Offense: Under center vs. shotgun

[BradyManny]

Does anyone know a site that tallies the effectiveness of a QB out of different formations? I don't think footballoutsiders or profootballfocus offer such a thing.

I ask, because to me - it is blatantly obvious that in the past year+, this offense is more effective when Brady is NOT in the gun, and even more specifically, not empty backfield.

The shotgun-only drive against the Ram's 2's in the 2nd half aside - the offense was struggling in the gun, and quickly became efficient and deadly when Brady was under center more. I hope the over-reliance on the spread last nite had to do with Hernandez' absence and I hope that Hernandez is back soon. Because as we saw in the first two weeks, this team is even harder to stop when the defense does not know what is coming.

 

[Rob0729]

As of December 12, 2007, the Pats threw out of the shotgun 74% of the time. I don't know if the facts support your theory.

 

[jmt57]

If there is a site out there that does tally such a statistic, I would be hesitant to put too much weight on the results. Reason i say that is that you should consider the circumstances when teams use the shotgun, as that may alter the stats.

For instance teams are more likely to use the shotgun on low percentage down-and-distance snaps such as 3rd and 20, and unlikely to do so on high percentage down-and-distance plays like 2nd and 1. Teams are also more likely to use the gun when they are behind.


Obviously this is too small of a sample size to reach any conclusions, but here are the numbers from last night's game:

1st Quarter, Drive #1 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 4 yards; Run - none
UC: Pass - 1/1, 2 yards; Run - 1 for 3 yards

1st Quarter, Drive #2 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 7 yards; 1 sack, -13 yards; Run - none
UC: Pass - 1/1, 10 yards; Run - 1 for 1 yard

2nd Quarter, Drive #3 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - 1/2, 3 yards; Run - 1 for 3 yards
UC: none

2nd Quarter, Drive #4 (Punt)
Gun: none
UC: Pass - 0/1, 0 yards; Run - 2 for 6 yards

2nd Quarter, Drive #5 (Touchdown)
Gun: none
UC: Pass - 3/3, 77 yards, TD; Run - 2 for 3 yards

3rd Quarter, Drive #6 (Touchdown)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 7 yards; Run - none
UC: Pass - 1/1, 65 yards, TD; Run - none

3rd Quarter, Drive #7 (Touchdown)
Gun: Pass - 7/9, 98 yards, TD; Run - none
UC: none

=====
Hoyer now in as QB

4th Quarter, Drive #8 (Touchdown)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 5 yards, TD; Run - none
UC: Pass - none; Run - 2 for 5 yards

4th Quarter, Drive #9 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - none (0/1; RTP penalty for 15 yards); Run - 1 for 5 yards
UC: Pass - 0/2 plus a sack for -5 yards; Run - 1 for 2 yards

=====

Brady's Totals:
Gun & Pass: 11/14, 119 yards, 1 sack (-3), 1 TD, 0 Int
Gun & Run: 1 for 3 yards
UC & Pass: 6/7, 154 yards, 0 sacks, 1 TD, 0 Int
UC & Run: 7 for 16 yards

Team Totals:
Gun & Pass: 12/15, 124 yards, 1 sack (-3), 1 TD, 0 Int
Gun & Run: 2 for 8 yards
UC & Pass: 6/9, 154 yards, 1 sack (-5), 1 TD, 0 Int
UC & Run: 10 for 23 yards

=====

If I was to jump to any conclusion, it wouldn't be about Brady's efficiency in the shotgun versus under center. Instead it would be in regards to a topic that was beat to death several months ago, that the offense becomes very predictable; when the Pats go to shotgun everyone (including opposing defenses) knows it will be a pass. The Pats lined up in the shotgun 17 times, and proceeded to pass the ball fifteen times; thats 88%. On the other hand when they lined up under center it was nearly a 50-50 split between run and pass.

 

[BradyManny]

As of December 12, 2007, the Pats threw out of the shotgun 74% of the time. I don't know if the facts support your theory.

