Offensive Playcalling was Average to Atrocious

[Pats726]

Just remember that there are 2 other people who have input on the plays. One of them is Tom Brady.

Actually if the game plans are formed like they were with Weiss, it's offensive coaches putting it all together during the week..NOT ONE coach..but input from BB and all the offensive coaches. McDaniels is learning..far from being a vet like Weiss..I just think he needs to be given some slack here..it's embarrassing that if the helmet catch hadn't been made..these threads would never be made..and if one is critical..look at the WHOLE season not just at the end...I don't believe the playcalling was average to atrocious.. THAT is plainly dumb...somehow having the best offense ever doesn't lead one to any conclusion CLOSE to that..

 

[JoeSixPat]

I still don't know how the Pats not passing deep in 2006 or the Pats trying to go deep to Moss in 2007 cost us.

How it cost us, I would suggest, is in failing to win the Super Bowl. Of course there's plenty of "blame" to go around, but since the topic of this thread is offensive play calling I think its easy enough to see how both extremes can have negative impact.

Although there were plenty around here who argued vociferiously that there was no need to upgrade over Caldwell and Gaffney (I kid you not) after 2006, giving up on having even the semblance of a deep game to keep defenses honest has an incredible domino effect on the entire offense, from allowing safeties to blitz without fear of ever being burned, to hurting the running game for the same reason. to limiting yards after the catch in the short to mid range game, to putting incredible pressure on the OL and of course most importantly to leaving Brady more vulnerable to the pressure that would be lessened if defenders needed to stay back 20 yards.

Need I go on? So even without the amount of deep threat talent on the 2006 team there's all those reasons and more NEVER to GIVE UP on the deep game like McDaniels did in 2006

I don't really think there's any question about it.

The drawbacks of focusing on Moss too much is something that is much more debatable.

My opinion is that focusing too much on Moss and not enough on other good weapons like Stallworth had a cumulative effect over the course of the season.

For a time defenses worried that Brady would simply find other open men if they devoted too much attention to Moss - but over time McDaniels and Brady showed that putting 2, even three guys on Moss wouldn't dissuade them. Now, maybe having a 6 foot 4 WR with Moss' talent does that to you, but cumulatively, I'd say that Defenses did little to hurt themselves by putting additional guys on Moss because we didn't make them "pay" with the guys they left un or undercovered.

By the time we got to the Super Bowl the game tape didn't lie - cover Moss like a blanket and McDaniels and Brady still won't look away from him or make you pay by going to Stallworth or his other options. They don't really run a risk by draping guys all over Moss - and therefore that also signficantly limits MOSS' impact in the games as well - as looking elsewhere would ultimately have the impact of easing the pressure on Moss.

Basically the lack of a more diverse playcalling and its impact over time can be seen in the increasingly close margins of games and the lowered offensive production - that hit its low in the Super Bowl.

Again, 2007 can certainly be debated - giving up on a deep game in 2006 is NEVER a good idea though.

So hopefully that answers your question about how it cost us.

 

[Deus Irae]

How it cost us, I would suggest, is in failing to win the Super Bowl. Of course there's plenty of "blame" to go around, but since the topic of this thread is offensive play calling I think its easy enough to see how both extremes can have negative impact.

Although there were plenty around here who argued vociferiously that there was no need to upgrade over Caldwell and Gaffney (I kid you not) after 2006, giving up on having even the semblance of a deep game to keep defenses honest has an incredible domino effect on the entire offense, from allowing safeties to blitz without fear of ever being burned, to hurting the running game for the same reason. to limiting yards after the catch in the short to mid range game, to putting incredible pressure on the OL and of course most importantly to leaving Brady more vulnerable to the pressure that would be lessened if defenders needed to stay back 20 yards.

Need I go on? So even without the amount of deep threat talent on the 2006 team there's all those reasons and more NEVER to GIVE UP on the deep game like McDaniels did in 2006

I don't really think there's any question about it.

The drawbacks of focusing on Moss too much is something that is much more debatable.

My opinion is that focusing too much on Moss and not enough on other good weapons like Stallworth had a cumulative effect over the course of the season.

