A Wes-less Offense

[ausbacker]

The only Wes Welker thread i want to see is the one saying he is gone. He isnt this dynamic WR as you put it. Hes no 1 in a lifetime WR or w/e you said. He is a system WR. He came in took over for Brown. Brown was at least clutch this guy butterfingers magoo belongs with Manning effin choke artists. JE will do just fine in the slot.Wes will go get overpaid and become the next Branch. I dont rfemember Butterginers Magoo putting up hof numbers in Miami. Get this guy the heck out of town sign SeaBass and a WR who can stretch the field. We have plenty of guys who can go overthe middle.

This just in per @adamschefter Wes Welker was seen driving his new Truck today but reporters noticed he had to have his hands strapped to the steering wheel cause he couldnt hold on to it.#getridofbutterfingers #cantbelieveitsnotbutter

#wasIsupposedtolaugh?

I assume you're a green is grasser type of guy?

 

[mayoclinic]

Am i the only one that think the passing game while effective, is somewhat predictable?
I think the offense was better when brady spread the ball out to 5 different receivers, because the defense didn't know who brady was going to throw to.

There are two major negatives and two decent positives with Welker moving on.

negatives

1. Welker was targeted more this past year than any other year with us, to the tune of 10.5 attempts a game. That is nearly impossible to makeup by simply adding another receiver, and Andy is right, you simply cannot move those catches to the TEs who already have exceptional catch rates. There is not one player you could bring in that will cover that, not even 80% of that, which is a big key to the fast paced offense and 3rd down conversation rate.

2. Between Bradys incredible release time and welkers quickness, rarely do we see brady face a ton of instant pressure. Losing Wes will prove the mettle of our o-line alot more than we have seen in recent years. Brady is a brilliant tactician, and having Wes as his security blanket has saved him from a lot of hits in recent years.

positives

1. The screen game has for the most part disappeared from the pats playbook, outside of Wes's catch and run plays, with gronk and mankins pulling. These have become even less popular in the last two years. If Welker moved on, Vereens split out ability could be taken advantage of, and possibly edelman and Hernandez as well. With a more consistant 2-2-1 line up, we may be able to take advantage of the speed of our backs who have better breakaway ability than Wes.

2. The team has never been younger and deeper on offense, is also in a position to add another through either free agency or the draft. The transformation is primarily done at this point, with wide receiver and qb being the only two left untouched. I believe the team has built a young nucleus around brady in order for the teams success to continue beyond his time here, so allowing him to get the most out of the people we have now. Holding on to wes will only continue to avoid the fact that they need to get youth infused in a position sorely needing it. With Wes in his early 30s and a step slower, there are plenty of places you can put 8-11mill in other positions that will both protect that future and set the present better than Wes will. With the teams two other top targets missing large chunks of the season, or banged up when they did play, Wes was needed to bridge the gap that much more. If they can return healthy, Wes's role will likely diminish naturally, which is not what you want from such an expensive resource.

Losing Welker would also have an impact on the OL. The run game would become more of a mainstay rather than a wrinkle to take advantage of nickel defenses, we'd likely see more base defenses and Brady would need more time in the pocket. Uncertainty over Vollmer, Cannon's inexperience and two oft-injured 30+ Guards would indicate that we should be looking at upgrades there sooner rather than later.

And btw, this is one of the best threads I've read. Very informative.

I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. Andy, this is a great thread topic, and great OP. Wonderful idea, and some very good insights.

I personally don't think that having one receiver targeted as much as we've tareted Welker is a good idea. It makes the offense too predictable. I wanted Wes' work load to be decreased this year. Instead, with the injuries to the TEs, he was targeted as much or more than ever. While Welker deserves all the credit in the world for his toughness, durability and reliability, it's just not the way to make the offense less predictable and harder to defend in the playoffs. What this team needs is a Wes Welker circa 2007, a guy brought in to be a piece of the overall puzzle, not Wes Welker circa 2012. A young, inexpensive, complementary guy who will fit in as part of the offense.

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The OL is one key. I think the team needs to invest in some young turks on the OL. Maybe a Jonathan Cooper or DJ Fluker. Maybe Marcus Cannon will emerge as a starting caliber lineman this year, as 2012 was essentially a rookie year for him. Move Dan Connolly back to center. But I agree with Manx about the loss of Welker putting more pressure on the OL. We've been using Welker and the quick passing game to cover up a lot of deficiencies, but then they come back to bite us in the ass come playoff time. It's time to address those deficiencies and try a different approach.

