A Wes-less Offense - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***mayoclinic*** · 01-27-2013, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolguy

Am i the only one that think the passing game while effective, is somewhat predictable?
I think the offense was better when brady spread the ball out to 5 different receivers, because the defense didn't know who brady was going to throw to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.M. Fletcher

There are two major negatives and two decent positives with Welker moving on.

negatives

1. Welker was targeted more this past year than any other year with us, to the tune of 10.5 attempts a game. That is nearly impossible to makeup by simply adding another receiver, and Andy is right, you simply cannot move those catches to the TEs who already have exceptional catch rates. There is not one player you could bring in that will cover that, not even 80% of that, which is a big key to the fast paced offense and 3rd down conversation rate.

2. Between Bradys incredible release time and welkers quickness, rarely do we see brady face a ton of instant pressure. Losing Wes will prove the mettle of our o-line alot more than we have seen in recent years. Brady is a brilliant tactician, and having Wes as his security blanket has saved him from a lot of hits in recent years.

positives

1. The screen game has for the most part disappeared from the pats playbook, outside of Wes's catch and run plays, with gronk and mankins pulling. These have become even less popular in the last two years. If Welker moved on, Vereens split out ability could be taken advantage of, and possibly edelman and Hernandez as well. With a more consistant 2-2-1 line up, we may be able to take advantage of the speed of our backs who have better breakaway ability than Wes.

2. The team has never been younger and deeper on offense, is also in a position to add another through either free agency or the draft. The transformation is primarily done at this point, with wide receiver and qb being the only two left untouched. I believe the team has built a young nucleus around brady in order for the teams success to continue beyond his time here, so allowing him to get the most out of the people we have now. Holding on to wes will only continue to avoid the fact that they need to get youth infused in a position sorely needing it. With Wes in his early 30s and a step slower, there are plenty of places you can put 8-11mill in other positions that will both protect that future and set the present better than Wes will. With the teams two other top targets missing large chunks of the season, or banged up when they did play, Wes was needed to bridge the gap that much more. If they can return healthy, Wes's role will likely diminish naturally, which is not what you want from such an expensive resource.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manxman2601

Losing Welker would also have an impact on the OL. The run game would become more of a mainstay rather than a wrinkle to take advantage of nickel defenses, we'd likely see more base defenses and Brady would need more time in the pocket. Uncertainty over Vollmer, Cannon's inexperience and two oft-injured 30+ Guards would indicate that we should be looking at upgrades there sooner rather than later.

And btw, this is one of the best threads I've read. Very informative.

I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. Andy, this is a great thread topic, and great OP. Wonderful idea, and some very good insights.

I personally don't think that having one receiver targeted as much as we've tareted Welker is a good idea. It makes the offense too predictable. I wanted Wes' work load to be decreased this year. Instead, with the injuries to the TEs, he was targeted as much or more than ever. While Welker deserves all the credit in the world for his toughness, durability and reliability, it's just not the way to make the offense less predictable and harder to defend in the playoffs. What this team needs is a Wes Welker circa 2007, a guy brought in to be a piece of the overall puzzle, not Wes Welker circa 2012. A young, inexpensive, complementary guy who will fit in as part of the offense.

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The OL is one key. I think the team needs to invest in some young turks on the OL. Maybe a Jonathan Cooper or DJ Fluker. Maybe Marcus Cannon will emerge as a starting caliber lineman this year, as 2012 was essentially a rookie year for him. Move Dan Connolly back to center. But I agree with Manx about the loss of Welker putting more pressure on the OL. We've been using Welker and the quick passing game to cover up a lot of deficiencies, but then they come back to bite us in the ass come playoff time. It's time to address those deficiencies and try a different approach.

The running game needs to be used more as a "mainstay" of the offense on a consistent basis, and less as a "wrinkle", to use Manx's terms. The line has to be able to give Brady enough time to find a receiver more than 15 yards downfield, the team has to invest in some young guys with the size and/or speed to work the sidelines, and Brady has to buy into that. There are still plenty of short/intermediate options: Hernandez, Edelman, Vereen, Demps and Woodhead (depending on whether Edelman and Woodhead are re-signed, of course).

Getting more of a "home run" threat is also important. Our 4 most productive offenseive skill players - Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Lloyd - dont have the speed to be breakaway threats. And certainly not Branch since he returned. They can sometimes break some big gains, but they aren't the kind of guys who will take it to the house when they get a step on the defense, with rare exceptions. Vereen and Edelman offer more of that capability. Demps obviously would if he makes the step to be an offensive weapon. But the offense needs both a faster "move" option who can be that kind of threat (Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin) and a bigger outside option who can stretch the field.

