Struggling Offense

hwc said:

I'm not pessimistic. I love the defensive production over the second half of the season. Championship caliber defense for the first time in at least 8 years. I'm just realistic. They offense has been sputtering and not just sputtering for a couple of games. Slow starts and the inability to stay on the field and score TDs has been a problem. And, unlike recent years, we can't blame it on Gronk being out.

Average offense, strong defense, and playing at home. I certainly think the Pats should be favored in any AFC playoff game. If they can keep it close and get a turnover or big special teams play, they can win. If they fall behind or get in a shoot-out, I'm concerned.

Click to expand...

This coming from the guy who said this was Brady's last season as Patriots QB or he could stay as Garrapolos backup.

Big time troll.

"Average offense" = #4 scoring offense overall (#1 in the 15 games that counted).

That is one tough poster to please. Sheesh.

The "Struggling Offense" narrative reeks of a combination of over-reaction, Recency Bias and flat out trolling.

For the purpose of this post im going to disregard the first 4 games of the season where we all know what happened. Sure the last 2 games the offense hasnt looked impressive but those 2 games dont show too much imo. It was a game with back-ups vs Buffalo and another close game against the Jets who always play the Pats well on D.

To put the 1pt win against the Jets into perspective take the 11 games stretch after the Chiefs game til the Jets game. Over those 11 games the Patriots had a +173 point differential with a record of 10-1 where they were pretty much scoring at will vs very good teams. During that 11 game stretch they had 2 games vs the Jets were the went 2-0 with a +3 point differential.

As far as the playoffs go, the Patriots have already blown out 3 of the teams scoring at will while the other 2 in Pitt/Balt arguably have the 2 worst D's of all the AFC playoff teams.

In his ESPNBoston chat today, Bruschi thinks with rest and time to prepare and a healthy Gronk and o-line, the Pats offense will explode. Didn't seem concerned about the play last few weeks.

breakin said:

The "Struggling Offense" narrative reeks of a combination of over-reaction, Recency Bias and flat out trolling.

For the purpose of this post im going to disregard the first 4 games of the season where we all know what happened. Sure the last 2 games the offense hasnt looked impressive but those 2 games dont show too much imo. It was a game with back-ups vs Buffalo and another close game against the Jets who always play the Pats well on D.

To put the 1pt win against the Jets into perspective take the 11 games stretch after the Chiefs game til the Jets game. Over those 11 games the Patriots had a +173 point differential with a record of 10-1 where they were pretty much scoring at will vs very good teams. During that 11 game stretch they had 2 games vs the Jets were the went 2-0 with a +3 point differential.

As far as the playoffs go, the Patriots have already blown out 3 of the teams scoring at will while the other 2 in Pitt/Balt arguably have the 2 worst D's of all the AFC playoff teams.

Click to expand...

While I agree that complaining about the offense specifically in regards to this last game against the Bills is silly, the offense has clearly been struggling in general since the Lions game, and ignoring the first 4 games, but counting the rest of the season, is a clear cut case of cherry picking to support your argument.

In 2003, NE scored 38 points in the regular season against both Indy and TN, and only hit 24 and 17 respectively in a playoff rematch.

In 2004 they went from dropping 27 points against Indy to 20 the second time around, including only 6 in the first half.

Lower post-season point totals aren't just restrained to non-SB seasons.

Oswlek said:

In 2003, NE scored 38 points in the regular season against both Indy and TN, and only hit 24 and 17 respectively in a playoff rematch.

In 2004 they went from dropped from 27 points against Indy to 20 the second time around, including only 6 in the first half.

Lower post-season point totals aren't just restrained to non-SB seasons.

Click to expand...

Or to the NE Patriots for that matter.

Deus Irae said:

While I agree that complaining about the offense specifically in regards to this last game against the Bills is silly, the offense has clearly been struggling in general since the Lions game, and ignoring the first 4 games, but counting the rest of the season, is a clear cut case of cherry picking to support your argument.

Click to expand...

