The McDaniels Effect

[Gronkandez]

I was just about to make a thread about this and i gotta say i agree on the general consensus in here...it's seems like a wash. He certainly isn't going to stick the running game any longer than BOB.

I disagree. I think Ridley and Vareen will offer a much more dynamic option next year, once they get their fundamentals down. Instead of three yards on every single carry there will be big runs that will make the defense pay for playing nickel.

In general I think McDaniels will be better.

 

[Deus Irae]

IMO there was a HUGE difference

the pats were ALOT smarter this sb, they kept it underneath mostly, they didn't try and impose their deep passing game on the giants like they did in sb 42

in sb 42, they kept calling plays that took way too long to develop for the dline they were trying to develop them against....it just wasn't smart

this sb, brady had 16 completions in a row, because NE was taking what was being given to them, it was very smart

i'm not saying they didn't run enough, it's clear they didn't as evidenced by the time of possession discrepancy, but the passing game in sb 46 was leaps and bounds smarter than sb 42

In Super Bowl 42, the tight end position was a disaster and the running game was getting shut down as a result, the Patriots did, in fact, make adjustments to the game plan. Neal got injured, Brady couldn't move, and the Patriots were left with only Welker as the short outlet. The Giants were able to take him away and pressure the hell out of Brady. A healthy Brady wins that game.

 

[UofApatsfan]

McDaniels also seems to know how to attack other team's weaknesses better than O'Brien and the Pats almost always had fast starts with him.

McDaniels made it clear in SB 42 he doesn't have a clue how to attack any team's weakness.

By no means was O'Brien a legendary offensive coordinator or anything, but he was better than McDaniels. On top of that he isn't a narcissistic a**hole like McDaniels who only needed 2 seasons to alienate all of Denver's fans and players against him.

Neither guy unfortunately is close to the offensive coordinator Weis was.

EDIT: For all who think the running game is a major concern with McDaniels, that's not really something to worry about. It's not like they had a Juggernaut running game with O'Brien and it's not like you need a juggernaut running game in today's NFL. The major concern I have with McDaniels is him maybe trying to go to more of a deep ball attack when the only reason the deep ball offense was so successful here was having the best deep ball receiver of all time. As long as Brady is QB the offense should be focused on utilizing his ability to spread the ball and deliver extremely accurate short passes. Tom Brady's deep ball isn't something to build an offense around.

 

[eom]

I think mcdaniels likes his 3 wide sets, but that probably just means hernandez is used as a wr.

Hopefully, they can get some production out of vereen and ridley.

 

[Rob0729]

McDaniels made it clear in SB 42 he doesn't have a clue how to attack any team's weakness.

By no means was O'Brien a legendary offensive coordinator or anything, but he was better than McDaniels. On top of that he isn't a narcissistic a**hole like McDaniels who only needed 2 seasons to alienate all of Denver's fans and players against him.

Neither guy unfortunately is close to the offensive coordinator Weis was.

First, the legend of Weis was far better than the actual Weis. Weis had one season where people weren't biatching about his play calling and that is when they had an elite RB. The 2003 offense was mediocre and couldn't stay on the field. Weis was a very good OC, but not nearly as good as people make him out to be.

Second, McDaniels may have been the best OC of the Belichick era. All you have to do is look at what he did with Matt Cassel in 2008 or how this offense worked with Reche Caldwell as the lead WR in 2006 to support that. I like Billy O'Brien, but he isn't as good as McDaniels.

Third, everyone points to the Super Bowl to discredit McDaniels, but people refuse to accept that Brady was hobbled with an ankle sprain, Stephen Neal went out early in the game, Mankins had the worst game of his career, Moss was in his typical fall off in the playoffs mode (and he actually played well), and that the Giants were just a bad match up for the Pats' offense (which hasn't actually changed) and they played one hell of a game on defense that game. People forget the otherworldly gameplan vs. Jacksonville in the Division round or how the Patriots won the game vs. San Deigo keeping the ball for 2/3 of the 4th quarter on one offensive drive.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

McDaniels is far more imaginative than O'Brien. Even last year, people were complaining how predictable the Pats' offense was. McDaniels also seems to know how to attack other team's weaknesses better than O'Brien and the Pats almost always had fast starts with him.

