Time to divide up the Big East basketball conference

In 2012, when the Big East formally adds Texas Christian University to the fold, they will have 17 teams in their basketball league. Of the original 9 schools, 8 of them are still in the conference - Providence, UConn, St. John's, Syracuse, Villanova, Georgetown, Seton Hall, and Pittsburgh. Boston College, the other original Big East member, left for the ACC several years ago.

Of the 17 teams in the 2012 Big East Conference, all of the remaining 8 original members are east of the 80th degree longitude. West Virginia University and Rutgers are the only other members that are east of the 80th degree (Rutgers is in New Jersey, and WVU is at 79' 57"). Every other member is well west of that line.

Look at where the other Big "East" schools are:

Cincinnati, Ohio

Louisville, Kentucky

South Bend, Indiana (Notre Dame)

Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Marquette)

Chicago, Illinois (DePaul)

Tampa, Florida (University of South Florida)

Fort Worth, Texas (TCU)

Hold onto the geography for a moment and consider the sheer size of the conference, at least for basketball. 17 schools. It is enormous. It is unwieldy. I think it's time to divide up the Big East Conference in a way that makes sense. Here is my proposal.

I think they should have two divisions (they used to do this years ago when they expanded). In the first division, have all the remaining eight original members, and in the other, have all the "new" teams (though many have been in the conference for a while now). So:

2012 Big East Conference

Eastern Division

UConn

Providence

Syracuse

St. John's

Villanova

Pittsburgh

Georgetown

Seton Hall

Western Division

West Virginia

Marquette

Cincinnati

South Florida

Louisville

DePaul

TCU

Rutgers

Notre Dame

Rutgers is east of Villanova, Georgetown, and Pitt, but that's ok. The east/west thing never works out perfectly (the Dallas Cowboys (96' 48") are in the NFC East while the St. Louis Rams (90' 11") - who are located some 700 miles east of Dallas - are in the NFC West), but this is close enough for our purposes.

These divisions rekindle the oldest rivalries in the conference, but keeps the new teams very much in the fold. As of this moment, here are the rankings of these teams:

Eastern Division

UConn - #13

Providence

Syracuse - #17

St. John's - #31

Villanova - #15

Pittsburgh - #4

Georgetown - #9

Seton Hall

Western Division

West Virginia - #26

Marquette - #35

Cincinnati

South Florida

Louisville - #16

DePaul

TCU

Rutgers

Notre Dame - #8

As of now, the Eastern Division would be more "stacked", but the Western Division alone would make for a very competitive major conference, with two teams in the top 16, and two more just out of the top 25 (Cincinnati at 21-6 is very much in play for the NCAA tourney as well). The Western Division alone could have 5 teams in the NCAA Tournament.

Dividing up the conference would help rekindle, create, or enhance rivalries and would make a lot of sense geographically. It's time to re-align the Big East Basketball Conference for when TCU arrives in 2012.

Why Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer

Kurt Warner has had one of the most unique careers in NFL history. Out of nowhere to become a first-time starter at age 28. Proceeds to have an historically great 3-year run (1999-2001). Wins two NFCCG, one Super Bowl, and loses one SB on a last-second FG by Vinatieri. If that game goes to OT, I think we all believe the Rams are winning it, which is most likely why Belichick decided to risk going for it in regulation. Also wins two MVPs and a Super Bowl MVP.

Then Warner disappears for 5 seasons and re-emerges, putting up three more excellent seasons. Not quite as good as 1999-2001, but his 3-year stretch from 2007-2009 was really good. Takes a horrible franchise to another Super Bowl and completes a phenomenal playoff run, nearly upsetting the favored Steelers in that game.

Other accomplishments:
- two MVPs
- 4 pro bowls
- two first team all-pro
- the 7th best passer rating of all time
- ranks 27th all-time in TD passes, despite not getting started really until age 28
- #2 all-time in passing yards per game
- #8 all-time in yards per attempt

His postseason performance absolutely blows away Manning, Brady, and a host of others.