The running game needs to be used more as a "mainstay" of the offense on a consistent basis, and less as a "wrinkle", to use Manx's terms. The line has to be able to give Brady enough time to find a receiver more than 15 yards downfield, the team has to invest in some young guys with the size and/or speed to work the sidelines, and Brady has to buy into that. There are still plenty of short/intermediate options: Hernandez, Edelman, Vereen, Demps and Woodhead (depending on whether Edelman and Woodhead are re-signed, of course).

Getting more of a "home run" threat is also important. Our 4 most productive offenseive skill players - Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Lloyd - dont have the speed to be breakaway threats. And certainly not Branch since he returned. They can sometimes break some big gains, but they aren't the kind of guys who will take it to the house when they get a step on the defense, with rare exceptions. Vereen and Edelman offer more of that capability. Demps obviously would if he makes the step to be an offensive weapon. But the offense needs both a faster "move" option who can be that kind of threat (Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin) and a bigger outside option who can stretch the field.

The objective shouldn't be to "make up" for Welker's production. The objective should be to diversify the offense to make it less dependent on one guy, less predictable, and harder to defend come playoff time. I personally think that's easier to achieve without Welker than with him, great as he is, because we keep getting stuck in the rut of going to our "security blanket" over and over again as long as we have him, right up until the time when it fails us in the playoffs and we go home disappointed for the season. Time to try a different approach, both for money reasons and because, great as the security blanket has been, it ultimately hasn't provided enough security from the bogeymen.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". We've had the same result: a highly prolific offense that sets all kind of regular season records, and then which struggles in the playoffs. Every time there's a discussion of diversifying the offense and being more committed to a running game, the response is "why fix what isn't broke". Well, it's broke IMHO, as far as winning in the playoffs goes. Time to fix it. Saying that it isn't broke and we just needed to execute better (just like we needed to do in 2007, 2010, and 2011) just condemns us to the same result next year, and the year after. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

 

[ivanvamp]

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The bolded part is very interesting to me. Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

 

[manxman2601]

The bolded part is very interesting to me. Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

Good point. There are two reasons I see for the juxtaposition:

1. Tom Brady. He's accurate enough to make this approach work, most other QB's not so much.

2. Turnovers. By forcing teams in to the methodical approach, I think BB expects them to stall because of reason 1. That forces to throw deeper and into a situation where turnovers are more likely. However, because TB can make the methodical approach work, the possibilities of giving up turnovers on deeper balls is reduced and hence we win the turnover battle.

 

[mayoclinic]

Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

This is very insightful stuff. Thanks. You're right, it's kind of ironic. We want to limit the other team and force the team to execute and move the chains, believing that it's easier to slip up once and fail to convert, stalling a drive, thus giving up yards but limit points; but our offense methodically tries to move the chains without having much of a big play capability, requiring it to convert lots of 3rd downs, as Andy noted in the OP. It only takes one failed conversion to stall a drive. It's a tough way to go. So we set records for 1st down conversions, which is both a testament to how efficient our offense is and also an indictment of our lack of vertical or big play capability. The latter forces us to move the ball down the field in 10 yard increments, racking up lots of 1st downs in the process, but also leading to many stalled drives and punts (or field goals, or missed field goals, or failed conversions) at the opponents' 34 yard line.

 

[mayoclinic]

Good point. There are two reasons I see for the juxtaposition:

1. Tom Brady. He's accurate enough to make this approach work, most other QB's not so much.

2. Turnovers. By forcing teams in to the methodical approach, I think BB expects them to stall because of reason 1. That forces to throw deeper and into a situation where turnovers are more likely. However, because TB can make the methodical approach work, the possibilities of giving up turnovers on deeper balls is reduced and hence we win the turnover battle.

That's a pretty thin margin for error. Fail to win the turnover battle, or Brady has a slightly off day, or some key drops, and the balance can tip pretty easily. In the playoffs, with better defenses putting more pressure on Brady and teams executing better overall, it's easier for one or more of those 3 things to happen.

 

[manxman2601]

That's a pretty thin margin for error. Fail to win the turnover battle, or Brady has a slightly off day, or some key drops, and the balance can tip pretty easily. In the playoffs, with better defenses putting more pressure on Brady and teams executing better overall, it's easier for one or more of those 3 things to happen.

