Another Breakdown of the Pats Offense

[arrellbee]

Excellent points arrellbee. Some of want to understand what they do and why they do it. Others just want them to do something else or something "better". I look at the track record and I am firmly in the respect their judgement camp. None of our armchair OC's, HC's or QB's has access to as thorough a knowledge and understanding of the opposition our personnel face from week to week, or a truly informed grasp of the realistic potential of our available personnel at any given juncture.

And I think overwhleming injuries in 2005 (including our QB, C, LT, top 3 RB's) and mindboggling defections in 2006 (all but the #4WR from the 2005 team) which are necessitating installing an entirely new WR corps (save that #4 who is functioning as a #1 during the transition) has had a little something to do with our lagging first strike capabiliy. Charlie had an emerging #1 and #2 WR on board and fully functional in 2003. #1 was MIA early in 2004 but there was a #2 well versed enough to step up to #1 in addition to a motivated new down hill running potential HOF RB weapon to play with that season. Shock and awe as I recall! This season we may have shock back with a two headed RB monster when Dillon isn't dinged up, but awe is still stuck in a group wide WR learning curve. It will come.

Well said.

 

[mgcolby]

Agree with the Brady analysis. Let me repeat: I am not convinced of the ability of these new WRs to sufficiently grasp enough of the offensive playbook, even by season's end, and to properly execute it, including gaining separation and making the catches.

On the other hand, surely you are not comparing our defense in 2003 to our defense in 2006, are you? Because there will be games in which 20 ppg will not be enough to win.

Have you looked at our schedule? I am not saying one or two teams won't put up 20 points, the most likely two teams that could are the Bears and Colts and at this point I doubt they will. The Colts don't have a good enough running game to thin out our secondary and the Bears are throwing up 30 plus points because of turnovers. My money would be on the Bears to be the most likely team put up 20+ on this D.

The points ALLOWED by our Defense have been minimal:

Bills -10
Jets- 17
Broncos - 17
Bengals - 13
Dolphins - 10

The Broncos and Jets TD's were a result of a big play, not sustained drives. Since the Broncos game the Pats Defense has not allowed a big play and if recent history is any indication then the Pats D should continue to get better as the season rolls on.

FWIW: The average PPG scored by our next 11 opponents is 19.08 and only three average above 20 (Chicago, Indy and Jax). We are averaging 21.6 even with our unfamiliar WR's so that should only improve as well, as they become more familiar with the playbook and their QB over the remainder of the season.

 

[mgcolby]

Great post's Arrellbee and Mo. Thanks for the stats Pony, if you can't tell by some of my posts, I like to pick a topic on occasion and look up the pertinent stats.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

...Let me repeat: I am not convinced of the ability of these new WRs to sufficiently grasp enough of the offensive playbook, even by season's end, and to properly execute it, including gaining separation and making the catches....

This part of your post frightens me. (But first, thanks to Pony and Arrelbee for excellent points/data)

I HOPE we can get a new WR corps to execute within a season, because the NE model seems to be expendability of any given wideout, and expendability of the whole WR corps when conditions dictate.

That modus operandi can only serve the team if the WRs are able to progress through the playbook with time enough to make an impact within the regular season.

I think the WR corps will be steadily improving during the season, and the "mortal" Brady will begin to look much more like the Brady of old.

I think the apparent position of the NE brass is that some wideouts are special, but not worth what they cost, and most others are pretty interchangeable. The problem is that letting them move in and out of the system too fluidly might introduce drawbacks you can not overcome every year, threatening to make the O one-dimensional.

Like I said, I'm a "trust the coaches" guy, so I hope they continue to get better as the season progresses. I like that feeling I had after the Cincinatti game.

PFnV

 

[psychoPat]

....
So MANY times, you see the Patriots win the game in the fourth quarter (very notably also in the Charlie Weis era). Much of this comes from wearing down the defense earlier in the game and from finding out which plays will and won't work so that late drives can take advantage of these.

