2014 Patriots Offense: Championship Caliber?

[patsinthesnow]

@ausbacker said it before; this Patriot offense is similar to the Saints offenses over the years. It's an overload of decent to solid weapons with one stud.

1. Gronk
2. Edelman
3. Vereen
4. Dobson
5-8. Thompkins, Amendola, Lafell, Wright

Top it off with Ridley running the ball and the offense is complete. #3/#4 CBs are going to have problems vs. any of the 5-8 options.

 

[ausbacker]

@ausbacker said it before; this Patriot offense is similar to the Saints offenses over the years. It's an overload of decent to solid weapons with one stud.

1. Gronk
2. Edelman
3. Vereen
4. Dobson
5-8. Thompkins, Amendola, Lafell, Wright

Top it off with Ridley running the ball and the offense is complete. #3/#4 CBs are going to have problems vs. any of the 5-8 options.

As others and most importantly @supafly addressed, the performance of the Offensive Line is going to determine the ultimate success of the Offense.

I must admit, my preferred OL would be Solder - Connolly - Stork - Cannon - Vollmer. Continuing to start Wendell will, in my opinion, repeat the ghosts of Christmas past.

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

If we can stay healthy and the offensive line can give brady time and give our RBs wide open holes to run through then absolutely.

 

[supafly]

Actually, it's entirely cherry picking.

This is a classic example of really wanting to believe something and torturing the facts to make them fit what you want to believe.

Since 2007, the offense not defense has been the problem. In 2001 and 2003 your "championchip" defenses had the ability to close out Super Bowls and promptly allowed game tying TD's.

This is the type of reality that tends to get ignored when reality wants to be ignored.

The fact is that in 83% of the games that occurred in that 9 game postseason run (01-04), it was the defense that won the games for us. The offense in those games weren't scoring much more than they have lately.

By even taking out ONE game of a NINE game stretch, you'd still get results that are quite similar--forget about the second half of the '03 SB that was tied 0-0 at halftime.

By the end of the 2004 season, our offense had come a long way since the 2001 inception, and that's why the numbers for that AFCCG show a skew from the previous 8 games. The fact is that over the course of those 9 games where we won 3 SB's it was the defense allowing an average of 14-15 ppg, and the offense wasn't scoring anything outside of the late teens on average.

I think 8/9 games shows a pretty solid pattern, and would be enough that the majority of people here would want to be reminded that our defense was carrying us.

 

[supafly]

Showing the fact that our 9 postseason games in the SB run were based on poor offense and solid defense (hardly cherry picking).

2001 season
1.---team closes out last NINE games in a row not allowing more than 17 pts in a contest.

2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :



16-13 OAK (16 offensive pts scored)

24-17 PIT (10 offensive pts scored)

20-17 STL (13 offensive pts scored)

*WE WON THREE PLAYOFF GAMES AND THE SUPER BOWL WITHOUT SCORING MORE THAN 16 OFFENSIVE PTS*


2003 season

1.---allowed 14.9 points per game (1st in the entire NFL)

2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :



17-14 TEN (17 offensive pts scored)

24-14 IND (FIVE FG's from Vinateri + ONE offensive TD)--defense also scored a safety

32-29 CAR (the halftime score was 0-0)

2004 season

1.---allowed 16.2 points per game (2nd in the entire NFL)

2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :



20-3 IND (score was 13-3 with 7:10 remaining in the game until 1 yd Brady sneak)

41-27 PIT (the outlier where our offense showed up right from the get-go)

24-21 PHI

Actually, it's entirely cherry picking.

This is a classic example of really wanting to believe something and torturing the facts to make them fit what you want to believe.

Since 2007, the offense not defense has been the problem. In 2001 and 2003 your "championchip" defenses had the ability to close out Super Bowls and promptly allowed game tying TD's.

This is the type of reality that tends to get ignored when reality wants to be ignored.

 

[PatCat]

That guy named Gronkowski.

Sorry dude. I'm a huge Gronk fan if I may say but he is not the best offensive weapon in football. That would be Calvin Johnson. Best on the Pats though

 

[Deus Irae]

Showing the fact that our 9 postseason games in the SB run were based on poor offense and solid defense (hardly cherry picking).

2001 season
1.---team closes out last NINE games in a row not allowing more than 17 pts in a contest.

