Another record for Brady/Belichick: 1st Downs
As two major individual NFL records were pursued late this season, one broken and the other almost so, lost in the shuffle yesterday was New England shattering the record for first downs in a season at 444. [ESPN]
Yes, a lesser-known record (previously held by the 2011 Saints at 416, before that it was the 2004 Chiefs at 398), but one of the more meaningful statistics on offense, to my mind.
December 31st, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
December 31st, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^
December 31st, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
...but when they need to pick up ONE first down against the NY Giants to put away a Super Bowl (twice), they choke like dogs. Add the game they game from ahead to lose against Indianapolis in the AFC championship in 2006 and Brady/Bellichick SHOULD have six rings.
Still pisses me off to think about it.
December 31st, 2012 at 1:03 PM ^
It goes both ways. They could have lost all three of the Super Bowls they won - each one was won by a field goal.
You're basically complaining that they didn't win it all 100% of the time when they had a chance. No one ever does. Just be happy the guy has three rings.
December 31st, 2012 at 1:09 PM ^
December 31st, 2012 at 5:03 PM ^
...say your argument is weak. Joe Montana does, too.
Even if we limit the discussion to Super Bowls only, five is better than four (see Bradshaw, Noll, Montana)...and a HELLUVA lot better than three.
December 31st, 2012 at 11:29 AM ^
It's an interesting stat that underscores, in a small way, how much of a passing league the NFL has become when you split it into its constituent components, I think. The split on those 444 first downs, per their NFL site, is 256 passing, 151 rushing and 37 by penalty, which translates to about a 58-34-8 split when it comes to percentages. The Saints set the previous mark with an even less balanced game than this actually, which I find sort of interesting - barely a quarter of the Saints' first downs last season came in the rushing game, and almost 70% of them came when passing.
December 31st, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^
I think teams tend to throw on third down because they can run their routes beyond the sticks and reduce the possible outcomes into (1) gain of sufficient yardage for first down and (2) incomplete/interception/sack, instead of the continuum of outcomes you have on a running play.
The run is used on earlier downs to reduce the yardage you need on third down, but once you get there it makes sense to run plays that have outcomes clumped just beyond what you need.
December 31st, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^
But it also shows that runs of 10 or more yards aren't that common (since those early-down runs are rarely moving the chains). In the NFL, the run has basically become a change-of-pace that keeps the D from completely keying on the passing game.
December 31st, 2012 at 11:49 PM ^
Were they ever? Is there any historical data on this?
It's hard for me to think of an NFL team ever that consistently moved the chains on the ground, and I started watching in the 60s. The Rams running the slob sweep with McCutcheon, maybe.
It was always a matter of making sure you got to third and three instead of third and ten, it seems to me. And running clock when you had a lead.
I'm not going to spend New Years Eve on this--maybe I'll look at it later--but the homepages for NFL teams have these first down statistics going back to 1991 and I don't see any change in the handful I sampled.
Ed.: OK, I spent five minutes on it after all. In 1991 there were no teams that had more first downs rushing than passing (no one was even close). In 1981 there were 5, in 1971 6, in 1961 1 (of only 14 teams then).
So maybe there has been some change over time, though I'm not sure there's been change over the last 20 years or so.