Dilfer: Patriots' offense 'exposed' last year

[DropKickFlutie]

Top 5 offenses in terms of yards per game: Texans, Colts, Saints, Patriots, Chargers.

They were all shotgun based teams.

Why are you using yards per game as the ultimate measure for offense? Any extreme passing team will win this category, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best offense. A more balanced offense probably won't show up high in a total yards ranking, because running the ball gives less yards and kills more clock, which isn't actually a bad thing. Did you also love the Warren Moon run-n-shoot Oilers offenses? I would take a Walter Payton dominant running game any day, with efficient passing.

The Patriots offense was poor in the red zone last year, and absolutely terrible on the offensive unit in the 2nd half of each loss last year. There were three to four games which would have been wins had the offense been able to generate one first down in a certain situation.

Even if we get a stud 3rd and even 4th wide receiver, and acquire all the best personnel for a spread offense, who is to say that this offense still can't be stopped? The old Oilers run-n-shoot offenses were stacked at every position but they always choked in the playoffs.

Bashing Dilfer is too predictable. Some fans will automatically vilify any writer who dares to question the Patriots. The interesting thing about the Dilfer article, though, is he uses Belichick's own moves in acquiring Alge, Kronk, and Hernandez as proof that the coaches want to use a more traditional offensive attack.

 

[Deus Irae]

The interesting thing about the Dilfer article, though, is he uses Belichick's own moves in acquiring Alge, Kronk, and Hernandez as proof that the coaches want to use a more traditional offensive attack.

But, if that's the "proof", it's proof of nothing more than the need for tight ends. The team didn't like the tight ends it had on staff (at least for the price), so it traded (Thomas), released (Baker) and allowed to leave (Watson) those players over the course of the last year. As a result, it needed replacements.

After all, the team drafted a QB, too..........

 

[DropKickFlutie]

But, if that's the "proof", it's proof of nothing more than the need for tight ends. The team didn't like the tight ends it had on staff (at least for the price), so it traded (Thomas), released (Baker) and allowed to leave (Watson) those players over the course of the last year. As a result, it needed replacements.

After all, the team drafted a QB, too..........

Except that the team went and spent a high pick on Kronk, some good money on Crumpler, and may have had the steal of the draft with Hernandez. The QB pick is very different, one of their throwaway picks at almost no cost to do.

You're right, it remains to be seen if all these moves at tight end are definite proof of a philosophical shift in scheme or not, but there's more evidence for this right now than the alternative argument that they are going to continue what they did last year.

I would also argue that Watson, Thomas, and Baker can all play tight end, and that they simply weren't given opportunities to catch the ball in this offense. Thomas has panned out okay in New Orleans, and weren't Watson/Baker were thrown to the least among the 32 teams in the league last year? I won't be surprised, and in fact expect, Watson to have significantly increased production this year simply playing on a different team that uses the tight end a lot more than as just an extra blocker.

 

[Deus Irae]

Except that the team went and spent a high pick on Kronk, some good money on Crumpler, and may have had the steal of the draft with Hernandez. The QB pick is very different, one of their throwaway picks at almost no cost to do.

But it's not really different, as the drafting of Mr. O'Connell a couple of years ago demonstrates.

You're right, it remains to be seen if all these moves at tight end are definite proof of a philosophical shift in scheme or not, but there's more evidence for this right now than the alternative argument that they are going to continue what they did last year.

Not really. There's a lot of evidence that they didn't like the tight ends they had. That's not evidence of any major philosophical shift. This team's been looking to draft pass catching tight ends for a long time. It's just never drafted one it was completely satisfied with. Evidence of a philosophical shift will come if Welker returns and his role is minimized. Evidence will almost definitely seem to be there before Welker's return, because I don't expect Edelman to command the ball in the way that Welker does (in a good way, by getting open and making great reads), and that will leave more catches for tight ends.

