Excellent proposal: reduce the complexity of the offense

[patsfan13]

So, we are to go to back to 2007 when we depended on our passing offense less, and didn't depend on only 2 wide receivers??????

2007 O with much better TE play...scary potential.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.

 

[BradyManny]

Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.

So, let me get this straight...Ochocinco was getting open, Brady was ignoring him, and the coaching staff, rather than simply telling Brady to look for him during film study, decided not to play Ochocinco at all.

Come on, that's gotta be the least sensible thing you've posted on this forum. I think you're reaching here. Consider the process.

If Ochocinco wasn't getting snaps, it has nothing to do with Brady not looking for him. Bill O'Brien and Bill Belichick decide who gets snaps in the game - and reps in practice, not Brady.

 

[BradyManny]

Also, a coach is never going to pull a receiver who is getting open in place of a receiver who isn't, regardless of whether the QB throws to him or not.

Lastly, if Reiss numbers are right - Ochocinco was on the field for 354 snaps - he was targeted 33 times in that timespan. Just shy of 10% of the time he was on the field. Deion Branch was on the field for 1020 snaps, he was targeted 100 times. Just shy of 10% of the time as well.

Per play, Ocho was targeted just as much as Branch.

 

[Ilikehappyppl]

lol,

Ok you run right, you run left and you run straight! Break!


I don't think it really matters, the Pat's only draft players and sigh free agents that they think can do well in their system. If your a "PRO" you went to college....I don't think 50-60-70-80 plays should be that hard....

Its like me or you going to our job and asking could you plz dumb down my job so i can do it better.....if you can't understand a playbook, good luck later in life selling games at GameStop or working at a Bar. Cause in life you get a playbook too and it has 50-60-70-80 plays.

Being a "PRO" You should have no issues understanding a playbook, if you can't I don't really want you on my team, I want smart,fast,strong and full of heart in my players.....You want a guy that can run a 40 in 4.25? but can't tie his own shoes?

That's why Brady is the man, he's smart a hard worker and has heart, Tom could throw the ball 70 yards and have a rocket arm and run a 40 in 4.40 but without his smarts and his heart, all that other stuff is crap.

I want smart players, not dumbasses with talent and speed......:rocker:

 

[RayClay]

Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.

Why would he pay attention to him? If he's in the right place at the right time, he'll get his share of balls...period.

The problem is, he's had to pay too much attention to him, leading to his absence in the hurry up offense. If he wants to freelance, there are other teams.

 

[RayClay]

Also, a coach is never going to pull a receiver who is getting open in place of a receiver who isn't, regardless of whether the QB throws to him or not.

Lastly, if Reiss numbers are right - Ochocinco was on the field for 354 snaps - he was targeted 33 times in that timespan. Just shy of 10% of the time he was on the field. Deion Branch was on the field for 1020 snaps, he was targeted 100 times. Just shy of 10% of the time as well.

Per play, Ocho was targeted just as much as Branch.

It isn't about "getting open." If a receiver gets open by going the opposite way Brady expects, that's a possible interception. Our offense isn't built on looking at a star receiver, then delivering the ball after he makes his cut.

 

[mgteich]

I would say that it isn't "all" about getting open. Obviously free-lancing is not accpetable in our offense (it leads to interceptions as you say). But a receiver who rarely gets open isn't very useful. Also, getting open is especially useful on busted plays and in the red zone.
========

We shouldn't forget that "Brady throws to the open man". Brady also runs the route tree. However, IMHO, the critical point is that a receiver must be open with the context of the timing of the play.

QUOTE=RayClay;3006116]It isn't about "getting open." If a receiver gets open by going the opposite way Brady expects, that's a possible interception. Our offense isn't built on looking at a star receiver, then delivering the ball after he makes his cut.[/QUOTE]

 

[RhodyPatriot]

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.

Sounds good especially since good defenses like the Ravens and Giants don't find it complex at all. But then again if we did that we wouldn't be the Colts and Tommy wants us to be the Colts.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Come on now. If the receiver sees the same thing as the QB sees you react & that's the route running.

