Can our offense be better than last years?

[JoeSixPat]

When the offense scores more points (turnovers notwithstanding of course) it did its job better.
Winning the SB isn't having the best offense, its having the best team.

Is a good offense and good defense better than a great offense and bad defense. Yes. But a great offense and good defense is better than both.

You can't take the results of the TEAM and conclude that the offense that scores more points was less effective because it didn't win a SB. With the 2003 defense we would have won 4 of the last 6 SBs.

You're arguing completely different points - none of which I really take issue with.

The point here, as illustrated by the 2003, 2006 (and even 2007) seasons is that some fans are far too obsessed with QUANTITY of offensive stats, and not enough with the QUALITY of a team's offensive stats...

... specifically, did they make a first down when they absolutely HAD to make it?

There's little solace in demonstrating that statistically the Patriots had a better offense in 2006 than in 2003

But I'll take the 2003 offense every single time. They made the quality catches and yards when it counted most - but the stats don't necessarily reflect that.

Now don't go be obtuse by taking that out of context and assert that anyone is ADVOCATING for a bad offense as the key to winning Super Bowls. I think you know what I and others are saying - it just doesn't jibe with whatever point it is you are so intent on making.

The bottom line is that this year's offense could be - and likely will be - worse from a quantity stat level than last year... and but from a quality standpoint it could be better and achieve a better outcome.

 

[tonyto3690]

When you’re a wide receiver like Welker or Amendola and you make the majority of your receptions either underneath or over the middle you have to rely heavily on the quarterback to place the ball in an area that allows you to be able to protect yourself or at least not hang you out to dry. Brady is very good at that overall, easily the best in the league; there is a noticeable difference in games where Brady is playing from behind or against a tough defense where he is more desperate for points and without the time to do it properly, an example would be against Seattle when Welker got lit up several times. The occasional unprotected situation that Brady put Welker in was the norm for the positions Bradford and others put Amendola in, playing with Brady I do not have nearly the concerns about health for Amendola as I would elsewhere; I do however believe Welker will have injury issues this year, nobody hangs their wide receivers out to dry over the last decade and a half more than Manning (Collie, Clark, Gonzalez, Stokely have all had head/ neck injuries).

This reminds me - Ian can we create a smiley of a head falling off it's neck and label it :manning: :lol2:

That is a completely legitimate point. But even if Amendola does match Welker's production (which is generous to begin with) who replaces Lloyd? Who replaces Hernandez? Those are two weapons teams had to legitimately account for every down.

Unless Amendola churns out a 140 catch, 1600 yard, 12 TD season along with Gronk going for 120, 1500, 30 TD season, it's hard to imagine us coming close to last years production. Dobson Boyce and Thompkins have looked nice in camp but they haven't played a single down against real NFL defenses play real schemes. Expecting TWO to not only be immune to three decades of evidence that tells us rookies have a very hard time to adjust to the NFL level, PLUS dealing with how especially difficult it is to pick up the Patriots system, is just unrealistic.

I think the best case for "better" would be that we have continuity on the OL and could in theory be a better running team with receivers who can actually win down the field in non-gimmick plays that give them 30 minutes to give open. We won't score as many points, but we will be able to score long drives and there won't be the entire burden of success put completely on Bradys shoulders to throw 8 consecutive perfect 8 yard slants 10 times a drive to score. Furthermore, our WRs are almost all universely bigger (even Amendola is bigger than Welker), and in the playoffs we've been killed because refs are much less likely to call DPI and the Jets/Ravens have gotten away with murder on Welker/Branch/Lloyd and we couldn't do anything about it.

 

[NEPettyOfficer72]

That is a completely legitimate point. But even if Amendola does match Welker's production (which is generous to begin with) who replaces Lloyd? Who replaces Hernandez? Those are two weapons teams had to legitimately account for every down.

Unless Amendola churns out a 140 catch, 1600 yard, 12 TD season along with Gronk going for 120, 1500, 30 TD season, it's hard to imagine us coming close to last years production. Dobson Boyce and Thompkins have looked nice in camp but they haven't played a single down against real NFL defenses play real schemes. Expecting TWO to not only be immune to three decades of evidence that tells us rookies have a very hard time to adjust to the NFL level, PLUS dealing with how especially difficult it is to pick up the Patriots system, is just unrealistic.

