Brady, the OL and the OC

[BradyManny]

By the time Cassel had been tagged & traded, Brady had (by his account) effectively returned to his normal health and was ready for the season. Brady said by Super Bowl Sunday he no longer had any limitations due to the surgery. That allowed us to move Cassel.

There is no way the Patriots are going to know about Welker's situation in time for the draft and/or free agency. They are going to have to plan for the 2010 season as if he's not playing at all. It's quite likely he will play sometime during the season, IMO, based on how ACL rehabs have been going of late. But that isn't an assumption the Patriots front office is able to make.

Edelman may be an adequate replacement for Welker at the position. But that still leaves #3, #4 wideout unsolved, as Tate - like Welker - can't be penciled in either. And if this team wants to keep using the spread, it has to get back to its 2003 & 2004 days when it was 5 deep at wide receiver, not the situation it had this year where its #3 wideout is an ST ace who - until injury forced otherwise - spends more of practice w the ST unit than he does the receivers.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Perhaps if Brady doesn't want to get hit he'll just start throwing the ball as quickly as most other quarterbacks do instead of holding it forever in order to wait for longer routes to open up? That would mean more focus on shorter routes, but it's not as if that would be a bad thing: it's how the team won earlier in the decade.

If nothing else, it would get people to stop blaming the offensive line for poor pass protection when that's not always the case.

Deus, i dont normally agree with you but you are spot on here. All through the season I posted asking why we werent using Moss on slants, quick outs, fades etc to get him in the game the same way Manning uses Wayne.

In some ways I feel like 2007 ruined Brady and this team. Before that we dinked and dunked our way to 3 SB's, and we certianly didnt have WR's of the calibre of Moss and Welker. Now we run routes that take forever to develop and Brady stares down 2 guys - take them away and were done. I NEVER saw Aiken run a slant for example and it was so so easy for the defenses to read

I think Brady has to take some of the heat for this as he could/should have spoken up to use the TE's better or suggest running those quick developing short plays that won us those three bowls

Forget drafts and pass rushers and running backs, if we dont get away from this years offense were an 8-8 team

 

[emoney_33]

In some ways I feel like 2007 ruined Brady and this team. Before that we dinked and dunked our way to 3 SB's, and we certianly didnt have WR's of the calibre of Moss and Welker. Now we run routes that take forever to develop and Brady stares down 2 guys - take them away and were done. I NEVER saw Aiken run a slant for example and it was so so easy for the defenses to read

Enough with the "2007 ruined Brady" crap already. People want to revise history as if 2003-2004 saw some magical passing seasons. Brady, Moss and Welker make for a better passing offense than any other combination we have had. All the facts support it. The nonsense about staring guys down might have some merit if it showed up in anything objective, like sack totals, INT, completion %, etc...

Aiken is terrible, that's why you don't see him doing anything. The problem is we need non-terrible #3/#4 WR. We absolutely need some sort of threat at the #2 wideout opposite Moss.

I think Brady has to take some of the heat for this as he could/should have spoken up to use the TE's better or suggest running those quick developing short plays that won us those three bowls

They tried screen to Edelman in the Ravens game on the first drive... negative yardage.

Forget drafts and pass rushers and running backs, if we dont get away from this years offense were an 8-8 team

this year's offense was one of the top offenses in the NFL. However there were oo many eggs in 1 basket (Moss/Welker). When Welker went down the lack of talent in the rest of the receivers was exposed dramatically. The offensive philosophy does not need to change, the WR talent needs an upgrade.

Do you remember the Titans game in 03 playoffs? Don't confuse a great defense and team with some sort of amazing offensive philosophy.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Enough with the "2007 ruined Brady" crap already. People want to revise history as if 2003-2004 saw some magical passing seasons. Brady, Moss and Welker make for a better passing offense than any other combination we have had. All the facts support it. The nonsense about staring guys down might have some merit if it showed up in anything objective, like sack totals, INT, completion %, etc...

Aiken is terrible, that's why you don't see him doing anything. The problem is we need non-terrible #3/#4 WR. We absolutely need some sort of threat at the #2 wideout opposite Moss.



They tried screen to Edelman in the Ravens game on the first drive... negative yardage.



this year's offense was one of the top offenses in the NFL. However there were oo many eggs in 1 basket (Moss/Welker). When Welker went down the lack of talent in the rest of the receivers was exposed dramatically. The offensive philosophy does not need to change, the WR talent needs an upgrade.

Do you remember the Titans game in 03 playoffs? Don't confuse a great defense and team with some sort of amazing offensive philosophy.

