Biggest Concern Post-Moss: Bill O'Brien

[Bobs My Uncle]

The more I listen to Troy, Tedy, Rich Gannon, Mike Lombardi etc... I think this offense will be more dynamic and far less predictable. Tate needs to touch the ball more, especially in space. He won't command over the top help right away, but all it takes is for him to catch a few deep balls and he start to draw it. I am not blind to what Moss meant to this offense, but I also think some people are taking what he meant to the offense to the extreme today.

You and the above guys are missing the point.

There is no reason why this offense shouldn't be as dynamic and explosive as we have ever seen out of a Pats team. With Moss on the roster. Given how stocked with talent this roster is on offense, our Doofus play caller should easily figure out ways to make this offense legendary. Instead, he can't even counter an adjustment in a defense gameplan while the arrows are flying.

That people are blaming a lack of such on having Moss is asinine. Blame the person who should be blamed .... the guy trying to figure out how to call plays in the NFL.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The more I listen to Troy, Tedy, Rich Gannon, Mike Lombardi etc... I think this offense will be more dynamic and far less predictable. Tate needs to touch the ball more, especially in space.

I agree it will have to be less predictable in order to have any kind of success. At best, they'll be similar to the 2003 Patriots with smurf receivers, good tight ends, and a north-south RB. However, Bill O'Brien is no Charlie Weiss.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It's very simple. Simply based on the immense talent on this offense, they put up great stats and offensive rankings. A stupid monkey pushing buttons on a keyboard could call plays and the offensive players are so good they can make it work. However, based on more damning multiple breakdowns of how the team performs from how it starts to how it produces as the game goes on, it suggests that offensive coaching and play calling is an issue.

What?

I hope this isn't serious posting.

We finally won a serious road game for the first time in two years. This was done because a key activity was a clutch second half drive that produced a touchdown.

A notable component of this drive was that Moss wasn't targeted.

Have ever thought that maybe the staff has come to the conclusion that our success will most likely be achieved in an offense without Moss as the centerpiece?

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'm not a huge fan of O'Brien but I actually think Moss leaving will help him out. I think he felt intimidated by Moss, and it was clear there were a lot of calls for deep bombs by O'Brien and a lot of forced throws from Brady. Sometimes it's good to stretch the defense, but quite often it felt like it was a forced thing to keep him happy.

This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of O'Brien if he truly was worried about making Moss happy. But he wouldn't have been the first (or the last) to go out of his way to make a star athlete happy.

Without Kevin Faulk around to run O'Brien's beloved draw play and without Moss to worry about, we could see much more from O'Brien. And yes, I have my homer cap on tight while typing this.

 

[Trocadile]

BF, you say this as if it's a bad thing to give Moss the ball, in order to keep him happy.

Moss should be the primary target each play. If he isn't then something needs to be done to ensure that he is.

Making Moss the focal point of an offense isn't a bad thing. Not knowing how to do so is however, and this is the problem we have with our doofus play caller.

This is an opinion that is strongly refuted by the facts. Brady is completing 76% of his passes to receivers not named Moss. He completed 41% of his passes to Moss. Even if you argue that the high percentage for other receivers is due to the presence of Moss and his effect on the defense, it still means that the most efficient use of Moss is as a decoy. And it should be clear to everyone by now that Moss was not willing to be used as a decoy.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

A notable component of this drive was that Moss wasn't targeted.

Have ever thought that maybe the staff has come to the conclusion that our success will most likely be achieved in an offense without Moss as the centerpiece?

I don't agree with this reasoning. Two different issues are exclusive from each other.

Randy Moss being on the field, didn't automatically make the offense worse or less effective. Locking in and targeting any one player is usually a bad sign and can lead to poor results. Locking in on a player is more a fault of the QB or the play caller.

You can replace Randy Moss with Wes Welker in the above paragraph and the same thing applies. Locking in on a player is on Brady or the play caller, not the receiver's fault. Randy Moss is being mis-characterized (again) as some sort of malcontent complaining that he wasn't getting the ball, simply because it's easy and convenient to do so. Whether Moss was on this team or not, there is sufficient data that suggests there are 2nd half and play calling issues.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Without Kevin Faulk around to run O'Brien's beloved draw play and without Moss to worry about, we could see much more from O'Brien. And yes, I have my homer cap on tight while typing this.

