Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Football Outsiders Almanac 2009

[For the Pats in the recent past, it’s been all about the shotgun formation. In 2007, New England became the first NFL team to run the shotgun formation on more than 50 percent of their plays, and that trend continued in 2008. Our data shows that teams are more effective and efficient in the shotgun – over the last two years, teams have averaged 5.9 yards per play from the shotgun, and 5.1 under center. Cassel threw 433 passes out of the shotgun and amassed a DYAR [Defense-Adjusted Yards over Replacement] of 531, and a DVOA of 7.8%. Under center, he threw 124 passes for a DYAR of 124 and a DVOA of 2.2%. ]

-------

Sure the Shotgun puts up more avg yards per play compared to non-shotgun, but this is why stats are a crappy way to evaluate offense (otherwise Marino and Favre are the best QB's ever, which they're not). I'll also go out on a limb and say 4-WR formations have higher yards per play than I-formations, big whoop, it doesn't mean 4-wide is better than I-formation.

What is interesting is that on top of using shot-gun for over 50% of all plays, on our passing attempts the vast majority came from shot-gun. I wonder if this gives defenses an easy key (especially for d-line and linebackers) to focus on pass rush and not worry about the run as much. Sure we may get some nice runs out of shot gun occasionally, but the easy telegraph is still there and we still predominantly pass more than run out of shot gun.

I also don't think that pass-happy spread offenses have a strong history of being on championship-winning teams. We've seen this with the 01 Rams, the 04 Colts, and the 07 Pats, who all got beaten by more physical defenses in the playoffs. The Pats used shotgun and 3/4-WR way too much the past two years; even under Cassel it was almost always shotgun for passes, which telegraphs to the D what are you doing.

 

[BradyFTW!]

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

Sure the Shotgun puts up more avg yards per play compared to non-shotgun, but this is why stats are a crappy way to evaluate offense (otherwise Marino and Favre are the best QB's ever, which they're not).

Blatantly false, not that facts have ever stopped you from making your asinine arguments.

 

[maverick4]

False? Marino and Favre hold the top-2 all time yards passing for QB's. Favre is the all time TD (thus, scoring) QB leader.
List of National Football League records (individual) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's pretty funny that you call facts false. What's even more amusing is that complete Pats homers like yourself will cherry pick when to emphasize stats in order to have a biased worldview whether it comes to best teams, best offenses, or best QB. When it comes to best offense, you love to cite stats. When it comes to Brady v. Manning, you will dismiss stats. No consistency whatsoever.

 

[BradyFTW!]

False? Marino and Favre hold the top-2 all time yards passing for QB's. Favre is the all time TD (thus, scoring) QB leader.
List of National Football League records (individual) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's pretty funny that you call facts false. What's even more amusing is that complete Pats homers like yourself will cherry pick when to emphasize stats in order to have a biased worldview whether it comes to best teams, best offenses, or best QB. When it comes to best offense, you love to cite stats. When it comes to Brady v. Manning, you will dismiss stats. No consistency whatsoever.

"Stats" is not synonymous with "total yards". Yards is a volume stat, which is correlated as much with quantity of play as quality. It's ******ed to claim that anything is backed by statistics without bringing a single efficiency stat into the equation, not that I'd expect you to know the difference.

And in the Brady vs. Manning debate, I made my case for Brady using nothing but stats. Once again, get a clue before you claim something.

 

[maverick4]

It's also not surprising that shotgun formations generate higher average yards per play than other less pass-happy formations. Yet, you continue to obsess over these metrics as if they are the end all for which offenses are better, when they're not.

When one compares best players, best offensive/defensive units, to best teams all-time or in a season, the accomplishment of a championship/ring is much more vital/important the more you talk about larger numbers of people involved. It's hilarious to hear Pats homers salivate over the 2006-2008 offenses when those units got stuffed by physical defenses in the playoffs, they sound just like whiny Colts fans from 2003-2004.

Conversely, stats are more important when comparing individual players, since you can't blame a player as much for no rings if he was on horrible units or teams.