Fair points, but all we run is the screen - where are the slants, quick outs, fades etc - look how many times Manning and the colts run those plays. They got Moss doing it once all season (Arizona I think) and he had a great game

And as for this

The offensive philosophy does not need to change, the WR talent needs an upgrade.

Well you and I couldnt disagree more if we tried - if we think shotgun, shotgun, shotgun, draw over and over is an offensive philsopohy that works then I guess thats a matter of judegment. IMHO the only reason we got so far with it is because of the skill of Welker, Moss and Faulk and that had to run out by the end of the year

 

[emoney_33]

Welker was 2nd in the league and 1st among receivers in YAC. He's a quick-strike receiver, he had 123 receptions in 13 games. This offense does not sit back in the shotgun waiting for long routes every play. If that were the case they wouldn't have put up such good numbers against the most difficult pass defense schedule in the last 17 years.

Well you and I couldnt disagree more if we tried - if we think shotgun, shotgun, shotgun, draw over and over is an offensive philsopohy that works then I guess thats a matter of judegment. IMHO the only reason we got so far with it is because of the skill of Welker, Moss and Faulk and that had to run out by the end of the year

This offense has been growing and adapting for a decade. It's not as if 2007 saw some dramatic shift in philosophy, first of all. And second of all, 2007 proves you wrong. Not only does it work, it works to the tune of greatest season in NFL history, and a stupid Samuel gamble, referee whistle or slipper helmet away from perfection.

This offense is read-and-react, not "run down the sideline and I'll just wait for you". It has a better chance of success against multiple defenses because it adapts to what the defense is doing. There aren't many strict routes, or exact timing patterns. It's about being able to beat a wide variety of defenses, and it has proven to work.

 

[Synovia]

Yet he had the 2nd highest comp % of his career, with the LOWEST sack total of his career. Even if you discount the FACT that he had a very difficult pass-defense schedule, that does nothing to take away from the fact that you're analysis is flawed.

What was his completion percentage to guys not named Welker, Wes.


61%.


Wes Welker has had the highest catch percentage of any Wide Receiver in the NFL the last 3 years. Yes, even with Cassel throwing to him. (2009:76%, 2008:75%, 2007:77%).

Do you guys think that really doesn't matter? Do you really think thats not part of the reason that his Completion percentage was higher in 2007 and 2009 than the rest of his career?

If you replace Welker with an average NFL receiver with the same number of targets, (60% completion), Brady's completion percentage drops a full 4.5 points.

 

[Synovia]

Enough with the "2007 ruined Brady" crap already. People want to revise history as if 2003-2004 saw some magical passing seasons. Brady, Moss and Welker make for a better passing offense than any other combination we have had. All the facts support it. The nonsense about staring guys down might have some merit if it showed up in anything objective, like sack totals, INT, completion %, etc...

The numbers do support it, when you start looking at offensive performance in high leverage situations. The team since 2007 has been terrible in high leverage.

I think thats because they're predictable.

 

[emoney_33]

What was his completion percentage to guys not named Welker, Wes.


61%.

Which is still higher than 2003-2004... 2006 may have been Brady's most amazing year though.

Wes Welker has had the highest catch percentage of any Wide Receiver in the NFL the last 3 years. Yes, even with Cassel throwing to him. (2009:76%, 2008:75%, 2007:77%).

Do slot receivers not tend to have higher catch percentages? Should we re-do Brady's comp% for each year by removing his most reliable receiving option, or only for the Welker years?

Do you guys think that really doesn't matter? Do you really think thats not part of the reason that his Completion percentage was higher in 2007 and 2009 than the rest of his career?

My point is that it's better to have this offense than the 03/04 offense. This offense includes Welker. Obviously if you do not have the talent of Moss/Welker, the throws/decisions would be altered. However the argument is that Moss/Welker are making Brady a bad QB because he uses them so much. The numbers point to the fact that he is NOT a worse QB because of them, and the offense as a whole is better off.

If you replace Welker with an average NFL receiver with the same number of targets, (60% completion), Brady's completion percentage drops a full 4.5 points.

Still higher than 03-04... I'm not sure the point you are making? It seems you are arguing the same thing that I am, which is Brady + Welker + Moss > Brady + Branch + Givens.

The numbers do support it, when you start looking at offensive performance in high leverage situations. The team since 2007 has been terrible in high leverage.

I think thats because they're predictable.

Do you have these high leverage numbers you could link please, I'd like to take a look.