This is what I'm afraid of, hence the thread title.

Without some great players like Faulk or Moss around now, it will become apparent very quickly whether O'Brien has the skills to stick around on the job.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

This is an opinion that is strongly refuted by the facts. Brady is completing 76% of his passes to receivers not named Moss. He completed 41% of his passes to Moss. Even if you argue that the high percentage for other receivers is due to the presence of Moss and his effect on the defense, it still means that the most efficient use of Moss is as a decoy. And it should be clear to everyone by now that Moss was not willing to be used as a decoy.

The fact is when this offense had a co-ordinator who wasn't apprenticing on the job and actually had a clue, it set NFL records by making Moss its focal point.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

This is what I'm afraid of, hence the thread title.

Without some great players like Faulk or Moss around now, it will become apparent very quickly whether O'Brien has the skills to stick around on the job.

We need to find out about O'Brien as quickly as possible, one way or the other. I don't know the answer, but I haven't given up hope on O'Brien either. We'll know a lot more when this season is over though.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

BF, you say this as if it's a bad thing to give Moss the ball, in order to keep him happy.

Moss should be the primary target each play. If he isn't then something needs to be done to ensure that he is.

Making Moss the focal point of an offense isn't a bad thing. Not knowing how to do so is however, and this is the problem we have with our doofus play caller.

This revisionist history cracks me up. Two weeks ago the battle cry was BOB is an idiot for not stopping Brady from forcing the ball to Moss (who apparently struggles to get open or make plays or at times seemingly even avert disaster while commanding a $9M per salary).

Last season after one demanding practice Brady was forced to call Randy at home to apologize and smooth things over because he had criticized Moss in front of his teamates for not coming back for a ball...and Randy was disconsolate. I guarantee you for as much as Brady admired the talent, he is relieved on another level to be done with the friggin' babysitting chore. He has two boys of his own he can babysit who are probably easier to mollify and more rewarding to spend time with.

Can't remember who but one poster here wondered a few weeks back just what these two supposed friends talked about at those so called "dinners" they seemed to be having increasingly regularly...

 

[Trocadile]

The fact is when this offense had a co-ordinator who wasn't apprenticing on the job and actually had a clue, it set NFL records by making Moss its focal point.

It is a fact that that was when Moss was three years younger.

It is not a fact, but my opinion, that Moss, this year, is not the player he was then. This may change if he becomes more motivated with the Vikings, but, while here, this year, he did not deserve to be "the focal point of the offense" and only a bad playcaller would have tried to make him so.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

It is a fact that that was when Moss was three years younger.

It is not a fact, but my opinion, that Moss, this year, is not the player he was then. This may change if he becomes more motivated with the Vikings, but, while here, this year, he did not deserve to be "the focal point of the offense" and only a bad playcaller would have tried to make him so.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but even a "lesser" Moss is tied for the team lead in TD's and 3rd in the league amongst WR's, despite only being thrown to a paltry 9 times!

 

[Patjew]

This guy cant get it done.

Are you NEPatriot?

 

[Trocadile]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but even a "lesser" Moss is tied for the team lead in TD's and 3rd in the league amongst WR's, despite only being thrown to a paltry 9 times!

A little shaky on the fact management here - he's tied for fourth among WRs (with a whole bunch of people) behind Collie, Macklin and Nicks and he's been thrown to 22 times, with 9 receptions - hence the 41% completion rate on passes intended for him.

But I don't dispute that he can still score TDs. I'm just not sure they are worth all the incompletions and interceptions that come when you make him a focal point.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

A little shaky on the fact management here - he's tied for fourth among WRs (with a whole bunch of people) behind Collie, Macklin and Nicks and he's been thrown to 22 times, with 9 receptions - hence the 41% completion rate on passes intended for him.

But I don't dispute that he can still score TDs. I'm just not sure they are worth all the incompletions and interceptions that come when you make him a focal point.

Huh, he's not worth the TD's if some passes go incomplete. Surely you jest?

