Article documentation of Patriots 2nd half adjustment problems

[TheComeback]

Could it be something as simple as training and fatigue?

I doubt it, especially on offense. On defense that could be a possible issue. It's more draining, and a lot of the guys haven't played in the NFL very long.

I think the offense struggles with the mental aspect of the 2nd half. They seem to know that they start to suck late in games, and Brady starts trying to force things. On top of that, the whole team appears to tighten up in pressure situations.

They will eventually get it figured out, even if by sheer chance or some huge miracle play that helps boost their confidence.

 

[borg]

Time of possession may be more valuable a tool vs points. Talented opposing offenses seem to be able to march at will in the 2nd half vs NE....which ultimately leads to Brady and company with fewer minutes to operate.
My gutt tells me that superior talent will ultimately be able to overmatch inferior, despite coachin 'em up. As an example, big WRs make the Pats little DBs look silly too often.

 

[aluminum seats]

Last year, it was all the rage here to attribute the Pats problems to a mythical "Fourth Quarter Meltdown," when the real problem, as I said at the time, was the entire second half (except for the Miami game after the blowout in New Orleans).

Here's a little more fuel for the fire.

I went back and looked at Pats scoring, first half vs. second half, from 2001 to 2008.

Over those eight years, the Pats scored 50.7% of their points in the first half and 49.3% in the second half; effectively, a 50--50 split.

Of course, every season is different and I also looked at each season. Between 2001 and 2008, the percent of points scored in the first half ranged from 43% to 57% (the latter in the great season of 2007).

So, the 66% of points scored in the first half in 2009 was an anomaly; for the statisticians among you, 2009's performance was two standard deviations off of the mean for the nine years between 2001 and 2009, so this was a statistically significant event.

Over those same years (2001--2008), the Defense gave up 48.2% of points scored in the first half and 51.8% in the second half. In 2009, the D's numbers were nearly right on the average at 49.0% in the first half and 51.0% in the second half.

So, as has been observed, the Pats won the first half 282--136 and lost the second half 146--145 in 2009, with the responsibility clearly residing with the Offense.

I also looked at the number of games in which the Pats scored seven or fewer points in the second half. Between 2001 and 2008, the average is 4.8. But, in 2009, they scored seven or fewer points in the second half in seven games.

So, this is not an "imaginary" problem. Like most of you, I am grappling to understand it, but it is, no doubt, very real. Is it due to predictability, lack of motivation, bad play calling or something else?

Good job w/this. I think this helps the conversation move beyond pointing to specific mistakes/drives in any given game and illustrates the larger problem.

 

[borg]

Recent ESPN article on Pats 2nd half collapses: Brady is the problem...they conclude

A New England Patriots win is no longer a sure thing with a halftime lead - ESPN Boston

 

[aluminum seats]

Recent ESPN article on Pats 2nd half collapses: Brady is the problem...they conclude

A New England Patriots win is no longer a sure thing with a halftime lead - ESPN Boston

Worth a read. From that article:

One only needs to look back on Sunday for the latest example. Trailing 21-14, Brady threw an interception on the first play of the fourth quarter. Now, the interception was hardly Brady's fault. However, Brady had two fourth-quarter possessions while the game was still within seven. He went 0-3 with an interception.

It's a jarring continuation of a trend that plagued him in 2009. Last year, he had a 52.4 passer rating in the fourth quarter with the game within seven points, which ranked 30th in the NFL, according to STATS LLC. It included just one touchdown compared to three interceptions, and no completion longer than 18 yards.

Add in Sunday's game, and Brady now has a 44.5 passer rating in those close fourth-quarter situations since 2009. That's 34th in the NFL, better only than Matthew Stafford and Jake Delhomme.

Hmmm. Article also notes that the Pats have won 50-something home games in a row when leading at the half.

 

[aluminum seats]

Last year, it was all the rage here to attribute the Pats problems to a mythical "Fourth Quarter Meltdown," when the real problem, as I said at the time, was the entire second half (except for the Miami game after the blowout in New Orleans).

Here's a little more fuel for the fire.

I went back and looked at Pats scoring, first half vs. second half, from 2001 to 2008.

Over those eight years, the Pats scored 50.7% of their points in the first half and 49.3% in the second half; effectively, a 50--50 split.

Of course, every season is different and I also looked at each season. Between 2001 and 2008, the percent of points scored in the first half ranged from 43% to 57% (the latter in the great season of 2007).

So, the 66% of points scored in the first half in 2009 was an anomaly; for the statisticians among you, 2009's performance was two standard deviations off of the mean for the nine years between 2001 and 2009, so this was a statistically significant event.