For a time defenses worried that Brady would simply find other open men if they devoted too much attention to Moss - but over time McDaniels and Brady showed that putting 2, even three guys on Moss wouldn't dissuade them. Now, maybe having a 6 foot 4 WR with Moss' talent does that to you, but cumulatively, I'd say that Defenses did little to hurt themselves by putting additional guys on Moss because we didn't make them "pay" with the guys they left un or undercovered.

By the time we got to the Super Bowl the game tape didn't lie - cover Moss like a blanket and McDaniels and Brady still won't look away from him or make you pay by going to Stallworth or his other options. They don't really run a risk by draping guys all over Moss - and therefore that also signficantly limits MOSS' impact in the games as well - as looking elsewhere would ultimately have the impact of easing the pressure on Moss.

Basically the lack of a more diverse playcalling and its impact over time can be seen in the increasingly close margins of games and the lowered offensive production - that hit its low in the Super Bowl.

Again, 2007 can certainly be debated - giving up on a deep game in 2006 is NEVER a good idea though.

So hopefully that answers your question about how it cost us.

This notion that the Patriots only went looking deep in the Super Bowl is false, though, so your argument really doesn't work. Welker led the team with 11 catches, Faulk was second with 7 and Moss was third with 5. Stallworth had 3 for over 10 yards a reception (As an FYI, everyone's flavor of the month, Jabbar Gaffney, was shut out).

The problem wasn't Brady looking always for Moss, or for the deep receiver. The problem was that Brady's greatest strength, his ability to quickly go from one receiver to another, was negated by the Giants' pass rush. I've bemoaned the absence of Moss and Stallworth in motion, which I believe would have helped, and I've bemoaned the lack of slant patterns in the play calling. I cannot, however, point to a fixation on Moss as the problem in the playoffs or the Super Bowl.

 

[maverick4]

One only has to look at our last drive to know there is a problem with the offensive strategist in charge.

We need 3 points, need to move about 40 yards, we have all 3 timeouts, and what do we do? Call all slow-developing 7 step drops, and 2 bombs to a double/tripple covered Randy Moss. Game over.

 

[OsloRhino]

Is it me, or is the play calling atrocious on a team which scored the most points ever recorded in a season by any franchise in history?

I bet any other of 30 teams would have swapped places with us.

 

[PatsFanVancouver]

The problem was that Brady's greatest strength, his ability to quickly go from one receiver to another, was negated by the Giants' pass rush.

Yes, that IS a great strength of his, and also, the ability to read the mismatches pre-snap. But, was he quickly moving from one receiver to another?

In years past, there wasn't a Moss here. The passes were mostly short. There wasn't a favorite receiver. Can we say the same for this year? Maybe, early in the season when balls were going everywhere, to any receiver. But, in the latter part of the season, Moss was the favorite receiver, open or not. Problem is, Moss is a deep threat. It takes time for his routes to develop. The ball doesn't come out quickly when Moss is the 1st read. Progressions don't happen as fast (Welker is so valuable here).

Frustratingly, the Pats offense hit their peak early on in the season (Probably prior to the first Miami "jump ball" game). They looked unstoppable which was probably due in part to their weak competition at the time as well as the newly installed offense. They were multi-dimensional, unpredictable. Late in the season, they were struggling and, everyone knew where the ball was going. Improving a new offense by testing their mettle against defenses late in the season is what teams strive for, daresay, record chasing be damned. And, its easier, spectacular and more fun to hit the 50-yard touchdowns, even though the odds are not good, than go 15 plays, without major mistakes to score (while giving your defense a rest). This team has dinked and dunked to 3 SB Championships. I would think, with Welker and Stallworth in the lineup that becomes easier. How this lack of development and usage of assets gets by the OC, I don't know.

The Giants had a good defensive gameplan. They bet Brady wouldn't have enough time to get it to Moss and they were right. During the game, Brady would gaze downfield in one direction not coming off. Seemed to me a recurring theme from late in the season. He would be hit, hurried or sacked moments later. Doing that continually, along with predictable playcalling, led to 3rd and Long on drives, stalling them. The OLine had a horrendous game, but the bad playcalling put even more pressure on them on successive downs.

For three quarters, the offensive gameplan didn't change. Therefore, putting the game up for grabs. The Giants took it.

