Jeff Howe: Is Bill Belichick revolutionizing the way teams view offensive line rotations?

[neuronet]

Insert joke about Harbaugh here.

 

[patfanken]

It is fascinating to me that over the last 2 years the Pats have managed to upgrade their OL over the last 2 years without using much in the way of draft capital or FA cap space. It is difficult to think that given that we could lose Mankins last year and end up counting on journeymen like Wendlell, Connonlly and a 4th round rookie for a superbowl run. Now here we are just a few months later and Connolly, Stork, and Wendell are ALL not playing and a complete new interior OL had to be put in place. That's surprising. What is shocking is that we made that kind of massive turn over so smoothly.....again.

BTW- The key factor to the loss vs the Giants in 2007 that so few people mention, and that's the loss of Stephen Neal in the first series of the game. His loss really helped the Giant's rush all game. Injuries are tough enough, but most can be overcome if you have a full week to adjust. The injuries that hurt the most are the ones that happen early in a game. By then it's to late to adjust to the loss, you can only deal with as best you can.

 

[Galeb]

I just don't get how rotating a deep pool of talent gets elevated to....REVOLUTIONIZING.
I love Howe's article and the stats he brings into support his argument....but lets not go overboard here. Substitution is not revolutionary.............its substitution. Factor in two consecutive blowouts (Buffalo was a blow out until it wasn't) and see what's going on for what it really is......opportunities to get game tape on players at different positions in low stress situations.
Teams with deep RB rosters rotate their RBs........revolutionizing? No...just teams utilizing their best assets.....and right now NE is very deep at OL.....which is very unusual....but not revolutionizing.

I think the lazer focus on coaching up players in series where they sit is pretty revolutionary. It's appears very labor intensive. I wonder how many players they could focus on like this with the available resources. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats started doing this with CBs or other positional, rotating groups once the line has solidified and is reinforced with Stork and Wendy.

 

[aluminum seats]

I just don't get how rotating a deep pool of talent gets elevated to....REVOLUTIONIZING.
I love Howe's article and the stats he brings into support his argument....but lets not go overboard here. Substitution is not revolutionary.............its substitution. Factor in two consecutive blowouts (Buffalo was a blow out until it wasn't) and see what's going on for what it really is......opportunities to get game tape on players at different positions in low stress situations.
Teams with deep RB rosters rotate their RBs........revolutionizing? No...just teams utilizing their best assets.....and right now NE is very deep at OL.....which is very unusual....but not revolutionizing.

Hmmm. One of the definitions of revolutionary is "related to dramatic change." So I guess the question would be is what the Pats are doing now simply standard substitutions or a dramatic change for offensive lines? My impression is it's the latter.

But I'm guessing neither you nor I have the time to research this properly--lots of sports journalists out there who would have the time, but as we know they're focused on more important things.

 

[Fencer]

BTW- The key factor to the loss vs the Giants in 2007 that so few people mention, and that's the loss of Stephen Neal in the first series of the game. His loss really helped the Giant's rush all game. Injuries are tough enough, but most can be overcome if you have a full week to adjust. The injuries that hurt the most are the ones that happen early in a game. By then it's to late to adjust to the loss, you can only deal with as best you can.

But if the guys have been playing in a planned rotation all season anyway, that won't be true!

 

[Fencer]

Frankly, the benefits of this approach are pretty obvious to everybody, starting with freshness and with having more guys ready to play in terms of injury.

The main reasons it hasn't happened in the past have to be that coaches didn't want to pay the price in "continuity" to get the benefits, or that they thought the starter/reserve talent disparity was too great.

If there's a "revolution" here, I suspect that it's in whatever Googs et al. have done to reduce the "continuity" cost of the strategy.

 

[Fencer]

By the way, the Pats had the single highest-usage DE in the league last season, and he's over 30 years old and if anything undersized for his position. So it's not as if they're firmly committed to rotating guys for freshness at all costs. For a reserve to play absent injury or specific-package need, his talent has to be sufficiently close to that of the starter.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There was a pretty funny bit on the Grantland NFL podcast on Monday that mentioned this. Robert Mays was talking about how splitting time between tackles is a sign that you don't have any tackles worth starting, and Barnwell pointed out that the Patriots have done exactly that to great effect. Mays just shrugged and said rules of thumb like that just don't apply to the Pats.

In a lot of ways, they really are operating on a different level.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

To us and a handful, its genius, business as usual.. For everyone else, it's BB, Pats tryin to pull a fast one.

