Better than I can say for us lately. Until we start doing that consistently, it's not going to matter what else we do. That being said, are we going to complain if Cutler puts up a 4800 yard, 50 TD season? Do we really think that the ball should've been in the hands of whoever we started at RB down the stretch just as often as Cutler/Marshall/Royal's? You can dictate your philosophy of a power running game, west coast, or whatever, but I'll tell you right now the best philosophy is a lot more simple than that: put the ball in the hand's of your best players early and often. If your QB can throw for 350 yards and 5 TDs against a team, by all means, do it. If your RB can run for 200 and 3 TDs, do it. Do whatever works on both sides of the ball until the opponents can prove otherwise.

Our shortcoming wasnt so much a tactical one on the offensive side of the ball in those losses vs San Diego. Thats what is being discussed. Try to follow the bouncing ball and keep things relevant.

[theAPAOps5]

This just in Lex is a complete failure regarding football......

[Mediator12]

Originally Posted by lex

During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." . Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

I think that is another gross overexaggeration. It is a one game sample. It did not hurt them in the last game of the year against the giants. That was an Epic battle where both teams put up 30+ points.

In a one game take all situation, where the teams have just played each other in the last 4 weeks, To presume that your premise is the reason anyone won or lost the game is simply not proveable. There were a ton of factors that impacted that game.

What is apparent is you think Mcdaniels can not adjust his philosophy to his team. I call BS. He ran 2 distinctly different style offenses with 2 differently talented QB's in NE the last 2 years to much success. He used what he had and the adjusted on the fly this year. I think he will design an offense built around what he thinks DEN can do best, not what NE used to do. He might use the same system, he might not. That reamins to be seen. However, he will use what DEN does best to design what he does here.

[_Oro_]

Originally Posted by lex

During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." . Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

You make it sound as if New England got dominated in that game. They were winning the whole game and it came down to a last minute drive with a last minute catch by some guy who thought he was possessed by the devil. On another note, if New England had kept Daniel Graham they probably would have won by 3 touchdowns. Now we have him plus we're going to have a better 0-line.
I love a great defense, I absolutely do, but the recent teams that come to mind when I think dynasty are Montana's 49ers, Aikman's Cowboys, and Brady's patriots. All those teams dominated with their offense and that's what Pat Bowlen wants to build and that's why he hired Ronald Mcdonald.

[colonelbeef]

Since when was Phil Simms able to "score with anyone"? He was a competent QB but hardly a scoring machine.

Bates had to throw a lot this year. We had 7 MOTHERFARKING RB's ON IR. That was not the plan going into the season. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[Dedhed]

I think we should worry about winning the little games before we start talking about whether McDaniels' system will hold up in the SB. In case people haven't noticed, we haven't played in a big game in a long time.

[_Oro_]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

I think we should worry about winning the little games before we start talking about whether McDaniels' system will hold up in the SB. In case people haven't noticed, we haven't played in a big game in a long time.

Thanks Debbie

[Rock Chalk]

Originally Posted by colonelbeef

Since when was Phil Simms able to "score with anyone"? He was a competent QB but hardly a scoring machine.

Bates had to throw a lot this year. We had 7 MOTHERFARKING RB's ON IR. That was not the plan going into the season. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Dude you havent had one good post since you got here.

Bates had a 2:1 pass to run ration BEFORE A SINGLE ****ING RB got hurt.

[Dedhed]

Originally Posted by Casson

Thanks Debbie

Have all of your 59 posts been so profound and rife with intelligence?

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by Casson

I love a great defense, I absolutely do, but the recent teams that come to mind when I think dynasty are Montana's 49ers, Aikman's Cowboys, and Brady's patriots. All those teams dominated with their offense and that's what Pat Bowlen wants to build and that's why he hired Ronald Mcdonald.

You were doing okay until this nugget. Offense may be what people remember about these teams later, but that is simply the nature of the game. Successful offenses always get the media glory on balanced teams. Here's some rankings for you.

Dallas:5,2,3,3
SF: 2,1,8,3,6
NE: 6,1,2,4

those are the scoring Defense rankings during those teams best years. Many times there were even higher rankings than their offenses. Especially the Pats, who were only known for their defense for the first half of their run. You want a dominant team, you need a very good/great defense. You want to gamble on getting hot one year and maybe making a miracle run, then you try dominanting on one side.

[Cito Pelon]

Originally Posted by AbileneBroncoFan

Yeah, that pass happy team that "didn't" run always beats San Diego's ass when it really matters. Better than I can say for us lately. Until we start doing that consistently, it's not going to matter what else we do. That being said, are we going to complain if Cutler puts up a 4800 yard, 50 TD season? Do we really think that the ball should've been in the hands of whoever we started at RB down the stretch just as often as Cutler/Marshall/Royal's? You can dictate your philosophy of a power running game, west coast, or whatever, but I'll tell you right now the best philosophy is a lot more simple than that: put the ball in the hand's of your best players early and often. If your QB can throw for 350 yards and 5 TDs against a team, by all means, do it. If your RB can run for 200 and 3 TDs, do it. Do whatever works on both sides of the ball until the opponents can prove otherwise.

One of the biggest improvements McD can make is in ST's. Shanny would have had a lot more success from '99-'08 if his ST's were even at League average. Shanny never did put together a solid three-phase team in those years. He tried like crazy, no doubt about that, but didn't get it done.

[Schism]

Dynasties are built on great defenses and great QB's.

You need a defense that will keep you in games even if your offense struggles at points, which generally will happen at some point in the January weather. Then a quarterback who can win it for you when you need one important drive in the final moments of a game, which will also generally happen at some point in your playoff run.

I wouldn't worry about the Pats losing that Superbowl as some indictment of McDaniels' offense. Sometimes two really good teams go head to head and both play well, and one team has to lose. It's the nature of football, on another day that goes the Pats way.

Also, anyone remember the AFCCG against the Chargers? In the wind where Brady threw 3 picks and barely threw for 200 yards? Second half they ran Maroney all over San Diego, and that won them the game. He had 122 yards on 25 carries, hardly a bad return in a Championship game against a very good Charger defense was it?

[CEH]

Originally Posted by lex

During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." . Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

"They eventually faced a team:" - correct in Week 17 and laid 38 on them.

[lex]

Originally Posted by CEH

"They eventually faced a team:" - correct in Week 17 and laid 38 on them.

You know not of what you speak. I heard Spagnuolo himself say that they knew they would be ok in the SB judging by the first game and how they didnt show NE everything. Nice try.