I would also argue that Watson, Thomas, and Baker can all play tight end, and that they simply weren't given opportunities to catch the ball in this offense. Thomas has panned out okay in New Orleans, and weren't Watson/Baker were thrown to the least among the 32 teams in the league last year? I won't be surprised, and in fact expect, Watson to have significantly increased production this year simply playing on a different team that uses the tight end a lot more than as just an extra blocker.

Baker was useless away from the goal line, because his lack of speed meant that he couldn't get open in large spaces. In end zone situations, he could body the defender and get away with contact that he couldn't get away with in the open field.

Thomas couldn't stay healthy in New England, and he couldn't spell "blocking" while in New England. That's a bad combination for a Patriots tight end.

As for Watson, he is who he is.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Not really. There's a lot of evidence that they didn't like the tight ends they had. That's not evidence of any philosophical shift.

In the current scheme, tight ends are not valued in the passing game. No talented tight end would put up any significant numbers in an offense that would rather give all the balls to a quick slot receiver in the middle of the field. In terms of spending or resource allocation, tight end would be the least important need on offense if the team were truly committed to the spread attack.

What evidence do you have that they didn't like their tight ends talent-wise as opposed to scheme-wise? Just because they weren't brought back, or that they didn't put up big numbers, isn't necessarily a knock on the tight ends but rather a result of the scheme itself.

But it's not really different, as the drafting of Mr. O'Connell a couple of years ago demonstrates.

Taking O'Connell that high was a Belichick oddity, and at the time it was perfectly legit to see that move as making a major investment for the future after Brady. O'Connell was also the backup QB on the roster, so that pick did end up being valued/used for a certain role, even though O'Connell was a poor pick. The current scheme doesn't require a very talented tight end. If the Pats didn't value tight end they wouldn't have used a high pick, and multiple picks, on the position.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Baker was useless away from the goal line, because his lack of speed meant that he couldn't get open in large spaces. In end zone situations, he could body the defender and get away with contact that he couldn't get away with in the open field.

Baker is more of a blocker than pass catcher, but he showed plenty of speed early in the 2009 season off that deep bomb from Brady. It's too bad that that pass was actually an ad lib by Baker and Brady, who both saw a vulnerability in the defense on the play. Baker (and Watson too) never had any passes designed for them in the scheme, how can you blame that on talent?

 

[TriplecHamp]

The Spread offense is not a fad and its not going away anytime soon. In the redzone, I would take a highly productive offense like ours in 2007 or the Saints or Colts last year over a run based power offense like the steelers. The ability to use tight ends in the spread is probably the most underrated aspect of it. Dallas Clark is the best example and if Hernandez can become a Dallas Clark like player for us, the offensive production will improve.

 

[Deus Irae]

In the current scheme, tight ends are not valued in the passing game. No talented tight end would put up any significant numbers in an offense that would rather give all the balls to a quick slot receiver in the middle of the field. In terms of spending or resource allocation, tight end would be the least important need on offense if the team were truly committed to the spread attack.

This team's been drafting tight ends since Belichick's first season as head coach, which is the point. Stachelski, Holloway, Love and Graham got the ball rolling, with 4 taken in BB's first 3 years with the team.

What evidence do you have that they didn't like their tight ends talent-wise as opposed to scheme-wise? Just because they weren't brought back, or that they didn't put up big numbers, isn't necessarily a knock on the tight ends but rather a result of the scheme itself.

I can't find the quote, but Belichick's words about the tight ends not getting open would seem to fit as "evidence".

By the way, Thomas came from a spread offense in college and was still traded while the Patriots were running a lot of shotgun with spread elements. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that his departure wasn't about scheme.

