Dispelling a myth Pats O: 2010 v 2011

[mgcolby]

I was watching Felger & Mazz on CSN a few days ago and there is a guy that filled in on the Felger show for the nitwit Maz; I think the fill in is their normal "update" guy. I don't watch or listen to the show that often, as I live in VA.

He was using scoring totals to make a point that this offense and defense was worse than last year's versions. My first thought, was that he took the simplistic route when it came to scoring. And I didn't give it much thought, until, I started seeing the scoring tota pop up here in random threads. I thought it would be interesting to see the actual offensive production, minus the Defensive and ST's scores.

Last year the Defense scored 5 TD's and our ST's added another 3. That is 56 points scored by the defense/ST's (giving the Extra point to the D to keep it simple). This season the Defense scored 3 TD's and ST's scored 1. For a grand total of 28 points scored by the Defense/ST's.

To breakdown, the offense actually scored:

2010: 462 points
2011: 485 points

Other things to note is the significant drop off in KO return yardage throughout the league. And in the Pats case the KO return average actually dropped from 22 YPR in 2010 to 21.4 YPR in 2011, so not only did the Pats face more touchbacks and have more KO returns start inside the end zone, the production was actually worse when they did return the KO.

The average starting field position:

2010: 32.6 (3rd in the league)
2011: 28.9 (9th in the league)

Yards per drive:
2010: 36.1 (2nd in the league)
2011: 39.5 (2nd in the league)

So based on the numbers above the 2011 offense was actually more productive than the 2010 offense.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I knew they couldn't be right about the '11 offense, it just didn't pass the eyeball test.

The one area you could argue that the Pats were a better offense last year would be in the quality of the defenses they faced in '10.

Points allowed:
2x Jets (6th in '10, 20th in '11)
2x Bills (28th in '10, 30th in '11)
2x Miami (14th in '10, 6th in '11)
Bengals in '10 (24th)
Chargers (10th in '10, 22nd in '11)
Ravens in '10 (3rd)
Vikings in '10 (18th)
Browns in '10 (13th)
Steelers (1st both in '10 and '11)
Colts (23rd in '10, 28th in '11)
Lions in '10 (19th)
Bears in '10 (4th)
Packers in '10 (2nd)
Raiders in '11 (29th)
Cowboys in '11 (16th)
Giants in '11 (25th)
Chiefs in '11 (12th)
Eagles in '11 (10th)
Skins in '11 (21st)
Broncos in '11 (24th)

That's an average rank of 13.3 points allowed in '10 and 18.75 in '11. Clearly we faced much easier defenses this year.

 

[ProudestRyno]

Informative post. Thanks!

 

[xmarkd400x]

This year's offense is better. My argument: GRONK. Case closed.


In all seriousness, I do think this year's offense is better. Maybe it doesn't score as many points, but which one is more likely to get the hard yards when they need it most? I think 2011. I think that it's all due to Gronk/Hernandez getting another year under their belt, and Gronk's emergence as an all world TE.

 

[ProudestRyno]

I knew they couldn't be right about the '11 offense, it just didn't pass the eyeball test.

The one area you could argue that the Pats were a better offense last year would be in the quality of the defenses they faced in '10.

Points allowed:
2x Jets (6th in '10, 20th in '11)
2x Bills (28th in '10, 30th in '11)
2x Miami (14th in '10, 6th in '11)
Bengals in '10 (24th)
Chargers (10th in '10, 22nd in '11)
Ravens in '10 (3rd)
Vikings in '10 (18th)
Browns in '10 (13th)
Steelers (1st both in '10 and '11)
Colts (23rd in '10, 28th in '11)
Lions in '10 (19th)
Bears in '10 (4th)
Packers in '10 (2nd)
Raiders in '11 (29th)
Cowboys in '11 (16th)
Giants in '11 (25th)
Chiefs in '11 (12th)
Eagles in '11 (10th)
Skins in '11 (21st)
Broncos in '11 (24th)

That's an average rank of 13.3 points allowed in '10 and 18.75 in '11. Clearly we faced much easier defenses this year.

Not that I disagree with you but you have to look at it more in depth. They are different years, different situations. For example, the Jets may have one ranking last year, and another this year, but they also had completely different schedules, circumstances.

My point is, it's not so black and white.

 

[BradyFTW!]