"Anybody can go 26-of-28 in a dump-down game." -Reggie Nelson, S, Jacksonville Jaguars. After that comment, we didn't get the quick Brady again.

 

[Rob0729]

How it cost us, I would suggest, is in failing to win the Super Bowl. Of course there's plenty of "blame" to go around, but since the topic of this thread is offensive play calling I think its easy enough to see how both extremes can have negative impact.

Although there were plenty around here who argued vociferiously that there was no need to upgrade over Caldwell and Gaffney (I kid you not) after 2006, giving up on having even the semblance of a deep game to keep defenses honest has an incredible domino effect on the entire offense, from allowing safeties to blitz without fear of ever being burned, to hurting the running game for the same reason. to limiting yards after the catch in the short to mid range game, to putting incredible pressure on the OL and of course most importantly to leaving Brady more vulnerable to the pressure that would be lessened if defenders needed to stay back 20 yards.

Need I go on? So even without the amount of deep threat talent on the 2006 team there's all those reasons and more NEVER to GIVE UP on the deep game like McDaniels did in 2006

I don't really think there's any question about it.

The drawbacks of focusing on Moss too much is something that is much more debatable.

My opinion is that focusing too much on Moss and not enough on other good weapons like Stallworth had a cumulative effect over the course of the season.

For a time defenses worried that Brady would simply find other open men if they devoted too much attention to Moss - but over time McDaniels and Brady showed that putting 2, even three guys on Moss wouldn't dissuade them. Now, maybe having a 6 foot 4 WR with Moss' talent does that to you, but cumulatively, I'd say that Defenses did little to hurt themselves by putting additional guys on Moss because we didn't make them "pay" with the guys they left un or undercovered.

By the time we got to the Super Bowl the game tape didn't lie - cover Moss like a blanket and McDaniels and Brady still won't look away from him or make you pay by going to Stallworth or his other options. They don't really run a risk by draping guys all over Moss - and therefore that also signficantly limits MOSS' impact in the games as well - as looking elsewhere would ultimately have the impact of easing the pressure on Moss.

Basically the lack of a more diverse playcalling and its impact over time can be seen in the increasingly close margins of games and the lowered offensive production - that hit its low in the Super Bowl.

Again, 2007 can certainly be debated - giving up on a deep game in 2006 is NEVER a good idea though.

So hopefully that answers your question about how it cost us.

I don't know how it can be the failing to win the Super Bowl when Wes Welker tied the Super Bowl record for receptions. How is that the Patriots focusing too much on getting it down field to Moss. The Pats did change up the offense quite a bit, but Brady had no time whether they were going deep or short patterns like screens. I blame the o-line more than anyone for the offensive failings.

As for giving up on the deep ball, it is a very similiar criticism that we could level on Charlie Weis when he always gave up on the run during the 2003 season. He didn't even try to run the ball in second halves of a lot of games. Yeah, they did the same thing this year, but not because most teams couldn't stop the pass even when they knew it was coming.

I will admit McDaniels is not perfect, but he is getting better every year and he is better than most OCs out there. All you have to do is watch some of the offensive strategies of many of the teams around the league and you would be happy that we have McDaniels.

I still don't get it. There was many things you could complain about Weis' strategies over the years. He had a tendency to give up on the run. He was predictable a lot of times (third and short was a FB draw a lot of the times and the first play after the turnover was always an attempt for a deep pass for a TD). Yet, people want to get rid of McDaniels for some of the same reasons.

Belichick has faith in McDaniels and most of the rest of the league look at him as a great OC. He is young and is bound to get better with more experience. Yet everyone wants to put the blame on him for all the Patriots woes.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, by blaming McDaniels for everything, it ignores the fact that the Giants had a brilliant gameplan. When we shut down the Rams in 2001, everyone in New England credited Belichick and Crennel. I never heard that it was Martz who gave away the game eventhough he didn't run Marshall Faulk and if he just ran Marshall Faulk the Rams would have beaten the Patriots. So if it was McDaniels fault that the Pats won the Super Bowl this year, then Martz gave away the game to the Pats in February of 2002.