Over those same years (2001--2008), the Defense gave up 48.2% of points scored in the first half and 51.8% in the second half. In 2009, the D's numbers were nearly right on the average at 49.0% in the first half and 51.0% in the second half.

So, as has been observed, the Pats won the first half 282--136 and lost the second half 146--145 in 2009, with the responsibility clearly residing with the Offense.

I also looked at the number of games in which the Pats scored seven or fewer points in the second half. Between 2001 and 2008, the average is 4.8. But, in 2009, they scored seven or fewer points in the second half in seven games.

So, this is not an "imaginary" problem. Like most of you, I am grappling to understand it, but it is, no doubt, very real. Is it due to predictability, lack of motivation, bad play calling or something else?

By the way, regarding the "new threads on topics already covered" issue, this is a perfect example. The time you took to analyze this is worthy of a new thread, if for no other reason so it doesn't get lost in this mega-thread. Just my opinion.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

By the way, regarding the "new threads on topics already covered" issue, this is a perfect example. The time you took to analyze this is worthy of a new thread, if for no other reason so it doesn't get lost in this mega-thread. Just my opinion.

Thanks. I thought about it but figured it would just get merged into this thread anyway. I'll hold onto the analysis and I might do so in the future...or the next time they blow a lead in the second half.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Nice job on the numbers.

With numbers like those, one has to use simple logic I would say that, logically speaking, that the cause for such a turnaround in the last sason olkus 2 games leans more to coaching and possible lack of adjustment, more so than execution. Bad execution might occur in an individual game, but not for as long a period as described in your post, 2009 plus.

As I said, that is a logical opinion, but obviously can not be oproven

Thanks. I did the analysis originally in reaction to the "Fourth Quarter Meltdown" comments. Usually when I do something like this, it ends up a little ambiguous, but this is not, both from a common sense and statistical perspective.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Recent ESPN article on Pats 2nd half collapses: Brady is the problem...they conclude

A New England Patriots win is no longer a sure thing with a halftime lead - ESPN Boston

I read it. It's disturbing, but the data seem to be there.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Could it be something as simple as training and fatigue?

In the context of the ESPN Boston piece, the "fatigue" assumption leads quickly to a discussion of whether it has anything to do with the difference between a 24/25 year old QB with a couple dozen hits and a 32/33 year old QB with a few hundred hits and major injury under his belt.

But, I don't want to go there. So, I'm going to assume it's more systematic or scheme-related and not due to fatigue.

 

[emoney_33]

Some numbers of 1st half vs. 2nd half offense in 2009. I took away the 3 blowout wins and the Houston game.

So out of the 12 remaining games, 8 were worse 2nd halves, 4 were better/equal 2nd halves. In the 8 'bad' 2nd halves, we were 3-5 and 4-0 in the better/equal 2nd halves.

We only gained more yardage in the 2nd half in the CAR and ATL games. The Ravens game and 1st BUF game was roughly split between halves. I'm curious about the splits in the 8 "bad" 2nd halves we played but I don't have the time.

Here's the ugliness in the 8 games where we had a worse 2nd half comparatively to the 1st half:

1st half - 2nd half

Points: 128 - 45
Possessions: 47 - 44
Plays: 315 - 234
Yards: 1988 - 1078
TOP: 2:20:53 - 1:53:28
Plays/Drive: 6.7 - 5.3
Yards/Play: 6.3 - 4.6

I'm not sure a Knee injury makes a QB struggle so dramatically in the 2nd half of games but not the 1st, and I'm not sure why the proven HOF QB is getting questioned more than the unproven young coaching staff.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Last year, it was all the rage here to attribute the Pats problems to a mythical "Fourth Quarter Meltdown," when the real problem, as I said at the time, was the entire second half (except for the Miami game after the blowout in New Orleans).

Here's a little more fuel for the fire.

I went back and looked at Pats scoring, first half vs. second half, from 2001 to 2008.

Over those eight years, the Pats scored 50.7% of their points in the first half and 49.3% in the second half; effectively, a 50--50 split.

Of course, every season is different and I also looked at each season. Between 2001 and 2008, the percent of points scored in the first half ranged from 43% to 57% (the latter in the great season of 2007).

So, the 66% of points scored in the first half in 2009 was an anomaly; for the statisticians among you, 2009's performance was two standard deviations off of the mean for the nine years between 2001 and 2009, so this was a statistically significant event.

Over those same years (2001--2008), the Defense gave up 48.2% of points scored in the first half and 51.8% in the second half. In 2009, the D's numbers were nearly right on the average at 49.0% in the first half and 51.0% in the second half.

So, as has been observed, the Pats won the first half 282--136 and lost the second half 146--145 in 2009, with the responsibility clearly residing with the Offense.