So true!
Back in the bad ol' days, the Patsies often had the lead or were close ...
until the last 5 or 10 minutes.
Then defective conditioning, morale, penalty discipline, and who-knows-what-else
would take over as our team succumbed to a better team.
(John Elway leaps to mind. Errgh!)
That's all over with.
Now, if it's close towards the end
... count on the Patriots to prevail.

How much nicer is that!



On a similar topic, I think that one of the things I was most impressed about during the Charlie Weis era was ... the string of games where the Patriots scored first. This was really impressive. I wonder if the game plannning has gone away from this 'early strike' approach or if the first drive script is not as good as Charlie's or if they just aren't exectuting as well. It seemed like a pretty good formula - to get some points first to put pressure on the other team and then go into the early game setup to wear down the defense and figure out what plays were working for use later in the game.

Yes.
It almost seems as if
beta-testing the game plan early, as you describe,
takes precedence over getting those first numbers on the board.
I'm not convinced that those two objectives are compatible.


In any case, there seems like every chance that the offense can get better and that the Patriots can methodically tune the offense and defense to contend for another superbowl. Great times.

Great times, indeed !

1234567890

 

[arrellbee]

All of these stats convince me that statistics are useless. You have to be blind not to see that Tom, at times, is not playing well. Is this his fault or the fault of the receivers? I don't know but it is obvious to me.

The great thing is that when he needs to turn it on, he still can. Witness the last drive of the Miami game, where he made some (typical of the old Brady) great throws.

Regardless, I am not that worried about the offense. This team will win on defense, just like in 2003. The offense just has to play well enough to score 20 points per game. If it can, I don't think we loose another game.

I agree with you to a certain extent. You have to be careful not to put too much weight on statistics. On the other hand, they are not totally meaningless either. There is some correlation.

I agree that everyone thinks Tom is "not playing well". But that is more than likely not a very good assessment either. He has played well enough for the team to win 4 out of 5 games. That's a fact. He is almost certainly in the top 10 if not the top 5 or 7 QBs in terms of effectiveness when the team needed him. Off hand, I would actually call that "playing fairly well". I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that it doesn't look like he's playing as well as he has at times or as well as he can. When receivers are right where he is throwing the ball, it's hard to figure that he isn't in sync with the WR on that play - so if the ball is seriously underthrown or overthrown, as has been the case numerous times, that looks like a problem with Brady's throwing mechanics or rust or shoulder or something. I have a vague recollection that this seemed to be the case early in the season last year - maybe somebody with a better memory can comment on that. But you have to be careful and realize that even the hottest QBs are probably not completing much more than 65% of their passes on an average over several games. So he's actually not all that far off even his best level of performance - I know that's hard to see that perspective since it's much easier to 'remember' the incompletions than keep a mental tally of overall completion percentage. This is where statistics can give you a sanity check against your perceptions. And, you do have to keep in mind that 'averages' for any QB are not a 'steady' performance level of, say, 60%. The average reflects stretches where ANY QB can't seem to hit anybody and then stretches where he will complete 8 or 9 passes in a row or 10 out of 12. It's just the nature of what happens. The important thing is that the QB makes enough passes when his teams needs him to. You actually point that out very well - Brady has been able to do well enough when it was needed to win.

I think we are in agreement that there is a very high possibility that the Pats will do very well over the course of this season. I'm also pretty much a believer in Belichick and Brady when they say it takes 5, 6, or so games to get everybody on the same page and really be able to tell what kind of a team we have. So I have to admit that I am expecting quite a pleasant increase in the level of the offense over the next few weeks. Great times to be a fan.

Cheers.

 

[mosi]

I agree with you to a certain extent. You have to be careful not to put too much weight on statistics. On the other hand, they are not totally meaningless either. There is some correlation.