Any all-time best offense should have a ring in order to be considered for discussion. The 2007-2008 Pats offenses loved to use shotgun, which gets sexy stats, but pass-happy spread offenses like that historically fall short when it comes to championships.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's also not surprising that shotgun formations generate higher average yards per play than other less pass-happy formations. Yet, you continue to obsess over these metrics as if they are the end all for which offenses are better, when they're not.

When one compares best players -> best offensive/defensive units -> best teams all time or in a season, the accomplishment of a championship/ring is much more vital/important the more you talk about larger numbers of people. It's hilarious to hear Pats homers salivate over the 2006-2008 offenses when they got stuffed by physical defenses in the playoffs.

Conversely, stats are more important when comparing individual players, since you can't blame a player as much for no rings if he was on horrible units or teams.

Any all time best offense should have a ring in order to be considered for discussion. The 2007-2008 Pats offenses loved to use shotgun, which gets sexy stats, but pass-happy spread offenses like that historically fall short when it comes to championships.

Favre has also thrown the most interceptions in history: that is the downside of volume stats. The best that you can say for him is that he was great for a couple of years, and other than that he stuck around for a long time. You cannot make a coherent argument that Favre is the best ever based on stats.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-brady-please-explain-page14.html#post1421510

Check post 539: I used nothing but individual statistics to make my case for Brady. People that argue for Manning make the same dumb mistake that you're making in your Favre/Marino analogy: ignoring efficiency stats in favor of volume ones. It's also the only way to come to the conclusion that Bledsoe was an all-time great QB, FWIW.

BTW, when's the last time that a team even made the SB, let alone won it, without a highly effective aerial attack? I'll give you a hint: it was the Bears in 2005, and how did that turn out? The Giants rallied to beat the Pats by throwing downfield to Tyree and Plaxico. The Steelers overcame the Cardinals by airing it out to Santonio. The Colts speak for themselves. You keep repeating the same claim that having an elite passing game is somehow a negative, largely because you just can't comprehend that it's possible to be very good at multiple facets of the game. Somehow, in your mind, you've actually warped reality so that having and using Randy Moss is a bad thing. Either way, you're a clueless pessimist who's so stuck on bashing McDaniels that you've completely lost all touch with reality. Your insistence on ignoring the fact that the Pats actually have a very good rushing attack is kinda sad to see.

 

[jmt57]

I'm confused. If a team does better out of the shotgun than they do under center (5.9 yards per play vs. 5.1; DVOA of 7.8% vs. 2.2%), then why do you want them to use the formation that results in lower numbers? Because the other team knows what play is most likely coming? If that was the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that opposing defenses would more likely be able to stop plays out of the shotgun - which would result in lower yards per play out of the shotgun?

One thing that the shotgun formation does is give the quarterback more time to survey the field and make a better decision. Since Cassel had no starting NFL experience it was important to use the shotgun more often last year.

In 2007 Laurence Maroney and Sammy Morris both missed extensive amounts of time due to injuries; Kevin Faulk ended up having to start half the games that year. With choices at running back often reduced to Faulk, Heath Evans and Kyle Eckel, going to three and four receiver sets made sense.

Regardless, I do believe the Pats will run more often in 2009 than they did in 2007, in part to reduce the number of times Brady might get hit.

 

[maverick4]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-brady-please-explain-page14.html#post1421510

Check post 539: I used nothing but individual statistics to make my case for Brady. People that argue for Manning make the same dumb mistake that you're making in your Favre/Marino analogy: ignoring efficiency stats in favor of volume ones. It's also the only way to come to the conclusion that Bledsoe was an all-time great QB, FWIW.

