DarrylS

From today's Boston Globe, comments from Phil Sims... who is more respectable than most.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...turning_heads/

Simms wonders if the Patriots are victims of their success.

``I watched the New England-Miami game and I heard rumblings in the crowd, even when Tom Brady was getting some passes knocked down," he said. ``I sensed that people were thinking, `The Dolphins are 1-3 and we should beat them by 50.' I think New England is in a tough place. They've won three Super Bowls, but it doesn't seem like winning is good enough, they have to win with style, convincingly, to keep people happy. I guess I'd ask, `What does everyone expect?' "

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

patfanken

Thanks for the many replies, even the flatterning ones, but the main issue I wanted to hear from you is whether anyone else thinks that by SIMPLIFYING the QB/WR options the EXECUTION would improve. Not only for this team, but league wide??????

Lets get the discussion going.

5 Rings for Brady!!

I know that when the Pats have done this, they have tended to win games by a single field goal, late. You have to have talent as part of the equation. Weis often played Miami this way. Keep it simple. But it was downright ugly for the Pats.

The teams that run the same play over and over tend to be good at it, like Denver or the Colts.

The downside of running simple plays is that you better have a back up plan, because someone like Belichick can take your plan away from you. Unless you happen to be the Broncos.

Fencer

For a simple passing scheme to work, you'd need the outcomes to be that receivers reliably get open if single-covered ... and that they're far enough apart that a defender on another receiver can't jump the route ... and that the passes can't commonly be knocked down at the line of scrimmage. And even with that simplicity, you'd need blitz adjustments.

cavtroop

PFK: great post, especially the part about the WR and QB having to read the defense the same way, then run the correct route. All while the defense is trying to disguise what it is doing. Very very tough to pick up in a few week.

I don't have the link handy (I'm at work), but there is a website out there that has several of the NFL playbooks for download. One of the playbooks is the 2002 (2003?) NE Offensive playbook.


No, mind you, I'm a smart guy. Hold down a good job, can figure most things out. I flipped through the playbook. It was mind-boggling. The different options the WR has on each play based on what the defense is showing...its amazing. Figure 100 plays in the book. 2, sometime 3 options per route. Thats 300 or so different permutations - all depending on what the defense shows. And like PFK said, the QB and the WR have to make the same reads, to be on the same page, and be where the ball is at the correct time.

I think PFK is onto something, in that the playbooks are getting too tough (or maybe the players are getting dumber... ). But it is a 'keep up with the Jones' kind of thing - if your opponents are doing it, you should be too, else you become too predictable. Maybe that is the problem with the Pats early on this year (not that 4-1 is a problem mind you) - they are using less options per play (maybe no options per play), and have thus become predictable. Interesting thought....

Mooch

Good topic.

I think that, in the case of the Patriots, that simplifying the system takes away the major advantage that Tom Brady has over defensive coordinators (not to mention other QBs around the league) -- His ability to read and react. When you have a guy who frequently goes to his #3 or #4 option in his progressions, "dumbing down" the options takes away a major part of Brady's skill set. If you were to put Brady in an offense that just relies on his arm (lots of 20 yard outs, long bombs, etc...), you'd have less production and you'd probably get him killed in the process. Also, the Patriots coaching philosophy seems to mesh with this as well. For years, we've all read about Belichick being a master of gameplanning to take ONE THING away from an opponent that will blow up the entire scheme. Well, if you simpify the offense too much, you open yourself up to a similar plan.

The opposite situation would be a guy like Michael Vick. Here's a player with obvious physical skills who is thrust into a complicated West Coast offense that frequently puts him into situations that do not best utilize his talents. So smart opposing defensive coordinators are pretty easily able to shut down the Falcon offense.

patfanken

I don't disagree with anything that you've said per se, but perhaps I wasn't being clear in my explaination. If the Pats were to run set patterns, this would in no way take away Brady's ability to work his progression, 1-4. In fact it might help him since he would know for certain EXACTLY where his receivers would be at all times, and not have to hope and pray they they are reading the same thing that he is.

It would help the receivers as well since they will be able to concentrate on their evasion techniques on the LOS and making the proper cuts EXACTLY where they are supposed to be. Now they are lining up, trying to read the defense and at the same time trying to get off the LOS, run the right route and be where they are supposed to be at the proper time.

Yes it would eliminate options. This is a trade off, not a sure fire solution. You give up some of your flexibilty for an improvement in your execution. Like anything its a risk reward situation, and you make your decision based on which will make it more likely you could move the ball.

Here we agree completely. At some point someone will realize that they Falcons will have a better chance at getting to the superbowl with Matt Shaub than Mike Vick. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the LAST YEAR of "Mike Vick elite QB in the NFL"

Urgent

Good topic Ken.

On developing this chemistry with receivers: I have argued before that part of the value of a receiver is his ability, and part of the value is his understanding of the specific routes, system, and QB approach of his existing team. And that the Patriots seem to undervalue this component. With Branch holding out during the offseason and Givens a premier free agent, gone essentially the first day, the Patriots made no effort to bring back even Dwight or Davis -- guys who at least knew the system and offered some special teams help to boot. Very strange decision.

Many have noted the complexity of understanding the joint unspoken decision required by QB and receivers to select the right option on a route. That said, I'll give you five reasons it's overblown: the touchdown receptions by Deion Branch and Terrell Owens this weekend. They seemed to get in the right spots. Maybe they are special cases.

There could be a couple options here.
One is, as Ken says, simplify the routes, so there is only one route in a given play for each receiver. Brady determines which route is likely to be open that play under that defense, and throws the ball accordingly. The only uncertainty is the accuracy of the receiver's route and the accuracy of Brady's throw.

Another option, possibly, is to limit the number of routes each receiver practices each week. The Patriots have an interesting situation where the talent of their #5 receiver is only marginally below the talent of their #1 receiver. There is another thread today rating all NFL receivers, and the Pats all show up between ~#60 and ~#80. So, switching between Caldwell, Brown, Gabriel, Gaffney, and Jackson really doesn't add or drop too much talent. So, you could split up the routes each practices each week. Now you can't give them each the same five routes, because teams would catch on to that quickly. But you could make them expert in a couple specific routes, and understand exactly the decisions and options. This may be what they are doing, as you see them rotate receivers in and out.

On your second point about parity:
Well, even in their best season, the Patriots seldom blow out teams. That may be about parity, but you do see the Patriots edge the Jets, and then the Jaguars crush them 41-0. The Pats don't seem to have that killer approach. When ahead, they tend to play softer defenses, run less risky offensive plays. When behind, they tend to slowly chip away rather than take a big risk to get right back in it.