 

[borg]

I just don't get how rotating a deep pool of talent gets elevated to....REVOLUTIONIZING.
I love Howe's article and the stats he brings into support his argument....but lets not go overboard here. Substitution is not revolutionary.............its substitution. Factor in two consecutive blowouts (Buffalo was a blow out until it wasn't) and see what's going on for what it really is......opportunities to get game tape on players at different positions in low stress situations.
Teams with deep RB rosters rotate their RBs........revolutionizing? No...just teams utilizing their best assets.....and right now NE is very deep at OL.....which is very unusual....but not revolutionizing.

To continue my thought:
I think Howe's conclusion: Excessive O Line Substitution = Revolutionary Advancement .....is shallow, simplistic, and fails to identify what is really going on in the Patriot offense.
As I wrote earlier....the Pats have come out of the gate passing and more passing ....and 80% of those passes are delivered in under 2.5 seconds. The real question to be explored that might deserve excessive accolades like "revolutionizing" is: Has BB created an offense that devalues the worth of the offensive line. Three games into the season , it doesn't matter what linemen are out there, where they line up, and for how long they stay on the field...except for center. What we are seeing is a bunch of interchangeable parts. Guards swapping sides, moving out to tackle.....and regardless of who's playing where....the pass gets off in under 2.5 seconds. Defensive ends are given little time to deploy their arsenal of moves. LBs off the LOS are too worried about quick releases of TEs and slot WRs.... making blitzes futile.
This O line turn style says more about the style of offense than the effectiveness of their surplus of middle round interior linemen with pronounced blemishes....considering they are asked to block for only 2.5 seconds...MAX
Going forward....this won't last. This early in the season, defenses are unorganized and the scoreboard proves who has the upper hand right now. This won't last...and NE will eventually play defenses that can press WRs and cover Gronk (somewhat) and this offense will rely on other assets, like the ground game.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen.....and PatsFans.......if anything is revolutionary....it is NE's ability to defuse defenses with their 2.5 second offense.

 

[The Gr8est]

It is fascinating to me that over the last 2 years the Pats have managed to upgrade their OL over the last 2 years without using much in the way of draft capital or FA cap space. It is difficult to think that given that we could lose Mankins last year and end up counting on journeymen like Wendlell, Connonlly and a 4th round rookie for a superbowl run. Now here we are just a few months later and Connolly, Stork, and Wendell are ALL not playing and a complete new interior OL had to be put in place. That's surprising. What is shocking is that we made that kind of massive turn over so smoothly.....again.

BTW- The key factor to the loss vs the Giants in 2007 that so few people mention, and that's the loss of Stephen Neal in the first series of the game. His loss really helped the Giant's rush all game. Injuries are tough enough, but most can be overcome if you have a full week to adjust. The injuries that hurt the most are the ones that happen early in a game. By then it's to late to adjust to the loss, you can only deal with as best you can.

If BB keeps pulling crap like this the NFL* will be forced to rule that the Pats cannot sign UDFAs period.

Integrity*

 

[strngplyr]

Because it's been serviceable so far, I'm okay with this, but I'm sick of the Cannon rotation at guard, he's a drive killer.


Edit: So, I used Howe's numbers and added some things up. Cannon drives aren't actually THAT much worse and still average more than 3 points per drive, far under without him, but in 6 fewer series they actually have 3 less drives ended (not counting turnovers as neither was on Cannon, IMO)

With Cannon at T:
40 pts over 12 series (3.3 pts/drive 6.1yds/play)
1 punt 1 turnover on downs
513 total yards

Without Cannon at T:
79pts over 18 series (4.4 pts/drive 6.5yds/play)
4 punts 1 Turnover on Downs
836 total yards

Things I am unsure of however is how many of those yards came off of penalty.

Our two most effective OL combinations appear to be:

Solder-Kline-Andrews-Jackson-Vollmer: 6 series, 35 plays, 263 yards (7.5 yards per play), 35 points (5.8 points per series), 5 TDs, 1 punt

and

Solder-Mason-Andrews-Jackson-Cannon: 2 series, 21 plays, 143 yards (6.8 yards per play), 10 points (5 points per series), 1 TD, 1 FG

with the following not far behind but appears to have trouble finishing drives (by far most used formation)

Solder-Mason-Andrews-Kline-Vollmer: 9 series, 65 plays, 433 yards (6.7 yards per play), 30 points (3.3 points per series), 3 TDs, 3 FGs, 2 punts, 1 turnover on downs



All information used is from:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/..._the_patriots_o_line_rotations_by_the_numbers

 

[n6249c]

Because it's been serviceable so far, I'm okay with this, but I'm sick of the Cannon rotation at guard, he's a drive killer.

yeah, that's why we punted whenever he was in against Jax.