The objective shouldn't be to "make up" for Welker's production. The objective should be to diversify the offense to make it less dependent on one guy, less predictable, and harder to defend come playoff time. I personally think that's easier to achieve without Welker than with him, great as he is, because we keep getting stuck in the rut of going to our "security blanket" over and over again as long as we have him, right up until the time when it fails us in the playoffs and we go home disappointed for the season. Time to try a different approach, both for money reasons and because, great as the security blanket has been, it ultimately hasn't provided enough security from the bogeymen.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". We've had the same result: a highly prolific offense that sets all kind of regular season records, and then which struggles in the playoffs. Every time there's a discussion of diversifying the offense and being more committed to a running game, the response is "why fix what isn't broke". Well, it's broke IMHO, as far as winning in the playoffs goes. Time to fix it. Saying that it isn't broke and we just needed to execute better (just like we needed to do in 2007, 2010, and 2011) just condemns us to the same result next year, and the year after. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

ivanvamp · 01-27-2013, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The bolded part is very interesting to me. Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

manxman2601 · 01-27-2013, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanvamp

The bolded part is very interesting to me. Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

Good point. There are two reasons I see for the juxtaposition:

1. Tom Brady. He's accurate enough to make this approach work, most other QB's not so much.

2. Turnovers. By forcing teams in to the methodical approach, I think BB expects them to stall because of reason 1. That forces to throw deeper and into a situation where turnovers are more likely. However, because TB can make the methodical approach work, the possibilities of giving up turnovers on deeper balls is reduced and hence we win the turnover battle.

***mayoclinic*** · 01-27-2013, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanvamp

Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

This is very insightful stuff. Thanks. You're right, it's kind of ironic. We want to limit the other team and force the team to execute and move the chains, believing that it's easier to slip up once and fail to convert, stalling a drive, thus giving up yards but limit points; but our offense methodically tries to move the chains without having much of a big play capability, requiring it to convert lots of 3rd downs, as Andy noted in the OP. It only takes one failed conversion to stall a drive. It's a tough way to go. So we set records for 1st down conversions, which is both a testament to how efficient our offense is and also an indictment of our lack of vertical or big play capability. The latter forces us to move the ball down the field in 10 yard increments, racking up lots of 1st downs in the process, but also leading to many stalled drives and punts (or field goals, or missed field goals, or failed conversions) at the opponents' 34 yard line.

***mayoclinic*** · 01-27-2013, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manxman2601

Good point. There are two reasons I see for the juxtaposition:

1. Tom Brady. He's accurate enough to make this approach work, most other QB's not so much.

2. Turnovers. By forcing teams in to the methodical approach, I think BB expects them to stall because of reason 1. That forces to throw deeper and into a situation where turnovers are more likely. However, because TB can make the methodical approach work, the possibilities of giving up turnovers on deeper balls is reduced and hence we win the turnover battle.

That's a pretty thin margin for error. Fail to win the turnover battle, or Brady has a slightly off day, or some key drops, and the balance can tip pretty easily. In the playoffs, with better defenses putting more pressure on Brady and teams executing better overall, it's easier for one or more of those 3 things to happen.

manxman2601 · 01-27-2013, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

That's a pretty thin margin for error. Fail to win the turnover battle, or Brady has a slightly off day, or some key drops, and the balance can tip pretty easily. In the playoffs, with better defenses putting more pressure on Brady and teams executing better overall, it's easier for one or more of those 3 things to happen.

I've been saying that for a while, particularly when applied to the defense. And recnt playoff evidence says we're right. I didn't say I liked it, but I do think that's BB's reasoning.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 01-27-2013, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belichicknumber1

Sorry not down with that Australia slang. All i know is i make garbage money for a living and i split seasons tickets with a buddy of mine. I'm sick of the same slouch losing important games for the team i love.

Per @adamschefter Wes was seen playing futbol with a few euro friends. he was playing goalie unfortunately he had to use only his head to stop the balls cause all the kicks were going through his hands #howsthatfutboljoke #inthelanddwnunder

Best news I've had all week is you make garbage money for a living... All too often the most idiotic kneejerk posters here claim to be wildly successful businessmen making six figures and traveling the world... At least you're willing to admit your just some pissed off stiff lashing out at yet another of your life's disappointments.

But since the OP specifically asked not for opinions on whether Welker should or should not be retained, but discussion and ideas on what potential strategies his departure might result in the team persuing, and the only thread on Welker you claim you're interested in is the one announcing his departure, perhaps you should save your low brow contributions for that thread.

Snake Eyes · 01-27-2013, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayoclinic

I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. Andy, this is a great thread topic, and great OP. Wonderful idea, and some very good insights.

I personally don't think that having one receiver targeted as much as we've tareted Welker is a good idea. It makes the offense too predictable. I wanted Wes' work load to be decreased this year. Instead, with the injuries to the TEs, he was targeted as much or more than ever. While Welker deserves all the credit in the world for his toughness, durability and reliability, it's just not the way to make the offense less predictable and harder to defend in the playoffs. What this team needs is a Wes Welker circa 2007, a guy brought in to be a piece of the overall puzzle, not Wes Welker circa 2012. A young, inexpensive, complementary guy who will fit in as part of the offense.