O'Brien was better at making adjustments though.

Overall, McDaniels is a better OC. Based on how much time Belichick spent with his back to the game working with the defense with McDaniels vs. O'Brien, I think Belichick trusts McDaniels more to call a game without his supervision. Because the defense needed his attention less when McDaniels was here than when O'Brien ran things, yet he worked with the defense more to make in game adjustments when McDaniels was here running the offense.

Neither of them possess the skill set required to win the whole enchilada without having vastly superior manpower. Unimaginative and textbook is how I would classify both of them. McDaniels is not any better than O'Brien and I for one, was very unimpressed with O'B's handling of the offense. I wish BB had gone in another direction and hired from outside the org to infuse some new and creative thinking into the offensive planning and execution. It doesn't need a lot but it does need some, especially the ability to think on your feet and in real time. I have felt that it takes way too long to adapt to the defensive gameplans of other teams essentially squandering valuable time. It's a good thing we have Brady or we would be so screwed.

 

[Bertil]

Charlie Weis was heavily derided on this board (albeit by the likes of former member NEM...remember him?), but in SB 39 his genius was on full display. Those two consecutive screen passes to Corey Dillon from the Patriot's own goal line proved to me that he knew his opponent well, could predict their Defensive calls and perfectly attacked it at a critical time. Those were extremely high risk calls. If they had failed, it would've swung the game in Arlen Specter's favor. On Sunday, I saw no calls from the Offense "letting it all hang out", as John Madden would've said. Let's hope Josh has incorporated that gunslinger mentality into his playcalling, to be used judiciously, of course.

 

[Rob0729]

Neither of them possess the skill set required to win the whole enchilada without having vastly superior manpower. Unimaginative and textbook is how I would classify both of them. McDaniels is not any better than O'Brien and I for one, was very unimpressed with O'B's handling of the offense. I wish BB had gone in another direction and hired from outside the org to infuse some new and creative thinking into the offensive planning and execution. It doesn't need a lot but it does need some, especially the ability to think on your feet and in real time. I have felt that it takes way too long to adapt to the defensive gameplans of other teams essentially squandering valuable time. It's a good thing we have Brady or we would be so screwed.

The Pats have won one Super Bowl on the offense. Ironically, it is one of the worst years for the offense in the Belichick era. The Pats clearly didn't win the Super Bowl against the Rams on offense. It was the defense that slowed down Philly that won that game too.

Both O'Brien dealt with something Weis never did in the Super Bowl though, injuries to key personnel.

Also, McDaniels' legacy would have been completely rewritten if Samuel caught his easy INT, Meriweather caught his INT, or David Tyree didn't have a velcro helmet.

 

[mgteich]

Josh is a fine OC and works very, very well with Brady. Josh will take advantage of the personnel that he has. With a healthy Brady, we will be fine.

The front office decisions on RB and interior lineman are business as usual decisions. We will do fine no matter what is decided.

The only really open issue on the offense (and it is HUGE) is at WR. We don't have any. Welker, Branch and Slater are unsigned. Ochocinco would need to sign a new contract (he is essentially a free agent), if we even wanted him to stay. Edelman is a special teamer and backup defensive back, and yes, he could be our slot receiver if it came to that. We can keep Underwood if we want,

BOTTOM LINE
As of now, we have Edelman and Underwood for 2012.

 

[Rob0729]

Charlie Weis was heavily derided on this board (albeit by the likes of former member NEM...remember him?), but in SB 39 his genius was on full display. Those two consecutive screen passes to Corey Dillon from the Patriot's own goal line proved to me that he knew his opponent well, could predict their Defensive calls and perfectly attacked it at a critical time. Those were extremely high risk calls. If they had failed, it would've swung the game in Arlen Specter's favor. On Sunday, I saw no calls from the Offense "letting it all hang out", as John Madden would've said. Let's hope Josh has incorporated that gunslinger mentality into his playcalling, to be used judiciously, of course.