Sorry, the Giants had a great gameplan and won the battle of the trenches. We have beaten a lot of great offenses with brilliant OCs doing the same thing over the years. Why is it so hard to accept that it could have been the same case in this Super Bowl whether you think McDaniels is brilliant or not. Even Charlie Weis has been outschemed.

I totally disagree with the premise that McDaniels was the biggest factor in any of our other playoff losses. He didn't give up 32 second half points against the Colts. He didn't fumble the ball three times in a game they turned over the ball 5 times or cause Samuel to get a very questionable PI call that gave the Broncos about a 40 yard gain and placed the ball on the 1 yard line.

 

[unoriginal]

70% of the people on this board are crazy, insane. If you believe any of the following:

* The Pats didn't try anything different for the first 3 quarters
* Brady stared down Moss on every pass play
* Brady took too long in the pocket
* The Pats didn't run any/enough screens

you have watched the game with a mind towards seeing what you want to see, not what was there.

 

[JoeSixPat]

This notion that the Patriots only went looking deep in the Super Bowl is false, though, so your argument really doesn't work. Welker led the team with 11 catches, Faulk was second with 7 and Moss was third with 5. Stallworth had 3 for over 10 yards a reception (As an FYI, everyone's flavor of the month, Jabbar Gaffney, was shut out).

The problem wasn't Brady looking always for Moss, or for the deep receiver. The problem was that Brady's greatest strength, his ability to quickly go from one receiver to another, was negated by the Giants' pass rush. I've bemoaned the absence of Moss and Stallworth in motion, which I believe would have helped, and I've bemoaned the lack of slant patterns in the play calling. I cannot, however, point to a fixation on Moss as the problem in the playoffs or the Super Bowl.

If you actually read my post I didn't say anything about failings ONLY in the Super Bowl - so your argument doesn't really work.

I said it was a cumulative effect over the course of the year... that in turn led to Moss becoming less and less of an impact player.

To reiterate, my point was that they didn't look beyond Moss for a deep threat throughout the season. Stallworth is a deep threat talent - but was he really used that way? Did they use Stallworth to make teams pay for double covering Moss? My feeling is absolutely not. I'm not knocking Stallworth - just the way he was used.... i.e. not enough as a deep threat to take pressure off of Moss. That's what we all talked about when Stallworth was signed - yet apparently McDaniels didn't see it that way or think there was a benefit to having another deep threat on the other side of the field.

That's part of the reason why Moss wasn't the same type of impact player towards the end of the year as he was at the beginning, and why he wasn't a big part of the Super Bowl either. Defenses learned that they could double team Moss and not be burned deep by Stallworth.

So you're completely missing my point by illustrating how Moss did not have a big game in the Super Bowl - actually your making my point. Had McDaniels been more diverse in his playcalling and utilization of more players, especially Stallworth as a deep threat, earlier in the season, and as a consistent alternative to Moss, I suspect Moss would have had more opportunities in the 2nd half, as well as in the Super Bowl.

And while they certainly looked to Welker throughout the season, I don't think I'm alone in expressing surprise that Stallworth wasn't used more, and specifically more as a deep threat, and even Gaffney had only 36 receptions on the year.

The passing game largely consisted of Moss deep (actually Moss was a good all around threat which definitely isn't bad) and Welker short (10 ypc - which includes yac). That lack of diversity over time limited Moss' effectiveness in the 2nd half of the season, and by limiting what was really our only utilized deep threat, defenses were able to shorten the field considerably compared to the first half of the season.

 

[Rob0729]

70% of the people on this board are crazy, insane. If you believe any of the following:

* The Pats didn't try anything different for the first 3 quarters
* Brady stared down Moss on every pass play
* Brady took too long in the pocket
* The Pats didn't run any/enough screens

you have watched the game with a mind towards seeing what you want to see, not what was there.

I agree. I saw the Pats try a lot of things, but nothing was working. It was a case the Giants defenders were in the backfield almost untouched in many plays.

The whole thread about McDaniels telling Brady they weren't changing anything is just silly considering McDaniels has done a pretty good job with halftime adjustments all year (granted McDaniels haters position it as Belichick forcing him to change the strategy at halftime). Why would he decide in the Super Bowl not do halftime adjustments when he even adjusts the strategy in games where the Pats are blowing out teams in the first half.