Clearly, the shotgun spread offense worked in 2007 - my theory is that SINCE then, Brady has been more effective under center. Last season, for example.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

As with mutual funds, here as well past results or faux stats that promise to illustrate them are not necessarily indicative of future performance. It's a different offensive mix this year. Brady has a wicked pissah TE corps, blocking and catching. Young quality wideouts to fill the 3rd and 4th receive role. How all this affects the QB's lineup position remains to be seen.

 

[BradyManny]

If there is a site out there that does tally such a statistic, I would be hesitant to put too much weight on the results. Reason i say that is that you should consider the circumstances when teams use the shotgun, as that may alter the stats.

For instance teams are more likely to use the shotgun on low percentage down-and-distance snaps such as 3rd and 20, and unlikely to do so on high percentage down-and-distance plays like 2nd and 1. Teams are also more likely to use the gun when they are behind.


Obviously this is too small of a sample size to reach any conclusions, but here are the numbers from last night's game:

1st Quarter, Drive #1 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 4 yards; Run - none
UC: Pass - 1/1, 2 yards; Run - 1 for 3 yards

1st Quarter, Drive #2 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 7 yards; 1 sack, -13 yards; Run - none
UC: Pass - 1/1, 10 yards; Run - 1 for 1 yard

2nd Quarter, Drive #3 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - 1/2, 3 yards; Run - 1 for 3 yards
UC: none

2nd Quarter, Drive #4 (Punt)
Gun: none
UC: Pass - 0/1, 0 yards; Run - 2 for 6 yards

2nd Quarter, Drive #5 (Touchdown)
Gun: none
UC: Pass - 3/3, 77 yards, TD; Run - 2 for 3 yards

3rd Quarter, Drive #6 (Touchdown)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 7 yards; Run - none
UC: Pass - 1/1, 65 yards, TD; Run - none

3rd Quarter, Drive #7 (Touchdown)
Gun: Pass - 7/9, 98 yards, TD; Run - none
UC: none

=====
Hoyer now in as QB

4th Quarter, Drive #8 (Touchdown)
Gun: Pass - 1/1, 5 yards, TD; Run - none
UC: Pass - none; Run - 2 for 5 yards

4th Quarter, Drive #9 (Punt)
Gun: Pass - none (0/1; RTP penalty for 15 yards); Run - 1 for 5 yards
UC: Pass - 0/2 plus a sack for -5 yards; Run - 1 for 2 yards

=====

Brady's Totals:
Gun & Pass: 11/14, 119 yards, 1 sack (-3), 1 TD, 0 Int
Gun & Run: 1 for 3 yards
UC & Pass: 6/7, 154 yards, 0 sacks, 1 TD, 0 Int
UC & Run: 7 for 16 yards

Team Totals:
Gun & Pass: 12/15, 124 yards, 1 sack (-3), 1 TD, 0 Int
Gun & Run: 2 for 8 yards
UC & Pass: 6/9, 154 yards, 1 sack (-5), 1 TD, 0 Int
UC & Run: 10 for 23 yards

=====

If I was to jump to any conclusion, it wouldn't be about Brady's efficiency in the shotgun versus under center. Instead it would be in regards to a topic that was beat to death several months ago, that the offense becomes very predictable; when the Pats go to shotgun everyone (including opposing defenses) knows it will be a pass. The Pats lined up in the shotgun 14 times, and proceeded to pass the ball twelve times; thats 86%. On the other hand when they lined up under center it was nearly a 50-50 split between run and pass.

Good stuff - many thanks for the breakdown. I agree - my comment wasn't on Brady's execution, per se - but the offense as a whole, which seems more dynamic when Brady is under center and/or there are 2TE in the game.

The one caveat I would put on the above sample size is that the 7/9 drive all out of the gun was against the 2's. Pull that out and Brady is 2/3 for 21 yards with a sack - and with only one first down.