Its not cherry picking. Its drawing a line in the sand where things clearly changed. If you must nit-pick about including the first 4 games it doesnt really change anything. It just means we are using 15 games instead of 11, record of 12-3 instead of 10-1 and a Point Differential of +163 instead of +173.

So instead of the patriots having 2 wins against the Jets by a total of +3 in an 11 game stretch where they had a +173 point differential, they now have 2 wins against the Jets by a total of +3 in a 15 game stretch where they had a point differential of +163. Yeah leaving out those 4 games really supports my arguement.........

My general point is still the same. They have been an elite offense that has squeaked out 2 wins vs the Jets. Including the stats from the first 4 games doesnt hurt my arguement at all, like I said I only left them out because I dont think those 4 games are involved the team we are now debating.

To me a struggling offense implies something like the Jets or Jax who struggle to score. Just because a team isnt putting up 30+ doesnt mean they are struggling. Also its pretty disingenuous to accuse me of cherry-picking while you choose a sample of 4 games that include 3 road games (note: in the home game the offense scored 34 pts)

breakin said:

Its not cherry picking. Its drawing a line in the sand where things clearly changed. If you must nit-pick about including the first 4 games it doesnt really change anything. It just means we are using 15 games instead of 11, record of 12-3 instead of 10-1 and a Point Differential of +163 instead of +173.

So instead of the patriots having 2 wins against the Jets by a total of +3 in an 11 game stretch where they had a +173 point differential, they now have 2 wins against the Jets by a total of +3 in a 15 game stretch where they had a point differential of +163. Yeah leaving out those 4 games really supports my arguement.........

My general point is still the same. They have been an elite offense that has squeaked out 2 wins vs the Jets. Including the stats from the first 4 games doesnt hurt my arguement at all, like I said I only left them out because I dont think those 4 games are involved the team we are now debating.

To me a struggling offense implies something like the Jets or Jax who struggle to score. Just because a team isnt putting up 30+ doesnt mean they are struggling. Also its pretty disingenuous to accuse me of cherry-picking while you choose a sample of 4 games that include 3 road games (note: in the home game the offense scored 34 pts)

Click to expand...

Deus putting the new guy on Ignore: Over/Under 7 days

And welcome to the board (snark completely not directed at you btw).

breakin said:

Its not cherry picking.

Click to expand...

Yeah.... It's cherry picking. One can just as easily point to the Packers game as where the offense changed.

Deus Irae said:

Yeah.... It's cherry picking. One can just as easily point to the Packers game as where the offense changed.

Click to expand...

If it was cherry-picking the arguement would look totally different including the first 4 games as opposed to not including them. That isnt the case as I showed the arguement looks near identical both ways. I simply drew a line in the sand.

You are being a hypocrite as in your reply you did exactly what you accused me of doing.

On the road vs the packers they score 21, on the road vs chargers they score 23, home vs Fins offense puts up 34, squeak out 1 pt win on a road vs a team that always makes you look bad. Now the sky is falling.

breakin said:

If it was cherry-picking the arguement would look totally different including the first 4 games as opposed to not including them. That isnt the case as I showed the arguement looks near identical both ways. I simply drew a line in the sand.

You are being a hypocrite as in your reply you did exactly what you accused me of doing.

On the road vs the packers they score 21, on the road vs chargers they score 23, home vs Fins offense puts up 34, squeak out 1 pt win on a road vs a team that always makes you look bad. Now the sky is falling.

Click to expand...

I'm not being a hypocrite. I'm pointing out what you are doing. The reality is that the offense struggled in the final four games. Trying to hide that by going back to week 5 and then ignoring weeks 1-4 in the process is pretty much the epitome of cherry picking.

Reasons for the struggles on offense? Simple really:

Stopgap-at-best talent at LG & RG; the LG is also old and constantly injured, and the RG
is just too damn small.

A Center who is a rookie, and might never see the Pro Bowl anyway unless he buys a ticket.

A RT who is effective when he's on the field, but for whom one always keeps his fingers crossed.

A LT who has regressed, due perhaps in part to the drop-off at LG.

A 6th OLman who, despite having a putrid season at every position he has attempted to play,
is somehow rewarded with a 2-year extension that will waste valuable cap space.