 

[maverick4]

Nope, some of you guys are grossly distorting the complaints about McDaniels, some of you sound like 90's Bledsoe apologists with your constant defense of McD. First it's 'we don't have the talent on offense', then it's 'the Giants D was the best in all time history and there's nothing we could do'.

I'd love to hear you apologize and explain away our last superbowl drive, we need 40 yards and have 3 timeouts, yet we go with 4 straight 7-step drop passing plays, with Moss double/triple covered and having known that the line couldn't protect that long.

The Giants D was going pretty much all pass-rush on every play, the fact that Brady was knocked down 18 times and 5 sacks, shows just how bullheaded our offense was with the 7 step drops. You can't say that if we went to more 3-step drops Brady would have been killed as much.

The biggest problem I have with McDaniels, aside from his inability to diagnose a defense or properly counter a defense, is that he seems to also fail at self-scouting his own playcalls, tendencies, as well as self-analyze his own offense.

This guy doesn't realize that a lot of easy throws that you get during the regular season, simply aren't there anymore when the playoffs come and defenses clamp down on the passing game.

 

[Rob0729]

Nope, some of you guys are grossly distorting the complaints about McDaniels, some of you sound like 90's Bledsoe apologists with your constant defense of McD.

I'd love to hear you apologize and explain away our last superbowl drive, we need 40 yards and have 3 timeouts, yet we go with 4 straight 7-step drop passing plays.

The Giants D was going pretty much all pass-rush on every play, the fact that Brady was knocked down 18 times and 5 sacks, shows just how bullheaded our offense was with the 7 step drops. You can't say that if we went to more 3-step drops Brady would have been killed as much.

The biggest problem I have with McDaniels, aside from his inability to diagnose a defense or properly counter a defense, is that he seems to also fail at self-scouting his own playcalls, tendencies, as well as self-analyze his own offense.

This guy doesn't realize that a lot of easy throws that you get during the regular season, simply aren't there anymore when the playoffs come and defenses clamp down on the passing game.

1.) McDaniels called a bad set of calls the last drive. Never disputed that.
2.) The Pats weren't in seven step drops all that often. We threw a lot of screens and many of those screens were stopped like Strahan batting down a screen and Welker getting creamed after catching the ball for a two yard loss. I have never seen a QB take seven step drops on a screen.
3.) Funny, no one was complaining about McDaniels' playcalling in the playoffs when Brady completed 26 of 28 catches vs. Jacksonville or the brilliant halftime adjustments against the Chargers (which many people on this board talked about a theory that Belichick forced McDaniels to change the strategy as if it was fact) where they utilized Welker and Faulk extensively.

 

[Xzibit23]

McDaniels could've done a better job as an OC, particularly in the superbowl. BUT, I dont think the "looking to Moss" complaint is legitimate or fair. Do we not remember the 2 playoff games before the superbowl?? Brady barely even looked at Moss is direction, everything was dink and dunk, particularly against Jacksonville. McDaniels did EXACTLY what you guys are saying he didnt do, he took what the defense gave them and didnt try to force it to Moss. He made defenses pay for their doubling of Moss, a lot of credit for Brady's 26-28 should go to McDaniels. If anything, in the playoffs, the offense became a little too conservative in their usage of Moss and got content with using him as a decoy. Now thats where my criticism of McDaniels in the Superbowl comes into play. They were satisfied with Moss being the deep threat for the first 3 quarters of the superbowl, even though Brady had NO CHANCE to complete any deep passes. There were no adjustments made until about the 4th quarter, when McDaniels finally uses Moss on slants and, lo and behold, he had about 40 yards and a TD in that quarter alone.