I agree that everyone thinks Tom is "not playing well". But that is more than likely not a very good assessment either. He has played well enough for the team to win 4 out of 5 games. That's a fact. He is almost certainly in the top 10 if not the top 5 or 7 QBs in terms of effectiveness when the team needed him. Off hand, I would actually call that "playing fairly well". I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that it doesn't look like he's playing as well as he has at times or as well as he can. When receivers are right where he is throwing the ball, it's hard to figure that he isn't in sync with the WR on that play - so if the ball is seriously underthrown or overthrown, as has been the case numerous times, that looks like a problem with Brady's throwing mechanics or rust or shoulder or something. I have a vague recollection that this seemed to be the case early in the season last year - maybe somebody with a better memory can comment on that. But you have to be careful and realize that even the hottest QBs are probably not completing much more than 65% of their passes on an average over several games. So he's actually not all that far off even his best level of performance - I know that's hard to see that perspective since it's much easier to 'remember' the incompletions than keep a mental tally of overall completion percentage. This is where statistics can give you a sanity check against your perceptions. And, you do have to keep in mind that 'averages' for any QB are not a 'steady' performance level of, say, 60%. The average reflects stretches where ANY QB can't seem to hit anybody and then stretches where he will complete 8 or 9 passes in a row or 10 out of 12. It's just the nature of what happens. The important thing is that the QB makes enough passes when his teams needs him to. You actually point that out very well - Brady has been able to do well enough when it was needed to win.

I think we are in agreement that there is a very high possibility that the Pats will do very well over the course of this season. I'm also pretty much a believer in Belichick and Brady when they say it takes 5, 6, or so games to get everybody on the same page and really be able to tell what kind of a team we have. So I have to admit that I am expecting quite a pleasant increase in the level of the offense over the next few weeks. Great times to be a fan.

Cheers.

Agreed. These are great times to be Pats fans. We are truly blessed. From the likes of Scott Zolack and Hugh Milan to Brady is a great improvement.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Not to be a buzz kill, but I noticed that in presenting these statistics they go out of their way NOT to compare the passing game and the running game from this year to last.

Last year through the first 5 games the passing game was carrying the load, with Dillon averaging about 65 yards per game, Brady carried the bulk of the offense.

This year, with both Dillon and Maroney, the running game has dominated, with the passing game a bit lackluster.

So its a bit of apples and oranges with both teams having some deficiencies - but when you average them out they look the same.

Was that the conclusion I was supposed to draw or do I need more Koolaid?

Both 2006 and 2005 teams could have benefited from more balance, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with a dominant running game with both Dillon and Maroney in 2006 rather than just Dillon and a dominant Brady in 2005.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I agree with you to a certain extent. You have to be careful not to put too much weight on statistics. On the other hand, they are not totally meaningless either. There is some correlation.

I agree that everyone thinks Tom is "not playing well". But that is more than likely not a very good assessment either. He has played well enough for the team to win 4 out of 5 games. That's a fact. He is almost certainly in the top 10 if not the top 5 or 7 QBs in terms of effectiveness when the team needed him. Off hand, I would actually call that "playing fairly well". I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that it doesn't look like he's playing as well as he has at times or as well as he can. When receivers are right where he is throwing the ball, it's hard to figure that he isn't in sync with the WR on that play - so if the ball is seriously underthrown or overthrown, as has been the case numerous times, that looks like a problem with Brady's throwing mechanics or rust or shoulder or something. I have a vague recollection that this seemed to be the case early in the season last year - maybe somebody with a better memory can comment on that. But you have to be careful and realize that even the hottest QBs are probably not completing much more than 65% of their passes on an average over several games. So he's actually not all that far off even his best level of performance - I know that's hard to see that perspective since it's much easier to 'remember' the incompletions than keep a mental tally of overall completion percentage. This is where statistics can give you a sanity check against your perceptions. And, you do have to keep in mind that 'averages' for any QB are not a 'steady' performance level of, say, 60%. The average reflects stretches where ANY QB can't seem to hit anybody and then stretches where he will complete 8 or 9 passes in a row or 10 out of 12. It's just the nature of what happens. The important thing is that the QB makes enough passes when his teams needs him to. You actually point that out very well - Brady has been able to do well enough when it was needed to win.