I think the best case for "better" would be that we have continuity on the OL and could in theory be a better running team with receivers who can actually win down the field in non-gimmick plays that give them 30 minutes to give open. We won't score as many points, but we will be able to score long drives and there won't be the entire burden of success put completely on Bradys shoulders to throw 8 consecutive perfect 8 yard slants 10 times a drive to score. Furthermore, our WRs are almost all universely bigger (even Amendola is bigger than Welker), and in the playoffs we've been killed because refs are much less likely to call DPI and the Jets/Ravens have gotten away with murder on Welker/Branch/Lloyd and we couldn't do anything about it.

Brandon Lloyd had to legitimately be accounted for? :bricks:

That was one of the problems, teams didn't respect Lloyd which allowed them to clog the middle.

Branch simply couldn't get open anymore past 2011

Aaron Hernandez was knicked up for most of the season

Amendola at least can get deep, Wes couldn't

 

[Brady6]

That is a completely legitimate point. But even if Amendola does match Welker's production (which is generous to begin with) who replaces Lloyd? Who replaces Hernandez? Those are two weapons teams had to legitimately account for every down.

Unless Amendola churns out a 140 catch, 1600 yard, 12 TD season along with Gronk going for 120, 1500, 30 TD season, it's hard to imagine us coming close to last years production. Dobson Boyce and Thompkins have looked nice in camp but they haven't played a single down against real NFL defenses play real schemes. Expecting TWO to not only be immune to three decades of evidence that tells us rookies have a very hard time to adjust to the NFL level, PLUS dealing with how especially difficult it is to pick up the Patriots system, is just unrealistic.

I think the best case for "better" would be that we have continuity on the OL and could in theory be a better running team with receivers who can actually win down the field in non-gimmick plays that give them 30 minutes to give open. We won't score as many points, but we will be able to score long drives and there won't be the entire burden of success put completely on Bradys shoulders to throw 8 consecutive perfect 8 yard slants 10 times a drive to score. Furthermore, our WRs are almost all universely bigger (even Amendola is bigger than Welker), and in the playoffs we've been killed because refs are much less likely to call DPI and the Jets/Ravens have gotten away with murder on Welker/Branch/Lloyd and we couldn't do anything about it.

T as I said in a previous post I don’t think the offense will be better; I think it will be different, it will be centered less around one receiver and likely less around the middle of the field. I also do not think the offense has to be as good as in years past, during that time Belichick was rebuilding the defense, the rebuild for the most part is complete now; this is likely the reason he felt comfortable moving forward with rebuilding the wide receiver group this season, had he not I’m sure he would of retained Welker or Lloyd maybe even both for an additional season. I may not always understand or agree what Belichick does but I never question that his number #1 interest is winning and he would not act on something unless he felt he could win despite the drawbacks.

To address the replacing of Hernandez question; that would have been more concerning if you asked it after the 2011 season, the reality is that Hernandez and Gronkowski were only healthy and on the field for week 1 of last season. Hernandez is a loss but he was not the impact player he was in 2011 due to the combination of injuries and in my opinion regression in his performance. I look at it in terms of units and last season our tight end combined for 115 receptions, 1467 yards, and 16 touchdowns in 2012; with the return of a healthy Gronkowski (who on his own in 2011 had 1 more touchdown and just 140 yards less than the entire group combined in 2012) and some level of contributions from some type of combination of Ballard, Fells, Hooman, Sudfeld and Ford I am confident that we can match the production of 2012, maybe even exceed it.

Lloyd I personally view as a journey man WR; who’s production was poor considering he was targeted 130 times, I would honestly say even if you have to run Michael Jenkins onto the field and toss the ball his direction a 130 times he will have better production than Lloyd had, and I do not question he could get open just as easily as Lloyd. And Michael Jenkins is worst case scenario in my opinion.

 

[ausbacker]

The Patriots don't need the Offense to be better than last year, the Patriots need the Offense to be more versatile than last year. Without Gronkowski, the passing game was reduced to Welker and Hernandez, two noted slot players. This season, if the Patriots can develop a reliable passing game outside the hashmarks with one or two or three of Boyce, Dobson and Thompkins stepping up, return a healthy Gronkowski and retain a healthy Amendola, coupled with an elite running game, the sky could be the limit.

Right now, there are too many "ifs" but I'm not going to lie, I'm excited that the Patriots may be a more complete Offense. Whichever way it's spun, I want to see major improvement from the D in 2013 and the Playoffs.

 

[Ring 6]

You're arguing completely different points - none of which I really take issue with.