Never said Weis was bad. He was very good. I just think he was not nearly as good as people remember him. He was predictable (loved to run the FB draw on third down which rarely worked, always threw deep after a turnover, etc.) as much as McDaniels or O'Brien. His offenses struggled (the Pats were worse on third down conversion rate in 2003 than I think any time in the Brady era). He gave up on the run in games except in 2004.

I like Weis, but people give him a free pass on his flaws because he won three Super Bowls. Without that defense, I don't think he would have won a single Super Bowl though. In 2003, the Pats probably don't even make the playoffs. Same in 2001. The 2004 team might have made the playoffs, but not very far in it.

The bottom line is this is a team game. Weis won because Crennel's defenses were outstanding (and visa versa). The Pats haven't had an outstanding defense since 2004.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Both O'Brien dealt with something Weis never did in the Super Bowl though, injuries to key personnel.

Also, McDaniels' legacy would have been completely rewritten if Samuel caught his easy INT, Meriweather caught his INT, or David Tyree didn't have a velcro helmet.

Get serious. The offense sucked that day, and it sucked almost the entire game AND I never saw anything more than a mediocre effort to change 'the plan'. The offensive game plan was a failure from the start of that game to the end and this one was no different. With a lesser QB, we never would have scored a point in either game.

 

[Deus Irae]

McDaniels made it clear in SB 42 he doesn't have a clue how to attack any team's weakness.

By no means was O'Brien a legendary offensive coordinator or anything, but he was better than McDaniels. On top of that he isn't a narcissistic a**hole like McDaniels who only needed 2 seasons to alienate all of Denver's fans and players against him.

Neither guy unfortunately is close to the offensive coordinator Weis was.

EDIT: For all who think the running game is a major concern with McDaniels, that's not really something to worry about. It's not like they had a Juggernaut running game with O'Brien and it's not like you need a juggernaut running game in today's NFL. The major concern I have with McDaniels is him maybe trying to go to more of a deep ball attack when the only reason the deep ball offense was so successful here was having the best deep ball receiver of all time. As long as Brady is QB the offense should be focused on utilizing his ability to spread the ball and deliver extremely accurate short passes. Tom Brady's deep ball isn't something to build an offense around.

This is well-worn territory, and you're wrong. The Patriots initial plan was to go run heavy in that game, but they weren't able to do it because of the personnel issues. They also tried a bunch of short passes and screens in the game, as Unoriginal (I Believe) pointed out.

The problem wasn't McDaniels. The problem was a team that was hit with injuries, had practiced poorly, and couldn't protect a QB that was hobbled to the point where he made Bledsoe look like Michael Vick when it comes to pocket mobility.

 

[mgteich]

I believe that Josh will "let it all hang out" more than we experienced in the last two years. I also think that this will be for the good.

That being said, there was nothing wrong with our game plan. Our #3 WR was useless. Our #1 TE couldn't do much. And yet, the game was in hand with 4 minutes to go if only the top QB-WR combo ion the nfl could complete a wide open opportunity.

What we need is to sign some receivers. As of now, we have our two tight ends and Edelman. That leaves us about SIX receivers short. Josh would benefit from having a deep threat. Belichick is on the same page. He tries each year. This year, we expected such a threat in Price or in Ochocinco. Neither worked out. Henrandez might have been used more in this role, if we had a solid #3 TE (in addition to a short down blocking TE where we have used an OL for years).

