Excellent proposal: reduce the complexity of the offense

[Patspsycho]

The systems complexity is what helps make the Pats one of the most intelligent teams in the league year in and year out. Why in the world would you want to change that to bring in dumbasses like Santonio Holmes?

The point wasn't to "dumb" down the offense to a point where even Chad Jackson could pick it up, it's to remove some elements that are making it way too complex.

Case in example: they started giving Ocho more simple routes to run late in the year. Small changes like that. Not a major redesign of the offense, obviously.

 

[patfanken]

There IS something to say about the relative benefits of a complex scheme with multiple reads by the QB and various receivers to a more simple offense that excels in execution. Ray Berry and Johnny Unitas both got into the HOF because they perfected their execution to the point where even if the DB knew the route he couldn't stop it.

I have long thought that passing offenses have gotten too complicated. Everything in football is cyclical. Maybe now its time to go back to where execution trumps scheme again. I'm not saying going back to simply running the patterns called in the huddle. You can do more than that.

What I'm wondering is if you can eliminate the WR read, you eliminate 50% of the possible mistakes and confusion in the QBs mind. Leave it to the QB to determine the defense. Being in the center of the field, he's in the best position to determine what the defense is going to try and do on that particular play. I want the receiver to leave the LOS already knowing exactly where he is going, NOT have to make that determination on the fly AS he starts his route. You vastly increase the chances he is going to be where he is supposed to be this way.

You don't have to become inflexible OR at the mercy of the defense's play call. If the defense isn't conducive to the play that was called in the huddle the QB can change it on the LOS. But he changes it to a play which predetermine's the routes that will be run.

Personally I'm not really worried about the coverage. We should all know by now that, regardless of coverage, a well thrown, well timed pass, to a receiver who has run his route correctly is virtually impossible to stop. So even if the pass play isn't the perfect play for the defense. Or even if the defense has fooled the QB into thinking one thing rather than the other, because the QB and receiver are so completely on the same page, there is still a chance the play might work.

I just think when you need to have 4-5 guys all having to make the exact same reads CONSISTENTLY...on the fly....is just too hard. It works well on paper, but its a lot harder in reality. I wonder if the we aren't reaching a point of diminishing returns and should swing the pendulum back to a simpler path. Not all the way back, but back nonetheless.

This is definitely worth at least a discussion

 

[Triumph]

The only point I have to make is that the superbowl was won by a team with a much simpler offense.

Better WRs.

Better than the NE DBs for sure.

 

[DaBruinz]

If an offense has 3 guys with 5 options, it means there are 15 possibilities.

If an offense has 5 guys with 3 options, it still means there are 15 possibilities.

The latter is "simpler" for the receivers yet has the same complexity.

I would bet the offense will be more "complex" because the additions by definition provide more skills over a greater part of the field. However, at the individual game basis, plays will be simplified with fewer but better play by play matchups.

That is comparing apples to oranges..

A more appropriate example would be this:

A 5 Receiver set with each receiver having 3 options = 15 possible combinations.

A 5 receiver set with each receiver having 5 options = 25 possibilities.

The idea that limiting the options doesn't making it easier for the defense to defend doesn't hold water, nor does it provide more skills over a greater part of the field. A defensive player has a 1 in 3 chance of playing the play properly with only 3 options versus a 1 in 5 chance with 5 options.

No matter how you cut it, making the offense "less complex" doesn't help anyone but the defense defend against it.

 

[everlong]

I just think when you need to have 4-5 guys all having to make the exact same reads CONSISTENTLY...on the fly....is just too hard.

The problem becomes if you simplify it for the outside receiver for instance so he's running a set route but the slot receivers read brings him into the area where the outside receiver will be regardless it screws the entire play up.

Maybe they can dumb it down a notch but you would have thought they would have done that for Chad last year. Their language is very verbose so what do you do add an extra section at the end for one guy?

Omaha triple set zero X cross with dumb@ss 85 fly.

 

[DaBruinz]

The only point I have to make is that the superbowl was won by a team with a much simpler offense.

It was won by the team with the better pass rush for that particular game.