Lack of a true #1 WR, or at least a #2 who can keep Safeties honest with deep speed.

Zero quality depth at WR, and top-to-bottom one of the least impressive groups in football.

And a smarter-than-thou, thanksdad OC who doesn't know how to most effectively use the limited
recources that he does have.

Deus Irae said:

I'm not being a hypocrite. I'm pointing out what you are doing. The reality is that the offense struggled in the final four games. Trying to hide that by going back to week 5 and then ignoring weeks 1-4 in the process is pretty much the epitome of cherry picking.

Click to expand...

The whole point of my post was to put the 1 pt win against the Jets into perspective. Please tell me the major difference that I gain by cherry picking and 11 game sample with a +173 PD than if i had went with a 15 game sample with a +163 PD. There is no difference and i feel you are just arguing for the sake of it.

If it means anything, you could make a *very* good argument that, despite their W-L records, the Jets and Bills have superior front 7s to anyone in the AFC field, save maybe BALT. A lot of high-powered offenses would struggle against those fronts if they can't keep guys blocked up. So personally I wouldn't read much into those games other than those are tough matchups.

I speak from experience here -- at least you guys actually beat the Jets! (We lost.) Ben couldn't step into throws and it simply threw everything off...turnovers galore. Just a terrible game.

breakin said:

The whole point of my post was to put the 1 pt win against the Jets into perspective. Please tell me the major difference that I gain by cherry picking and 11 game sample with a +173 PD than if i had went with a 15 game sample with a +163 PD. There is no difference and i feel you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Click to expand...

I've already explained the difference, and your whole point was to try minimizing the struggles of the offense. I get it. You started your post off with

The "Struggling Offense" narrative reeks of a combination of over-reaction, Recency Bias and flat out trolling.

For the purpose of this post im going to disregard the first 4 games of the season where we all know what happened. Sure the last 2 games the offense hasnt looked impressive but those 2 games dont show too much imo. It was a game with back-ups vs Buffalo and another close game against the Jets who always play the Pats well on D.

Click to expand...

So you categorically cut out 6 bad games while *****ing about bias and trolling by people who were looking at the bad games. Quit acting as if you're being put upon.

captain stone said:

Zero quality depth at WR, and top-to-bottom one of the least impressive groups in football.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if your post was meant as sarcasm...the Holidays left me too tired to read between the lines...

But I just wanted to comment on the supposed 'lack of depth' at the skill position (WR and TE) on offense.
While I think the offense as been somewhat struggling since the Colts game (the only reason for the 40+ points was Gronk getting into beast mode in the 4th quarter), there just isn't any depth on most team :
Broncos : we think of them as weapon galore for Manning, but this year, after Sanders and D-Thomas, their next guy with the most receptions has 49 (the Pats have 4 guys with more than 49 receptions). J-Thomas is always injured and Welker is done.
Steelers: Can you name their 2nd wide receiver, and if you can, do you think he is a difference maker ? After Brown, their 2nd guy with the highest reception total is Bell...and he might be injured for the playoffs.
Bengals: Green and Sanu, not much else...their 3rd WR is Brandon Tate
Ravens: Steve Smith is still doing pretty good, and they also have Torrey Smith. They do have Owen Daniels which is a good receiving TE (although not much of a redzone target, as he only have 4 TDs).

The Colts have Wayne and Hilton, Fleener and Allen at TE, Bradshaw and a good 3rd down RB, and Nicks is a decent 3rd WR. I think their group is the only one better than what the Pats have.

RDS11 said:

I'm not sure if your post was meant as sarcasm...the Holidays left me too tired to read between the lines...