 

[The Dynasty]

I don't think O'Brien will be an issue. I think he has improved from what we got last season. I though Monday night he called a great game. It was a game plan that we havent seen much of in the past few years by a Patriot offense. Long sustained drives, with plenty of runs. I think we will be seeing more of this for the rest of the season, running the ball on 1st and 2nd down and setting up 3rd and short, then utilizing Welker and Fernandez to make the 5-7 yard catches for first downs.

And in terms of O'Brien being intimidated by Moss, I dont think someone intimidated by Moss would get into a verbal argument with him at halftime of a game. I think O'Brien stuck up for himself and the play calling and Moss didnt like the lack of attention and that is what set him off.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't think O'Brien will be an issue. I think he has improved from what we got last season. I though Monday night he called a great game. It was a game plan that we havent seen much of in the past few years by a Patriot offense. Long sustained drives, with plenty of runs. I think we will be seeing more of this for the rest of the season, running the ball on 1st and 2nd down and setting up 3rd and short, then utilizing Welker and Fernandez to make the 5-7 yard catches for first downs.

And in terms of O'Brien being intimidated by Moss, I dont think someone intimidated by Moss would get into a verbal argument with him at halftime of a game. I think O'Brien stuck up for himself and the play calling and Moss didnt like the lack of attention and that is what set him off.

I agree, Monday was a great game plan and I hope we see much more of that. I also think that methodical style is much better for our young defense, especially earlier in the season as they continue to mature.

Intimidated was probably the wrong word to use. Maybe felt pressured to keep Moss happy is a better way of phrasing it. And maybe the verbal argument was O'Brien finally saying he had enough of it. I don't know, but I'd like to think he is growing and maturing as a coordinator.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I don't agree with this reasoning. Two different issues are exclusive from each other.

Randy Moss being on the field, didn't automatically make the offense worse or less effective. Locking in and targeting any one player is usually a bad sign and can lead to poor results. Locking in on a player is more a fault of the QB or the play caller.

You can replace Randy Moss with Wes Welker in the above paragraph and the same thing applies. Locking in on a player is on Brady or the play caller, not the receiver's fault. Randy Moss is being mis-characterized (again) as some sort of malcontent complaining that he wasn't getting the ball, simply because it's easy and convenient to do so. Whether Moss was on this team or not, there is sufficient data that suggests there are 2nd half and play calling issues.

No wonder you don't like it because there is reasoning to it.

Try to follow along

2007 offense was the most dynamic in history

BB concludes defenses have caught up to that offense and decides to go a different direction. This means less of Moss specific talents.

Moss still wants #1 money will not accept what Pats offer.

BB gets the things he wants

Two top TE's
Tate checks out
Welker checks out
BJGE is the answer running the ball

Second half of Jets game is 2007 offense. Last two games are new offense

Moss sees that being a "decoy" is not the way to get big contract. He pushes the issue.

BB realizes this has run it's course, BB trades him.

Had Moss accepted what BB offered, this wopuld never have happened. My guess is the BB offer was less because Moss was going to be less of the offense.

 

[Trocadile]

Huh, he's not worth the TD's if some passes go incomplete. Surely you jest?

You're not paying attention. As I've indicated, I'd like to still have Moss being used primarily as a decoy and occassional red zone threat, not the "focal point" of the offense, if he was willing to accept this role. He clearly isn't.

If he's the focal point of the offense, he might get his 10-12 TDs, but Brady's completion rate would plummet and his interceptions would go up. And to answer your question - no, 3 TDs in 4 games is not worth an incomplete pass 59% of the time.

 

[lamafist]

Huh, he's not worth the TD's if some passes go incomplete. Surely you jest?

I'm pretty sure what he was getting at is the simple fact that Moss hasn't been as reliable a target as he has in past years. He's caught only 41% of the balls thrown his way, which is worse than his catch rate ever was in Oakland. (In '07, it was 61%.)

The number of TDs a WR catches is a meaningful stat only when looked at in the context of how many times he needed to be thrown to in the endzone to get that many TDs. A WR w/ a 40% catch rate is just not helpful.

Of course, we're only talking about a 4 game sample, though -- the question is, would he have ended up improving his catch rate to his usual 55-60%, or was this spate of unusually pedestrian hands a symptom of Moss' dissatisfaction.