 

[Deus Irae]

There IS something to say about the relative benefits of a complex scheme with multiple reads by the QB and various receivers to a more simple offense that excels in execution. Ray Berry and Johnny Unitas both got into the HOF because they perfected their execution to the point where even if the DB knew the route he couldn't stop it.

I have long thought that passing offenses have gotten too complicated. Everything in football is cyclical. Maybe now its time to go back to where execution trumps scheme again. I'm not saying going back to simply running the patterns called in the huddle. You can do more than that.

What I'm wondering is if you can eliminate the WR read, you eliminate 50% of the possible mistakes and confusion in the QBs mind. Leave it to the QB to determine the defense. Being in the center of the field, he's in the best position to determine what the defense is going to try and do on that particular play. I want the receiver to leave the LOS already knowing exactly where he is going, NOT have to make that determination on the fly AS he starts his route. You vastly increase the chances he is going to be where he is supposed to be this way.

You don't have to become inflexible OR at the mercy of the defense's play call. If the defense isn't conducive to the play that was called in the huddle the QB can change it on the LOS. But he changes it to a play which predetermine's the routes that will be run.

Personally I'm not really worried about the coverage. We should all know by now that, regardless of coverage, a well thrown, well timed pass, to a receiver who has run his route correctly is virtually impossible to stop. So even if the pass play isn't the perfect play for the defense. Or even if the defense has fooled the QB into thinking one thing rather than the other, because the QB and receiver are so completely on the same page, there is still a chance the play might work.

I just think when you need to have 4-5 guys all having to make the exact same reads CONSISTENTLY...on the fly....is just too hard. It works well on paper, but its a lot harder in reality. I wonder if the we aren't reaching a point of diminishing returns and should swing the pendulum back to a simpler path. Not all the way back, but back nonetheless.

This is definitely worth at least a discussion

Since McDaniels officially took over as O.C. in 2006 and the offensive transformation began to take shape, the Patriots have set the record for most points in a season, gotten to 3 AFCCGs and 2 Super Bowls, gone 16-0, gone 76-20, Missed the playoffs only when Brady was out for the season, been ranked no lower than 8th in points scored and 11th in yards gained, and had 2 seasons with more than a 200 point differential between points scored and points allowed (In other words, more than a 12.5 ppg spread), one of which was actually more than a 300 point gap.

 

[Rob0729]

The only point I have to make is that the superbowl was won by a team with a much simpler offense.

According to Scott Zolak, the Steelers' offense is actually pretty complex. Just in different ways. The Steelers also won the Super Bowl with a dominant defense and QB who can run around for 5-7 seconds without being brought down so his receivers can get open.

Odds are good that if the are going to win the Super Bowl, it is going to be in large part because of their offense. One of the things that makes the Pats' offense so good is its complexity. You make the offense less complex, it may make it easier for young players to learn, but it also makes it easier for defenders to read and defend.

There is more than one way to win a Super Bowl, but part of the Pats' formula to win a Super Bowl is complex offenses that make it hard to defend. You take that away and you hurt the Pats' chances of winning the Super Bowl.

 

[BradyManny]

Reduce the offense in '12? - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I, for one, agree with this notion. For one thing, it would cut down on the number of busts we've had at the receiver position.

Forgive me for posting before having read the proposition.

But the notion is absurd.

The offense might be complex for receivers to learn. Sure. But more importantly, it's infinitely more complex for opposing defenses to defend.

The passing offense - without the benefit of an outside receiver - dragged this make-shift, patch-work defense to a 27-5 record the last two years - and to the brink of a championship.

It was one completed pass away from doing it, too - in a game in which the Patriots defense literally could not get off the field - shrinking the game in half and limiting offensive opportunities - and could not force a punt that didn't result in nightmare-ish field position that stretched the field for this offense.

Let me break it down for people. It's not that simple.

Offense = personnel is fine, other than outside receiver, which is easy to fix, and they have attempted to do so all offseason.
Defense = secondary personnel was an abomination, front seven has some real holes, the on-field production was historically bad, and Bill Belichick managed to will it up to mediocrity. It will be addressed in the draft - and with returning health and emergence of youngsters.