Lets say if its zone you sit down at point x in the route, if it's man & there's no safety over the top you zip straight upfield, etc. It's a series of being on time w/if-then decisions & reads and the QB has to be seeing those when you see them. I've never done the job, but it strikes me that you have to feel it and think it at the same time, and in every other job I know of, that means training until what would be a mental reaction becomes second nature. And guess what - for some that training comes fast, for some less quickly (everybody cross your fingers for Ocho ) and for some it just never gets to the level you need (cough cough chad jackson cough cough.)

Fewer branches on the decision tree, fewer options for the offense to exploit a defense's weaknesses... and more people can "fit" the offense.

This isn't rocket science. If you can't handle reads, you're a liability for one of the better QBs who ever played.

And guess what - nobody "complexified" Gronk into not being able to get to the hail mary, except mebbe the Baltimore defense. Nobody "complexified" Wes Welker's hands...

The key to winning SBs like that one and the 2007 equivalent is not to be in close games in the first place -- but we won three close ones from 01-04.

Small sample size, really. Balls bouncing different ways. God hates us. Whatever. Thing is you always try to get better, but you're never bullet-proof better (2007 should have taught us that.)

I just don't see the point of calling for radical retooling to successful approaches to the Pats' game itself.

I mean, unless Bill does. I did notice he went in and scooped up really dangerous tight ends... right about at the cusp of the TE resurgence we're seeing now. Certainly wasn't first, but definitely wasn't last. And as of right now, it looks like we did it best.

Add more outside speed to that, and sure, you're more dangerous... but you take 2 steps backward if you demand that you can't take advantage of a defense's weakness b/c your receivers have to be pampered with simpler work.

just my .02

 

[Triumph]

Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.

Brandon Lloyd should put an end to this ridiculous myth by being where he is supposed to be and getting open.

And No, Johnson doesnt know the offense if he has to stop and think what to do on a given play.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Why not become a Ground and Pound .

This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.

 

[Deus Irae]

This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.

1.) While the running game was not a positive factor in either game against the Giants, it was also not the reason for either loss.

2.) Dillon wasn't in either of the first 2 Super Bowl wins, and neither of those wins was because of any greatness out of the running game.

3.) The 2001 SB was won by the defense and a Brady passing drive.

4.) The 2003 SB was won by Brady putting on an aerial show (32 of 48 for 354 and 3 TDs).

5.) The Patriots have been to as many Super Bowls as the Jets have been to AFCCGs since Dillon left.

 

[Reckedtrek]

"When you come up one play short of a superbowl win, the obvious answer to the issue is: Just lower your standards."
~Mike Lombardi


(paraphrased)

 

[patfanken]

This thread has gotten way off track; It's not about why we lost the superbowl It's not about Ocho. It's not about the running game. Its not about how successful the Pats offense has been. This is all about a question that has been discussed at every coaches clinic I went to for well over a decade....and the decades before I became a coach and the decades since I left the profession. It's about the question of the benefits of complexity of scheme vs the benefits of better execution due to simplicity. I've seen arguments that have almost come to blows in coaches rooms over this little question.

There is no right or wrong answer here. Otherwise, some where along the last 100 years, a definitive answer would have emerged. That is what makes it such an interesting discussion. Its and issue that has comes up time and time again at ALL levels of the sport.

Tony Dungy built his long and successful career on the way he ran his "Tampa 2". One of the key elements of his defensive philosophy was NOT moving his DBs all around the field in order to confuse his opponent. He believed if his players were aligned in the same position all the time, they would react better and better to what they were seeing, both over the course of an entire season, AND, within the game itself.

Then you get **** Lebeau's zone blitzing schemes. The key to the success of this strategy isn't so much about how complex it looks to the offense, but how SIMPLE he has made it for his defensive people to learn and operate, so that operating it from a comfort level, and can react rather than think.

One of the great under reported skills of a great football coach is SEMANTICS. The ability to create a virtual language that imparts a great deal of knowledge in the minimum amount of verbiage. The teaching skill of taking something very complex and breaking down to what appears to be simple to the person who has to execute the skill. AND he has to be able to do it so it works to the lowest common denominator of the team. Coaching isn't easy, especially in football, where scheme plays such a critical part on both sides of the ball.

