- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 33,972
- Reaction score
- 14,473
There are currently many calls on the board for the removal of various Pats personnel, including Reche Caldwell and OC Josh McDaniels. My opinion is that these calls are hyperbolic, and driven by a myopic focus on the "failed" 2006 campaign, which "only" resulted in a 12-4 record and an AFC Championship Game appearance.
Here are some comparative numbers from 2004 and 2006. The idea is that if our offense was truly wretched in 2006, the numbers from the last Super Bowl year would bear that out. So, without further ado...
Receiving Corps
The best measure of the receiving corps may be to add up the respective numbers of every individual who caught a pass in 2004 and 2006. Given that almost all these passes were thrown by Tom Brady, however, I'm going to limit the comparison to Brady's stats.
To argue that the wideouts must be separated from the tight ends and running backs is moot; playcalling can result in different emphases across the two years, and in fact, many here were calling for just such an emphasis in 2006. Regardless, the goal is to establish that the NE passing game can thrive or cannot thrive given its current configuration (with the proviso that change is constant, and that an upgrade is unlikely to be a bad thing):
T Brady, 2004
Attempts: 474
Completions: 288
Completion %: 60.8
Yards: 3692
Yards Per Attempt: 7.79
Long: 50
TD: 28
INT: 14
Rating: 92.6
T Brady, 2006
Attempts: 516
Completions: 319
Completion %: 61.8
Yards: 3529
Yards Per Attempt: 6.84
Long: 62
TD: 24
INT: 12
Rating: 87.9
Analysis: Many complaints have focused on dropped passes, but it seems unlikely that this category has radically spiked, as it would most likely show up in completion percentage. Rather, yards per attempt is the only category that shows a radical change, almost a yard per attempt.
Question raised: Are the Pats now "vertically challenged," given the current receiving corps/OC? Could this also be ascribed to the difference in chemistry, with an almost brand-new receiving corps? Ultimately, what will it take to rectify this situation, and what is it worth to rectify the situation?
Other Comments: 2004 and 2005 were the only years in which Brady was over 7 YPA. His low was 6.26. In 2001 and 2003, also super bowl years, Brady's YPA (6.88, 6.87) were almost identical to 2006's. Even assuming Branch made the difference in 2004-2005, it is also a fact that Branch was developed rather than acquired in FA. This creates a cost to value imbalance, since FA receivers at Branch's level (proven 1B) "cost" much more than a drafted WR. Bang for the buck analysis: Two out of three super bowls were won with similar passing game statistics to those of 2006. A "true [proven veteran] number 1" is something the Patriots have never acquired in the Bill Belichick era (since 2000.)
Overall Offensive Production
2004:
Points/Game: 27.3
Yards/Game: 357.6
3rd Dn %: 45.1
4th Dn %: 40.0
Pen.: 101
Pen. Yards: 822
Time of Possession: 31.22
2006:
Points Per Game: 24.1
Yards Per Game: 335.6
3rd Dn %: 42.5
4th Dn %: 80.0
Pen.: 98
Pen. Yards: 940
Time of Possession: 31:35
Analysis: The Patriots have lost an average of 3.2 points per game from 2004 to 2006. One could point to a variety of contributing factors (new receivers, schedule, OC, etc. etc.), but the decline is certainly not trivial (well over 10% drop in production.) An analysis focusing on McDaniels is indicated if other pre-McDaniels years show similar equal or greater performance to 2004's.
However, a glance at 2003 exhibits a situation for the offense's general production analogous to the situation for the Pats' passing game:
2003:
Points/Game: 21.8
Yards/Game: 314.9
3rd Dn %: 37.0
4th Dn %: 42.9
Pen.: 111
Pen. Yards: 998
Time of Possession: 31.35
In every category studied, McDaniels' 2006 offense bested Weis' 2003 super-bowl winning offense.
So, a conclusion analogous to the receiving corps conclusion would seem to be merited: while the 2004 team did perform better than the 2006 team, the 2003 team did prove that, statistically, the performance of the 2006 team's offensive output is in line with the goal of winning a super bowl.
In other words, regardless of unsatisfactory single-game outcomes, the gambles taken (or not taken) by McDaniels are, all in all, as effective as those preferred by Weis, all else being equal. If the current talent level is truly the best group of individuals ever assembled by the Patriots, it is possible that, say, Weis, could get a 2004-like performance out of them, or an even better performance for that matter. However, it should be emphasized that a performance statistically inferior to the 2006 campaign was sufficient to win a super bowl in the past.
I know the stats miss aspects of the game breakdowns we emphasize here, but "there should be more play action" (for example,) does not capture results. Comparisons across seasons do.
The goal here is to determine whether or not our output should be viewed as a sort of "crisis." While improvement is always the goal, I think NE's offensive output in general, and passing game output in particular, are within tolerances within their current configurations -- changes for the better, of course, would be welcomed, but the statistical analysis seems to suggest that NE's success in 2006, if repeated in 2007, could be one part of a super bowl winning formula.
