e16bball Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The Patriots, like most winning teams, do not have a balanced attack. They pass to get the lead and run to hold it. That's not balance.[/b] They do it with different formations. They ran more than 50% of their plays this season from the shotgun spread. There doesn't seem to be much justification for this statement, at least according to the numbers from this season. The Patriots passed the ball 534 times (33.38 times per game) and ran it 513 times (32.06 times per game). You might argue that the breakdown of runs and passes was uneven between halves, but in fact, of the 442 carries made by RBs, 220 were in the first half (49.8%). Indeed, there seems to be little basis for suggesting that winning teams have pass-heavy attacks, at least based on the 2008 season. The top 5 most "run-heavy" teams (in terms of ratio of run:pass) ALL had double-digit wins this season. 7 of the top 8 run-heavy teams had double-digit wins, as did 9 of the top 12. In fact, the Colts were the only team to win 10 or more games and NOT be considered relatively run-heavy. As you'd expect from this information, the correlation between wins and passing often is actually clearly negative. How much conclusion can be drawn from this from a defensive scheme perspective? I'm not sure. But it certainly seems that teams are having success when they are running the ball consistently...using your own transitive property from offense to defense, wouldn't it stand to reason that you would (generally speaking) have success by forcing your opponent to abandon the run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Oldfan, why do you think the Run N' Shoot offense was not that succesful? By the way great post e16bball thanks for doing the leg work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 There doesn't seem to be much justification for this statement, at least according to the numbers from this season. The Patriots passed the ball 534 times (33.38 times per game) and ran it 513 times (32.06 times per game). You might argue that the breakdown of runs and passes was uneven between halves, but in fact, of the 442 carries made by RBs, 220 were in the first half (49.8%). The Patriots' stats this season are not typical of their offensive approach due to the QB situation this season. They had to run more to reduce the reliance on their QB in the passing game especially early in the season. Ultimately they were the first team in NFL history to use the shotgun on more than 50% of their offensive plays. Here are their numbers from the 2007 season along with those of four other playoff teams: Team, NFL rank runs 1st half, rank runs 2nd half New England, 26th, 14th Seattle, 31st, 13th GreenBay, 29th, 19th Indianapolis, 28th, 7th Dallas, 27th, 11th Indeed, there seems to be little basis for suggesting that winning teams have pass-heavy attacks, at least based on the 2008 season. The top 5 most "run-heavy" teams (in terms of ratio of run:pass) ALL had double-digit wins this season. Since teams that have leads usually win, and since teams that have leads usually run to keep it, using the "run heavy" stat is deceptive. Average yards per attempt (YPA) is the best quick and dirty way to measure a team's passing efficiency. Average yards per carry does the same for the running game. Those are the measures I used in gathering some stats on the 2007 season. The top five passing teams in YPA won 65 games The top five rushing teams in YPC won 44 (four above average) The bottom five rushing teams won 33. The bottom five passing teams won 21. You also need to consider that many, if not most of the NFL teams, are like the Redskins have been in recent years. We have been more successful running the football because we haven't been able to field an efficient passing game. We are a running team by default. It's difficult to put an efficient passing game on the field. The two most successful teams over the past seven or eight years, the Patriots and the Colts, have had the best passing games over that span,while the two best running teams, the Jags and the Vikings haven't been nearly as successful. How much conclusion can be drawn from this from a defensive scheme perspective? I'm not sure. But it certainly seems that teams are having success when they are running the ball consistently...using your own transitive property from offense to defense, wouldn't it stand to reason that you would (generally speaking) have success by forcing your opponent to abandon the run? Does it make sense to you to use the same defensive tactics to stop Peyton Manning and the Colts that you use to stop Adrian Peterson and the Vikings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Oldfan, why do you think the Run N' Shoot offense was not that succesful? I don't know. I've read some theories, none persuasive. In a way, it was successful. Many of its concepts are alive and doing very well in today's offenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.