The point here, as illustrated by the 2003, 2006 (and even 2007) seasons is that some fans are far too obsessed with QUANTITY of offensive stats, and not enough with the QUALITY of a team's offensive stats...

... specifically, did they make a first down when they absolutely HAD to make it?

There's little solace in demonstrating that statistically the Patriots had a better offense in 2006 than in 2003

But I'll take the 2003 offense every single time. They made the quality catches and yards when it counted most - but the stats don't necessarily reflect that.

Now don't go be obtuse by taking that out of context and assert that anyone is ADVOCATING for a bad offense as the key to winning Super Bowls. I think you know what I and others are saying - it just doesn't jibe with whatever point it is you are so intent on making.

The bottom line is that this year's offense could be - and likely will be - worse from a quantity stat level than last year... and but from a quality standpoint it could be better and achieve a better outcome.

Also dont so much disagree but a lot of post take the approach that scoring a lot of point IS the flaw.
No doubt scoring when it counts matters most, but the 2 are not mutually exclusive.
As I said if we had the 2003 D every year since 2003 we would have at least 4 more rings.

 

[patsfan13]

The 'problem' the past couple of the years with the O was the injuries late in the year.

The NFL is a war of attrition, health is a key to winning/getting to the SB. Look at how healthy the 49'ers were last year.......

If,if if this group is healthy at the end of the year it could be a better o than last years team in the playoffs. Which is what I care about.

 

[Joker]

The 'problem' the past couple of the years with the O was the injuries late in the year.

The NFL is a war of attrition, health is a key to winning/getting to the SB. Look at how healthy the 49'ers were last year.......

If,if if this group is healthy at the end of the year it could be a better o than last years team in the playoffs. Which is what I care about.

smash the gawk in the pocket during the AFC championship and go to the Bowl....forget the drops and sputtering offense. ..lack of ANY defensive pressure THAT is what really beat us.

 

[Ring 6]

The 'problem' the past couple of the years with the O was the injuries late in the year.

The NFL is a war of attrition, health is a key to winning/getting to the SB. Look at how healthy the 49'ers were last year.......

If,if if this group is healthy at the end of the year it could be a better o than last years team in the playoffs. Which is what I care about.

I actually think the problem has been how we approach those games. Whether it is scheme or execution, we end up trying to hard to stay in down and distance advantages rather than make plays.
When at our best we are making 1st downs on 1st and 2nd and not needing to convert many 3rds. However, we are so good at converting 3rd we fall into the trap of getting conservative and relying on being in good convertible 3rd downs. While we still perform well, we end up needing 6 3rd down conversions in a row to go the length of the field and get stopped short too often, usually in the +40 to +20 area.
Personally, I think it comes from a lack of trust in the defense. The biggest, and really debilitating (as far as rings) flaw on this team for 7 years has been the inability to stop a team in situaitons where they will do nothing but pass.
If you trust the D you can risk big plays shots that risk 3 and outs. If not, you get safe. Weve been safe. Given we own 3rd down, it makes sense, but hasn't quite worked out.

 

[Ring 6]

smash the gawk in the pocket during the AFC championship and go to the Bowl....forget the drops and sputtering offense. ..lack of ANY defensive pressure THAT is what really beat us.

And/or sell out to cover tight if you believe your rush won't give them an hour to sit back and pick you apart.

 

[Bruins29]

The 'problem' the past couple of the years with the O was the injuries late in the year.

The NFL is a war of attrition, health is a key to winning/getting to the SB. Look at how healthy the 49'ers were last year.......

If,if if this group is healthy at the end of the year it could be a better o than last years team in the playoffs. Which is what I care about.

Exactly! Which is why I find it strange that people support TB staying in games late. Every year we hear about him playing though pain in the playoffs because of some injury. I think the Pats should make sure that their 36 year old HOF QB stays healthy and that might mean at the end of games that are alreasdy out of hand that he comes out.

I understand the trying to get better running up the score but you dont need TB in a game taking unnecessary hits.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly! Which is why I find it strange that people support TB staying in games late. Every year we hear about him playing though pain in the playoffs because of some injury. I think the Pats should make sure that their 36 year old HOF QB stays healthy and that might mean at the end of games that are alreasdy out of hand that he comes out.

I understand the trying to get better running up the score but you dont need TB in a game taking unnecessary hits.