 

[JoeSixPat]

McDaniels could've done a better job as an OC, particularly in the superbowl. BUT, I dont think the "looking to Moss" complaint is legitimate or fair. Do we not remember the 2 playoff games before the superbowl?? Brady barely even looked at Moss is direction, everything was dink and dunk, particularly against Jacksonville. McDaniels did EXACTLY what you guys are saying he didnt do, he took what the defense gave them and didnt try to force it to Moss. He made defenses pay for their doubling of Moss, a lot of credit for Brady's 26-28 should go to McDaniels. If anything, in the playoffs, the offense became a little too conservative in their usage of Moss and got content with using him as a decoy. Now thats where my criticism of McDaniels in the Superbowl comes into play. They were satisfied with Moss being the deep threat for the first 3 quarters of the superbowl, even though Brady had NO CHANCE to complete any deep passes. There were no adjustments made until about the 4th quarter, when McDaniels finally uses Moss on slants and, lo and behold, he had about 40 yards and a TD in that quarter alone.

I guess I differ from others in my critique of McDaniels.

My point is that the lack of diversity in the deep game - i.e. by using only Moss and not Stallworth as a deep threat, limited his ability to utilize Moss later in the season and in the playoffs.

The "conservative" use of Moss was an appropriate reaction to the fact that Moss was absolutely draped in coverage, as DC's by then knew that they weren't likely to be burned deep by Stallworth.

But since our playcalling didn't make defenses "pay" Moss became less and less of an impact player as the season went on.

Normally an OC would adjust and make them pay, involving Stallworth more in the deep game - but McDaniels did not - and with no adjustments Moss ceased to be an impact player in the playoffs.

The difference here is that I don't think a 10 ypc average for Welker or Faulk or whoever really is "making defenses pay". If anything it shortens the field.

As Moss' coverage increased, the natural adjustment would have been to involve Stallworth MORE as a deep threat - for some reason, after the Baltimore game (a good example of how BEST to use Stallworth when Moss was draped in coverage), Stallworth was used LESS as a deep threat, and not even all that much as a threat period with 2 or 3 catches in many of the later games.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you actually read my post I didn't say anything about failings ONLY in the Super Bowl - so your argument doesn't really work.

I said it was a cumulative effect over the course of the year... that in turn led to Moss becoming less and less of an impact player.

To reiterate, my point was that they didn't look beyond Moss for a deep threat throughout the season. Stallworth is a deep threat talent - but was he really used that way? Did they use Stallworth to make teams pay for double covering Moss? My feeling is absolutely not. I'm not knocking Stallworth - just the way he was used.... i.e. not enough as a deep threat to take pressure off of Moss. That's what we all talked about when Stallworth was signed - yet apparently McDaniels didn't see it that way or think there was a benefit to having another deep threat on the other side of the field.

That's part of the reason why Moss wasn't the same type of impact player towards the end of the year as he was at the beginning, and why he wasn't a big part of the Super Bowl either. Defenses learned that they could double team Moss and not be burned deep by Stallworth.

So you're completely missing my point by illustrating how Moss did not have a big game in the Super Bowl - actually your making my point. Had McDaniels been more diverse in his playcalling and utilization of more players, especially Stallworth as a deep threat, earlier in the season, and as a consistent alternative to Moss, I suspect Moss would have had more opportunities in the 2nd half, as well as in the Super Bowl.

And while they certainly looked to Welker throughout the season, I don't think I'm alone in expressing surprise that Stallworth wasn't used more, and specifically more as a deep threat, and even Gaffney had only 36 receptions on the year.

The passing game largely consisted of Moss deep (actually Moss was a good all around threat which definitely isn't bad) and Welker short (10 ypc - which includes yac). That lack of diversity over time limited Moss' effectiveness in the 2nd half of the season, and by limiting what was really our only utilized deep threat, defenses were able to shorten the field considerably compared to the first half of the season.

Your argument is untenable in the face of both the Jacksonville and San Diego games (Coverage on Moss is not the reason Brady got picked trying to pass to Watson, for example). Furthermore, the notion that it was all Moss and Welker is wrong. Gaffney and Stallworth combined for 82 receptions. Faulk had 62 catches, Morris had 6 and Maroney had 4, meaning the RB position had 72 catches. Watson had 36 and Kyle Brady had 9, giving the top 2 tight ends 45 catches.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Your argument is untenable in the face of both the Jacksonville and San Diego games (Coverage on Moss is not the reason Brady got picked trying to pass to Watson, for example). Furthermore, the notion that it was all Moss and Welker is wrong. Gaffney and Stallworth combined for 82 receptions. Faulk had 62 catches, Morris had 6 and Maroney had 4, meaning the RB position had 72 catches. Watson had 36 and Kyle Brady had 9, giving the top 2 tight ends 45 catches.