I've been saying that for a while, particularly when applied to the defense. And recnt playoff evidence says we're right. I didn't say I liked it, but I do think that's BB's reasoning.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Sorry not down with that Australia slang. All i know is i make garbage money for a living and i split seasons tickets with a buddy of mine. I'm sick of the same slouch losing important games for the team i love.

Per @adamschefter Wes was seen playing futbol with a few euro friends. he was playing goalie unfortunately he had to use only his head to stop the balls cause all the kicks were going through his hands #howsthatfutboljoke #inthelanddwnunder

Best news I've had all week is you make garbage money for a living... All too often the most idiotic kneejerk posters here claim to be wildly successful businessmen making six figures and traveling the world... At least you're willing to admit your just some pissed off stiff lashing out at yet another of your life's disappointments.

But since the OP specifically asked not for opinions on whether Welker should or should not be retained, but discussion and ideas on what potential strategies his departure might result in the team persuing, and the only thread on Welker you claim you're interested in is the one announcing his departure, perhaps you should save your low brow contributions for that thread.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. Andy, this is a great thread topic, and great OP. Wonderful idea, and some very good insights.

I personally don't think that having one receiver targeted as much as we've tareted Welker is a good idea. It makes the offense too predictable. I wanted Wes' work load to be decreased this year. Instead, with the injuries to the TEs, he was targeted as much or more than ever. While Welker deserves all the credit in the world for his toughness, durability and reliability, it's just not the way to make the offense less predictable and harder to defend in the playoffs. What this team needs is a Wes Welker circa 2007, a guy brought in to be a piece of the overall puzzle, not Wes Welker circa 2012. A young, inexpensive, complementary guy who will fit in as part of the offense.

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The OL is one key. I think the team needs to invest in some young turks on the OL. Maybe a Jonathan Cooper or DJ Fluker. Maybe Marcus Cannon will emerge as a starting caliber lineman this year, as 2012 was essentially a rookie year for him. Move Dan Connolly back to center. But I agree with Manx about the loss of Welker putting more pressure on the OL. We've been using Welker and the quick passing game to cover up a lot of deficiencies, but then they come back to bite us in the ass come playoff time. It's time to address those deficiencies and try a different approach.

The running game needs to be used more as a "mainstay" of the offense on a consistent basis, and less as a "wrinkle", to use Manx's terms. The line has to be able to give Brady enough time to find a receiver more than 15 yards downfield, the team has to invest in some young guys with the size and/or speed to work the sidelines, and Brady has to buy into that. There are still plenty of short/intermediate options: Hernandez, Edelman, Vereen, Demps and Woodhead (depending on whether Edelman and Woodhead are re-signed, of course).

Getting more of a "home run" threat is also important. Our 4 most productive offenseive skill players - Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Lloyd - dont have the speed to be breakaway threats. And certainly not Branch since he returned. They can sometimes break some big gains, but they aren't the kind of guys who will take it to the house when they get a step on the defense, with rare exceptions. Vereen and Edelman offer more of that capability. Demps obviously would if he makes the step to be an offensive weapon. But the offense needs both a faster "move" option who can be that kind of threat (Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin) and a bigger outside option who can stretch the field.

The objective shouldn't be to "make up" for Welker's production. The objective should be to diversify the offense to make it less dependent on one guy, less predictable, and harder to defend come playoff time. I personally think that's easier to achieve without Welker than with him, great as he is, because we keep getting stuck in the rut of going to our "security blanket" over and over again as long as we have him, right up until the time when it fails us in the playoffs and we go home disappointed for the season. Time to try a different approach, both for money reasons and because, great as the security blanket has been, it ultimately hasn't provided enough security from the bogeymen.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". We've had the same result: a highly prolific offense that sets all kind of regular season records, and then which struggles in the playoffs. Every time there's a discussion of diversifying the offense and being more committed to a running game, the response is "why fix what isn't broke". Well, it's broke IMHO, as far as winning in the playoffs goes. Time to fix it. Saying that it isn't broke and we just needed to execute better (just like we needed to do in 2007, 2010, and 2011) just condemns us to the same result next year, and the year after. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Thank you, you did a great job of putting into words what I've thought for a long time.

People talk about how the offense runs through Wes, apparently this is why the team should pay him big money, but if it runs through him it can also be shut down through him, yes?

A Wes centered offense is a poor way to go into the playoffs and we've seen it fail several times, we need a diverse offense that is more explosive, and doesn't depend on perfect execution.

 

[mayoclinic]

Thank you, you did a great job of putting into words what I've thought for a long time.