I dont think running up the score has anything to do with it.
I think this team believes the best way to be a better football team is to play football. Stopping after 3 quarters doesn't get the most growth for your team out of that game.
As an offense you get about 1000 plays, 500 minutes and maybe 200-250 drives. I think the philosophy is those drives are the main way you improve as a team. That is why they are against giving up any of them.

 

[mgteich]

2012 tight end production for four tight ends totaled 105 catches for 1458 years. Depending on when Gronkowski is healthy, these should be reachable numbers for 2013.

Unless Amendola churns out a 140 catch, 1600 yard, 12 TD season along with Gronk going for 120, 1500, 30 TD season, it's hard to imagine us coming close to last years production.

 

[Bruins29]

I dont think running up the score has anything to do with it.
I think this team believes the best way to be a better football team is to play football. Stopping after 3 quarters doesn't get the most growth for your team out of that game.
As an offense you get about 1000 plays, 500 minutes and maybe 200-250 drives. I think the philosophy is those drives are the main way you improve as a team. That is why they are against giving up any of them.

I wrote it looking like I meant they were connected and they are not. I understand them putting up points to improve and people considering it "running up the score" when its them taking advantage of game conditions.

BB has said it multiple times. Fans of other teams are just jealous jerks.

 

[Ring 6]

I wrote it looking like I meant they were connected. I understand them putting up point to improve and people considering it "running up the score" when its them taking advantage of game conditions.

BB has said it multiple times. Fans of other teams are just jealous jerks.

OK. Yeah I could not care less what anyone thinks.
We see it when he could rest players in week 17.
Football players play. The risk of being out of sync and at the top of your game by sitting out is a bigger problem than the risk of injury.
Every decision has a consequence, and if you believe playing more makes you play better, sitting players is just as risky in the big picture as the possibility of injury.

 

[Bruins29]

Exactly... which is why when people proclaim that PUPing Gronk is the right thing to do, I tell them exactly that. 9 months of him not playing at all is a great way for him to get injured when he does again.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Can our offense be better than last years?

Exactly... which is why when people proclaim that PUPing Gronk is the right thing to do, I tell them exactly that. 9 months of him not playing at all is a great way for him to get injured when he does again.

Saw a report on ESPN that JPP was expected back for week one, didn't they go under the knife around the same time and have the same procedure?

 

[Oswlek]

The disucssion wasn't about productivity. It was about calling a player EXCEPTIONALLY talented before he plays a snap.
Are you honestly saying the consensus in the NFL was that these guys have talent levels considered EXCEPTIONAL at the NFL level and they were drafted where they were? Thats silly.

Total strawman.

Then define 'extremely talented'. I define it roughly as among the 20 best.

20 best according to what? If not production, what are we supposed to rate by? Do you see how this contradicts the first statement above?

Listing the top 20 most productive WRs and demonstrating that only 5 of them met your criteria is about the polar opposite of a "straw man." You might want to look up what that phrase means.

Additionally, you are the one adding so much emphasis to the "exceptionally" part of the phrase, which was clearly hyperbolic license on the part of the original poster. I never said they were "exceptional" at anything, just that elite caliber receivers arrive later than pick 16 all the time.

What? Comparing him to the man the poster said he will be better than is disingenuous? That is the standard he has to rise to is it not?
You act as if its comparing Pop Warner to the NFL.

No, I act as if you shouldn't use post-Patriot production when discussing a PRE-Patriot comparison. Seems pretty simple.

You were responding to a statement that said an offenses job is to score points.

No, I was responding to a statement about offense in general with the point that consistently under performing regular season production by more than 2 touchdowns could be signs of a problem. And that, perhaps the offense doesn't need to score at an historic pace if it maintains its levels better in the post-season.

Let me put it this way. Your guess at Brandon Lloyd commitment, effort or heart is completely meaningless to me. You have 0% of the data needed to make that judgment.

I can only go by what I see. The same goes for you, you know.

Andy, you are a very bright guy with some top notch posts, but you aren't as insightful as you think you are. And bullying people doesn't make you look any smarter.

 

[Bruins29]

Saw a report on ESPN that JPP was expected back for week one, didn't they go under the knife around the same time and have the same procedure?

Yeah, it was something like that. Gronk should be on the 53 if there is no setback.

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: Can our offense be better than last years?

Yeah, it was something like that. Gronk should be on the 53 if there was no setback.

I agree; I would like to see him out there by week 3, and we can work him in slowly in all the games leading up to the bye week. Then after the bye let him loose completely.