I also looked at the number of games in which the Pats scored seven or fewer points in the second half. Between 2001 and 2008, the average is 4.8. But, in 2009, they scored seven or fewer points in the second half in seven games.

So, this is not an "imaginary" problem. Like most of you, I am grappling to understand it, but it is, no doubt, very real. Is it due to predictability, lack of motivation, bad play calling or something else?

Devastating analysis. It shows that there is definitely something going on from 2009 to now, that was different from the previous 8 years.

As for that ESPN article, it makes no sense to blame this on Brady. The exact same personnel, Brady included, plays very well in the 1st half. The entire team, including Brady, plays worse as the game progresses. A few pages ago I already posted Brady's QB ratings by quarter, he plays significantly worse in the 4th quarter and 2nd half compared since 2009 compared to previous years.



As for a previous comment about game planning, here's an idea. If you know that your assistants adjust poorly while the game is going on, and you know that your pre-game analysis and game plans are very good going into games (as evidence by the team's strong 1st half numbers), then why not purposely hold back half or more of your game plan for the 3rd quarter?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Key passages from the recent ESPN article
A New England Patriots win is no longer a sure thing with a halftime lead - ESPN Boston

From 2002-08, there were 371 NFL games in which a team led at halftime but went on to lose. The Patriots suffered just one of those losses -- a 2004 second-half comeback by the Miami Dolphins.

New England did this despite leading at halftime more than any other team. In all, they were 66-1 with a lead at intermission.

Since 2009, the results have not been nearly as favorable. The Patriots have led at the half 14 times, tied with the Packers for most in the NFL, but they are just 9-5 with a halftime lead, the 24th-best winning percentage in the NFL. Only the lowly Rams match that loss total.

More:

But back then, even with a halftime lead of 10 points or fewer, the Patriots were 39-1, best in the NFL. Over the past two seasons, they are 3-5, the 28th-best winning percentage in the league.

 

[mgteich]

There are obviously 2 HUGE differences before and after Brady came back in 2009.
ONE: The offense can't score.
TWO: The defense can't defend.

Given that we have a top 3 offenses in thre first half, and we have one of the best clutch quarterbacks in the history of the nfl, we rightfully focus on the offense.

Key passages from the recent ESPN article
A New England Patriots win is no longer a sure thing with a halftime lead - ESPN Boston



More:

 

[neuronet]

How much of it might be conditioning of our O-line and secondary (rather than Brady), in addition to or instead of, versus adjustments?

 

[neuronet]

THis thread is depressing the hell out of me.

I wish BB and the OC would come and talk to us in a private chat. :bricks:

 

[DropKickFlutie]

How much of it might be conditioning of our O-line and secondary (rather than Brady), in addition to or instead of, versus adjustments?

This is possible, but I don't think the O-line is giving up more sacks in the 2nd half, and it's not like our secondary gives up passes due to conditioning. Usually the 3rd down failures are to wide open guys down the middle.

 

[emoney_33]

This is possible, but I don't think the O-line is giving up more sacks in the 2nd half, and it's not like our secondary gives up passes due to conditioning. Usually the 3rd down failures are to wide open guys down the middle.

uhmm... no

 

[jmt57]

There are some interesting numbers in some of the comments in the past few pages. At first glance it looks as if the defense is actually performing about the same, and the dropoff is almost all on the offense. One thing I do recall from some discussions last year was that it was shown that the Pats ran the ball far less often in the second half than in the first half. Now when you take into consideration that the Pats have the lead more often than not at halftime, to run less rather than more with the lead in the second half seems to be counter to traditional thinking when you want to run down the clock and keep the opposing offense off the field when attempting to maintain a second half lead.

I'm not suggesting the team stop passing the ball, but if it is available somewhere I would love to see some pass/run statistics for the Pats in regards to their play calls in the first half versus second half. For example overall and game by game total number of runs in each half overall, percentage by half, comparison to the rest of the league, comparison to previous years, comparison when leading at half vs losing at half, comparison when up by 14 (or some other number) or more to when in a close game, etc.

Obviously two games is too small of a sample size to come to any conclusions, but perhaps if we compared 2009 to 2007 and prior, or 2009 to the rest of the league, and maybe look at these stats again after the fourth game during the bye week.

 

[JMarr]

How do the Colts manage to get put up big offensive numbers without having any running game to speak of, while we can't?

People assume that we can just go back to 2007 and blitzkieg through the air. People forget that we HAD a good ground game in 2007, the threat of which opened up the passing attack. We need to be able to run the ball, or teams will drop 8 all day long, and the supposed strength of the team, the offense, will be neutralized. The Maroney trade, right or wrong, is probably going to kill our season no that Faulk is gone too.