Offensive effectiveness so far

[Fencer]

The Pats are 11th in the league in points/game. They are near the bottom of the league in giveaways, which means their point total understates the success of the offense. They are also near the bottom of the league in takeaways, which ALSO means their point total understates the success of the offense. (E.g., if they had a net turnover differential of 0 at 10 each rather than 6 each, they'd probably both have scored and yielded more points, all else being equal.) They rely a lot on the running game, which may skew things slightly in the direction of fewer possessions/game. They've been fortunate enough to have some kneel-down situations where they might have scored if they'd needed to. 5-8 on FGs suggests STs cost them a few points. If you give them back just 3 pts/game for those factors, they're back up to 7th in the league in scoring. What's all the crying about again?

 

[psychoPat]

The Pats are 11th in the league in points/game. They are near the bottom of the league in giveaways, which means their point total understates the success of the offense. They are also near the bottom of the league in takeaways, which ALSO means their point total understates the success of the offense. (E.g., if they had a net turnover differential of 0 at 10 each rather than 6 each, they'd probably both have scored and yielded more points, all else being equal.) They rely a lot on the running game, which may skew things slightly in the direction of fewer possessions/game. They've been fortunate enough to have some kneel-down situations where they might have scored if they'd needed to. 5-8 on FGs suggests STs cost them a few points. If you give them back just 3 pts/game for those factors, they're back up to 7th in the league in scoring. What's all the crying about again?

Ah, yes ... the larger picture.

 

[p8ryts]

Great analysis. We are evolving to a real football team, run the ball, sometimes with more success than other times, don't give up on the run (Denver/Miami) success will follow. Running the ball is a necessary evil. The only statistic that counts is W-L ratio and the next most meaningful statistic is points allowed.

We are doing GOOD!!!

 

[Fencer]

And I am disagreeing with the USA Today guy and you, NEM -- in general conclusion if not in detail. The Pats have had one of the more successful performances in the league to date. Looking at their talent level available over that period -- super at QB, excellent at RB and TE, good at OL, pathetic at WR (if adjusted for Gabriel's and Jackson's extreme newness) -- I don't think a lot more can reasonably have been expected of them. They DID win two of their games by double digits. The close wins WERE the first two games of the season, when the WR situation was particularly dire. Yeah, I winced at four straight unsuccessful runs on downs 1-4 in the Denver game, but you have to play repetitive percentages some of the time and mix it up more fully at other times, to keep the defense guessing. Is McDaniel a Top 3 playcaller? Hardly. But when your best asset is a running game, the playcalling isn't going to look as imaginative as when the ball is slung all over the place. It is what it is, and what it is has been pretty successful so far.

 

[Oswlek]

The point some of us have made, including the writer from USA Today, is not that we are 4-1, or how manty points we have scored, merely the fct that 3 of the four wins were far too close for comfort and that if the ffensive play calling had been decent, those games should never have been close, to the point that we had tosweat them out until the final gun.
And all of them were at a point where one mistake by us would have cost us those games.

Never should have come down to that. Our record, right now, could easily be 1-4 instead of 4-1. I think the USA Writer sees that, as do I.

Whatever, but I believe this subject has run it's course. Its been beaten to death b now. Time to move on.

You brought this up in another thread and I countered the point. You responded with actually discussing my post, but rather you said it would be your last post on the topic. Yet here you are again.

OK, let's actually take a look at the three games:

1) Buffalo - NE did have a killer fumble, right off the bat which led to 7-0 deficit before the season was even 15 seconds old. Lest you forget, it was on a pass play that this fumble occured. Lest you also forget, NE's pass blocking was poor, leaving Brady to be sacked a few more times and be pressured often. By comparison, NE's line was openening big holes in the running game and NE hit 183 yards in a game that they never led until late in the 4th quarter and were down by 10 points for almost 30 minutes. Not only that, but NE went into the game with only three WRs, Brown, Caldwell and Chldress.

So, maybe the OL's crappy pass blocking but great run blocking as well as the dearth of WRs led to NE going run heavy? Possibly?

2) NYJ - Again the killer play(s) did happen, with the fluke TDs by Crotchery and Coles. Also, you seem to forget that NE had scored 24 points midway threw the third quarter and most likely could have tacked on another TD at the end if they weren't more concerned with running down the clock. Even then, scoring 27 points against even a D like the jets without a meaningful turnover is bad in what way?

3) If you cannot see how NE was playing "protect the ball at all costs" with Miami, I don't know what to say. You complain that they didn't use the deep middle much, but that was clearly by design. What plays are more likely to be picked off if a WR doesn't get to his spot in time or runs the wrong route, sideline of midfield passes? You said it yourself, against Cincy they used the middle more. This was because Cincy has a much better offense and NE knew they had to put up some points. Against Miami, and particularly when NE got up 13-0, NE was never all that worried that Miami would score enough to win, so they scaled back the risk.

Care to give it a try this time?

 

[PatsSteve1]

Had the Patriots just executed a few more of thier pass plays that were there but either Brady missed it or the reciever dropped it teh scoring would have been up in each game.

 

[Brownfan80]

Had the Patriots just executed a few more of thier pass plays that were there but either Brady missed it or the reciever dropped it teh scoring would have been up in each game.

No no, haven't you been listening to NEM and USA today?? It's the running game's fault. Or rather the OC's fault for not abandoning the run earlier in games.

 

[Oswlek]

I may have to post this in a new thread to ensure that it actually gets looked at, but footballoutsiders goes into a little depth about why NE has the ratings that they do, particularly with regard to NE's passing game.

 

[shirtsleeve]

No no, haven't you been listening to NEM and USA today?? It's the running game's fault. Or rather the OC's fault for not abandoning the run earlier in games.

Nooooo! Not again! In the name of everything that is decent, please, back away and let this thread die this time! And I ask this of YOU 80, a man of reason and objectivity!

 

[Fencer]

I may have to post this in a new thread to ensure that it actually gets looked at, but footballoutsiders goes into a little depth about why NE has the ratings that they do, particularly with regard to NE's passing game.

Obviously, they think turnovers are important. I guess NEM and USA Today disagree.