That's the beauty of football. There is NO one way to do it successfully. And that is why this thread, when its on point, is so fascinating. Its the holy grail. Trying to find just the right mixture of scheme and execution for your team. I guarantee you its a constant point of discussion in the Patriots coaching rooms.

 

[TheComeback]

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

The Giants' offense isn't simple at all. They run a sight-reading offense just like the Patriots do.

 

[Rob0729]

This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.

This team may have very well have won the Super Bowl a few months ago without a strong running game if Gronk was healthy.

And yes, it is a coincidence that the Pats have failed to win the Super Bowl since Corey Dillon left because they won two Super Bowls without a strong running game. In 2001, the Pats were 13th in rushing yards. In 2003, the Pats were 27th in rushing yards (talk about a strong running game). While on 2003, Antonwain Smith led the Pats in rushing with 642 yards. What the 2001, 2003, and 2004 teams all had in common that is missing today is a strong to dominant defense, not a strong running game.

As for the Jets, they lucked into the playoffs one year they went Ground and Pound. In 2009, if the Colts needed to win their game vs. the Jets and didn't pull Manning and a lot of starters in the second half, the Jets would have gone 8-8 and missed the playoffs instead of going to the AFC Championship game. Also, they relied on a strong defense those two years to keep their anemic offense from losing games for them by keeping the games close low scoring games that the Jets could pull the game out of their arses at the end with one or two good drives.

The running game is becoming less and less important in the NFL. That is why so many RB free agents are either sitting at home or signed for crap money. A strong running game is a relatively low reason the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004. Most of the reasons come from the other side of the ball (couldn't cover Dallas Clark in the AFC Championship Game vs. the Colts or couldn't stop the Giants' offense on either of their final drives in the Super Bowl for example).

 

[RayClay]

I would say that it isn't "all" about getting open. Obviously free-lancing is not accpetable in our offense (it leads to interceptions as you say). But a receiver who rarely gets open isn't very useful. Also, getting open is especially useful on busted plays and in the red zone.
========

We shouldn't forget that "Brady throws to the open man". Brady also runs the route tree. However, IMHO, the critical point is that a receiver must be open with the context of the timing of the play.

QUOTE=RayClay;3006116]It isn't about "getting open." If a receiver gets open by going the opposite way Brady expects, that's a possible interception. Our offense isn't built on looking at a star receiver, then delivering the ball after he makes his cut.

Guys like Welker and Branch are in graduate school as far as being trusted to find a space or improvise on a busted play and still be where Brady expects them to be.

85 isn't able to color in the lines in his paint by numbers book yet.

 

[Snake Eyes]

1.) While the running game was not a positive factor in either game against the Giants, it was also not the reason for either loss.

2.) Dillon wasn't in either of the first 2 Super Bowl wins, and neither of those wins was because of any greatness out of the running game.

So if the running game would have been a positive factor would we have won?

As far as it 'not being the reason for the loss', is there ever 1 reason for a win or a loss? A stronger running game means the Giants can't tee off on Brady like they did, it also means they need to make more decisions and have a greater likelihood of making a mistake.

A better running game affects the entire game in our favor, this doesn't guarantee we win with a better RB but it certainly improves our chances.

 

[Deus Irae]

So if the running game would have been a positive factor would we have won?

That is unknowable. I'd postulate that it is unlikely that it would have been the difference between a win and a loss, however. The main problems for the Patriots against the Giants were that the Giants offense was able to dominate the Patriots defense and keep the field position battle heavily in the Giants favor, and that the Giants were able to essentially play just a 20 yard defense because of the Patriots offensive skill personnel and the pass rush of the Giants.

As far as it 'not being the reason for the loss', is there ever 1 reason for a win or a loss? A stronger running game means the Giants can't tee off on Brady like they did, it also means they need to make more decisions and have a greater likelihood of making a mistake.

Yes, there are often times when you can point to one thing (or a series of "one things") as the reason for a loss. Helmet catch, Welker's drop, etc....

A better running game affects the entire game in our favor, this doesn't guarantee we win with a better RB but it certainly improves our chances.

A running game wouldn't really have improved their chances against the Giants, IMO, because the Patriots' problem on offense wasn't about too many players hanging back for the Giants.