Warner: 13 g, 307-462 (66.5%), 3952 yds, 31 td, 14 int, 8.6 ypa, 102.8 rating

Brady: 19 g, 424-682 (62.2%), 4407 yds, 30 td, 16 int, 6.5 ypa, 85.7 rating

Manning: 19 g, 453-718 (63.1%), 5389 yds, 29 td, 19 int, 7.5 ypa, 88.4 rating

Three league championships, one Super Bowl title, one Super Bowl MVP. 9-4 playoff record. Takes two different franchises to the Super Bowl.

In his first SB, the one where you said he didn't win the game for the Rams, he won the MVP by throwing for *414* yards, 2 td, and 0 int, for a rating of 99.7.

Here's his total Super Bowl stat line:

3 g, 83-132 (62.9%), 1156 yds, 6 td, 3 int, 8.8 ypa

Absolutely tremendous.

Weird career, to be sure, but he's put up some mind-boggling numbers and at his peak was truly one of the greatest QB in history.

Is that short peak enough for him to get in? We'll find out, but his resume, as weird as it is, is nonetheless very impressive.

The Mets and Ways to Improve the Red Sox

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=6080769

The Mets may be in some serious financial trouble (I don't know all the details, obviously, but it's clear that there are major problems with Wilpon), and they could become sellers at some point this season. Let's look at their sellable assets to see if any of them could help the Red Sox (or, conversely, the Yankees).

1. Johan Santana. Not the dominant Santana we've seen in years past, and won't be available to pitch until about midway through the season, but he's still a really good pitcher. Last 3 seasons: 40-25, 2.85 era, 1.18 whip. His K/9 are down from his peak years, but still, a very effective pitcher. His contract looks like this:

- 2011: 22.5m

- 2012: 24 m

- 2013: 25.5 m

- 2014: 25 m (team option, or 5.5 m buyout)

So he's not cheap either. Might the Red Sox be interested in him, midway through the season? They could deal Lackey, Beckett, or Dice-K for him, and any of those guys would actually save the Mets money. Dice-K, for example, is scheduled to make $10 million in both 2011 and 2012. That's a $20 million commitment for a guy who could be pretty productive in the NL. The Mets are currently on the hook for a minimum commitment of $77.5 million to Santana. A Dice-K for Santana deal saves the Mets some $57.5 million, and gives them a pitcher two years younger. That's a lot of money to save.

If the Sox don't do such a deal, the Yanks almost certainly would be interested. Trade Joba and Nova and something else and get Johan. As a lefty, he'd be tough on the Red Sox. He's not Cliff Lee, of course, but he's still really good.

2. Carlos Beltran. This is the last year of his contract (18.5 m). Like Santana, he's coming off an injury, and yet still put up a 109 ops+. So he's productive. He'll also be 34 years of age in April. Not a guy you want to build your team around, but a very useful player. Someone to keep an eye on halfway through the year, if the Sox suffer some injuries in the OF.

3. Jason Bay. A very disappointing 2010 season for the Mets (6 hr, 105 ops+). Not sure what happened to him, b/c he was coming off two very good seasons (214 r, 67 hr, 220 rbi, 134 ops+ those two seasons). But he fell off a cliff after getting his big contract, which still has this remaining:

- 2011-2013: 16 m per

- 2014: 17 m (vesting option, or 3 m buyout)

So again, the Mets are on the hook for a minimum of $51 million for Bay. We know Bay can play in Boston - he put up excellent numbers here and seemed to like it. But there's a reason why the Sox didn't re-sign him. I don't see them wanting to take that contract on. But you never know. Another righty power bat that's comfortable in Boston....if Drew gets injured or whatever, I wouldn't mind sticking Bay's 30 hr (assuming he gets back to his previous Boston level) right-handed bat into the lineup.

4. David Wright. A stud, pure and simple, one of the very best overall players in the game. Stats are excellent, he's just 28 years of age. His contract:

- 2011: 14 m

- 2012: 15 m

- 2013: 16 m (team option; 1 m buyout)

He's actually a bargain. The Mets, depending on their financial situation, might move him, but it is not likely, and it would take a ton to get him. Of course I'd be interested, though I'm not sure where he'd fit in. I'd figure out a way, though, to make it work if possible...the guy is tremendous. But I don't see this happening for a lot of different reasons.