But I just wanted to comment on the supposed 'lack of depth' at the skill position (WR and TE) on offense.
While I think the offense as been somewhat struggling since the Colts game (the only reason for the 40+ points was Gronk getting into beast mode in the 4th quarter), there just isn't any depth on most team :
Broncos : we think of them as weapon galore for Manning, but this year, after Sanders and D-Thomas, their next guy with the most receptions has 49 (the Pats have 4 guys with more than 49 receptions). J-Thomas is always injured and Welker is done.
Steelers: Can you name their 2nd wide receiver, and if you can, do you think he is a difference maker ? After Brown, their 2nd guy with the highest reception total is Bell...and he might be injured for the playoffs.
Bengals: Green and Sanu, not much else...their 3rd WR is Brandon Tate
Ravens: Steve Smith is still doing pretty good, and they also have Torrey Smith. They do have Owen Daniels which is a good receiving TE (although not much of a redzone target, as he only have 4 TDs).

The Colts have Wayne and Hilton, Fleener and Allen at TE, Bradshaw and a good 3rd down RB, and Nicks is a decent 3rd WR. I think their group is the only one better than what the Pats have.

Click to expand...

Pats WR depth is pretty bad IMO. They have Lafell and Edelman. That's it. Amendola is the #3 WR but he can't be counted on for a big role if Edelman were to go down. There's a reason his stats for the year are 27 rec 200 yds 1 TD...and that reason is he's just not that good of a player anymore. Lafell is a good player but hardly a #1 WR.

Those teams you mentioned...

Broncos: DT and Sanders are MUCH better than a Lafell/Edelman combo
Steelers: Brown is one of the best receivers in football, he led the league in catches/yards this year. Bell is one of the best RB's in football. Their offense is in trouble if Bell can't play though.
Bengals: Green is a top WR, Sanu is a pretty good WR as well. Stepped up big when Green was out. Hill/Bernard are better than any of the Pats RBs.
Ravens: They don't have much outside of the two Smiths and Forsett
Colts: Hilton is much better than any of the Pats WR's, Wayne is a solid move the chains guy still but he's been injured, Nicks is OK as a WR3. Their TE's are both pretty good.

SyN65 said:

Pats WR depth is pretty bad IMO. They have Lafell and Edelman. That's it. Amendola is the #3 WR but he can't be counted on for a big role if Edelman were to go down. There's a reason his stats for the year are 27 rec 200 yds 1 TD...and that reason is he's just not that good of a player anymore. Lafell is a good player but hardly a #1 WR.

Those teams you mentioned...

Broncos: DT and Sanders are MUCH better than a Lafell/Edelman combo
Steelers: Brown is one of the best receivers in football, he led the league in catches/yards this year. Bell is one of the best RB's in football. Their offense is in trouble if Bell can't play though.
Bengals: Green is a top WR, Sanu is a pretty good WR as well. Stepped up big when Green was out. Hill/Bernard are better than any of the Pats RBs.
Ravens: They don't have much outside of the two Smiths and Forsett
Colts: Hilton is much better than any of the Pats WR's, Wayne is a solid move the chains guy still but he's been injured, Nicks is OK as a WR3. Their TE's are both pretty good.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this is what you meant, but we are basically saying the same thing. Other than the Colts, no team have much depth after their first 2 options.

Getting back to Emmanuel Sanders, he is good, but I take Edelman before him. I think Sanders' stats were inflated playing for the pass happy Broncos. The Steelers didn't really replaced him with anything, yet Roethlisberger' rating went up by 10 points without Sanders this year (with the same weapons he had in 2013). And if we are going to compare the Pats and Broncos, we have to include Gronk. Gronk is the best player, better than DT.

RDS11 said:

I don't know if this is what you meant, but we are basically saying the same thing. Other than the Colts, no team have much depth after their first 2 options.

Getting back to Emmanuel Sanders, he is good, but I take Edelman before him. I think Sanders' stats were inflated playing for the pass happy Broncos. The Steelers didn't really replaced him with anything, yet Roethlisberger' rating went up by 10 points without Sanders this year (with the same weapons he had in 2013). And if we are going to compare the Pats and Broncos, we have to include Gronk. Gronk is the best player, better than DT.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was also amusing how he avoided mentioning Gronk, who may be the best offensive weapon in the entire league, but felt it prudent to bring up RBs and TEs on other teams. When you remove the biggest threat on a team, they generally don't go much more than two deep behind him. How insightful.