2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :



16-13 OAK (16 offensive pts scored)

24-17 PIT (10 offensive pts scored)

20-17 STL (13 offensive pts scored)

*WE WON THREE PLAYOFF GAMES AND THE SUPER BOWL WITHOUT SCORING MORE THAN 16 OFFENSIVE PTS*


2003 season

1.---allowed 14.9 points per game (1st in the entire NFL)

2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :



17-14 TEN (17 offensive pts scored)

24-14 IND (FIVE FG's from Vinateri + ONE offensive TD)--defense also scored a safety

32-29 CAR (the halftime score was 0-0)

2004 season

1.---allowed 16.2 points per game (2nd in the entire NFL)

2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :



20-3 IND (score was 13-3 with 7:10 remaining in the game until 1 yd Brady sneak)

41-27 PIT (the outlier where our offense showed up right from the get-go)

24-21 PHI

Sorry, man, but I don't agree with your position on this.

 

[supafly]

I don't agree with your postion on this.

That's fine, but I am showing that during the 9 game postseason run we had incredible defense, with very mediocre (at best) offensive performances.

All you have to do is look through the 9 games that I have provided. Aside from the 2004 AFCCG, what games do you see any differently?

You're really telling me that out of those 9 games, you don't see a pattern there? The entire 2001 postseason our offense didn't score more than 16 pts. The results of the '03 and '04 postseasons weren't that much different.

 

[supafly]

All you have to do is go game to game. As a matter of fact, you'd have to get to our 6th postseason game before you'd have any argument whatsoever, and even then--the other few after showed much of the same pattern.

It was a very solid defense meshed with mediocre offensive performances (as a whole).

As I said in my original post, the outlier was the 2004 AFCCG which was at the end of the run. The second half of the 2003 SB was also back and forth, but as a whole 7.5/9 games showed the pattern I am speaking of.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's fine, but I am showing that during the 9 game postseason run we had incredible defense, with very mediocre (at best) offensive performances.

All you have to do is look through the 9 games that I have provided. Aside from the 2004 AFCCG, what games do you see any differently?

You're really telling me that out of those 9 games, you don't see a pattern there? The entire 2001 postseason our offense didn't score more than 16 pts. The results of the '03 and '04 postseasons weren't that much different.

2001 game v. Oakland was that storm. The offensive output wasn't bad at all, all things considered.
2003 Indy and Carolina were both good offensive games, by the numbers
2004 The full team suffocated Indy (offense had 210 yards on the ground), then blew out Pitt

Since the team was, at the time, designed for ground and pound combined with often using the WR screen as a big part of the 'running' game, it's not really fair to deduct points from the offense for doing its job, IMO.

 

[supafly]

NINE GAME POSTSEASON STRETCH 3 SB WINS 2001--2004


#1---offense scores 16

#2---offense scores 10

#3---offense scores 13

#4---offense scores 17

#5---offense scores ONE touchdown, and 5 FG's

#6--- .5 of the aforementioned 1.5 outlier (0-0 at half, scoring fest in second half of SB vs CAR)

#7---offense scores 20

#8---OUTLIER AFCCG vs PIT---offense sharp from the beginning

#9---offense scores 24


It seems pretty easy to see to me that in the high majority of this 9 game run, the offense was contributing enough to get by, and was carried a lot by the defense.

In the majority of the games, they scored less than 20 pts. Considering the fact that we won all 9 games, obviously the defense had to be allowing less pts, which is where I get the "carrying" aspect from.

I can appreciate the fact that it is a fine blending of both sides of the ball, but my main point was to show that we were winning in a different way during those 3 SB's.

 

[supafly]

2001 game v. Oakland was that storm. The offensive output wasn't bad at all, all things considered.
2003 Indy and Carolina were both good offensive games, by the numbers
2004 The full team suffocated Indy (offense had 210 yards on the ground), then blew out Pitt

I think you're changing the criteria that I used (offensive scoring), by bringing the yardage and weather into play, which can be said about any postseason games in Foxborough which take place in January. I get what you're saying. It's not "as bad" as I'm making it out to be, and with that, I'd agree. Either way, I am seeing a strong pattern through 7.5/9 games.

The CAR game was 0-0 at the half (the second half was the .5 of my 1.5/9 difference).

The PIT game was the true outlier which showed the offense clicking right from the beginning.

The IND game in 2003 showed them scoring ONE touchdown and 5 FG's (and a defensive safety). That doesn't count as a strong offensive showing to me. Neither does the 2004 game which was 13-3 with seven minutes remaining. The four box score quarters showed:

0
6
7
7

Again, nothing even close to a strong offensive performance when you use scoring as your criteria. It got the job done, and that's what matters, but if that happened now people wouldn't be considering these games as anything close to strong offensive outputs.