Charlie Weis was heavily derided on this board (albeit by the likes of former member NEM...remember him?), but in SB 39 his genius was on full display. Those two consecutive screen passes to Corey Dillon from the Patriot's own goal line proved to me that he knew his opponent well, could predict their Defensive calls and perfectly attacked it at a critical time. Those were extremely high risk calls. If they had failed, it would've swung the game in Arlen Specter's favor. On Sunday, I saw no calls from the Offense "letting it all hang out", as John Madden would've said. Let's hope Josh has incorporated that gunslinger mentality into his playcalling, to be used judiciously, of course.

 

[Rob0729]

Get serious. The offense sucked that day, and it sucked almost the entire game AND I never saw anything more than a mediocre effort to change 'the plan'. The offensive game plan was a failure from the start of that game to the end and this one was no different. With a lesser QB, we never would have scored a point in either game.

The execution sucked that game. Kinda hard to execute any gameplan with a hobbled QB and an o-line that were total turnstyles. Even screens didn't work because the DEs were getting into the backfield too quickly and breaking up passes or hitting the receiver the second they got the ball.

That is the problem with McDaniel haters. They give him all the credit in failures and none of the credit in success (it is always "anyone could do what he did with that talent").

 

[UofApatsfan]

First, the legend of Weis was far better than the actual Weis. Weis had one season where people weren't biatching about his play calling and that is when they had an elite RB.

Weis also has 3 more superbowls than McDaniels, one of which being in 2003. When you win 3 superbowls as offensive coordinator, you get "legend" status.

Second, McDaniels may have been the best OC of the Belichick era. All you have to do is look at what he did with Matt Cassel in 2008

Matt Cassel had by far the best season and only pro bowl season of his career with Weis as his OC. Bringing up Matt Cassel isn't exactly an intelligent way of showing why you think McDaniels > Weis.

or how this offense worked with Reche Caldwell as the lead WR in 2006 to support that.

The offense that scored a grand 2.3 more PPG than the 2003 offense you think wasn't good?

I like Billy O'Brien, but he isn't as good as McDaniels.

Is this why Bill O'Brien was picked by Penn State to replace Joe Paterno while McDaniels had to come back to Bill Belichick with his tail tucked between his legs asking for his old job back because of how much of a massive failure he was in Denver and St. Louis?

Third, everyone points to the Super Bowl to discredit McDaniels, but people refuse to accept that Brady was hobbled with an ankle sprain, Stephen Neal went out early in the game, Mankins had the worst game of his career, Moss was in his typical fall off in the playoffs mode (and he actually played well)

You don't think McDaniels gets any blame when so many offensive players (like the entire line) looked completely unprepared for that game?

Lets also not pretend O'Brien had rosy conditions in SB 46. The most lethal pass catcher on the team was on one leg, Mankins didn't exactly play well in this superbowl either (which I largely blame the coaching staff for given that they shoulda been on Mankins' ass not to repeat SB 42), and several wide open passes were dropped.

 

[UofApatsfan]

The Patriots initial plan was to go run heavy in that game, but they weren't able to do it because of the personnel issues.

And because they hadn't gone run heavy all season. You can't just flip the switch and go run heavy when you haven't established a running game all season.

They also tried a bunch of short passes and screens in the game, as Unoriginal (I Believe) pointed out.

Well coached offenses do more than try screens, they executive them properly. Again, it's hard to execute stuff you haven't done all season.

had practiced poorly, and couldn't protect a QB

lol. Poor practice/preparation and bad pass protection. Neither one of those are the offensive coordinators responsibility at all!

that was hobbled to the point where he made Bledsoe look like Michael Vick when it comes to pocket mobility.

All the more reason to emphasize pass protection in the 2 weeks of preparation and practice teams have for the superbowl.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Judicious gunslinging is an oxymoron.

The Patriots bread and butter with Welker in the slot and two TE's is YAC. You don't get YAC in a gridlock situation. They need 1 or preferable 2 WR who can stretch the field horizontally, because Brady won't be upright long enough to benefit from vertically. And they need a RB teams have to game plan against so they can't single mindedly focus on stopping Brady and the short passing game.