BTW, when's the last time that a team even made the SB, let alone won it, without a highly effective aerial attack? I'll give you a hint: it was the Bears in 2005, and how did that turn out? The Giants rallied to beat the Pats by throwing downfield to Tyree and Plaxico. The Steelers overcame the Cardinals by airing it out to Santonio. The Colts speak for themselves. You keep repeating the same claim that having an elite passing game is somehow a negative, largely because you just can't comprehend that it's possible to be very good at multiple facets of the game. Somehow, in your mind, you've actually warped reality so that having and using Randy Moss is a bad thing. Either way, you're a clueless pessimist who's so stuck on bashing McDaniels that you've completely lost all touch with reality. It's kinda sad to see.

Efficiency stats are ALSO misleading and inappropriate. It's obvious that shotgun gives better yards per play, but you're saying using it over half the snaps is smart??

I never said Moss was a bad thing, that is you pulling sh*t out of your arse now since you can't make a point without lying.

You cited some teams and made a bogus argument about vertical offenses winning rings. The Giants, Steelers, and pretty much most other teams who have won the Superbowl in the past 10 years were not mostly pass-happy spread offenses. They were like the 03-04 Pats offenses, which HAD the deep threat, but used it in timely and key moments and didn't completely telegraph they were passing all the time.

The Steelers beat the Cardinals, who were a pass happy team. The Giants beat the Pats, another pass happy team. They didn't have the sexy efficiency metrics you masturbate over, which you only use when it suits your crappy arguments.

 

[glm]

Any all-time best offense should have a ring in order to be considered for discussion.

So if a team has the greatest offense ever and the worst defense ever, and they don;t win the SB, then they can't be considered for discusssion?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Efficiency stats are ALSO misleading and inappropriate. It's obvious that shotgun gives better yards per play, but you're saying using it over half the snaps is smart??

Yes, if your personnel is well-suited for it (which the Pats' are). You play to your players' strengths.

I never said Moss was a bad thing, that is you pulling sh*t out of your arse now since you can't make a point without lying.

That's the logical conclusion of the tired and stupid point that you're trying to make.

You cited some teams and made a bogus argument about vertical offenses winning rings. The Giants, Steelers, and pretty much most other teams who have won the Superbowl in the past 10 years were not mostly pass-happy spread offenses. They were like the 03-04 Pats offenses, which HAD the deep threat, but used it in timely and key moments and didn't completely telegraph they were passing all the time.

When it came time to win the game, they both went vertical. They had to, and you can't win a SB in the modern NFL unless you can. The 03 and 04 Pats offenses did not have a vertical game to Rival the '08 Steelers, '07 Giants, '06 Colts, or '05 Steelers. Holmes, Burress, Wayne, Burress > Branch when it comes to stretching the field.

And once again, the Pats didn't telegraph in the SB. They were crippled by the OL collapse. You can't win the SB without being able to pass, and Brady couldn't even make a five step drop without being immediately crushed by the pass-rush thanks to Neal being hurt and Mankins disappearing. And even still, The offense put the Pats in the position to win, but the defense was foiled by a miracle catch.

The Steelers beat the Cardinals, who were a pass happy team. The Giants beat the Pats, another pass happy team. They didn't have the sexy efficiency metrics you masturbate over, which you only use when it suits your crappy arguments.

Both games came down to the final possession, and both 'pass-happy' teams were beaten when the opposing offenses went 'pass-happy' and torched their defenses. So, to further your ridiculous premise that pass-happy offenses don't work in the postseason, you specifically reference two SBs that were won by going vertical. That's dumb, even for you.

 

[maverick4]

I'm confused. If a team does better out of the shotgun than they do under center (5.9 yards per play vs. 5.1; DVOA of 7.8% vs. 2.2%), then why do you want them to use the formation that results in lower numbers? Because the other team knows what play is most likely coming? If that was the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that opposing defenses would more likely be able to stop plays out of the shotgun - which would result in lower yards per play out of the shotgun?

This is like asking, 'why do deep 4-WR passes get higher average yards per play than I-formations'? I strongly disagree with these type of stats. For example, it's possible the I-formation may get you more positive yards on average and also a higher chance of 1st down conversion success, but it won't look as good as the shotgun which will get more yards per successful play.