I think we are in agreement that there is a very high possibility that the Pats will do very well over the course of this season. I'm also pretty much a believer in Belichick and Brady when they say it takes 5, 6, or so games to get everybody on the same page and really be able to tell what kind of a team we have. So I have to admit that I am expecting quite a pleasant increase in the level of the offense over the next few weeks. Great times to be a fan.

Cheers.

You are correct that Brady was a bit off last year as well. The Carolina game comes to mind. I have a personal opinion that maybe his shoulder is a little "off" ever since the end of 2002, and that he simply plays thru it. Lots of QBs have to play with weak shoulders, and you'll never hear Brady complain. I very easily could be wrong, but I just wonder if he starts a little rusty due to the ole' shoulder?

I would be remiss not to mention that what I respect about Brady ten times more than winning the superbowl in 2001 or leading the league in touchdowns in 2002 was playing with a bad injury all through 2003, not complaining, struggling, and ultimately winning a superbowl. 2003 was the year that I decided Brady was more than a great quarterback, he was the real deal, a tough competitor that played injuried all season, got his throwing arm beat to crap even harder with a bursa sack injury to his elbow against the Jets in week 4, and still had the best superbowl completion record the same season.

That was amazing.

It's easy to be Ben Rothlisdizzle and hand the ball off when things are going well and self destruct when it's up to you to handle your success.

It's tough to be Brady, and play good when you are really hurting bad. That was 2003 and 2005. I respect that aspect of Brady much more than any touchdown record.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Well I guess those stats show the play calling must really be pretty good then, huh? - The Patriots have never been the hightest scoring team in the league. A romp here and there, but most wins the last 5+ years have been by single digits. But I think anyone would be hard pressed to say the O is clicking with the 21.5 pts per game average and just watching the games.

 

[JoeSixPat]

You are correct that Brady was a bit off last year as well.

That's odd. I could have sworn that Brady had his best year statiscially as a pro in 2005... and that it was the running game that was a bit off last year.

And this year, the running game is working particularly well with Dillaroney, whereas the passing game is "a bit off" now.

Taken together that makes for comparable overall stats between 2005 and 2006.

The difference is that seemingly its ok to say the running game was off but not ok to suggest the passing game or play calling is off.

But just imagine what a juggernaut this offense would be if BOTH the air and ground game were at their best!

 

[arrellbee]

You are correct that Brady was a bit off last year as well. The Carolina game comes to mind. I have a personal opinion that maybe his shoulder is a little "off" ever since the end of 2002, and that he simply plays thru it. Lots of QBs have to play with weak shoulders, and you'll never hear Brady complain. I very easily could be wrong, but I just wonder if he starts a little rusty due to the ole' shoulder?

I would be remiss not to mention that what I respect about Brady ten times more than winning the superbowl in 2001 or leading the league in touchdowns in 2002 was playing with a bad injury all through 2003, not complaining, struggling, and ultimately winning a superbowl. 2003 was the year that I decided Brady was more than a great quarterback, he was the real deal, a tough competitor that played injuried all season, got his throwing arm beat to crap even harder with a bursa sack injury to his elbow against the Jets in week 4, and still had the best superbowl completion record the same season.

That was amazing.

It's easy to be Ben Rothlisdizzle and hand the ball off when things are going well and self destruct when it's up to you to handle your success.

It's tough to be Brady, and play good when you are really hurting bad. That was 2003 and 2005. I respect that aspect of Brady much more than any touchdown record.

Such very good observations to consider. Thanks.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Brady was a bit off for the first two or three games. That is what arrellbee and I were talking about. The part about maybe he starts slow, perhaps he has a little rust in the ole' shoulder. Clearly Brady didn't finish 2005 rusty, but his first few games featured some interesting passes to people's feet or to the opponent.