People talk about how the offense runs through Wes, apparently this is why the team should pay him big money, but if it runs through him it can also be shut down through him, yes?

A Wes centered offense is a poor way to go into the playoffs and we've seen it fail several times, we need a diverse offense that is more explosive, and doesn't depend on perfect execution.

Again, to be very clear, I didn't start this thread, and I'm by no means taking anything away from Welker. Incredible player, who's done everything asked of him, and more. Just like in the "mortality of Brady" thread I wasn't taking any shots at Brady, who is without doubt one of the 2-3 greatest of all time, and still one of the 2-3 best in the game today.

But I think that we've come to believe that these guys can just put the team on their shoulders and carry us to a Super Bowl. And I think the odds of that are very, very low, especially as they get older and have subtle declines in some key skills. They'll still be great players, but expecting them to be supermen and overcome all just isn't realistic.

The sad irony is that Welker IS undoubtedly a great player, and he DOES undoubtedly deserve to get paid. No question. And I have no doubt that he'd continue to be productive in general, and put up good numbers. But I personally suspect that that road won't lead to more Lombardi trophies.

A lower-cost Welker who was used as part of a more diverse offense would be ideal. But I can't see how that would happen.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The bolded part is very interesting to me. Someone else mentioned this the other day (I can't remember which thread) but their offensive and defensive philosophies seem to be at odds with one another. Defensively, the Pats want to limit the big plays, and appear to be somewhat content to allow the underneath stuff, forcing the opponent to methodically march down the field and convert a high percentage of 3rd downs. And then in the red zone, the idea is to stop giving up any ground. Bend-but-don't-break, as it were. The Ravens did that masterfully last week.

But on offense, the Pats do exactly that - they methodically move downfield, executing a huge number of plays and gaining a huge number of yards - even in the loss they piled up 428 yards. They convert a high percentage of 3rd downs, and they have the best red zone offense in the league. If our defense applies the theory that BB thinks is best at stopping the other team, why is our offense designed to apply the very principles that Belichick is trying to get the other team's offense to apply?

In other words, if, as a defense, you WANT to make the other team do what's incredibly hard to do - march downfield flawlessly executing and converting 3rd downs and being very efficient in the red zone - why is that the very thing that we design our offense to do (the incredibly hard thing)?

It speaks volumes to the talent level on the Patriots that they are able to put up near-record numbers of points doing the hardest thing there is to do on offense.

I wouldn't consider them quite the same. The Pats offense changes week to week and even the route tree is based on what the defense gives. If the defense doesn't give the deep routes, they nickel and dime. If the defense takes away the underneath stuff, they will switch it up. It may just be that the opposing defense is trying to do this as well, and our offense is just executing at an extremely high level.

I think we all focus on Brady's incredible accuracy so much that we forget that this Pats offense finished in the top 10 in yards per play as well. And this without a legit deep threat. I don't think any other team in the top 10 yards per play had a TE lead their team in highest average catch (with at least 10 catches).

Simply put, our offense just executed at an extremely high level this season. We had the fewest 3 and outs as well. We led the league in points, yards, 3rd down conversion, and were at or near the top of almost every single offensive stat, yet after every bad play or series, all we could talk about was how Josh needed to be fired.

There were definitely bad plays and bad series (or maybe they were good plays and good series that were plagued by bad execution), but overall, as a whole, the offense did pretty damn good.

 

[ralmat55]

This is a great thread and why I enjoy my visits to this forum so much. Hopefully, I can add a point of two without dumbing down the discussion.

Thanks to Wes Welker's incredible durability, we really don't know how difficult it will be to replace him in this offense. The only example I can think of is the 09 Ravens playoff game when Julian Edelman assumed the Welker role and was the best thing the Pats offense had on the field that day.

Perhaps, Aaron Hernandez and some combination of other players can replace Welker's productivity adequately

 

[ivanvamp]

That's a pretty thin margin for error. Fail to win the turnover battle, or Brady has a slightly off day, or some key drops, and the balance can tip pretty easily. In the playoffs, with better defenses putting more pressure on Brady and teams executing better overall, it's easier for one or more of those 3 things to happen.

And, as we've seen, when the Patriots have lost in the playoffs recently, some combination of these things always seem to happen.