Charlie wouldn't do any better here today than Josh or BOB. Different game and different era, different personnel and skillsets. That bullseye wasn't firmly planted on this team or this QB's back until after Charlie was long gone to ND. And Belichick was spending as much time with the offense as defense back then. On the sideline het altered the only play Charlie called that resulted in an offensive TD for the NEP in XXXVI. Charlie had a better balanced offense to work with in XXXVIII and especially XXXIX with Dillon onboard, the still cagey Brown in the slot, Branch and Givens, above average TE's compared to 2001, and a defense that could still make a stop. And yet we won each by a FG.

 

[Rob0729]

Weis also has 3 more superbowls than McDaniels, one of which being in 2003. When you win 3 superbowls as offensive coordinator, you get "legend" status.

Doesn't mean it is deserved.

Matt Cassel had by far the best season and only pro bowl season of his career with Weis as his OC. Bringing up Matt Cassel isn't exactly an intelligent way of showing why you think McDaniels > Weis.

Yet, Cassell had more yards, a better completion rating, only 6 less TDs, and only 4 more INTs in 2008 when it was the first year he started since high school.

The offense that scored a grand 2.3 more PPG than the 2003 offense you think wasn't good?

In 2003, the Pats had Branch, Patten, Troy, and Givens. In 2006, the Pats had Caldwell, Gaffney (who sucked until the playoffs), and Doug Gabriel. The 2003 offense wasn't that good. The 2006 should have been horrible with the receivers Brady had and no healthy consistent RBs.

Is this why Bill O'Brien was picked by Penn State to replace Joe Paterno while McDaniels had to come back to Bill Belichick with his tail tucked between his legs asking for his old job back because of how much of a massive failure he was in Denver and St. Louis?

What does that have to do with anything? McDaniels got very good production from Kyle Orton in Denver eventhough he sucked as a head coach. He was retained by the Rams, but they let him go. Weis had to tuck his tail between his legs and go to KC after totally failing in ND.

You don't think McDaniels gets any blame when so many offensive players (like the entire line) looked completely unprepared for that game?

He wasn't completely unprepared. The Pats just couldn't run the ball because the o-line collapsed and the could barely throw either.

Lets also not pretend O'Brien had rosy conditions in SB 46. The most lethal pass catcher on the team was on one leg, Mankins didn't exactly play well in this superbowl either (which I largely blame the coaching staff for given that they shoulda been on Mankins' ass not to repeat SB 42), and several wide open passes were dropped.

You do realize the Pats scored the same amount of point on Sunday than they did in the McDaniels' Super Bowl? And Brady was fine until late.

Besides, I am not the one judging an entire career as the Patriots' head coach on one game.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Get serious. The offense sucked that day, and it sucked almost the entire game AND I never saw anything more than a you mediocre effort to change 'the plan'. The offensive game plan was a failure from the start of that game to the end and this one was no different. With a lesser QB, we never would have scored a point in either game.

And that just underscores the disconnect between preparation and execution. It's like the spawn of NEM have resurfaced here today... They just don't get it. X's and O's matter but at the end of the day as Borgie is fond of reminding us, it's what the Jimmy's and Joe's do and in three cases they executed and in two they failed to. There were reasons, as opposed to excuses, but the NEM spawn never want to consider those. It's easier to just blame the OC...

 

[Deus Irae]

And because they hadn't gone run heavy all season. You can't just flip the switch and go run heavy when you haven't established a running game all season.

Ok, I've got to ask.... Are you writing this crap because you're clueless, or because you're trolling? The Patriots ran the ball for 130+ in 4 of the last 6 games played in the 2007 season. The only 2 games during that stretch where they didn't get 130+?

Yes, indeed..... the two Giants games.

In fact, during the season, the Patriots ran for 130+ in 10 of 19 games.

Well coached offenses do more than try screens, they executive them properly. Again, it's hard to execute stuff you haven't done all season.

Ok, you're clueless...

At this point, you're just a waste of time until you learn a little bit about the game.