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The OL is one key. I think the team needs to invest in some young turks on the OL. Maybe a Jonathan Cooper or DJ Fluker. Maybe Marcus Cannon will emerge as a starting caliber lineman this year, as 2012 was essentially a rookie year for him. Move Dan Connolly back to center. But I agree with Manx about the loss of Welker putting more pressure on the OL. We've been using Welker and the quick passing game to cover up a lot of deficiencies, but then they come back to bite us in the ass come playoff time. It's time to address those deficiencies and try a different approach.

The running game needs to be used more as a "mainstay" of the offense on a consistent basis, and less as a "wrinkle", to use Manx's terms. The line has to be able to give Brady enough time to find a receiver more than 15 yards downfield, the team has to invest in some young guys with the size and/or speed to work the sidelines, and Brady has to buy into that. There are still plenty of short/intermediate options: Hernandez, Edelman, Vereen, Demps and Woodhead (depending on whether Edelman and Woodhead are re-signed, of course).

Getting more of a "home run" threat is also important. Our 4 most productive offenseive skill players - Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Lloyd - dont have the speed to be breakaway threats. And certainly not Branch since he returned. They can sometimes break some big gains, but they aren't the kind of guys who will take it to the house when they get a step on the defense, with rare exceptions. Vereen and Edelman offer more of that capability. Demps obviously would if he makes the step to be an offensive weapon. But the offense needs both a faster "move" option who can be that kind of threat (Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin) and a bigger outside option who can stretch the field.

The objective shouldn't be to "make up" for Welker's production. The objective should be to diversify the offense to make it less dependent on one guy, less predictable, and harder to defend come playoff time. I personally think that's easier to achieve without Welker than with him, great as he is, because we keep getting stuck in the rut of going to our "security blanket" over and over again as long as we have him, right up until the time when it fails us in the playoffs and we go home disappointed for the season. Time to try a different approach, both for money reasons and because, great as the security blanket has been, it ultimately hasn't provided enough security from the bogeymen.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". We've had the same result: a highly prolific offense that sets all kind of regular season records, and then which struggles in the playoffs. Every time there's a discussion of diversifying the offense and being more committed to a running game, the response is "why fix what isn't broke". Well, it's broke IMHO, as far as winning in the playoffs goes. Time to fix it. Saying that it isn't broke and we just needed to execute better (just like we needed to do in 2007, 2010, and 2011) just condemns us to the same result next year, and the year after. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Thank you, you did a great job of putting into words what I've thought for a long time.

People talk about how the offense runs through Wes, apparently this is why the team should pay him big money, but if it runs through him it can also be shut down through him, yes?

A Wes centered offense is a poor way to go into the playoffs and we've seen it fail several times, we need a diverse offense that is more explosive, and doesn't depend on perfect execution.

***mayoclinic*** · 01-27-2013, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

Thank you, you did a great job of putting into words what I've thought for a long time.

People talk about how the offense runs through Wes, apparently this is why the team should pay him big money, but if it runs through him it can also be shut down through him, yes?

A Wes centered offense is a poor way to go into the playoffs and we've seen it fail several times, we need a diverse offense that is more explosive, and doesn't depend on perfect execution.

Again, to be very clear, I didn't start this thread, and I'm by no means taking anything away from Welker. Incredible player, who's done everything asked of him, and more. Just like in the "mortality of Brady" thread I wasn't taking any shots at Brady, who is without doubt one of the 2-3 greatest of all time, and still one of the 2-3 best in the game today.

But I think that we've come to believe that these guys can just put the team on their shoulders and carry us to a Super Bowl. And I think the odds of that are very, very low, especially as they get older and have subtle declines in some key skills. They'll still be great players, but expecting them to be supermen and overcome all just isn't realistic.

The sad irony is that Welker IS undoubtedly a great player, and he DOES undoubtedly deserve to get paid. No question. And I have no doubt that he'd continue to be productive in general, and put up good numbers. But I personally suspect that that road won't lead to more Lombardi trophies.

A lower-cost Welker who was used as part of a more diverse offense would be ideal. But I can't see how that would happen.

***convertedpatsfan*** · 01-27-2013, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanvamp

The bolded part is very interesting to me. Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

I wouldn't consider them quite the same. The Pats offense changes week to week and even the route tree is based on what the defense gives. If the defense doesn't give the deep routes, they nickel and dime. If the defense takes away the underneath stuff, they will switch it up. It may just be that the opposing defense is trying to do this as well, and our offense is just executing at an extremely high level.

I think we all focus on Brady's incredible accuracy so much that we forget that this Pats offense finished in the top 10 in yards per play as well. And this without a legit deep threat. I don't think any other team in the top 10 yards per play had a TE lead their team in highest average catch (with at least 10 catches).

Simply put, our offense just executed at an extremely high level this season. We had the fewest 3 and outs as well. We led the league in points, yards, 3rd down conversion, and were at or near the top of almost every single offensive stat, yet after every bad play or series, all we could talk about was how Josh needed to be fired.

There were definitely bad plays and bad series (or maybe they were good plays and good series that were plagued by bad execution), but overall, as a whole, the offense did pretty damn good.