 

[Synovia]

Welker was 2nd in the league and 1st among receivers in YAC. He's a quick-strike receiver, he had 123 receptions in 13 games. This offense does not sit back in the shotgun waiting for long routes every play. If that were the case they wouldn't have put up such good numbers against the most difficult pass defense schedule in the last 17 years.

I'm going to ask it here: Do you even watch the patriots play? Welker is usually the relief valve. Most of his catches are 5+ seconds into a play.



[/quote]This offense has been growing and adapting for a decade. It's not as if 2007 saw some dramatic shift in philosophy, first of all.
[/quote]
2007 most definitely saw a shift in philosophy. The (non-welker) screen pretty much disappeared, as did 2 TE sets. The team started throwing deep much more often.

And second of all, 2007 proves you wrong. Not only does it work, it works to the tune of greatest season in NFL history, and a stupid Samuel gamble, referee whistle or slipper helmet away from perfection.

The fact that something worked with the 2007 staff doesn't mean it works with the current staff. Brady isn't the same, and neither is Moss, Koppen, Light, Neal, etc.

This offense is read-and-react, not "run down the sideline and I'll just wait for you". It has a better chance of success against multiple defenses because it adapts to what the defense is doing. There aren't many strict routes, or exact timing patterns. It's about being able to beat a wide variety of defenses, and it has proven to work.

I strongly object to that.

The offense was read-and-react in the early 2000s. They're not that anymore. When is the last time you saw the Pats run a screen that wasn't the single bubble-screen they run to Welker? When is the last time you saw a TE screen, or a 2 TE running set? They go out in single back shotgun almost every single down.

 

[Synovia]

Do slot receivers not tend to have higher catch percentages? Should we re-do Brady's comp% for each year by removing his most reliable receiving option, or only for the Welker years?

Not like Welker they don't. Like I said, hes had the highest Catch% each of the last 3 years (including with Cassel throwing to him). Nobody has even been withing 10% of him more than once.

Seriously, Welker is that much of an outlier.

My point is that it's better to have this offense than the 03/04 offense. This offense includes Welker. Obviously if you do not have the talent of Moss/Welker, the throws/decisions would be altered. However the argument is that Moss/Welker are making Brady a bad QB because he uses them so much. The numbers point to the fact that he is NOT a worse QB because of them, and the offense as a whole is better off.

I agree the offense is better. What I don't agree with is that the team is better. They seem to have serious issues because of how unidimensional the offense is. You bring in a guy like Revis, or a scheme designed to take away Moss, and they're sunk.

It seems like they're significantly more prone to having issues against good defenses, or having issues in one dimensional situations. Think of how easy, late game, other teams moved the ball. Then think of how much trouble late game the patriots had moving the ball.

The 2007 superbowl was a good example. Watching that game, I was yelling at the TV that they needed to run screens. The giants were sending too many guys, and leaving them wide open, but we never even attempted any (Actually there was 1, a 20+ yard gain by Maroney). It was clear that they had a game plan, and they were sticking with it, whether or not it worked.

2007 brought a certain arrogance to the offensive scheming that I think makes the team worse. They're no longer the adaptable monster they used to be.

 

[emoney_33]

I'm going to ask it here: Do you even watch the patriots play? Welker is usually the relief valve. Most of his catches are 5+ seconds into a play.

Yes I do. I'd venture to guess that less than 3% of all pass plays even take 5 seconds. You do realize how long 5 seconds is in the NFL right? That's an eternity and no OL in the universe could consistently block that long.

2007 most definitely saw a shift in philosophy. The (non-welker) screen pretty much disappeared, as did 2 TE sets. The team started throwing deep much more often.

The philosophy is read-react and using your best options. If this team had more receivers that excelled in screens, or needed to use the screen more often, they would. Maybe we just define "philosophy" differently.

The fact that something worked with the 2007 staff doesn't mean it works with the current staff. Brady isn't the same, and neither is Moss, Koppen, Light, Neal, etc.

Yet the offense produced better than any other year (2004 being the only argument) while going against the most difficult pass defense schedule in 17 years, which everyone can continue to ignore all they want.

I strongly object to that.

The offense was read-and-react in the early 2000s. They're not that anymore. When is the last time you saw the Pats run a screen that wasn't the single bubble-screen they run to Welker? When is the last time you saw a TE screen, or a 2 TE running set? They go out in single back shotgun almost every single down.