Priorities, people, priorities. This offense has been excelling playing alongside a defense that is the complete opposite of complementary, and is in fact, hindering the team's offensive output by limiting possessions and opportunities.

This offense excels greatly due to the complexity of its scheme - and its quarterback's ability to work within that scheme.

Don't break the biggest asset on this team.

 

[DaBruinz]

The point wasn't to "dumb" down the offense to a point where even Chad Jackson could pick it up, it's to remove some elements that are making it way too complex.

Case in example: they started giving Ocho more simple routes to run late in the year. Small changes like that. Not a major redesign of the offense, obviously.

Wrong. Even Ocho said that wasn't the case. He said his biggest problem was having to THINK about what he was supposed to do instead of it being second nature. People make all sorts of BS claims about what Ocho's problem was last year. Claiming he didn't know the playbook and such. He knew the playbook. The problem was in his execution. He had to THINK things through. If I see the defenders doing X,Y,Z, I need to do A. And that made him slower in his reaction times.

But, as many people pointed out, there were plenty of times that Chad was open and Brady just didn't throw him the ball. Look what happened in the SB. Chad had on of the longest receptions for the Pats and then they ignored him the rest of the game.

 

[Zeus]

Yes, this offense is complex and this has far more advantages than disadvantages. The reason it works is because of the quarterback. Most teams can't function at this level becuase they lack the skill, knowledge, and ability to execute at the QB position. Dumbing down the offense for the sake of the receivers would be a tremendous waste of the exceptional talent that puts on #12 every Sunday for the New England Patriots.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Actually, with the addition of Lloyd (who knows the offense already), along with the return of Brady, Welker, Gronk, and Hern, I was actually hoping to see the complexity of the offense increase to make it tougher on defenses to defend. Not the other way around!

 

[BradyManny]

The only point I have to make is that the superbowl was won by a team with a much simpler offense.

First off - for anyone to want the Patriots to make sweeping philosophical changes b/c of the outcome of the Super Bowl, that's asinine.

A) They got there.

B) Had one of two fumbles bounced towards a Patriot defender, they win that game.

So let's keep that caveat in mind.

However, the larger point - the team with the simpler offense may have won the Super Bowl, but that wasn't the reason. The team without Bill Belichick coaching it also won, are you suggesting that we fire Bill Belichick and hire Tom Coughlin? Please re-learn causation and correlation...

The thing we can take from the last several Super Bowls is that the team with more offensive weapons has won. If you want to add in there team's with greater pass rush, sure.

But let's look at Saints, Packers, Giants. They just had more weapons than their opposition could handle - and more weapons than their opposition could counter with on their own offense.

If Gronk's healthy, then we have more weaponry. He wasn't, so it goes to the team with one more guy than we could defend. In this case, it was Manningham down the sideline with a dagger to our hearts.

Brandon Lloyd, presumably, puts us over the top.

And I have to remind you - the reason Gronk, Welker & Hernandez were so damn productive in this offense has a lot to do with their mastery, and their quarterback's mastery, of this offense.

I mean, come on. Should we look at other things in society that are difficult to learn but are extremely efficient and productive and try to dumb those down to to make finding people to learn it easier? Gimme a break.

You have a football PhD at QB for this team. Find him students that can learn from him and produce. It's been working. Don't mess with it.

 

[Ring 6]

The only point I have to make is that the superbowl was won by a team with a much simpler offense.

The SB was also won by a team that places little emphasis on TEs, but that doesn't mean using TEs less will make you a better team.

 

[Fencer]

If an offense has 3 guys with 5 options, it means there are 15 possibilities.

If an offense has 5 guys with 3 options, it still means there are 15 possibilities.

The latter is "simpler" for the receivers yet has the same complexity.

I would bet the offense will be more "complex" because the additions by definition provide more skills over a greater part of the field. However, at the individual game basis, plays will be simplified with fewer but better play by play matchups.

That is badly flawed reasoning, or else badly explained.