Since the team was, at the time, designed for ground and pound combined with often using the WR screen as a big part of the 'running' game, it's not really fair to deduct points from the offense for doing its job, IMO.

I'm not meaning to deduct any glamor pts from the offense for doing its job. I'm simply pointing to the fact that the strong defensive performances having carried the team, with the majority of the 9 game run showing a very mediocre offensive output.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you're changing the criteria that I used (offensive scoring), by bringing the yardage and weather into play, which can be said about any postseason games in Foxborough which takes place in January.

Not really. I'm adjusting for the reality of a situation. You expect a higher scoring game if you have beautiful weather in a dome than you do if you have heavy rains and wind on a bad outdoor field, for example. You also expect more points from a high powered quick-strike aerial team than you would from a methodical grinding team that chews clock.

 

[supafly]

Anyway, @Deus Irae--sorry if I attempted to drive the point home a bit too much. Either way, I am not meaning to minimize the efforts of the offense as much as I mean to show that we were winning in a different way.

I think that some tend to forget just how....mediocre or ball control/game management oriented our offense tended to be back during that 3 SB stretch run. It was predicated on strong defense in my opinion, with "just enough" offense to get the job done.

I can see why some may see that as "unfair" to the offense etc--but that wasn't my intent. It was just to show that we didn't always need more than 20 pts to win, and that our new and hopeful defense may allow us to go back to that point again.

 

[supafly]

Not really. I'm adjusting for the reality of a situation. You expect a higher scoring game if you have beautiful weather in a dome than you do if you have heavy rains and wind on a bad outdoor field, for example. You also expect more points from a high powered quick-strike aerial team than you would from a methodical grinding team that chews clock.

I understand that more things need to be taken into the picture, but I was just speaking for offensive scoring output alone.

It seems as though some here tend to think that we need to score in the high 20's/early 30's to win in the postseason, and to me that's just not very realistic. I was just attempting to show how we used to win in a different method...nothing more.

My fear is that it came off as downplaying the offense to the point where I was claiming that they weren't effective. That's not what I meant, just that we were able to win games by scoring less points during that 9 game stretch.

If we can win by only scoring 17-20-21 pts on offense again, we're golden. Strong defense and special teams seemed to really come into play when going back and looking at those 9 games again, so hopefully that will be replicated to some degree.

 

[Deus Irae]

Anyway, @Deus Irae--sorry if I attempted to drive the point home a bit too much.

No worries. Fair's not even a real thing. In this case, it's just an attempt to find an acceptable middle ground.

Sorry for the slow response, but I've got a sick dog to deal with, and I'm posting after 2 days with little sleep due to said sick dog.

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand that more things need to be taken into the picture, but I was just speaking for offensive scoring output alone.

It seems as though some here tend to think that we need to score in the high 20's/early 30's to win in the postseason, and to me that's just not very realistic. I was just attempting to show how we used to win in a different method...nothing more.

My fear is that it came off as downplaying the offense to the point where I was claiming that they weren't effective. That's not what I meant, just that we were able to win games by scoring less points during that 9 game stretch.

If we can win by only scoring 17-20-21 pts on offense again, we're golden. Strong defense and special teams seemed to really come into play when going back and looking at those 9 games again, so hopefully that will be replicated to some degree.

I just want Brady to be healthy, and to have his top 3 receiving options healthy all the way through the playoffs for a change. Other than 2010's choke against the Jets, it hasn't happened since 2006.

 

[supafly]

No worries. Fair's not even a real thing. In this case, it's just an attempt to find an acceptable middle ground.

Sorry for the slow response, but I've got a sick dog to deal with, and I'm posting after 2 days with little sleep due to said sick dog.

Good luck with the dog, man. Hopefully, it isn't anything too serious that will linger very long.

 

[RIpats88]

I think they can be championship calibar. Problem is, there is alot of "IF's" that we wont know the answer to until the season starts. do Amendola/gronk/vereen stay healthy? do Dobson/Thompkins make the 2nd year jump?

you have two solid slot guys

Amendola/Edelman

guys who can stretch the field horizontally/vertically

Dobson/Thompkins/lafell

Tight ends who can threaten the middle

Gronkowski/Wright

and thats not even counting Vereen out of the backfield.

 

[ATippett56]

2014 Patriots Offense: Championship Caliber?

It's all about the New England Patriots offensive line for the 2014 NFL Season.