2007 loss to NYG - 22 first downs, 274 total yards. Brady: 29-48 (60.4%), 266 yds, 1 td, 0 int, offense scores just 14 points. Turnovers: NYG 1, NE 1

2009 loss to Bal - 15 first downs, 196 total yards. Brady: 23-42 (54.8%), 154 yds, 2 td, 3 int, offense scores just 14 points. Turnovers: Bal 2, NE 4

2010 loss to NYJ - 26 first downs, 372 total yards. Brady: 29-45 (64.4%), 299 yds, 2 td, 1 int, offense scores just 21 points. Turnovers: NYJ 0, NE 1

2011 loss to NYG - 21 first downs, 349 total yards. Brady: 27-41 (65.9%), 276 yds, 2 td, 1 int, offense scores just 17 points. Turnovers: NYG 0, NE 1

2012 loss to Bal - 28 first downs, 428 total yards. Brady: 29-54 (53.7%), 320 yds, 1 td, 2 int, offense scores just 13 points. Turnovers: Bal 0, NE 3


Common themes:

(1) Subpar performance by Brady. None of these performances would we give Brady an "A". Most not even a "B". His cumulative stat line in these five losses is: 137-230 (59.6%), 1315 yds, 8 td, 7 int, 74.5 rating. This is *not* what we expect from our HOF quarterback.

(2) Losing the turnover battle. The Patriots, over the past handful of years, have been among the best teams in the history of the NFL at taking care of the football. And they've also been one of the best in the league at creating turnovers. And yet in these five games they are -7 in the turnover battle, and not one time out of these five did they win the turnover battle. They have had playoff games where they've lost the turnover battle and still won the game, but in all five of their recent playoff losses, they've never been on the plus side in turnover margin.

(3) Inefficient offense. Whether it's bad penalties (Brady's intentional grounding last year), dropped passes, missed receivers, inability to execute in the red zone, whatever. Suddenly the machine that is the Patriots' offense has ground to a halt in these games.

Here are their regular season game averages vs. their stats in these five games:

First Downs
Year - Reg. Season Avg - Playoff Loss
2007 - 24.6 - 22 (-2.6)
2009 - 23.3 - 15 (-8.3)
2010 - 20.9 - 26 (+5.1)
2011 - 24.9 - 21 (-3.9)
2012 - 27.8 - 28 (+0.2)
AVG - 24.3 - 22.4 (-1.9)

Yards Gained
Year - Reg. Season Avg - Playoff Loss
2007 - 411.3 - 274 (-137.3)
2009 - 397.3 - 196 (-201.3)
2010 - 363.8 - 372 (+8.2)
2011 - 428.0 - 349 (-79.0)
2012 - 427.9 - 428 (+0.1)
AVG - 405.7 - 323.8 (-81.9)

Points Scored
Year - Reg. Season Avg - Playoff Loss
2007 - 36.8 - 14 (-22.8)
2009 - 26.7 - 14 (-12.7)
2010 - 32.4 - 21 (-11.4)
2011 - 32.1 - 17 (-15.1)
2012 - 34.8 - 13 (-21.8)
AVG - 32.6 - 15.8 (-16.8)

I mean, look at that last list for a minute. That's a serious indictment of the offense. Could it just be the matchups? I mean, the Giants and Ravens - who have combined to beat the Patriots in 4 of these 5 games - typically give NE a difficult time. So that's a possibility. But wow, the Ferrari that is the Pats' offense has become a VW Beetle in these playoff losses.

EDIT: And of those 5 playoff losses, 3 were at home, and 2 were on neutral fields. Not a single one of them was on the road, where you would naturally expect a dropoff.

 

[ivanvamp]

I wouldn't consider them quite the same. The Pats offense changes week to week and even the route tree is based on what the defense gives. If the defense doesn't give the deep routes, they nickel and dime. If the defense takes away the underneath stuff, they will switch it up. It may just be that the opposing defense is trying to do this as well, and our offense is just executing at an extremely high level.

I think we all focus on Brady's incredible accuracy so much that we forget that this Pats offense finished in the top 10 in yards per play as well. And this without a legit deep threat. I don't think any other team in the top 10 yards per play had a TE lead their team in highest average catch (with at least 10 catches).

Simply put, our offense just executed at an extremely high level this season. We had the fewest 3 and outs as well. We led the league in points, yards, 3rd down conversion, and were at or near the top of almost every single offensive stat, yet after every bad play or series, all we could talk about was how Josh needed to be fired.

There were definitely bad plays and bad series (or maybe they were good plays and good series that were plagued by bad execution), but overall, as a whole, the offense did pretty damn good.

Absolutely. Overall, this was one of the best offenses the league has ever seen. It's been that way for quite a while now.

