NESN: Bringing Back the Screen Pass

[SHOWTIME15]

Bringing Back Screen Pass Could Protect Tom Brady, Open Up Passing Game - New England Patriots - NESN.com

Could people comment on this article? I honestly thought the pats used the screen pass a lot since Weis left, but maybe I'm wrong. In any event, I do believe the play calling on offense has to be better.

 

[ALP]

weve defenetely still used it a lot, just not as effective b/c now everyone expects us to run it

 

[mgteich]

1) We ran lots more screens under Charlie. After all, we often didn't have a running game (poor OL), and the screen was a way to get the ball in the running backs hands.

2) Even with a solid running back, Charlie liked the screen.

3) It helped to have a fullback on the squad.

4) Yes, our play-calling has gone downhill since Charlie left, although many here think that Josh did a great job.

5) In any case, our playcalling last year was NOT very good. Injuries limited the possibilities more than we let on, but still many of us believe that we could have done better, especially in the 4th quarter.

5) This year should be better with the addition of three tight ends, including one who can be our h-back.

 

[Joker]

the offensive playcalling in the playoff game had me murderous when I left the Razor last January. I realize now that Brady's passing hand was all gaffed up, so I can understand the poor throws.The playcalling, though, STILL rankles me today, I mean when you are sitting in the stands and you and everyone you're with KNOWS the next play is a delayed draw, there's something rotten in O.C.-ville. 2010 is a new beginning as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rob0729]

1) We ran lots more screens under Charlie. After all, we often didn't have a running game (poor OL), and the screen was a way to get the ball in the running backs hands.

That is not true. I went back and looked at his situational stats and here is what I found as the percentages of passes behind the line of scrimage:

2009 - 14.5% (82 of 565 passes)
2008 -Leaving out because it was Cassel and might skew the argument eventhough he threw 81 of 516 times behind the line or 15.7%
2007 -13.3% (77 of 578 passes)
2006 -16.4% (85 of 516 passes)
2005 -12.4% (66 of 530 passes)
2004 -13.2% (63 of 474 passes)
2003 -16.7% (88 of 527 passes)
2002 - 21.1% (127 of 601 passes)
2001 - I couldn't find that info I would assume it is in the 20+% range though

So other than Brady's first few years as a starter, he didn't throw much more screens with Weis than he did with McDaniels or O'Brien.

2) Even with a solid running back, Charlie liked the screen.

The numbers does not support that. Percentage-wise Weis had Brady throw screens less with Corey Dillon as his RB than Brady did this past season or any other season for that matter. And now people are complaining we don't throw enough screens.

3) It helped to have a fullback on the squad.

I don't know about that. The FB is a dying position especially in the passing game. Faulk has taken over the screen pass responsibilties that guys like Larry Centers, Patrick Pass, and Marc Edwards used to have. I think they could have improved their TEs though and they probably did.

4) Yes, our play-calling has gone downhill since Charlie left, although many here think that Josh did a great job.

Josh did a great job. There is no denying it. Last year proved it.

Also, Charlies' job has been overrated. Take 2003 where the Pats had a ton of three and outs and the defense carried that team to the Super Bowl.

5) In any case, our playcalling last year was NOT very good. Injuries limited the possibilities more than we let on, but still many of us believe that we could have done better, especially in the 4th quarter.

Agreed, but I thought it got much better as the year went along. With a rookie signal caller, the Pats already had a lot of growing pains (although some people refused to accept this as a possibility since they hated McDaniels and thought Brady could overcome everything). Add things like Galloway being a bust pickup and injuries only compounded it.

5) This year should be better with the addition of three tight ends, including one who can be our h-back.

I agree. Also, with Brady and Moss returning healthy and O'Brien having a year under his belt and an offseason to review the tapes and see where he screwed up will help.

 

[Rob0729]

weve defenetely still used it a lot, just not as effective b/c now everyone expects us to run it

I don't know if that is true either. Last year, Brady completed 78% of his passes behind the line for 513 yards, 2 TDs, and 1 INTs. The Pats averaged 6.25 yards per attempt on screens last year.


What the Pats are really missing that were used quite a bit under Weis and McDaniels prior to 2007 is the quick slants and outs, not the screens. The Pats use the screen quite a bit.

Personally, I think that the writer of the original article is using his own perception vs. the reality of the situation. The numbers do not back up his claim except for the 2001 or 2002 years and we definitely don't want to go back to 2002. I do think much of the short passing game has changed, but that is because of depth and Welker was his only real option. I think Holt can play the Branch role and do a lot of those quick slants and outs that are really what the NESN writer should be talking about and not the screens which since 2002 has been fairly consistent in the percentage of time Brady times Brady throws the ball.

 

[Wretch]

This observation is only anecdotal but prior to Welker joining the Pats I think the pats threw more RB screen passes and now with Welker they use the slot receiver for screen passes more frequently. Based on your definition of a screen pass this may skew your perceptions.

Is a screen pass a pass behind or at the line of scrimmage to a RB or is a pass behind or at the line to any receiver?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What may be 'new' this season is screens to an H back/TE. I always wondered why so few screens to Maroney. Maybe it's just perception, but Maroney in = run. Mix it up occasionally this year.