I think that he just starts the season a little slow, in general, and picks up steam. And I would not doubt that his shoulder is part of the reason, but that's just my opinion. And the injury report.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. The best Brady ever looked out of the box was the first few games of 2002. No shoulder injury. A lot of passing attack. High scoring games. No defense.

Since then he has started seasons slow, been on the injury report, and gotten better as the season goes on.

 

[arrellbee]

Another way to look at 2006 Pats in perspective to previous years:

Offensive and Defensive points per game average:

2003
off 21.8
def 14.9 - difference 6.9

2004
off 27.3
def 16.2 - difference 11.1 - what a dominant year !!

2005
off 23.7
def 21.1 - difference 2.6 - amazing results with this stat

2006
off 21.6
def 14.8 - difference 6.8

2006 is amazingly similar to 2003 which did not end with too bad a result !!
Kind of keeps things in perspective versus watching the sky for chunks falling.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Another way to look at 2006 Pats in perspective to previous years:

Offensive and Defensive points per game average:

2003
off 21.8
def 14.9 - difference 6.9

2004
off 27.3
def 16.2 - difference 11.1 - what a dominant year !!

2005
off 23.7
def 21.1 - difference 2.6 - amazing results with this stat

2006
off 21.6
def 14.8 - difference 6.8

2006 is amazingly similar to 2003 which did not end with too bad a result !!
Kind of keeps things in perspective versus watching the sky for chunks falling.

There must be a lot of good defenses this year, because we are like 7 or 8 in points allowed. Or it is a slow offensive year for the league. We were #1 in points allowed in 2003 with 14.9.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Brady was a bit off for the first two or three games. That is what arrellbee and I were talking about. The part about maybe he starts slow, perhaps he has a little rust in the ole' shoulder. Clearly Brady didn't finish 2005 rusty, but his first few games featured some interesting passes to people's feet or to the opponent.

I think that he just starts the season a little slow, in general, and picks up steam. And I would not doubt that his shoulder is part of the reason, but that's just my opinion. And the injury report.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. The best Brady ever looked out of the box was the first few games of 2002. No shoulder injury. A lot of passing attack. High scoring games. No defense.

Since then he has started seasons slow, been on the injury report, and gotten better as the season goes on.

I'm still not sure I'd agree with that - whether its his first 5 games or first 3 games, it seems to me his numbers were MUCH better last year than this year.

See for yourself http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/BradTo00.htm#2005


I think what the record shows isn't that he started the season slow and ended strong - but that he carried the offense while the ground game was subpar.

This is why my expecations are a bit higher from him and the offense, because now, with a complete offense, I'd just expect better consistency.

His QB rating - for what its worth - is down 10 points over last year - which I think doesn't fully convey how much further off the passing attack is compared to last year.

 

[captain stone]

Have you looked at our schedule? I am not saying one or two teams won't put up 20 points, the most likely two teams that could are the Bears and Colts and at this point I doubt they will. The Colts don't have a good enough running game to thin out our secondary and the Bears are throwing up 30 plus points because of turnovers. My money would be on the Bears to be the most likely team put up 20+ on this D.

The points ALLOWED by our Defense have been minimal:

Bills -10
Jets- 17
Broncos - 17
Bengals - 13
Dolphins - 10

The Broncos and Jets TD's were a result of a big play, not sustained drives. Since the Broncos game the Pats Defense has not allowed a big play and if recent history is any indication then the Pats D should continue to get better as the season rolls on.

FWIW: The average PPG scored by our next 11 opponents is 19.08 and only three average above 20 (Chicago, Indy and Jax). We are averaging 21.6 even with our unfamiliar WR's so that should only improve as well, as they become more familiar with the playbook and their QB over the remainder of the season.

Do not look down upon the next 3 games, incl. @ Buffalo and @ Minn. Are they all winnable? Positively. Will they all be won? Possibly. Buffalo's 4 (plus Andre Davis = 5) receivers are playing well; the Vikings have a smart QB, a good OL, esp. the left side, and very good RBs & TEs; and the Dolts have scored points their last 2 visits here. The Pats' secondary needs to continue to tighten its coverage, and to tackle aggressively and properly. And to stay healthy.