It would seem the numbers you wanted were not 15, but rather 3^5 = 243 and 5^3 = 125.

However, each of the 5 receivers doesn't have to decide among 125 options; he just has to decide what HE will do.

The real question is -- how many reads does he have to make to decide? How many possible evaluations of the situation does he have to choose among, before making one of his limited number of choices? What's the longest string of recognition/decisions he might have to make?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

That is comparing apples to oranges..

A more appropriate example would be this:

A 5 Receiver set with each receiver having 3 options = 15 possible combinations.

A 5 receiver set with each receiver having 5 options = 25 possibilities.

The idea that limiting the options doesn't making it easier for the defense to defend doesn't hold water, nor does it provide more skills over a greater part of the field. A defensive player has a 1 in 3 chance of playing the play properly with only 3 options versus a 1 in 5 chance with 5 options.

No matter how you cut it, making the offense "less complex" doesn't help anyone but the defense defend against it.

In your example, 25 possibilities does sound better. However, each play has a time limit.

In the early stages of WWII, many of the Japanese failures were the result of overly complicated and sophisticated plans. Likewise, the difference between Montgomery and the guys he followed was he knew he had superiority and used it. He didn't get sucked into a fluid mobile battle and lose.

With the 2012 additions, the actual physical talent is much better and with with more possibilities; the offense over the season will be more complex.

However, on a game by game basis, we will have better matchups so the need for complex options is not as great.

Better talent= not needing to be so "cute".

If you can run the ball down your opponents throats and both know it can't be stopped........do you switch to sophisticated 5 WR plays?

 

[patsfan13]

2 SB were lost since 2007 in both cases the QB was injured and the team had 4 qtr leads.

No as to the O being too complex, we have had a numbers of players who have thrived in this offense, Welker, Branch, Patten, Gaffney, Gronk, Hernandez, Moss and are bringing in a WR Lloyd that has excelled in this system.

Part of the reason we run a complex system is that out HOF? GOAT QB T Brady has as his greatest strength the ability read the D at the line and make the correct read and attack what the O is giving. HE does this better arguably than any QB in the history of the game. Why would we possibly want to take away that which our best player is at his best doing?

Maybe when Brady retires the O will need to be made somewhat more simple, not not no way.

 

[Patspsycho]

Wrong. Even Ocho said that wasn't the case. He said his biggest problem was having to THINK about what he was supposed to do instead of it being second nature. People make all sorts of BS claims about what Ocho's problem was last year. Claiming he didn't know the playbook and such. He knew the playbook. The problem was in his execution. He had to THINK things through. If I see the defenders doing X,Y,Z, I need to do A. And that made him slower in his reaction times.

But, as many people pointed out, there were plenty of times that Chad was open and Brady just didn't throw him the ball. Look what happened in the SB. Chad had on of the longest receptions for the Pats and then they ignored him the rest of the game.

The problem with this assertion is that Chad lined up in the wrong spot quite a few times pre-snap.

 

[Patspsycho]

According to Scott Zolak, the Steelers' offense is actually pretty complex. Just in different ways. The Steelers also won the Super Bowl with a dominant defense and QB who can run around for 5-7 seconds without being brought down so his receivers can get open.

Odds are good that if the are going to win the Super Bowl, it is going to be in large part because of their offense. One of the things that makes the Pats' offense so good is its complexity. You make the offense less complex, it may make it easier for young players to learn, but it also makes it easier for defenders to read and defend.

There is more than one way to win a Super Bowl, but part of the Pats' formula to win a Super Bowl is complex offenses that make it hard to defend. You take that away and you hurt the Pats' chances of winning the Super Bowl.

Not going to come down to offense, but to execution, as BB would tell you.

I did not say make the system less complex, just to take away complex aspects of it, but for those who master it- don't change a thing (e.g., Welker).

 

[SONS_OF_BELICHICK]

for some reason....people think we are drafting for a flag football league......
many players have succeeded in this system...so its going to be up to the player to learn it. A complex system takes time ...and sometimes it works and not in others....thats why BB is signing players who have or can succeed in this offense....