 

[emoney_33]

Clearly, the shotgun spread offense worked in 2007 - my theory is that SINCE then, Brady has been more effective under center. Last season, for example.

well last season is the ONLY example, and the offense was a lot different for many reasons than 2007. I'm not sure there's much of 2009 predictability we can apply to 2010. They surely figure to have much more threats, a "healthier" Brady and hopefully more consistent blocking.

 

[Rob0729]

Clearly, the shotgun spread offense worked in 2007 - my theory is that SINCE then, Brady has been more effective under center. Last season, for example.

Well, considering last season was the only season he played since 2007, it is a little hard to tell especially since he had a rookie signal caller and no viable receivers beyond Welker and Moss.

Last season, the Pats had two consistent viable receivers. So the shotgun spread was not going to work nearly as well as 2007 and potentially this year because Brady has so many options.

If Tate, Edelman, Gronk, Crumpler, and Hernandez become viable receivers beyond Moss and Welker; then the 2007 comparisons is more accurate than last year. With four or five guys on the field at any given time who are legitimate threats to get the ball, the Pats can be far more dynamic and "deceptive" from the shotgun situation. The problem last year is that when the Pats were in passing downs, everyone knew it was going to either Moss or Welker and they barely covered the other guys. If Gronk in the regular season is the Gronk of last night, they are going to have to dedicate a LB on him. If Tate can make catches down the field (like Stallworth was a threat at least in the first half of 2007), it will be tougher to double and triple team Moss. If Edelman and Welker can be on the field at the same time, then it will be tougher to cover Welker on the short routes.

 

[BradyManny]

well last season is the ONLY example, and the offense was a lot different for many reasons than 2007. I'm not sure there's much of 2009 predictability we can apply to 2010. They surely figure to have much more threats, a "healthier" Brady and hopefully more consistent blocking.

Certainly they have more threats - and most importantly, at the all-important and versatile TE position.

 

[BradyManny]

Well, considering last season was the only season he played since 2007, it is a little hard to tell especially since he had a rookie signal caller and no viable receivers beyond Welker and Moss.

Last season, the Pats had two consistent viable receivers. So the shotgun spread was not going to work nearly as well as 2007 and potentially this year because Brady has so many options.

If Tate, Edelman, Gronk, Crumpler, and Hernandez become viable receivers beyond Moss and Welker; then the 2007 comparisons is more accurate than last year. With four or five guys on the field at any given time who are legitimate threats to get the ball, the Pats can be far more dynamic and "deceptive" from the shotgun situation. The problem last year is that when the Pats were in passing downs, everyone knew it was going to either Moss or Welker and they barely covered the other guys. If Gronk in the regular season is the Gronk of last night, they are going to have to dedicate a LB on him. If Tate can make catches down the field (like Stallworth was a threat at least in the first half of 2007), it will be tougher to double and triple team Moss. If Edelman and Welker can be on the field at the same time, then it will be tougher to cover Welker on the short routes.

Thats all true, I can't disagree with any of that - but the passing offense is even tougher to defend when play-action is in the mix.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thats all true, I can't disagree with any of that - but the passing offense is even tougher to defend when play-action is in the mix.

They used play action in 2007. They used play action in 2009. When it comes to the "shotgun/spread", I'll take matchups with Welker/Edelman/Hernandez on linebackers and the draw threat with Faulk over a play action threat without those options.

 

[tombonneau]

I don't mind the spread on passing downs, or even 1st and 10. But when it's used in 3rd & 2 I would love to hear the explanation as to how it is superior to an under center play that has the D thinking run or pass.

 

[jmt57]

Spread Formations In Spotlight by Mike Reiss for espnBoston

Along with all those snaps from the shotgun, the Pats used a 3-WR set about 60% of the time last night. Of course if Hernandez had been available, perhaps they would have used more 2-TE formations.

3 WR/1 TE/1 RB -- 23 of 39
2 WR/2 TE/1 RB -- 13 of 39
1 WR/2 TE/1 FB/1 RB -- 1 of 39
3 WR/2 RB -- 1 of 39
1 WR/3 TE/1 RB -- 1 of 39

 

[BradyManny]

They used play action in 2007. They used play action in 2009. When it comes to the "shotgun/spread", I'll take matchups with Welker/Edelman/Hernandez on linebackers and the draw threat with Faulk over a play action threat without those options.