Lastly, you seem to be completely misreading the use of tight ends in the spread. I'll let a spread coach talk about it:

“I think what the NFL likes is they get to see tight ends do a lot of different things [in college],” says new Texas Tech offensive coordinator Neal Brown, who ran some prolific attacks as Troy’s coordinator before leaving to work for new Red Raiders coach Tommy Tuberville. “They get to see them line up as a wideout, line up with their hand down, line up as an ‘H back.’ ? In your traditional offense, you don’t get to see a tight end do all of those things. In a spread attack, you will.”

http://patriots.football-news-update.com/tag/tight-ends/

Taking O'Connell that high was a Belichick oddity, and at the time it was perfectly legit to see that move as making a major investment for the future after Brady. O'Connell was also the backup QB on the roster, so that pick did end up being valued/used for a certain role, even though O'Connell was a poor pick. The current scheme doesn't require a very talented tight end. If the Pats didn't value tight end they wouldn't have used a high pick, and multiple picks, on the position.

You're using one argument to try proving a non-matching argument, and you're using a straw man to do it. This team has always valued the tight end position. As a matter of fact, if you look at the basic descriptions of the current TEs, you'll find a group that's very similar to the 2007 group:

Crumpler = Brady
Gronk = Watson
Hernandez = Thomas

 

[Deus Irae]

Baker is more of a blocker than pass catcher, but he showed plenty of speed early in the 2009 season off that deep bomb from Brady. It's too bad that that pass was actually an ad lib by Baker and Brady, who both saw a vulnerability in the defense on the play. Baker (and Watson too) never had any passes designed for them in the scheme, how can you blame that on talent?

Baker's speed was a problem with the Jets. Baker's speed was a problem with the Patriots. Baker's speed will likely be a problem with his new team.

As for the designed passes, I don't see how you can come to your conclusion. The very first game of last season was won by plays designed to get Watson the ball.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

As for the designed passes, I don't see how you can come to your conclusion. The very first game of last season was won by plays designed to get Watson the ball.

Which actually proves my point, that the tight ends did not lack for talent. When plays are actually called for Watson, like in game 1, he can deliver in big moments and show a lot of skill and athleticism. The fact he disappeared the rest of the year, is an assumption on your part that he simply couldn't play well enough to get passes called for him. The scheme itself is the problem. What you pasted about tight ends in a spread offense, doesn't apply to our offense. The man in motion in the Patriots offense is usually the slot receiver. That article on the spread doesn't exactly fit with our modified spread which essentially replaces the tight end with a quick skillful slot player.

 

[Deus Irae]

Which actually proves my point, that the tight ends did not lack for talent. When plays are actually called for Watson, like in game 1, he can deliver in big moments and show a lot of skill and athleticism.

Actually, what game 1 proves is that the Patriots were able to adjust to the opposing defense. As was pointed out in the post-game wrap ups, the Patriots knew what defense the Bills were likely to use, and they called a play that would exploit it.

The fact he disappeared the rest of the year, is an assumption on your part that he simply couldn't play well enough to get passes called for him.

I make no such assumption about Watson. You seem to have confused the team's apparent feeling that Watson wasn't worth the coin with my personal opinion. Also, while Watson's disappearance likely had quite a bit to do with injuries on the o-line (I stated that multiple times this past season), it's not as if this was the first season for Watson on the team.

The scheme itself is the problem. What you pasted about tight ends in a spread offense, doesn't apply to our offense. The man in motion in the Patriots offense is usually the slot receiver. That article on the spread doesn't exactly fit with our modified spread which essentially replaces the tight end with a quick skillful slot player.

1.) There's no problem with the scheme, and the evolution of said scheme was dictated largely by the personnel shift from 2006 to 2007

2.) it clearly does apply to 'our' offense, especially given the absence of a fullback

3.) the decision to use Welker vs. a TE isn't necessarily philosophical as opposed to personnel based

 

[Snake Eyes]

Vrabel lined up as a TE in goal line situations. Teams knew that he was going to catch a TD pass. How did that predictability make that a bad thing?

Predictability is fine, as long as you execute properly. Just ask the Redskins and their opponents during the first Joe Gibbs tenure.

Vrabel didn't catch the TD pass every time he lined up as TE, there were plenty of situations where the pass went to someone else. Anyway, if the other team knew the pass would go to Vrabel that would be an issue because they know exactly what to defend against and are afforded less decisions. By being unpredictable, and forcing the opposition to make more decisions, and reacting correctly to those decisions, you increase the likelihood they'll make a mistake.