5. Gary Matthews. He sucks and is making 12 m in 2011. I cannot see anyone wanting him, especially the Red Sox. Why did I include him on this list? I don't know, really.

6. Jose Reyes. Obviously an electric player, great speed, surprising power. In June he'll be 28, and he has just this one year left on his contract for $11 million. He's a free agent in 2012, and I can't imagine the Mets wanting to re-sign him given their financial situation. An obvious "trade him so you get something for him" candidate. Now, he'd be a great fit for the Yankees because Jeter is declining, but they re-signed Jeter to a 3-year deal and they have Cano at 2b, so they've got no place to put Reyes. The Red Sox, however, *do* have a spot for Reyes: SS. I know they have Scutaro, Lowrie, and Iglesias in the pipeline, but Reyes is much better than any of those guys, when the total package is considered. Imagine a package deal that looks like this:

- Sox trade NYM: Ellsbury, Iglesias, Scutaro

- NYM trade Sox: Beltran, Reyes

The Mets get a SS of the future in Iglesias, and a guy to fill the SS gap for now in Scutaro. And they get Ellsbury who can play CF for them in spacious Citi Field, replace Reyes' speed, and the deal would save the Mets some $24 million in 2011. They'd have Jacoby in arbitration for 2012 and 2013, so they'd have a few years before they'd really be worried about big money to him, and by then they'd likely have their financial house in order.

For the Sox, yeah, it's all-in for 2011 with this kind of deal, though they might be able to re-sign Reyes, because they have a lot of money coming off the books after this season (Papi, Papelbon, Drew, Varitek, Cameron). Imagine this lineup:

SS Reyes

2b Pedroia

LF Crawford

1b Gonzalez

3b Youkilis

DH Ortiz

CF Beltran

RF Drew

C Saltalamacchia

Holy cow. Then, with all that money coming off the books for 2012, let Beltran go and re-sign Reyes and Gonzalez. Payroll should end up roughly similar to what it is in 2011 (the 5 guys I mentioned above, plus Ellsbury and Scutaro, are getting $55+ million. Allocate $23 million a year to Gonzalez and $15 million to Reyes, and you still have $17 million to spend....and your starting pitching is all set and your bullpen, with Jenks, Bard, and Wheeler, is set for 2012 as well).

Reyes is young enough to be considered a building block for sure. Drew leaves in 2012 and you slide Kalish into that slot. You'd need another starting OF for 2012 though, but you have money to spend and maybe by then, one of the kids on the farm (Lin? Reddick?) is ready. You also need a DH or 3b (if Youk slides to DH).

C - Saltalamacchia

1b - Gonzalez

2b - Pedroia

3b - Youkilis

SS - Reyes

LF - Crawford

CF - ??

RF - Kalish

DH - ??

So $17 million available and two holes to fill. Should be doable.

Franchise Envy

I think it would be an appropriate time to give the Patriots' franchise major props for their continued excellence. I've been chatting with some friends who are Jets fans, and they're talking like the run is over and the Pats were all hype, no substance, blah blah blah. I thought some bigger picture perspective might be in order.

Since 2001, here's what the Pats have on their resume:

- 3 Super Bowl titles
- 4 AFC titles
- 8 division titles (10 times they were in 1st place, but twice they missed the playoffs due to tiebreakers; never in this stretch have they had a record worse than the division winner)
- 8 trips to the playoffs
- 121-39 regular season record (.756) - Indy is #2 at 115-45 (.719)
- NFL record regular season winning streak of 21 games
- best 2-year run in NFL history (2003-04) when they won 34 games in two seasons, winning two consecutive titles
- first team to go 16-0 in a regular season
- NFL record for points scored in a single season
- 14-5 playoff record (.737)
- 181 consecutive home sellouts (dating back to 1994)

In other words, this team has been, without question, the premier franchise in the NFL for the past decade. With a very young roster and a ton of draft picks and financial flexibility, the window of greatness should extend another 5+ years (so long as Brady remains healthy).