In addition to all of that, I think pretty much anyone who watches the offense can agree that Welker has improved by fully recovering from his injury, Gronk and Hernandez have improved significantly in their second year, and Ridley is a credible enough running threat that teams that dare us to run against the nickel and dime (like the Jets did in the playoffs) might actually find themselves overmatched.

Everything else aside, just looking at it from a personnel standpoint, it's pretty clear that this offense is better than 2010's.

 

[brdmaverick]

Even if this were true (2011 offense worse than 2010), what I don't understand is why this argument would be used to prove that the Patriots are destined to lose in the playoffs.

In case this media person forgot, the 2010 offense was a great offense that led the team to a 14-2 record. By all accounts they were a Super Bowl worthy team that unfortunately just had a bad day in the playoffs.

Seeing as the 2010 offense was that good, saying that this year's offense isn't as good really doesn't mean much to me. The way I looke at, every other offense in this year's AFC playoff field is also worse than the 2010 Patriots offense.

 

[VJCPatriot]

This year's offense is better. My argument: GRONK. Case closed.


In all seriousness, I do think this year's offense is better. Maybe it doesn't score as many points, but which one is more likely to get the hard yards when they need it most? I think 2011. I think that it's all due to Gronk/Hernandez getting another year under their belt, and Gronk's emergence as an all world TE.

Pats did score more points on offense in 2011.
The difference is that the 2010 Pats defense scored more points than the 2011 defense. This skewed the point totals.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Our giveaways were smaller last year, with the ridiculous total of 4 INTs for Tom, which allowed the offense to score nearly as much overall as this year's offense.

Based upon our average number of yards per possession and points per possession, I would guess that if we had matched the degree to which we played error-free last year with this year's O, the scoring numbers and yardage numbers for this years' team would be crazy.

When we don't turn the ball over, or at least take it away more than we give it away, what's the record under BB? Something like 102-4.

If we win giveway/takeaway battle every time then I do not think we will lose in the playoffs.

 

[letekro]

2011 is clearly better because Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez, and the O-Line are all significantly improved from last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Patriots points per play

2010: 0.507
2011: 0.474

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Points per Play on TeamRankings.com

 

[brdmaverick]

Patriots points per play

2010: 0.507
2011: 0.474

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Points per Play on TeamRankings.com

A do not value at 12 play TD drive any less than a 3 play TD drive. In fact, if anything the opposite would be true. A 12 play drive is much more demoralizing to a defense.

 

[ALP]

A do not value at 12 play TD drive any less than a 3 play TD drive. In fact, if anything the opposite would be true. A 12 play drive is much more demoralizing to a defense.

i would agree, but for a different reason,

a 12 play drive means that you can beat the defense, where areas a 3 play TD means that the defense may have just had one bad break


also a 12 play drive takes more time, hence resulting in less plays for the game

 

[Deus Irae]

A do not value at 12 play TD drive any less than a 3 play TD drive. In fact, if anything the opposite would be true. A 12 play drive is much more demoralizing to a defense.

Sorry, but if you're going to try arguing "productive", you've got to be more productive. The 2011 Patriots had the advantage of the lockout that hampered defenses to start the season, and they had the advantage of an easier schedule. They still scored fewer points and produced fewer points per play, while having a lower TOP. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but there's no reason to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[brdmaverick]

a 12 play drive means that you can beat the defense, where areas a 3 play TD means that the defense may have just had one bad break

That's actually my reason for why it is demoralizing. Admittedly I was not clear in my original post.

 

[Ring 6]

A do not value at 12 play TD drive any less than a 3 play TD drive. In fact, if anything the opposite would be true. A 12 play drive is much more demoralizing to a defense.

If you score more points on more plays why is that worse than scoring less points on less plays.
Points per play as a sole statistic is about the stupidest argument I have ever seen.

 

[NEP4Life]

NFL Football Stats - NFL Team Opponent Points per Play on TeamRankings.com

The Pats D is ranked #11 in this category. Hmmmm...


Unfortunately, they're in the bottom half of the league in opponent red zone TD%.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/opponent-red-zone-scoring-pct

 

[brdmaverick]

If you score more points on more plays why is that worse than scoring less points on less plays.
Points per play as a sole statistic is about the stupidest argument I have ever seen.

Agreed, we are on the same side of the argument. It's not my stat.

 

[MP-Logick]

Long drives are pretty important for this team because it keeps our defense on the sidelines that much longer.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed, we are on the same side of the argument. It's not my stat.

I know. Besides, cumulative stats without regard to situation are not real meaningful.