Let me use another sport as another example. In the NBA, some 3-point specialists or perimeter players have more average points per shot, but it doesn't mean shooting a ton of 3-pointers or jump shots is championship basketball. Low post dominance and defense in the NBA is still the best way to win championships. "Low post" dominance in the NFL is like having a strong ground game as the bread and butter, NOT using mostly shotgun (i.e. 3-pointers).

Another sports example: home runs and power hitters tend to score more points per hit, and yet championship baseball is almost always still about timely hitting, getting on base, and defense. A lot of Pats fans are obsessing over offensive stats the same way Red Sox fans used to obsess over home runs and having power hitting teams. Those Sox teams didn't win a championship for 86 years.

 

[maverick4]

When it came time to win the game, they both went vertical. They had to, and you can't win a SB in the modern NFL unless you can. The 03 and 04 Pats offenses did not have a vertical game to Rival the '08 Steelers, '07 Giants, '06 Colts, or '05 Steelers. Holmes, Burress, Wayne, Burress > Branch when it comes to stretching the field.

Both games came down to the final possession, and both 'pass-happy' teams were beaten when the opposing offenses went 'pass-happy' and torched their defenses.

You're delusional by calling defining these teams as 'pass happy, vertical' offenses. They were both mostly running offenses that had the capability of hurting teams deep.

They were aggressive when they needed to, just as the 01-04 Pats were when they had to be. But, they didn't have over half their plays out of shotgun like the 2007-2008, just getting cheap/easy regular season yards and then folding in the playoffs to physical defenses.

Also, those Giants' and Steelers' final, balanced drives were way better than: 3 full timeouts, need 40 yards to tie the Giants, and throw the game away with 4 straight slow developing hail mary's.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is like asking, 'why do deep 4-WR passes get higher average yards per play than I-formations'? I strongly disagree with these type of stats. For example, it's possible the I-formation may get you more positive yards on average and also a higher chance of success, but it won't look as good as the shotgun which will get more yards per successful play.

Let me use another sport as another example. In the NBA, some 3-point specialists or perimeter players have more average points per shot, but it doesn't mean shooting a ton of 3-pointers is championship basketball. Low post dominance and defense in the NBA is still the best way to win championships. "Low post" dominance in the NFL is like having a strong ground game.

Another sports example: home runs and power hitters tend to score more points per hit, and yet championship baseball is almost always still about timely hitting, getting on base, and defense.


A lot of Pats fans are obsessing over offensive stats the same way Red Sox fans used to obsess over home runs and having power hitting teams. Those teams didn't win a championship for 86 years.

The NBA analogy is actually an apt one, because it's yet another example of you subscribing to an obsolete cliche rather than taking a moment to consider reality.

NBA Finalists, top scorers:
2009, Orlando: Dwight Howard, 20.6 PPG (post)
2009, Lakers: Kobe Bryant, 26.8 PPG (perimeter)
2008, Celtics: Paul Pierce, 19.6 PPG (perimeter)
2008, Lakers: Kobe Bryant, 28.3 PPG (perimeter)
2007, Spurs: Tim Duncan, 20.0 PPG (post)
2007, Cavaliers: LeBron James, 27.3 PPG (perimeter)
2006, Mavericks: Dirk Nowitzki, 26.6 PPG (hybrid? tough one)
2006, Heat: Dwyane Wade, 27.2 PPG (perimeter)

So of the last 8 teams to make the finals, only two featured a top scorer who was clearly a post scorer. Of the 4 teams that won, three of them had primary scorers who were clearly perimeter players. If you take things a step back and analyze the top two scorers, you'll find, probably without exception, that the 1-2 punch of every finals team is a perimeter scorer and a post scorer. The #3 option is typically another perimeter guy.

So no, saying that championship teams pound the ball and control the game by scoring in the post is simply untrue. Championship teams win by playing elite defense and having an elite perimeter scorer who can penetrate, force the defense to collapse to help on him, then kick out. As always, though, don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're delusional by calling defining these teams as 'pass happy, vertical' offenses. They were both mostly running offenses that had the capability of hurting teams deep.

