A Couple of Things Lost in the Shuffle in the loss to Arizona

[DaBruinz]

It was that bad. You're making the same mistake that so many others are doing. You're taking the outcome and working backwards, while ignoring the fact that it was the Hernandez injury that forced the change in plans. Welker wasn't more involved because they wanted Welker more involved. Welker was more involved because Hernandez was done.

Sorry, but it is you who are taking the outcome and working backwards while ignoring the fact that Welker had been on the field on 2 of the 4 plays prior to Hernandez going down.

This idea that Welker was more involved because Hernandez was done holds as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

 

[DaBruinz]

But we can, because it was clear that they weren't adequately prepared for the loss of Hernandez, despite the obvious possibility of that happening. It's one thing to move significantly away from last year's offense, although I'd argue that it's a very stupid thing to do. It's another, though, to do it all cold turkey, while forcefeeding a vastly different system at the expense of the offense, and team, as they've done for both games this season. They could have made gradual adjustments, while maintaining the great things about the previous offense. Instead, they've pretty much tossed it out.

Tellingly, IMO, it was only when they got back to being more like last year that they finally began really being successful out there.

Last year's offense was predicated on the 2TE set. How is that so different than this years?? This idea that they are implementing a totally new offense is just mind-boggling and so far from the truth.

 

[Deus Irae]

But you're making an unprovable assumption here, too—we simply don't know what his actual PT percentage would have been had Hernandez not been injured. Maybe it would have been even more than the 2/3 or so he had last week. Maybe it would have been less. There's just no way of knowing.

Welker was on the bench until Hernandez got hurt. You can call that an assumption if you wish.

 

[BradyManny]

Sorry, but it is you who are taking the outcome and working backwards while ignoring the fact that Welker had been on the field on 2 of the 4 plays prior to Hernandez going down.

This idea that Welker was more involved because Hernandez was done holds as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

According to Reiss, there were 18 snaps in the '12' (1RB, 2TE, 2WR) personnel. Welker was in for 3 of them. Edelman was in for 15. We ran that personnel just 22% of the game.

Last week, with a healthy Hernandez, we ran that personnel 46 times, or 68% of the game.

If Hernandez did not get injured, Welker would not have been on the field as much. I don't see how you can deny this fact knowing the above.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are asking too much. No team devises game plans based on the possibility of players going out of the game. They try to have contingencies, but those are not nearly as focused. There are 11 players on the field and you would have develop and practice contingency plans for at least 4 or 5. Ain't happening. Not enough time in the week especially to practice multiple contingencies. Especially with restricted practice rules in the new CBA, there is not enough time.

Personally, I think I believe in what Jaws said this morning that they are working on things now to make sure they are clicking down the stretch and in the playoffs.

I'm not asking for too much at all. They've radically overhauled the game plans, and made them contingent upon a specific player without having sufficient backup in case he goes down. In the "WW-centered..." that someone else claimed was somehow proven unsustainable in the playoffs, the Patriots had Edelman behind Welker to at least cushion the blow. The Patriots have become more Hernandez centered with #47 as his backup. Sorry, I'm not buying that stock.

And if Jaws is right, BB and/or McDaniels need to be flamed today for going overboard. You don't needlessly piss away early games when you can adapt over time and still be where you need to be at the end of the year.

 

[signbabybrady]

I'm not asking for too much at all. They've radically overhauled the game plans, and made them contingent upon a specific player without having sufficient backup in case he goes down. In the "WW-centered..." that someone else claimed was somehow proven unsustainable in the playoffs, the Patriots had Edelman behind Welker to at least cushion the blow. The Patriots have become more Hernandez centered with #47 as his backup. Sorry, I'm not buying that stock.

And if Jaws is right, BB and/or McDaniels need to be flamed today for going overboard. You don't needlessly piss away early games when you can adapt over time and still be where you need to be at the end of the year.

Deus,

In the end BB is the responsible party for his offense and its gameplans but I think you have to expect that the system and the gameplans were going to change with a change of coordinators. I don't think you would be doing the team justice if you asked Josh to come in and try and run things the same as BOB just for the sake of it.

Also its not like this team has not tried to find backups and they have used their one IR exception on him. Its a tough sport it sux the back up was hurt already when the starter went down but that could'lve been the case with Edelman at some point too.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus,

In the end BB is the responsible party for his offense and its gameplans but I think you have to expect that the system and the gameplans were going to change with a change of coordinators. I don't think you would be doing the team justice if you asked Josh to come in and try and run things the same as BOB just for the sake of it.

If it were just for the sake of it, I'd agree with you. That's not the case here, though. This is about keeping the best elements of the #3 offense in the NFL and modifying it over the course of a season rather than pretty much scrapping it from the jump.

Also its not like this team has not tried to find backups and they have used their one IR exception on him. Its a tough sport it sux the back up was hurt already when the starter went down but that could'lve been the case with Edelman at some point too.

If you can't find a backup who's at least serviceable, you have no business putting in game plans that ignore the possibility of that player getting injured, unless it's at the QB spot where loss of a top line starter is generally the end of your season anyway. Even there, you need to have enough of a plan b for that backup to get through a game or to start a couple of games.

And Shiancoe is not a fit substitute for Hernandez anyway, any more than Shockey or Winslow would be. After all, what have people here been pimping about Hernandez: His unique versatility.

 

[signbabybrady]

If you can't find a backup who's at least serviceable, you have no business putting in game plans that ignore the possibility of that player getting injured, unless it's at the QB spot where loss of a top line starter is generally the end of your season anyway. Even there, you need to have enough of a plan b for that backup to get through a game or to start a couple of games.