 

[captain stone]

This part of your post frightens me. (But first, thanks to Pony and Arrelbee for excellent points/data)

I HOPE we can get a new WR corps to execute within a season, because the NE model seems to be expendability of any given wideout, and expendability of the whole WR corps when conditions dictate.

That modus operandi can only serve the team if the WRs are able to progress through the playbook with time enough to make an impact within the regular season.

I think the WR corps will be steadily improving during the season, and the "mortal" Brady will begin to look much more like the Brady of old.

I think the apparent position of the NE brass is that some wideouts are special, but not worth what they cost, and most others are pretty interchangeable. The problem is that letting them move in and out of the system too fluidly might introduce drawbacks you can not overcome every year, threatening to make the O one-dimensional.

Like I said, I'm a "trust the coaches" guy, so I hope they continue to get better as the season progresses. I like that feeling I had after the Cincinatti game.

PFnV

Well said, PFnV. My concern with the new WRs is based mostly on the lack of significant production in (much?) less complicated offenses, systems which each WR has had ample time to learn and master. Gabriel was coached by Norv Turner during his 3 years in Oakland; Caldwell by Schottenheimer all 4 years in SD, and Gaffney by Capers all 4 years in Houston. Usually, when a student who has been receiving Cs in the same algebra course for 3+ years is asked to take calculus, that student will struggle to adjust. And I don't see any Math majors amoung these 3.

 

[arrellbee]

I'm still not sure I'd agree with that - whether its his first 5 games or first 3 games, it seems to me his numbers were MUCH better last year than this year.

See for yourself http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/BradTo00.htm#2005


I think what the record shows isn't that he started the season slow and ended strong - but that he carried the offense while the ground game was subpar.

This is why my expecations are a bit higher from him and the offense, because now, with a complete offense, I'd just expect better consistency.

His QB rating - for what its worth - is down 10 points over last year - which I think doesn't fully convey how much further off the passing attack is compared to last year.

I think you are mostly correct. My recollection wasn't too good.

Over the first 4 games last year, Brady had an average completion of 62% which is almost exactly his career average. He only had one game, against Carolina, where he only completed 52.3% but then had a great game against Pittsburgh. He didn't have as good a TD/INT stat as this year - 4 TD / 3 INT.

This year, his average completion is down to 54%, so it looks definitely like a slower start. Although his TD/INT is 6TD / 3 INT.

Good call.

 

[mgcolby]

Do not look down upon the next 3 games, incl. @ Buffalo and @ Minn. Are they all winnable? Positively. Will they all be won? Possibly. Buffalo's 4 (plus Andre Davis = 5) receivers are playing well; the Vikings have a smart QB, a good OL, esp. the left side, and very good RBs & TEs; and the Dolts have scored points their last 2 visits here. The Pats' secondary needs to continue to tighten its coverage, and to tackle aggressively and properly. And to stay healthy.

I am not overlooking them. I am only saying that it is unlikely they put up 20 points on us, unless the offense turns the ball over in our territory. In fact here is a link to the "toughest games" thread and what I thought about our remaining schedule: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=42811&highlight=toughest+games

The Colts put up points in their last two regular season visits and both times they came with a balanced attack. This year their run game is average at best. Last year our defense was in shambles when they showed up. This year they can't stop the run and we have one of the best running games in the league. The Colts don't have a chance in this game unless they discover a miracle to stick in the middle of their D.

In 2004 (with a healthy D) the Pats gave up 24 to the Colts, which was 8 points below what they averaged for the season (32.6). Last year was a joke, but FWIW the Colts averaged 27.4 and scored 40.

So in a sense I am not disagreeing with you, I don't think they will all be cakewalks. I just don't think the Pats give up more than 20 points twice this season, if at all.