 

[Dragda]

That is not true. I went back and looked at his situational stats and here is what I found as the percentages of passes behind the line of scrimage:

2009 - 14.5% (82 of 565 passes)
2008 -Leaving out because it was Cassel and might skew the argument eventhough he threw 81 of 516 times behind the line or 15.7%
2007 -13.3% (77 of 578 passes)
2006 -16.4% (85 of 516 passes)
2005 -12.4% (66 of 530 passes)
2004 -13.2% (63 of 474 passes)
2003 -16.7% (88 of 527 passes)
2002 - 21.1% (127 of 601 passes)
2001 - I couldn't find that info I would assume it is in the 20+% range though

So other than Brady's first few years as a starter, he didn't throw much more screens with Weis than he did with McDaniels or O'Brien.

I don't think this is something you can look up on a stat sheet. A pass behind the line of scrimmage is not always a screen. How many times have has Brady made the quick throw out wide when there is soft coverage? With Moss, people are playing off him more to not get beat. To keep the coverage honest, they hit him in the flat. It's not just when Moss is out there either.

We've changed the primary use of the screen to the running back behind a wall of OL to the bubble screen out in the flat behind a "wall" of one blocking WR. There may be reasons for that, personnel or philosophy, but we are not running as many screens as we once did.

The screen, when used as it was in the Weis days, is effective to slow down an opposing DL. They have to think, watch and react. It helps neutralize a defenders advantage. We could have used a healthy dose of it in Super Bowl 42.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't think this is something you can look up on a stat sheet. A pass behind the line of scrimmage is not always a screen. How many times have has Brady made the quick throw out wide when there is soft coverage? With Moss, people are playing off him more to not get beat. To keep the coverage honest, they hit him in the flat. It's not just when Moss is out there either.

We've changed the primary use of the screen to the running back behind a wall of OL to the bubble screen out in the flat behind a "wall" of one blocking WR. There may be reasons for that, personnel or philosophy, but we are not running as many screens as we once did.

The screen, when used as it was in the Weis days, is effective to slow down an opposing DL. They have to think, watch and react. It helps neutralize a defenders advantage. We could have used a healthy dose of it in Super Bowl 42.

95-99% of passes behind the line of scrimmage are screen passes. To claim otherwise is just not reality. The numbers might fluxuate a percentage point or so if you factor out the passes behind the line of scrimmage that aren't screens. So statistically, it is irrelevant.

Second of all, the only real change I have seen with the screen is that the Pats now use Faulk more in screens to the RB/FB than Weis did. Weis used Faulk about as much in the passing game, but he would use him in different ways. So did McDaniels for a number of years too. Both used the FB more in screens, but both also threw a lot of screens to WRs.

What really changed was the addition of Welker who might run the best screen pass routes for a WR in league history. The guy avoids the initial hit better than any WR I can remember. I think if Weis had a Welker at his disposal, he would run the WR screen just as much as McDaniels or O'Brien.

I still think the screen is just as used as Weis did and just as effective. What is missing is the short routes to other receivers other than Welker. Why that is missing, IMHO, is the personnel. In the Super Bowl years, the Pats had a lot of quick, but not fast WRs who could run short precise routes (Branch, Brown, Givens, Patten). The Pats haven't had a lot of depth with those skills since 2006. With Holt and the hopeful progression of Edelman and return of Welker and hopefully a TE or two who can catch consistently, the Pats may have a lot of that.

 

[JMarr]

The biggest problem with our use of RB screens is predictability. When Faulk is in the game, the opposing D is always on the lookout for a screen. It seems that BB hasn't had a lot of faith in Maroney to 1)sell the screen 2)catch the pass in the first place and 3)be a good enough pass protector to even been in the game on obvious passing downs in the first place.

O'brien's on-the-job training might also have something to do with it.

I think it's something they obviously need to try and work on with Maroney this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

The biggest problem with our use of RB screens is predictability. When Faulk is in the game, the opposing D is always on the lookout for a screen. It seems that BB hasn't had a lot of faith in Maroney to 1)sell the screen 2)catch the pass in the first place and 3)be a good enough pass protector to even been in the game on obvious passing downs in the first place.

O'brien's on-the-job training might also have something to do with it.

I think it's something they obviously need to try and work on with Maroney this year.

Maroney's role in the passing game dwindled with the arrival of Moss/Welker, and that happened well before the O'Brien era began.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

After 2001, Weis got too fancy with his tricks and left aside smashmouth football. Josh did a very good job for us although he went to the trough one too many times on the Brady to Moss blind longball. He got away from smashmouth as well.

To be honest, I have never been completely happy with the offensive play calling. But it has worked very well statistically compared to the league in general so you have to give credit.

I would really enjoy watching the OL knock people around 2001 style again. They turned a slow runner into an all star.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Given the personel, I'd love to see the Patriots use Hernandez to run a middle tight end screen a little bit. He is quick, strong, and can make people miss. Such a play brings an element which has been missing over the last few years.

 

[Keyser Söze]

I thought we used the screen pass every other play last season, my god the play selection pissed me off.

 

[IcyPatriot]

We use it enough ... the team would need a much more mobile line to use it more. Perhaps by seasons end if the young TE's get in the swing of things we could see it more.

I prefer the short quick pass to the slot with the blockers already on the move.

 

[SanAngeloState]

problem is our line is just too manhandled for screen passes. You'd think that would be a strength since they are getting run over anyway, somehow doesn't work that way.

 

[jmt57]

Doesn't the quick slant to the slot receiver accomplish the same thing that a screen pass is intended to do, but with a higher percentage of success?