I really dont get what you mean by this are they really not supposed to put in a game plan to highlight Hernandez's strengths? What is the alternative only use Hernandez in a way that his backup could dupilcate?

 

[Deus Irae]

I really dont get what you mean by this are they really not supposed to put in a game plan to highlight Hernandez's strengths? What is the alternative only use Hernandez in a way that his backup could dupilcate?

Highlight v. reliance upon

 

[signbabybrady]

Highlight v. reliance upon

What

 

[Deus Irae]

What

It's one thing to put in some plays that highlight a star's strengths. It's another thing to put in an offense that is reliant upon that star when you don't have adequate backup and have clearly demonstrated the ability to win without going to such a comparitively risky scheme.

Since 2009, I've been saying that the Patriots need to add WR help. It wasn't because I didn't appreciate Welker's unique skills or Moss' unique skills, it was because I saw a team that had become too reliant upon them. People such as myself were attacked consistently on this board for noting this, until 2011. History (via the ESPN documentary) has shown that BB was agreeing with us.

Now, unfortunately, BB seems to be on the road to repeating his mistakes, by going to a 2 TE system that is essentially reliant upon two specific tight ends for its success and all but excludes the player who's been the the team's best receiver for the past several years when it's in its base package.

When possible, you want to diversify rather than outright replace when you're dealing with an already wildly successful situation. The Patriots, so far this season, have chosen to replace. That's a large part of why they're 1-1 instead of 2-0.

 

[Rob0729]

Highlight v. reliance upon

So are you saying we shouldn't have an offense reliant on Brady? The Pats do not have a sufficient back up to Brady and it is stupid to rely on him when there is no adequate back up.

Fact of the matter is that few teams have adequate back ups for their star players. The cap won't allow it. If Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson go down, their teams are screwed with what there is to replace them.

 

[Deus Irae]

So are you saying we shouldn't have an offense reliant on Brady? The Pats do not have a sufficient back up to Brady and it is stupid to rely on him when there is no adequate back up.

See my 3:09 pm post

Fact of the matter is that few teams have adequate back ups for their star players. The cap won't allow it. If Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson go down, their teams are screwed with what there is to replace them.

See my 3:47 pm post

 

[Rob0729]

It's one thing to put in some plays that highlight a star's strengths. It's another thing to put in an offense that is reliant upon that star when you don't have adequate backup and have clearly demonstrated the ability to win without going to such a comparitively risky scheme.

Since 2009, I've been saying that the Patriots need to add WR help. It wasn't because I didn't appreciate Welker's unique skills or Moss' unique skills, it was because I saw a team that had become too reliant upon them. People such as myself were attacked consistently on this board for noting this, until 2011. History (via the ESPN documentary) has shown that BB was agreeing with us.

Now, unfortunately, BB seems to be on the road to repeating his mistakes, by going to a 2 TE system that is essentially reliant upon two specific tight ends for its success and all but excludes the player who's been the the team's best receiver for the past several years when it's in its base package.

When possible, you want to diversify rather than outright replace when you're dealing with an already wildly successful situation. The Patriots, so far this season, have chosen to replace. That's a large part of why they're 1-1 instead of 2-0.

The Pats are not reliant on the two TEs though. Last week, both had good games, but nothing special. Brady spread the ball around (six different receivers caught balls) and were slightly more run oriented (31 passes vs. 35 runs). That is not reliant on the TEs. They are a big part of the game plan, but not THE GAME PLAN. But how is that different than any other team.

I am pretty sure the Pats wanted to run a similar type of game plan. But in a balanced attack, everything is reliant on each other. If you don't have a running game, you can't do the play action (which the Pats used extensively last week to keep rushers off of Brady). You take away a key target and it makes it easier to stop the run which hurts the play action.

In one way you are right in that everything in a game plan is reliant on the other and losing one big piece can affect the overall game plan. BUT I don't think the Pats went into the game making the entire offense the two TEs and the Pats didn't have a game plan at all when Hernandez went down. It was just a domino affect and they had to make adjustments.

In fact, I would say that the Pats have been less reliant on Gronk and Hernandez this year than they were last year when the entire offense was primarily Gronk, Hernandez, and Welker.

 

[Deus Irae]

From Bedard:

One undeniable fact on Welker: defensive coordinators respect the heck out of him. Constantly bracketed vs AZ. Opens things up for others

https://twitter.com/GregABedard/statuses/247691083490930688

But let's just take that out of the base offense. :bricks:

 

[PatsGirl2011]

Welker's presence makes a difference on the field...No doubt about it!

 

[vyrago]

A couple of things lost in the shuffle of yesterday's loss:

• Belichick took away what you do best -

Unfortunately by taking away Welker for a great part of the game, he also took away what the Pats do best.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Pats are not reliant on the two TEs though...

I had to stop right there because, if you're going there at the start, the rest isn't really worth worrying about. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Kontradiction]

Unfortunately by taking away Welker for a great part of the game, he also took away what the Pats do best.

I like the way you did that there.

 

[Rob0729]

I had to stop right there because, if you're going there at the start, the rest isn't really worth worrying about. That's just ridiculous.

So when did the Brandon Lloyd and Julian Edelman become the Pats's two TEs because the complaint was that they were trying to force it into them and not Gronk after Hernandez went down.

The Pats are moving away from the WRs, but so far the focus of the offense has been less on the TEs than expected. Last week, it was the Ridley show. In the passing game they are more of a focus because they are not over relying on Welker like the previous two years, but it isn't all about them. In fact, Lloyd seems to be just as a big of a focus because the Pats are trying to create more chemistry with him and Brady.