What franchise in the league would *not* trade their fortunes over the past decade for this resume? Not a single one. You ask any owner back in August of 2001 if they would sign up for this (above) over the next 10 years, and every single one of them says yes in a nanosecond.

No, they don't always win it all. Neither did the great Steeler teams or Cowboy teams or Giant teams or 49er teams or Redskin teams. Those great teams all suffered far more playoff losses than Super Bowl titles won. That's what happens when you have a competitive league and crown only one champion each year.

Friends, this has been an unbelievably great ride. Fortunately, it's not over yet. We should be enjoying this experience for years to come, though, a word of caution: the Brady window is starting to slowly close (he's closer to the end of his run than the beginning). One day the Pats will once again be a mediocre (or even a bad) team. Enjoy this golden age of Patriots football.

I sure am.

Let's Dispense With The Nonsense

The past couple of weeks we've heard all kinds of theories as to why the Pats lost to the Jets...psychological analysis, etc. Lots of it is total nonsense. I'd like to address three nonsense myths arising from the post-game analysis.

Nonsense Myth #1 - The Patriots were flat.
Above all else, this nonsense myth drives me crazy. The Jets got the ball first and immediately went nowhere. 5 plays, 25 yards, 16 of which were on one completion. Drive over. The Pats get the ball back and just slice right through the Jets. 7 plays, 56 yards. First and ten from the Jets' 28. Easy screen pass that he's hit a million times, but Brady overthrows it and Harris returns the INT to the Pats' 12.

You're thinking, crap, 7-0 Jets. Actually, you were probably thinking that as Harris ran down the sideline uncontested. But give credit to Crumpler who ran him down and prevented the TD. If they were flat, no way Crumpler makes that kind of hustle play. Anyway, at that point, the Jets are in prime position, and they promptly get stuffed. Greene off right tackle for -3 yards. Short pass to Tomlinson for -5 yards. Two plays, -8 yards. LT gets a run of 8 yards setting up the FG....which Folk clanks. HUGE stop by the Patriots. Fired up. No way they're flat.

Pats then proceed to march down the field again. 11 plays, 63 yards. A little bit of everything. 18 yards of running by Lawfirm, 5 yards of running by Woodhead. Two short passes to Welker and Woodhead for a combined 13 yards. Deep pass to Crumpler down the middle for 28 yards. All sets up a 2nd and 5 from the Jets' 7. Brady throws a pass to Crumpler in the end zone and he drops it. Ok, 3rd and 5 from the 7. Brady gets sacked. Crap. Ok, kick the FG. Pats lead 3-0.

Jets get the ball and again do nothing with it. 6 plays, 15 yards, nothing more than 6 yards. Only on the Pats' 3rd drive did they get slowed down, and after that the Jets, starting with great field position, marched down for their first score.

But for the first 16:22 of the game (all of the first quarter plus 1:22 of the second), here were the stats:

Jets - 3 possessions, 15 plays, 40 yds, 2.7 yards per play, 0 points, average of 13 yds gained per possession
Pats - 2 possessions, 18 plays, 119 yds, 6.6 yards per play, 3 points, average of 60 yds gained per possession

That, my friends, is an ass-kicking. The points don't reflect it, but nobody can argue that the Pats "came out flat". Patently untrue. They dominated the Jets for a little more than the entire first quarter.


Nonsense Myth #2 - Benching Wes Welker hurt them
Welker was benched for the first offensive possession. And what did the Pats do? They marched right down the field. Since they didn't score, it's easy to say that Welker's absence was the reason. Wilfork said on WEEI that he didn't even know that Welker was benched. I'm sure there were plenty of guys that weren't even aware of it, so psychologically it didn't impact them. And it sure didn't keep them from moving the ball. Maybe if he's in the game Brady doesn't throw the pick, b/c maybe there's a different call made. But we can blame the turnover on Brady, plain and simple. Horrible throw on a play he takes care of 99 out of 100 times.