Thoughts?
PFnV
Here are some comparative numbers from 2004 and 2006. The idea is that if our offense was truly wretched in 2006, the numbers from the last Super Bowl year would bear that out. So, without further ado...
Receiving Corps
The best measure of the receiving corps may be to add up the respective numbers of every individual who caught a pass in 2004 and 2006. Given that almost all these passes were thrown by Tom Brady, however, I'm going to limit the comparison to Brady's stats.
To argue that the wideouts must be separated from the tight ends and running backs is moot; playcalling can result in different emphases across the two years, and in fact, many here were calling for just such an emphasis in 2006. Regardless, the goal is to establish that the NE passing game can thrive or cannot thrive given its current configuration (with the proviso that change is constant, and that an upgrade is unlikely to be a bad thing):
T Brady, 2004
Attempts: 474
Completions: 288
Completion %: 60.8
Yards: 3692
Yards Per Attempt: 7.79
Long: 50
TD: 28
INT: 14
Rating: 92.6
T Brady, 2006
Attempts: 516
Completions: 319
Completion %: 61.8
Yards: 3529
Yards Per Attempt: 6.84
Long: 62
TD: 24
INT: 12
Rating: 87.9
Analysis: Many complaints have focused on dropped passes, but it seems unlikely that this category has radically spiked, as it would most likely show up in completion percentage. Rather, yards per attempt is the only category that shows a radical change, almost a yard per attempt.
Question raised: Are the Pats now "vertically challenged," given the current receiving corps/OC? Could this also be ascribed to the difference in chemistry, with an almost brand-new receiving corps? Ultimately, what will it take to rectify this situation, and what is it worth to rectify the situation?
Other Comments: 2004 and 2005 were the only years in which Brady was over 7 YPA. His low was 6.26. In 2001 and 2003, also super bowl years, Brady's YPA (6.88, 6.87) were almost identical to 2006's. Even assuming Branch made the difference in 2004-2005, it is also a fact that Branch was developed rather than acquired in FA. This creates a cost to value imbalance, since FA receivers at Branch's level (proven 1B) "cost" much more than a drafted WR. Bang for the buck analysis: Two out of three super bowls were won with similar passing game statistics to those of 2006. A "true [proven veteran] number 1" is something the Patriots have never acquired in the Bill Belichick era (since 2000.)
Overall Offensive Production
2004:
Points/Game: 27.3
Yards/Game: 357.6
3rd Dn %: 45.1
4th Dn %: 40.0
Pen.: 101
Pen. Yards: 822
Time of Possession: 31.22
2006:
Points Per Game: 24.1
Yards Per Game: 335.6
3rd Dn %: 42.5
4th Dn %: 80.0
Pen.: 98
Pen. Yards: 940
Time of Possession: 31:35
Analysis: The Patriots have lost an average of 3.2 points per game from 2004 to 2006. One could point to a variety of contributing factors (new receivers, schedule, OC, etc. etc.), but the decline is certainly not trivial (well over 10% drop in production.) An analysis focusing on McDaniels is indicated if other pre-McDaniels years show similar equal or greater performance to 2004's.
However, a glance at 2003 exhibits a situation for the offense's general production analogous to the situation for the Pats' passing game:
2003:
Points/Game: 21.8
Yards/Game: 314.9
3rd Dn %: 37.0
4th Dn %: 42.9
Pen.: 111
Pen. Yards: 998
Time of Possession: 31.35
In every category studied, McDaniels' 2006 offense bested Weis' 2003 super-bowl winning offense.
So, a conclusion analogous to the receiving corps conclusion would seem to be merited: while the 2004 team did perform better than the 2006 team, the 2003 team did prove that, statistically, the performance of the 2006 team's offensive output is in line with the goal of winning a super bowl.
In other words, regardless of unsatisfactory single-game outcomes, the gambles taken (or not taken) by McDaniels are, all in all, as effective as those preferred by Weis, all else being equal. If the current talent level is truly the best group of individuals ever assembled by the Patriots, it is possible that, say, Weis, could get a 2004-like performance out of them, or an even better performance for that matter. However, it should be emphasized that a performance statistically inferior to the 2006 campaign was sufficient to win a super bowl in the past.
I know the stats miss aspects of the game breakdowns we emphasize here, but "there should be more play action" (for example,) does not capture results. Comparisons across seasons do.
The goal here is to determine whether or not our output should be viewed as a sort of "crisis." While improvement is always the goal, I think NE's offensive output in general, and passing game output in particular, are within tolerances within their current configurations -- changes for the better, of course, would be welcomed, but the statistical analysis seems to suggest that NE's success in 2006, if repeated in 2007, could be one part of a super bowl winning formula.
Thoughts?
PFnV