 

[borg]

Points scored in the 5 playoff losses since 2007

14.....vs Giants '07 SB....scoring 22.8 points less than regular season average
14.....vs Ravens '09........scoring 12.7 points less
21.....vs Jets '10.............scoring 11.4 points less
17.....vs Giants '11 SB......scoring 15.4 points less
13.....vs Ravens '12..........scoring 21.8 points less

NE averaged 15.8 points in their 5 playoff losses. Tough to win games when the team's overwhelming strength, OFFENSE, consistently comes up so small.

The common theme in all these losses is....teams that can control the LOS force NE to become one dimensional on offense during critical downs, and these teams have successfully forced NE into a "move the chains" offense that must string together sustained drives.....a difficult task verses the best Ds.

As far as Welker goes, I view the issue in terms of short pass options. In 2012, NE had 4 (WW, AH, Gronk, JE) short pass options during the regular season but injuries reduced those options to two (AH,WW).

Going forward, does NE want to continue building a roster designed for short passes first. This roster build wins 75% of regular season games but comes up small during the tourney. The 2 TE offenses collapses due to injury and the NE plan B depends on players playing out of position....Welker as the deep threat, AH as a pure WR, in a 2 TE designed offense that refuses to throw to the 3rd TE on the depth chart......FLAWED.

My solution: sorry Wes, you're gone. NE has enough short pass options if Edelman is resigned on the cheap. I would dump Lloyd as well, but the cap benefit/production loss gains NE little at this time......so Lloyd stays, but his role gets limited to 3 WR sets and third downs. Lloyd lacks play making skills once the ball is in his hand, so I refuse to roll out Lloyd as an every down WR. With the Welker money, I find an athletic WR that forces safeties to game plan and scheme. Think Torry Smith, NE consistently dropped a safety deep with Smith in mind......the 2012 Pats had no such weapon. Lloyd failed in that role and NE had to dredge the FA pool to bring Stallworth in. Clearly NE understood the advantage of having a deep presence. Time for NE to permanently solve that hole in the roster.

My two down groupings: RB, Edelman, Gronk, AH, down field WR.
Empty backfield: add Lloyd, subtract RB

Final point: At some point BB has to say to himself, why do we need to spend so much cap capital to surround All-World Brady. Brady has been surrounded by big ticket pass catchers with little to show except gaudy regular season stats. Sixteen point average in post season losses clearly demonstrates the design is flawed. That $8-10 mill savings without Welker can go a long way fortifying a OL that NE places no faith in on critical downs and finally adding a deeper threat to layer the attack. NE must end this dependence on the short term passing game.

Wes is great, too great in fact because NE believes the offense Wes thrives in can score a sufficient number of points to win the last play off game. History shows that is wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

I won't get into the full post, because this paragraph, sadly, sums up most of it.

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable.

This is not true about the Patriots offense, so I'm not sure what team we're now discussing here.

It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk.

Yes, the offense is predicated on being able to move the football. Are there teams in the NFL who have an offense predicated on not being able to move the football?

When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time.

Again, this is true of every offense in the NFL. It's true, in fact, of every offense in the history of the NFL.

That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

At this point, people are arguing that the Patriots offense should be literally unstoppable and that, since it's not, there's an issue. That's insane thinking. I've rarely seen you this far off the mark in a post.

 

[patfanken]

A few comments on the OP and subsequent comments

1. The OP would have you belielve that Wes Welker is the only receiver in the NFL who can run a 5 yard, in/out option route. While he might just be the best at it right now, there are other guys who would be very good at it as well.

2. The concept that if Welker is gone, the Pats offense will become different is not crazy. The Pats have always been a week to week game planning team, and clearly that has worked for them. Since the OP is asking how the a Welkerless offense will change, there is a lot of history that says it can and will evolve.

3. I think the Pats created enough offense to win the Ravens game, despite losing the TO battle 2-0. The Ravens scored all 4 times they were in the red zone, while the Pats went 1-4. It was as simple as that.

4. I don't buy into the concept that the offense "runs through Welker" as a general philosophy. It certainly did THIS year, but that was because of the injuries. In 2011 the TE's (IIRC) accounted for over 2000 yds of receiving and 26 TDs, so to opine that in 2011 the "offense went through Welker" would be absurd.