Do you understand what read-and-react is? It's about read and react route adjustment, there is not a single set route on all plays. The routes are adjusted based on how the defense is playing. This type of offense works great against multiple defenses (as proven this year against the best pass defenses, with all the injuries and coming back from ACL and etc...). You can't always run it well and it takes very intelligent players like Moss and Welker to not have Brady look like a fool throwing INTs completely away from receivers, but it is the best offense to run.

The love affair with screens and 2 TE sets makes no sense to me. You don't go against your strengths by being nostalgic for a less productive offense.

 

[emoney_33]

Not like Welker they don't. Like I said, hes had the highest Catch% each of the last 3 years (including with Cassel throwing to him). Nobody has even been withing 10% of him more than once.

Seriously, Welker is that much of an outlier.

So your point is that Welker is so good they should stop throwing to him? I don't get what your point is. There are hardly any teams who have a slot "receiver" like Welker, but some teams use their TE a lot like the Colts (Clark - 75%). Yes Welker is amazing, easily the best slot receiver in the game... how is this relevant?

I agree the offense is better. What I don't agree with is that the team is better. They seem to have serious issues because of how unidimensional the offense is. You bring in a guy like Revis, or a scheme designed to take away Moss, and they're sunk.

This doesn't make sense to me. You really think we would struggle with this offense if we had the 03-04 defense? I agree that they had too many eggs in one basket (i.e. they had no receivers outside of Moss/Welker) but that says more about their failure to add #3/#4 receivers in the offseason than it does about the offensive philosophy or style or Brady's play.

It seems like they're significantly more prone to having issues against good defenses, or having issues in one dimensional situations. Think of how easy, late game, other teams moved the ball. Then think of how much trouble late game the patriots had moving the ball.

The 2003 playoffs against the Titans is an example of struggling against a good defense. So how can you argue that the offenses of the past were better suited to beat good defenses all the time? History would be a lot different if we had the 2009 defense in 03-04. I mean a running back like the 2004 Dillon would absolutely do amazing things for this team but this offense is not to blame for the struggles.

The 2007 superbowl was a good example. Watching that game, I was yelling at the TV that they needed to run screens. The giants were sending too many guys, and leaving them wide open, but we never even attempted any (Actually there was 1, a 20+ yard gain by Maroney). It was clear that they had a game plan, and they were sticking with it, whether or not it worked.

What were you yelling while watching the 2003 Titans game? Looking back sure, we could have adapted a little better, but we were still inches away from perfection. The ref blows the whistle like he said he wanted to, Tyree's helmet gets a little more action and is a little slippier, Samuel actually sticks to his man rather than giving up on the play, etc... One game does not -prove- your point.

2007 brought a certain arrogance to the offensive scheming that I think makes the team worse. They're no longer the adaptable monster they used to be.

They are a better offense, but the defense is catching up. There is no arrogance or refusal to adapt. The passing offense is NOT worse for having Brady, Moss and Welker. They also would not be better if they tried to use Moss and Welker as Branch and Givens.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fair points, but all we run is the screen - where are the slants, quick outs, fades etc - look how many times Manning and the colts run those plays. They got Moss doing it once all season (Arizona I think) and he had a great game

And as for this



Well you and I couldnt disagree more if we tried - if we think shotgun, shotgun, shotgun, draw over and over is an offensive philsopohy that works then I guess thats a matter of judegment. IMHO the only reason we got so far with it is because of the skill of Welker, Moss and Faulk and that had to run out by the end of the year

The route tree that Welker and Edelman spend most of their time running relies very heavily on the quick out as an option. In fact, if you think back to the Jets loss, you might remember Brady missing Edelman on an out inside the red zone that should have been an easy catch and probable touchdown.

As for the "shotgun, shotgun...." argument, we know it works quite well. We've seen it work to the tune of 16-0, as a matter of fact. While it's not my preference, it's clearly capable of getting the job done.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Brady may not extend if he can't get a promise of upgrades at WR, the OL and in schemes. His body likely won't last past another year with what we have now, so what is the point of extending, other than to collect a higher 2010 paycheck? Brady has his turn at leverage now.

Brady himself has said he wants to play till 40 if his body allows him to play that long. To think he will not extend if he doesn;t get promises is the most complety ass**ine conjecture. If he walks it is b/c he has nothing left to prove or motivation is gone.

In 2011 with Raiders #1 pick Pats will look to draft a QB as by then Brady will be 35 at start of 2011 season. The next Pats QB can spend 2-3 yrs learning and not have the pressure to perform immediately. This is called sucession planning and probably why BB pulled the trigger to trade Seymour to Raiders. Then Brady and BB walk out together and the next generation of Patriots take the baton. So, window is 5 more years for this leadership