The "as long as you execute properly..." is akin to saying "if things go perfect", the truth is that execution will likely be flawed. Why not increase your odds of success by making the opposition's job harder because they need to prepare and deal with more options?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Actually, what game 1 proves is that the Patriots were able to adjust to the opposing defense. As was pointed out in the post-game wrap ups, the Patriots knew what defense the Bills were likely to use, and they called a play that would exploit it.

I agree in game 1 the Patriots correctly exploited what the defense was doing, but game 1 also showed two things: (1) that when called upon Ben Watson could make huge plays when given the opportunity and has the talent to do so, and (2) that for some reason the team went away from this after the first game or two, and didn't 'take' what the defense was giving them anymore.

I make no such assumption about Watson...
1.) There's no problem with the scheme
3.) the decision to use Welker vs. a TE isn't necessarily philosophical as opposed to personnel based

Sorry but no. The use of Welker is an integral part of the scheme and offensive philosophy, and it's why Edelman was able to be plugged in so quickly and produce at times last year - the offense relies on that quick slot guy to make plays as part of the scheme/philosophy. If it were personnel-based as you claimed, Edelman wouldn't even have seen the field at all last year. If it were personnel-based, the team wouldn't have run so many 3 or 4 WR formations when we had no #3 or #4 receiver. If it were personnel-based Ben Watson would have had a lot more action in the offense instead of being thrown to the least among starting tight ends. The Patriots scheme is as tightend-unfriendly as any Mike Martz offense, which are notorious for having nothing for tight ends to do.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Why not increase your odds of success by making the opposition's job harder because they need to prepare and deal with more options?

I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that that guy you responded to is horrible at playing poker...

 

[Deus Irae]

Vrabel didn't catch the TD pass every time he lined up as TE, there were plenty of situations where the pass went to someone else. Anyway, if the other team knew the pass would go to Vrabel that would be an issue because they know exactly what to defend against and are afforded less decisions. By being unpredictable, and forcing the opposition to make more decisions, and reacting correctly to those decisions, you increase the likelihood they'll make a mistake.

By being unpredictable and having more things in your own play book, you also increase the likelihood that you'll make a mistake.

The "as long as you execute properly..." is akin to saying "if things go perfect",

No, it's not.

the truth is that execution will likely be flawed. Why not increase your odds of success by making the opposition's job harder because they need to prepare and deal with more options?

Anyone who's played sports long enough can tell you that execution is far more important than "suprise" and variety in the long run. That doesn't mean that you should only run 1 play all the time, because you've got to have some variety. However, the amount of it is vastly overestimated by most fans. Teams tend to have a core set of plays, add on a few more plays throughout the year, and toss in some team specific plays on a week-to-week basis.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

That doesn't mean that you should only run 1 play all the time, because you've got to have some variety. However, the amount of it is vastly overestimated by most fans. Teams tend to have a core set of plays, add on a few more plays throughout the year, and toss in some team specific plays on a week-to-week basis.

Unpredictability is a huge part of war, or poker, or athletics, or business, or pretty much any competition. I'm sorry to say that even though you may think you're the best Madden player ever running 4 plays repeatedly, and think that it makes you some sort of expert, that it doesn't actually work like that in real life. You would know this about predictability if you ever played poker, or any competitive sport for that matter beyond amateur leagues, in real life.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree in game 1 the Patriots correctly exploited what the defense was doing, but game 1 also showed two things: (1) that when called upon Ben Watson could make huge plays when given the opportunity and has the talent to do so, and (2) that for some reason the team went away from this after the first game or two, and didn't 'take' what the defense was giving them anymore.

I wonder if you have any idea at just how enormous the flaw in this argument of yours is....