5. If Hernandez/Gronk/Edelman had been healthy, Welker's individual stats wouldn't have been as high

6.By the end of the year, Brady's receiving options had shrunk tojjust 3, and that made the Pats much easier to defend ultimately. Yet they STILL managed over 440 yds of offense

7. I question the coaching staff on why the RB's and other TE's were never fully integrated into the offense, even if only for quick outs and dump offs. We NEVER established any of them as a potential threat, and thus again helped the Ravens D defend us.

8. One of the hardest things for me personally to get over in the Ravens game was the fact that 3rd and 2 had clearly become a passing down for the 7th best rushing attack in the league. How did THAT happen? We must have failed on about half dozen on of those situations without ever trying a run or even a play action pass. Again making the job of defending us easier. (sorry for this OT rant, but the ravens game results have been mentioned)

9. For 6 years Welker's durability and reliability has been past outstanding. Its been amazing, especially at his size. But players like Manning, Brady, and Mankins all had amazing durability streaks that were even longer....until they didn't. To think that he isn't under an injury risk, just because it hasn't happened yet makes no sense.

10. IIRC, many people claimed that by the end of the Moss era, we were forcing too many balls to him. Predictions of doom were rampant when he was traded. Randy Moss was a "once in a generation player" No one in the league did what he did better. Yet when he was traded, his production was shifted and upgraded to Gronk and Hernandez and the offense actually improved as a whole. Why would we think that a similar result couldn't happen again.

11. Even if Welker returns, which would be the best situation, his numbers would likely decline, even if he were at his best and healthiest. It is likely that the Pats will run the ball more. That they will involve the RB's more in the passing game, and of course a healthy Gronk and Hernandez will take targets away from him. Given his product and importance this season, Welker earned every penny of his franchise tag. Would he be worth $10MM if his production dropped to 80/850, playing in an offense that was even more successful with 2 healthy TE's and a better running game?

12. Since the OL became a topic here, the question of Volmer comes into play. Volmer is one of the top RT's in the game, and has proven he play LT as well. If he isn't resigned, I think it will tell us a lot about what the Pats think about Marcus Cannon. If they think he's ready, I think they'll let Volmer walk, even though the thought of a Cannon/Volmer right side.combination makes me tingle.

13. What the Pats end up doing with Edelman will also be telling, but I'm not exactly sure what it says. Clearly they thought Edelman and Welker could coexist on the same field. So if they resign Edelman does it mean the Pats won't waste one of their top 2 picks on a WR, or will, in their minds, make it easier to let Welker walk? The 3 weeks leading up to FA WILL be fascinating. The speculation possibilities will be AWESOME.

14. It will be interesting to see what the Pats will do if Welker walks. Personally I think the Pats would re-sign Edelman and add finally add a big (6'3+), strong WR who can play outside the number. If he has deep speed as well, so much the better. Edelman would become a different kind of slot receiver, while the TE's and running backs would take care of the middle of the field.

It would be a more explosive offense, and even more effective in the Red Zone. The ball would be spread around more in the passing game, though overall yardage might shrink because he run the ball more. I could be a more effective offense in scoring points, because as the Ravens game clearly pointed out, a lot of yards don't mean a lot of points.

 

[borg]

I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly. Andy, this is a great thread topic, and great OP. Wonderful idea, and some very good insights.

I personally don't think that having one receiver targeted as much as we've tareted Welker is a good idea. It makes the offense too predictable. I wanted Wes' work load to be decreased this year. Instead, with the injuries to the TEs, he was targeted as much or more than ever. While Welker deserves all the credit in the world for his toughness, durability and reliability, it's just not the way to make the offense less predictable and harder to defend in the playoffs. What this team needs is a Wes Welker circa 2007, a guy brought in to be a piece of the overall puzzle, not Wes Welker circa 2012. A young, inexpensive, complementary guy who will fit in as part of the offense.

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

The OL is one key. I think the team needs to invest in some young turks on the OL. Maybe a Jonathan Cooper or DJ Fluker. Maybe Marcus Cannon will emerge as a starting caliber lineman this year, as 2012 was essentially a rookie year for him. Move Dan Connolly back to center. But I agree with Manx about the loss of Welker putting more pressure on the OL. We've been using Welker and the quick passing game to cover up a lot of deficiencies, but then they come back to bite us in the ass come playoff time. It's time to address those deficiencies and try a different approach.

The running game needs to be used more as a "mainstay" of the offense on a consistent basis, and less as a "wrinkle", to use Manx's terms. The line has to be able to give Brady enough time to find a receiver more than 15 yards downfield, the team has to invest in some young guys with the size and/or speed to work the sidelines, and Brady has to buy into that. There are still plenty of short/intermediate options: Hernandez, Edelman, Vereen, Demps and Woodhead (depending on whether Edelman and Woodhead are re-signed, of course).

