Completions to backs and TE's this year vs. other years

[PATRIOTS-80]

The percentage of Brady's completions to his TE's and RB's vs. his WRs in 2006 vs. other years

2006 (up to this point in the season)

TE’s and RB’s………47 catches…..53% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..41 catches…..47% of Brady’s completions

2005
TE’s and RB’s………123 catches….37% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..211 catches….63% of Brady’s completions

2004
TE’s and RB’s………126 catches….44% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..162 catches….56% of Brady’s completions

2003
TE’s and RB’s……….152 catches….48% of Brady’s completions
WR’s…………………165 catches….52% of Brady’s completions

My Conclusion: our offense this year is closer to our 2003 offense. That year our top 3 Wrs were Branch (57 catches), Givens (34 catches), and Brown (40 catches). 2005 was an abnormal year where we had no existent running game, and we were throwing to our wideouts a lot (not exactly the recipe for success).

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I don't mind passing more to TEs and RBs at all. Just hope the WRs get more involved as well.

But I definitely don't want to emulate the 2003 offense unless we end up with the 2003 defense as well. And Ghost better be 'clutch' if that's the case!

This ratio will surely change in favor of the WRs as the season goes on. But that just means that we will have the TE and RB help to fall back on if things get tough later on in the year.

 

[Oswlek]

The percentage of Brady's completions to his TE's and RB's vs. his WRs in 2006 vs. other years

2006 (up to this point in the season)

TE’s and RB’s………47 catches…..53% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..41 catches…..47% of Brady’s completions

2005
TE’s and RB’s………123 catches….37% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..211 catches….63% of Brady’s completions

2004
TE’s and RB’s………126 catches….44% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..162 catches….56% of Brady’s completions

2003
TE’s and RB’s……….152 catches….48% of Brady’s completions
WR’s…………………165 catches….52% of Brady’s completions

My Conclusion: our offense this year is closer to our 2003 offense. That year our top 3 Wrs were Branch (57 catches), Givens (34 catches), and Brown (40 catches). 2005 was an abnormal year where we had no existent running game, and we were throwing to our wideouts a lot (not exactly the recipe for success).

The big difference is that in 2003, the pass to the RBs and TEs were in leau of running the ball. There were deeper threats, however, with Givens, and Branch.

This year, the passes to RBs and TEs are in leau of passes to the WRs, because NE does have a running game, and that is a problem.

I disagree with NEM much of the time, because he exaggerates the issues and looks for targets rather than analyzing the overall issues. But he is right that NE will not be a great team unless they can get the WRs more involved. Even a bad defense will look decent if you don't force them to protect the whole field.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Odd, the more balanced years (2003 & 2004) seemed to last into February...an interesting look Pats-80, well done!

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

2003 -- Branch (AVG 14.1, 3 TDs), Givens (AVG 15, 6 TDS), Brown (AVG 11.8, 4 TDs).

so far in 2006 -- Gabriel (10.8, 2 TDs), Brown (AVG 11.2, 2 TDs), Caldwell (11.8, 0 TDS).

I'm thinking that our WR's avg will grow by the end of the year.

 

[Brownfan80]

With the right routes. If we continue to throw to them using the routes that have not worked, and expecting a different result, then we are proving the definition of insanity.

You are so numb to what is really going on... Brown and the familiar TEs are getting the majority of the inside routes because Brady knows where they'll be and can take that risk.

The WRs that Brady doesn't know stay outside so that Brady can throw it away easier if he needs to and also because a missed pass can sail out of bounds or a short throw falls incomplete at everyone's feet.

It's all about the risk factor. 8 TDs, 3 INTs. It -has- worked.

Run a bunch of inexperienced/unfamiliar WRs over the middle and watch Brady's INT stat bloom.

You act as though the only thing holding these WRs back is the routes they are running..

So pointless.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Pats80, thanks for these stats. A lot of people thought this would be the Pats' likely approach this year, so it is good to see we're not just flapping our jaws at times.

I think this WR corps is a work in progress, day by day... it stands to reason that this just translates into an outstanding rb/te production year, plus increasing production from the passing game. Obviously, I'm also okay w/where the running game is, by and large.

So let's see... this is the warm weather, and Dec., January, and February are really run/short pass-heavier months, outside of the domes... so it should hurt us most right now not to be airing it out... and we're presently 4-1.

Huh.

Is it just me, or does that seem okay with some of you guys too?

PFnV

 

[PatsSteve1]

With the right routes. If we continue to throw to them using the routes that have not worked, and expecting a different result, then we are proving the definition of insanity.

* Watching on TV, you rarely get the view where you can see what route each reciever ran. I doubt on every pass play no one runs and inside route.

 

[Fencer]

Throw in the running game, and it would seem that a LOT more of the plays are for the RBs and TEs combined than they used to be. That said, it used to be that RB + TE was 2/5 of the offensive skill positions, Brady excepted. Now it's 3/5 or higher on a lot of downs. The difference is even more extreme if you take one TE or H-back out of the calculation because he's used mainly as a blocker. ... Note: It's impossible to do the calculation about play share precisely, because it really should include incomplete passes and other busted plays, and because most passing plays give Brady a choice of where to throw.

 

[DarrylS]

Pats80, thanks for these stats. A lot of people thought this would be the Pats' likely approach this year, so it is good to see we're not just flapping our jaws at times.

I think this WR corps is a work in progress, day by day... it stands to reason that this just translates into an outstanding rb/te production year, plus increasing production from the passing game. Obviously, I'm also okay w/where the running game is, by and large.

So let's see... this is the warm weather, and Dec., January, and February are really run/short pass-heavier months, outside of the domes... so it should hurt us most right now not to be airing it out... and we're presently 4-1.

Huh.

Is it just me, or does that seem okay with some of you guys too?

PFnV

Seems perfectly fine to me, have never seen so much discontent about a 4-1 team.. so much so want to pick an overpaid, cancer that would effect this team and its salary structure, want to fire an O-Coordinator.. stop the madness we are 4-1 and look to get better all of the time.

 

[gomezcat]

The percentage of Brady's completions to his TE's and RB's vs. his WRs in 2006 vs. other years

2006 (up to this point in the season)

TE’s and RB’s………47 catches…..53% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..41 catches…..47% of Brady’s completions

2005
TE’s and RB’s………123 catches….37% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..211 catches….63% of Brady’s completions

2004
TE’s and RB’s………126 catches….44% of Brady’s completions
WR’s………………..162 catches….56% of Brady’s completions

2003
TE’s and RB’s……….152 catches….48% of Brady’s completions
WR’s…………………165 catches….52% of Brady’s completions

My Conclusion: our offense this year is closer to our 2003 offense. That year our top 3 Wrs were Branch (57 catches), Givens (34 catches), and Brown (40 catches). 2005 was an abnormal year where we had no existent running game, and we were throwing to our wideouts a lot (not exactly the recipe for success).

Great post, Patriots 80. I guess that shows the value in not giving the D a couple of targets to concentrate on when it comes to coverage. Mike Martz's Rams, Dallas in the 90s and the 49ers before them come to mind as teams that did this successfully.