They were aggressive when they needed to, just as the 01-04 Pats were when they had to be. But, they didn't have over half their plays out of shotgun like the 2007-2008, just getting cheap/easy regular season yards and then folding in the playoffs to physical defenses.

Also, those Giants' and Steelers' final, balanced drives were way better than: 3 full timeouts, need 40 yards to tie the Giants, and throw the game away with 4 straight slow developing hail mary's.

Did they or did they not win the SB by airing the ball out to their #1 WRs with the game on the line?

 

[maverick4]

Did they or did they not win the SB by airing the ball out to their #1 WRs with the game on the line?

That has nothing to do with your defense of using shotgun over HALF the offensive plays. Your reasoning is brain damaged.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That has nothing to do with your defense of using shotgun over HALF the offensive plays. Your reasoning is brain damaged.

So do you or do you not have to be highly effective in the vertical passing game to win the SB?

and what does this say about your brilliant argument that high-powered offenses inevitably fizzle out and die in the SB?

 

[maverick4]

The NBA analogy is actually an apt one, because it's yet another example of you subscribing to an obsolete cliche rather than taking a moment to consider reality.

Way to completely twist the facts to your own warped conclusion. Low post offensive dominance in the NBA usually wins championships, even though fast paced or 3-pt teams like the Suns may get the sexy stats.

NBA Champions:
2009, Lakers: Pau Gasol, Kobe
2008, Celtics: Kevin Garnett, Pierce. HILARIOUS that you omit Garnett's name from your list.
2007, Spurs: Tim Duncan, Ginobili
2006, Heat: Shaquille O'Neal, Wade

You can go back even further. Those teams were mostly inside-based teams, who DID have the vertical or outside threat. The team with the better low post game won the ring.

The same thing applies to the NFL. Aside from the fluke Colts championship, all these pass-happy spread offenses fail to win championships compared to lunch-pail, ground-focused offenses that do have the vertical deep threat.

 

[efin98]

Is this going to devolve into another McDaniels bashing thread considering the original poster's fetish for bringing him up in threads?

 

[maverick4]

Is this going to devolve into another McDaniels bashing thread considering the original poster's fetish for bringing him up in threads?

Can you argue the merits of the points being made, without dismissing it as a McDaniels thread? Probably not, you're still too busy washing his balls.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Way to completely twist the facts to your own warped conclusion. Low post offensive dominance in the NBA usually wins championships, even though fast paced or 3-pt teams like the Suns may get the sexy stats.

NBA Champions:
2009, Lakers: Pau Gasol, Kobe
2008, Celtics: Kevin Garnett, Pierce. HILARIOUS that you omit Garnett's name from your list.
2007, Spurs: Tim Duncan, Ginobili
2006, Heat: Shaquille O'Neal, Wade

You can go back even further. Those teams were mostly inside-based teams, who DID have the vertical or outside threat.

The same thing applies to the NFL. Aside from the fluke Colts championship, all these pass-happy spread offenses fail to win championships compared to lunch-pail, ground-focused offenses that do have the vertical deep threat.

Kobe scored more than Gasol. Pierce scored more than Garnett. Wade scored far more than O'Neal. Duncan is the only post player on that list that was actually the #1 option in his team's offense. I posted the top scorer for every team. If you actually read my post, you'll see that I already made the point that you think you nailed me on, so you're just further revealing yourself to be clueless and inarticulate.

BTW, the 2008 Steelers passed for 206 YPG (17th) and rushed for 105 YPG (23rd). They rushed 460 times (Patriots rushed 519 times) and dropped back to pass 555 times (pats dropped back 582 times)

The Patriots rushed 47% of the time, the Steelers did 45% of the time. I don't know what universe you live in, but in reality the Steelers were far from a run-first team; the Patriots actually fit that description better than they did. Once again, though, don't let reality get in the way of your brilliant (albeit completely untrue) point.