Getting more of a "home run" threat is also important. Our 4 most productive offenseive skill players - Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Lloyd - dont have the speed to be breakaway threats. And certainly not Branch since he returned. They can sometimes break some big gains, but they aren't the kind of guys who will take it to the house when they get a step on the defense, with rare exceptions. Vereen and Edelman offer more of that capability. Demps obviously would if he makes the step to be an offensive weapon. But the offense needs both a faster "move" option who can be that kind of threat (Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin) and a bigger outside option who can stretch the field.

The objective shouldn't be to "make up" for Welker's production. The objective should be to diversify the offense to make it less dependent on one guy, less predictable, and harder to defend come playoff time. I personally think that's easier to achieve without Welker than with him, great as he is, because we keep getting stuck in the rut of going to our "security blanket" over and over again as long as we have him, right up until the time when it fails us in the playoffs and we go home disappointed for the season. Time to try a different approach, both for money reasons and because, great as the security blanket has been, it ultimately hasn't provided enough security from the bogeymen.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". We've had the same result: a highly prolific offense that sets all kind of regular season records, and then which struggles in the playoffs. Every time there's a discussion of diversifying the offense and being more committed to a running game, the response is "why fix what isn't broke". Well, it's broke IMHO, as far as winning in the playoffs goes. Time to fix it. Saying that it isn't broke and we just needed to execute better (just like we needed to do in 2007, 2010, and 2011) just condemns us to the same result next year, and the year after. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Nailed it.....my sentiments exactly. You used the Einstein Quote, I was gonna toss in the..."If John Wayne falls off the horse during the two matinee showings, why would you still believe John Wayne would stay on the horse in the evening show."

The reliance of Welker may come as a relief to some defenses. They know the play will stay in front of the secondary and NE will have to string plays together. The bend/break philosophy used against NE.

I absolutely agree the OL is an issue based specifically on the shot gun reliance on 3rd down. To completely ignore play action on 3rd down is either a McDaniels mental issue or a team understanding that the line has deficiencies

The pass catchers as a whole.....woeful in the speed department. Defenses may fear Patriots sceme, but one thing is for sure, safeties aren't sitting deep fearing an explosive player.

Time for Brady to start spreading it around and for NE to have a deeper pool of talent. BB has created a top heavy high priced receiving corp without a legitimate NFL caliber plan B for when the TEs go down.

 

[Snake Eyes]

This is a great thread and why I enjoy my visits to this forum so much. Hopefully, I can add a point of two without dumbing down the discussion.

Thanks to Wes Welker's incredible durability, we really don't know how difficult it will be to replace him in this offense. The only example I can think of is the 09 Ravens playoff game when Julian Edelman assumed the Welker role and was the best thing the Pats offense had on the field that day.

Perhaps, Aaron Hernandez and some combination of other players can replace Welker's productivity adequately

Welker is incredibly durable and no one can take that away from him but it's a catch 22: he takes so many hits because he's the focal point of the passing game, and because no one else is quite as durable we need to resign him for big money, which will ensure he will remain the focal point of the offense.

 

[mayoclinic]

I've rarely seen you this far off the mark in a post.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Let me try to clarify. Again, I didn't start this thread. I'm not bashing Welker, who is an amazing player. I'm not saying the offense would be better off without Welker. I'm not taking a position on whether or not we should keep Welker.

But I do think that the offense has gotten over-reliant on Welker, and that at times it gets bogged down and predictable. I don't expect perfection, and every offense will have days when they execute or game plan less well. But certainly as the season progressed, with injuries to Gronk, Hernandez and (to a lesser extent, but still important) Edelman and Stallworth, the offense tended to get more and more Welker-centric, and also more and more predictable. That's not a new theme. We've been burned by that before, in 2009 - when BB himself admitted that he had nothing outside of Welker and Moss - and in 2010.

Welker obviously didn't cause those injuries. He's not to blame for the game calling. But I think that the offense has become reliant to Welker being the constant reliable staple to the point where they sometimes stop exploring other options, and to where it's too easy for playoff caliber defenses to game plan against them.

Would I rather have a Pats offense with Welker in it, used as part of a more diverse package, and at reasonable cost? Sure. No question. But the cost issue isn't going to happen, and I'm not so sure that the diversification one will either as long as he's around to be the security blanket to Brady's "Linus".