I didn't realize Faulk and Maroney and Gaffney were all deep threats.

Thanks for setting me straight on my "untenable" argument.

Do you just not read other people's posts and just prefer to be argumentative?

In the entire 2007 regular season, Brady completed just 4 passes to Stallworth that were more than 20 yards.

Just 4. After 16 regular season games it became clear to DCs that McDaniels wasn't going to use Stallworth as a deep threat to keep the pressure off of Moss.

Compare that to 2006 where Stallworth saw twice that many catches in that category - and his 11-20 yard catches all averaged 20 yards as well (and had a 19 ypc average overall) - effectively quadrupling his 20+ yard output as compared with how McDaniels utilized him.

Compare that to McDaniel's utilization of Moss who had 6 catches that were MORE THAN 40 YARDS! (I'm a bit surprised Moss didn't have even MORE 20+ yard catches but I actually would give McDaniels credit for not SOLELY using Moss as a deep threat, as that would have also been a strategic mistake).

So assuming you've actually read this before responding, who, besides Moss, do you think was the Patriots alternative deep threat to Moss?

Welker? Faulk? Maroney? Gaffney?

You threw out a lot of names and pass catches but for some reason go out of your way to ignore my point about how the lack of an alternative deep threat to Moss had a negative impact.

So on my "untenable" point that with Moss so well covered McDaniels should have exploited Stallworth as a deep threat alternative (which would have in turn likely freed up Moss more) who do you cite as the alternative Deep threat to Moss?

Basically it comes down to this if you're a DC going up against the Patriots:

Take out Moss and you eliminate the Deep Game. Take out the Deep Game and you shorten the field. Yes Welker will catch 10 passes for 100 yards - and you're happy to let him, compared to the alternative of having to cover both Moss and/or Stallworth burn you deep.

DC's might scratch their heads wondering why McDaniels never utilized Stallworth in the deep game, but I'm sure they weren't about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

One thing is certain - unlike 2006 no one can say we didn't have alternatives as a deep threat. We had Moss who was always double teamed, and Stallworth, who averaged 19 ypc in the 2006 season. McDaniels just chose not to use Stallworth as a deep threat to take pressure off Moss and for that I fault him - as doing so would have made a great season for Moss even MORE of a success.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Games are won/lost at the LOS. Pointing the finger at MCDaniels takes away from the fact that our OL got their asses kicked like never before by 4 (four) DL's.

Call all the plays you want, but when the DL lives in your backfield, that gives the LB's and DB's freedom to cover and make tackles. Running plays get blown up, screens get blown up, and 3 step drops only make it easier for the DL's to be on top of the QB quicker.

 

[Deus Irae]

I didn't realize Faulk and Maroney and Gaffney were all deep threats.

Thanks for setting me straight on my "untenable" argument.

Do you just not read other people's posts and just prefer to be argumentative?

In the entire 2007 regular season, Brady completed just 4 passes to Stallworth that were more than 20 yards.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you wrote more in a long post than just "Too much Moss!":

The passing game largely consisted of Moss deep (actually Moss was a good all around threat which definitely isn't bad) and Welker short (10 ypc - which includes yac). That lack of diversity.....

Now, the next time you want to be an ass, do it with someone who actually got something wrong. I'm pretty sure that showing diversity went to part of your argument.

Now, regarding the deep threat.....

Gaffney had at least 4 receptions of greater than 30 yards, including one for over 50 yards.

Stallworth had at least 6 receptions of greater than 30 yards, including 3 that were touchdowns and one that went for 69 yards.

 

[maverick4]

By the way, blame does go to Brady and Belichick. Belichick is too hands off with McDaniels, who is the same age as Brady and is in over his head in terms of total knowledge.

Anyways, we have now had crushing losses to Denver, Indy, and NY, and a common denominator is McDaniels. First the excuses were 'we don't have the offensive talent', now it's 'the Giants D was God was no one could have beat them, ever'. Sounds A LOT like the 90's Bledsode apologists.