Nonsense Myth #3 - The Patriots were overrated and exposed
The assumption behind this nonsense myth is that the better team *always* wins, and if you lose, you've been "exposed" for what you really are - a weaker team. Total crap. They actually play the games for a reason. Often - not all the time, obviously, but often enough - the better team loses. If the 2001 Pats played the 2001 Rams 10 times, I really think the Rams win 6-7 of them (maybe more). The 1999 UConn Huskies beat a *great* Duke team 77-74 to win the basketball championship. If they play that game 10 times, Duke probably wins 8 of them. In a single-elimination format, even great teams have to play well every time or they're going to fall.

Over the course of a 16-game grind, the cream rises to the top. Since 2001, here's how the #1 seeds in each conference have fared:

2001
- AFC: Pit (13-3) lost to #2 NE (11-5) in AFCCG
- NFC: StL (14-2) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to NE
2002
- AFC: Oak (11-5) won the AFCCG, lost in the SB to TB
- NFC: TB (12-4) won the NFCCG, won the SB
2003
- AFC: NE (14-2) won the AFCCG, won the SB
- NFC: Phi (12-4) lost to #3 Car (11-5) in the NFCCG
2004
- AFC: Pit (15-1) lost to #2 NE (14-2) in the AFCCG
- NFC: Phi (13-3) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to NE
2005
- AFC: Ind (14-2) lost to #5 Pit (11-5) in the divisional round
- NFC: Sea (13-3) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to Pit
2006
- AFC: SD (14-2) lost to #4 NE (12-4) in the divisional round
- NFC: Chi (13-3) won the NFCCG, lost in the SB to Ind (#3 in the AFC)
2007
- AFC: NE (16-0) won the AFCCG, lost in the SB to NYG
- NFC: Dal (13-3) lost to #5 NYG in the divisional round
2008
- AFC: Ten (13-3) lost to #6 Bal (12-4) in the divisional round
- NFC: NYG (12-4) lost to #6 Phi (9-6-1) in the divisional round
2009
- AFC: Ind (14-2) won the AFCCG, lost in the SB to NO
- NFC: NO (13-3) won the NFCCG, won the SB
2010
- AFC: NE (14-2) lost to #6 NYJ (11-5) in the divisional round
- NFC: Atl (13-3) lost to #6 GB (10-6) in the divisional round

Summary: In the past 10 years, the #1 seeds (20 teams total) have advanced to the Super Bowl 10 times. 50%. And these teams are the best in their conferences and have the home-field advantage. Seven of the twenty #1 seeds (35%) didn't even make it out of their first game (divisional round) alive. Total record of the #1 seeds in the past 10 years: 26-17 (.605). That's a good record, but it means that the #1 seeds - even given all their advantages (a week to rest, home field, etc.) - lose *40%* of their games in the playoffs. A #1 seed has won the Super Bowl just 3 times in the past 10 years.

These teams aren't "exposed". They just lost a game. Since no team has gone undefeated over the course of a full season and playoffs since 1972, every single SB champion, and every single #1 seed, has lost at least a game during the season at some point. So they've proven they can lose.

A .605 winning percentage over a 16-game season = 9.7 wins. Round up and call it 10. But the average regular season record of the #1 seeds in the past 10 years is slightly better than 13-3 (.831). Yet they win in the playoffs only at a .605 rate. Why? The answer should be patently obvious: They are playing much better teams in the playoffs.

Let's analyze this from this year's perspective.

ATLANTA
- Atlanta's regular season schedule had 16 games against teams that finished a combined 124-132 (.484). They went 13-3 (.813) against this schedule.
- They went 5-3 (.625) against teams with a winning record.
- They went 4-3 (.571) against teams that made the playoffs.
- The combined record of the teams that made the NFC playoffs was 62-34 (.646).

NEW ENGLAND
- NE's regular season schedule had 16 games against teams that finished a combined 129-127 (.504). They went 14-2 (.875) against this schedule.
- They went 7-1 (.875) against teams with a winning record.
- They went 6-1 (.857) against teams that made the playoffs.
- The combined record of the teams that made the AFC playoffs was 69-27 (.719).