Sorry but no. The use of Welker is an integral part of the scheme and offensive philosophy, and it's why Edelman was able to be plugged in so quickly and produce at times last year - the offense relies on that quick slot guy to make plays as part of the scheme/philosophy. If it were personnel-based as you claimed, Edelman wouldn't even have seen the field at all last year. If it were personnel-based, Ben Watson would have had a lot more action in the offense instead of being thrown to the least among starting tight ends. The Patriots scheme is as tightend-unfriendly as any Mike Martz offense, which are notorious for having nothing for tight ends to do.

Edelman was the backup to Welker and the replacement for him when he was out. That's because the routes have been designed around Welker, which means that Watson is running different routes in those situations when he's not blocking. Changing Watson's role in the absence of Welker would require two adjustments rather than one, and that's not smart coaching.

I've been a Watson defender for years, but I'm not going to pretend that his situation is all the fault of the playcalling. In 2006, he was option #1 for much of the early season. The result was that he got nicked up, lost effectiveness, and was surpassed as a target by Caldwell and Gaffney over the course of the season. That sure as hell wasn't scheme based, and it was that offseason that saw Moss and Welker arrive on scene.

However, further discussion about this is going to be a waste of time, so you have a great holiday weekend.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unpredictability is a huge part of war, or poker, or athletics, or business, or pretty much any competition. I'm sorry to say that even though you may think you're the best Madden player ever running 4 plays repeatedly, and think that it makes you some sort of expect, that it doesn't actually work like that in real life. You would know this about predictability if you ever played poker, or any competitive sport for that matter beyond amateur leagues, in real life.

That must be how Stockton and Malone won so many games during their time in the NBA. It was all about the unpredictability. Would the pick and roll take place with 11 seconds left on the clock, or 12?

That just flummoxed opponents. I'm sure it brings up nightmares to them to this very day.

Shaq in his early days was all about the confusion, too. Would he step back for a 3 pointer, hit a fade away, or would he try something a bit more daring like working the post with his size and getting out on the break to terrorize opponents with the sight of a 320 pound man flying down the court? It was always such a 50/50 proposition.

And the counter trey that was hidden among 50,000 other plays run by Gibbs.....

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Your flawed mentality here about condoning predictability is the same reason why Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are always completely surprised why the same play they've had so much success executing a thousand times before, suddenly becomes a Pick-Six in the biggest moment in a game.

That must be how Stockton and Malone won so many games during their time in the NBA. ... Shaq in his early days was all about the confusion, too.

Riiiiiiight, and how many championships did Stockton and Malone win? Oh, zero? How surprising.

Shaq is a unique beast of a man in NBA history, but even he never won anything (especially in his early days) until Phil Jackson arrived and put his game and the games of his teammates together in context and in the right roles. The NBA is also very different from the NFL.

Joe Gibbs got away with relying on the power running game because nobody had ever seen before what he did with bringing the extra blocker, and he won until the competition caught up with him. Same thing with Bill Walsh and the West Coast. However, both employed schemes that did not completely make it transparent what they were doing, they valued unpredictability and the ability to use disguised plays that punished opponents who adjusted too much to their revolutionary, reliable strengths. The Patriots don't have this, and this is why they haven't won rings with a revolutionary offense like Walsh or Gibbs did. The Patriots insisted last year on using the spread 3/4-WR attack when their tight ends were much better than their #3 and #4 receivers, and could not punish opponents who over-focused defensively on stopping Welker/Edelman. In this manner their offense is a lot more similar to the run-n-shoot in terms of legacy, than any of the NFL champions you may wish to bring up.


You really must be the easiest sucker at any poker table.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your flawed mentality here about condoning predictability is the same reason why Peyton Manning and Brett Favre are always completely surprised why the same play they've had so much success executing a thousand times before, suddenly becomes a Pick-Six in the biggest moment in a game.

Wow.... you should really re-read this post, and focus on the portion I highlighted. It says it all for you, if you'd just bother paying attention to your own words. The rest of your post was just good for giggles, especially after you missed the fatal point to your own argument.