That's fine, but Welker was limited last nite, and the other two guys were out. So it does not apply to the personnel we threw out there last nite. Instead we were treated to more Sam Aiken.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's fine, but Welker was limited last nite, and the other two guys were out. So it does not apply to the personnel we threw out there last nite. Instead we were treated to more Sam Aiken.

You think Belichick should change his game plan for week 3 of the exhibition season because a player or two was missing?

 

[BradyManny]

You think Belichick should change his game plan for week 3 of the exhibition season because a player or two was missing?

What was wrong w/ the more diverse offense which worked in the preceding two weeks - and worked in last nite's game when they fell back to it?

And I'm not really worried about what they do in Week 3, no. I just worry about it continuing into the season, as it did last year, inexplicably when we did not have the personnel to run it...after a preseason in which our offense was more balanced, diverse, versatile and efficient than it would be for the majority of the ensuing regular season.

 

[Deus Irae]

What was wrong w/ the more diverse offense which worked in the preceding two weeks - and worked in last nite's game when they fell back to it?

And I'm not really worried about what they do in Week 3, no. I just worry about it continuing into the season, as it did last year, inexplicably when we did not have the personnel to run it...after a preseason in which our offense was more balanced, diverse, versatile and efficient than it would be for the majority of the ensuing regular season.

The exhibition season is when you try different things. In the first two games, the team had both Hernandez and Gronk available, and it was using a lot of 2 tight end sets. Last night, Hernandez was not available, and the team used more spread sets.

Why should this be a problem for anyone? The two TE set was the formation used second most, according to Reiss:

3 WR/1 TE/1 RB -- 23 of 39
2 WR/2 TE/1 RB -- 13 of 39
1 WR/2 TE/1 FB/1 RB -- 1 of 39
3 WR/2 RB -- 1 of 39
1 WR/3 TE/1 RB -- 1 of 39

 

[BradyManny]

The exhibition season is when you try different things. In the first two games, the team had both Hernandez and Gronk available, and it was using a lot of 2 tight end sets. Last night, Hernandez was not available, and the team used more spread sets.

Why should this be a problem for anyone? The two TE set was the formation used second most, according to Reiss:

3 WR/1 TE/1 RB -- 23 of 39
2 WR/2 TE/1 RB -- 13 of 39
1 WR/2 TE/1 FB/1 RB -- 1 of 39
3 WR/2 RB -- 1 of 39
1 WR/3 TE/1 RB -- 1 of 39

Because the spread was ineffective for four straight series, and as soon as they put Brady under center, they rolled down the field. It's not a problem since its a meaningless game - I agree with that.

 

[emoney_33]

Because the spread was ineffective for four straight series, and as soon as they put Brady under center, they rolled down the field. It's not a problem since its a meaningless game - I agree with that.

I don't understand the issue then? They should never go shotgun again, not even in preseason?

Also are you sure that under center vs. shotgun was the cause of the change in effectiveness? Correlation doesn't prove causation.

 

[BradyManny]

I don't understand the issue then? They should never go shotgun again, not even in preseason?

Also are you sure that under center vs. shotgun was the cause of the change in effectiveness? Correlation doesn't prove causation.

No, I'm not sure - but I would guess it played a part.

I never said they shouldn't go shotgun. But they ran primarily out of the gun for four series, regardless of down and distance. IF they intend on doing that in the regular season, its a problem. I know it was just preseason but they finished off the 2009 seasonr by over-relying on the gun.

Again, the shotgun is not necessarily the problem. Brady loves it, he can see the field, and we can spread out our weapons and make it easier for him to detect the rush. It has those huge advantages. But there are times when it is ineffective and horribly predictable. And our season ended, in part, in 2007 and 2009 b/c of an over-use of the shotgun and the spread, and a lack of ability to impart one's will on the opponent.