The Pats this year did extraordinarily well against the good teams, but still, it's much more difficult to play a slate of top-caliber teams than it is a schedule sprinkled in with the Little Sisters of the Poor. Atlanta is a good example. Notice how their winning percentage drops with the caliber of team they play.

The point is this: Nothing about the Patriots got "exposed" on Sunday. They played a very, very good team that played a very good game, and the Pats didn't play as well as they normally do. That obviously happens, even to #1 seeds, an awful lot (40% of the time in the playoffs). We knew how the Pats could be beaten - if Brady gets pressured by the defense without needing to blitz, allowing them to leave a lot of guys in coverage. Most teams can't do that. The Giants did it in the SB and the Jets were able to do it on Sunday. If you do that and play mistake-free football yourselves, you have a good chance to win. Most teams *want* to be able to do it, but the Pats are good enough to fight that off 90% of the time. Sunday was the 10% that they couldn't.

The Patriots were not "overrated" in that they deserved to be the #1 seed and they were the clear favorite to beat the Jets. They should have been the favorite because they proved over the course of the regular season to be the better team. But that doesn't mean that it was a lock that they'd win every playoff game against stiff competition. Only 3 #1 seeds in the past 10 years have managed to win it all. It's damned hard to do, even if you have the advantages that go with being the #1 seed.

The Patriots' Pass-Happy Offense

Rumors are swirling about whether the Patriots, coming off a disappointing playoff game against the Jets, might pursue Arizona's Larry Fitzgerald to boost the WR corps. I am among Larry Fitzgerald's biggest fans and I'd love to have him. I'd certainly explore it if I was NE.

That said, here's what I really believe about the Patriots. They have become, over the years since their last SB victory, a pass-happy team. Now that's great and we all love the points, and when it's going well, it's darn near unstoppable. But what happens when a team like the Jets takes that away from you, or at least limits it (last 3 playoff losses the Pats' passing attack has struggled)? If you don't have a willingness and the ability to say, fine, you want us to run, we'll run the ball down your throats, then you're likely going to struggle to win the game.

I looked at the past 10 seasons and divided them up into three categories: SB-winning years (2001, 2003, 2004), non-SB-winning years (2002, 2005-2010), and non-SB-winning years with Tom Brady as the QB (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010) - figuring that maybe we wouldn't want to "dirty" the analysis with a season of a totally different QB at the helm. I then totaled up the number of pass plays (passing attempts + sacks), pass yards (pass yds - sack yds lost), rushing plays, and rushing yards, and calculated the average number of yards per pass play and per rush play. Finally, I calculated the percentage of plays that were pass plays and run plays. I realize that some of Brady's rushing attempts and yards were due to a scramble on a pass play, but there's no way to find out which of his runs were that, so I just counted them as rushing plays.

Here's the data:

3 SB-winning seasons:
- pass plays: 1608; pass yds: 10109; yds per pass play: 6.3; 52.2% of plays
- rush plays: 1470; rush yds: 5534; yds per rush play: 3.8; 47.8% of plays
- average offensive rank (pts scored): 7.3
- average win-loss record: 13.0-3.0

7 non-SB-winning seasons:
- pass plays: 4118; pass yds: 27680; yds per pass play: 6.7; 56.1% of plays
- rush plays: 3217; rush yds: 13010; yds per rush play: 4.0; 43.9% of plays
- average offensive rank (pts scored): 6.1
- average win-loss record: 11.7-4.3

6 non-SB-winning Brady seasons:
- pass plays: 3533; pass yds: 24111; yds per pass play: 6.8; 56.6% of plays
- rush plays: 2704; rush yds: 10732; yds per rush play: 4.0; 43.4% of plays
- average offensive rank (pts scored): 5.8
- average win-loss record: 11.8-4.2

So during the regular season, we see that the three SB-winning years of the Patriots featured a more balanced attack, close to a 50-50 mix. Their yards per play - both passing and rushing - was up during their non-SB-winning years, which is something to consider. The more they passed, the better their offensive rank, so clearly, over the course of a season, against both good and bad competition, a pass-heavy offense produced results. That said, we know that huge offensive explosions can skew the overall scoring average, so in 2010, for example, putting up a 45-3 beatdown on the Jets counts the same in the win column as the 23-20 win over the Chargers, but it's a 42-point difference in their point differential (and a 22-point difference in pts per game scored). High-octane offenses will tend to have a higher points per game, but that's because blowouts (which they're more capable of) skew the numbers so much.