 

[RayClay]

Dante did this when we had enough guys.

 

[n6249c]

To continue my thought:
I think Howe's conclusion: Excessive O Line Substitution = Revolutionary Advancement .....is shallow, simplistic, and fails to identify what is really going on in the Patriot offense.
As I wrote earlier....the Pats have come out of the gate passing and more passing ....and 80% of those passes are delivered in under 2.5 seconds. The real question to be explored that might deserve excessive accolades like "revolutionizing" is: Has BB created an offense that devalues the worth of the offensive line. Three games into the season , it doesn't matter what linemen are out there, where they line up, and for how long they stay on the field...except for center. What we are seeing is a bunch of interchangeable parts. Guards swapping sides, moving out to tackle.....and regardless of who's playing where....the pass gets off in under 2.5 seconds. Defensive ends are given little time to deploy their arsenal of moves. LBs off the LOS are too worried about quick releases of TEs and slot WRs.... making blitzes futile.
This O line turn style says more about the style of offense than the effectiveness of their surplus of middle round interior linemen with pronounced blemishes....considering they are asked to block for only 2.5 seconds...MAX
Going forward....this won't last. This early in the season, defenses are unorganized and the scoreboard proves who has the upper hand right now. This won't last...and NE will eventually play defenses that can press WRs and cover Gronk (somewhat) and this offense will rely on other assets, like the ground game.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen.....and PatsFans.......if anything is revolutionary....it is NE's ability to defuse defenses with their 2.5 second offense.

Disagree. On several points. For one, although many/most plays were quick passes, all were not. There were some runs, some slower developing pass plays, yet the same O line, performance did not drop off.

Also, the faster tempo would make it harder in some ways for O linemen playing different positions (swapping from LG to RG or vice versa, for example). They need to remember changing assignments faster, make their adjustments faster, etc. So it helps in some ways, hurts in others.

Generally I think rotating the O line to the extent that the Pats have been so far this season is revolutionary, in the sense that it is a major change to the way things have always been done/are done by everybody else. The faster passing game may be helpful to it but that's enabling or supporting the change, not the change itself. The Pats have played an uptempo quick passing game in the past, without the line rotation, so that is not revolutionary.

 

[strngplyr]

yeah, that's why we punted whenever he was in against Jax.

Updated my post with a ton of info, and I'm fairly certain you're joking, but Jax didn't make any OL combo punt, lol

 

[n6249c]

Frankly, the benefits of this approach are pretty obvious to everybody, starting with freshness and with having more guys ready to play in terms of injury.

The main reasons it hasn't happened in the past have to be that coaches didn't want to pay the price in "continuity" to get the benefits, or that they thought the starter/reserve talent disparity was too great.

If there's a "revolution" here, I suspect that it's in whatever Googs et al. have done to reduce the "continuity" cost of the strategy.

Googe and the rest of the staff have gotten past the continuity barrier, probably by working on swapping players ever since the start of camp. They were doing the same thing last year, but they did not have the depth of talent to make it work without loss of effectiveness. This season they've restocked the talent pool, with almost enough talent to field two starting offensive lines. That's what's really revolutionary about this.

 

[borg]

Hmmm. One of the definitions of revolutionary is "related to dramatic change." So I guess the question would be is what the Pats are doing now simply standard substitutions or a dramatic change for offensive lines? My impression is it's the latter.

But I'm guessing neither you nor I have the time to research this properly--lots of sports journalists out there who would have the time, but as we know they're focused on more important things.

Please ...by all means.....present the substitution statistics of the other 31 teams. Howe certainly didn't. He interviewed a college coach and together they pronounced....Revolutionary.....ta da.
Frankly, I see more O line substitution in high school games but no one is crowning those coaches as trail blazers.
I give Howe credit, he certainly knows how to suck in the faithful..... "BB the Genius Does It Again!!! "

 

[Froob]

Wouldn't be surprised if BB pulled this from somewhere else, maybe even the college game. Him and his boys always are on the lookout for new strategies.

 

[n6249c]

I think one of the biggest keys is the coaching the guys receive on the series they're sitting out. It sounds like they give the players short stints, gather stills and information, then coach up the guys on what they're doing wrong. It seems odd that this is considered revolutionary for any position at this point. I wonder who came up with it.

My money would be on Ernie.