In the playoffs the last 10 years (19 games), here's what they've done in their wins and losses:

14 playoff wins:
- pass plays: 523; pass yds: 2994; yds per pass play: 5.7; 55.5% of plays
- rush plays: 420; rush yds: 1672; yds per rush play: 4.0; 44.5% of plays

5 playoff losses:
- pass plays: 219; pass yds: 1187; yds per pass play: 5.4; 67.2% of plays
- rush plays: 107; rush yds: 394; yds per rush play: 3.7; 32.8% of plays

Notice the severe imbalance of the Patriots' offense in their playoff losses. It's even worse over their last 3 losses (2007 SB, 2009 vs Bal, 2010 vs NYJ):

- pass plays: 148; pass yds: 620; yds per pass play: 4.2; 70.5% of plays
- rush plays: 62; rush yds: 222; yds per rush play: 3.6; 29.5% of plays

I know in the Baltimore game they got behind big early and felt like they needed to throw a lot. But did they? They were down 7-0 after Rice's huge run to start the game, and the Pats promptly threw on 2 of their 3 plays in their first possession. After Baltimore scored another TD to go up 14-0 with ten and a half minutes to go, it might seem like they needed to throw, but I submit that there was still, obviously, tons of time left in the game...WAY too early to abandon the running game. They then tried to pass 2 of their 3 plays again. They forced a Baltimore punt which may have indicated that the defense was at least getting their bearings, and then the offense promptly threw 3 of their next 4 plays, resulting in a second turnover, which led to Baltimore's third TD. Ballgame. So when they were still very much in the game, with 55 minutes to go, they decided to throw 7 of their next 10 plays, two of which resulted in turnovers.

But even if you want to argue that they were "forced" to throw by the game context, certainly that wasn't the case against the Giants or Jets. They led the Giants for most of that game until the 4th quarter. They were well within striking distance of the Jets all game long, and the Jets were *begging* the Patriots to run. Yet the stats look essentially the same:

- pass plays: 103; pass yds: 488; yds per pass play: 4.7; 70.1% of plays
- rush plays: 44; rush yds: 158; yds per rush play: 3.6; 29.9% of plays

Again, they were very pass-happy against two defenses that featured good defenses (2010 NYJ #3 vs run, #6 vs pass; 2007 NYG #8 vs run, #11 vs pass), but it's not like either team was *much* easier to pass against compared to the run.

As they have put up pinball-like scores by having a dynamic pass offense, their ability to shift gears and simply say, ok, if it's going to be challenging passing the ball today (weather, opponent, opponent's scheme, etc.), we're quite content to hammer the ball down your throat on the ground, has dwindled. They seem married to the pass. Understandable, with Brady at the helm, but essentially the Pats have become the Indianapolis Colts...able to put up huge numbers, but also very stoppable if you concentrate on defending the pass.

In the Pats SB-winning years, they ran the ball more purposefully, content to beat you on the ground if that's what was available. But recently, in the playoffs, they have not had that mentality; they've become one-dimensional on offense, and as great as Brady is, against good defenses (and the 2007 Giants, 2009 Ravens, and 2010 Jets all had good defenses) you cannot be one-dimensional. More than 70% of the plays are passing plays? Wow. Way too unbalanced.

That needs to be fixed heading into 2011. I think another quality RB is needed, but more than that, they need a paradigm shift, tactically. Their playoff success featured a willingness - even a preference? - to run the ball a lot. Their playoff failures - most of which were close games - featured almost a stubborn commitment to throw the ball at all costs.

Fitzgerald would be nice to have, but that wouldn't fix what ails the Pats. Time for a change in philosophy, in my opinion.