Offensive Playcalling was Average to Atrocious

[BradyManny]

Man, I have to stop reading threads re: the Super Bowl game so I can go back to at least pretending I've moved on from it.

 

[unoriginal]

By the way, blame does go to Brady and Belichick. Belichick is too hands off with McDaniels, who is the same age as Brady and is in over his head in terms of total knowledge.

Anyways, we have now had crushing losses to Denver, Indy, and NY, and a common denominator is McDaniels. First the excuses were 'we don't have the offensive talent', now it's 'the Giants D was God was no one could have beat them, ever'. Sounds A LOT like the 90's Bledsode apologists.

Jesus, you're right! Skippy the Kid's tinker toy offense has gotten blown off the field at the end of three straight years! Just like 31 other teams!

He must be an exceptionally bad offensive coordinator. I take back everything I've ever said: Skippy deserves everything he gets. How does that idiot even have a job?

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

I'm surprised no one is second guessing and complaining about BB's decision to go for it on 4th down rather than attempting a FG in this thread also.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Perhaps, just perhaps, you wrote more in a long post than just "Too much Moss!":

Now, the next time you want to be an ass, do it with someone who actually got something wrong. I'm pretty sure that showing diversity went to part of your argument.

Now, regarding the deep threat.....

Gaffney had at least 4 receptions of greater than 30 yards, including one for over 50 yards.

Stallworth had at least 6 receptions of greater than 30 yards, including 3 that were touchdowns and one that went for 69 yards.

Unless ESPN and all the other stat references are wrong, when we're talking passes thrown in excess of 20 yards Stallworth had only 4 all season. 5 if you count the one additional pass for 20 yards on the nose.

My guess is you're factoring in Yards After the Catch - whereas I'm looking at the stats on how deep the pass was thrown.

If you're counting Stallworth's running ability after the catch then I suppose you probably actually consider Maroney a "deep threat" as well - after all he had 4 catches and averaged 29 yards on them - with a long pass and run of 43 yards.

Maroney might have broken off some great runs after the catch, but I don't think you'll find him being signed as a deep threat WR even though he was nearly as productive as Stallworth in that realm.

I don't think DBs are waiting back 20 yards for Maroney - and statistically they needent worry too much more about Stallworth the way he was utilized.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Stallworth wasn't utilized as a deep threat - or that McDaniels didn't see a need to look to anyone other than Moss as a deep threat, accepting the consequences of that?

Is it that your argument is "untenable" or are you just an "ass"? My guess is both as you seem to have a habit of ignoring the point of people's posts, singling out statements to take them out of context and using that as an excuse to call people's opinions "untenable" and call them childish names.

 

[DaBruinz]

One only has to look at our last drive to know there is a problem with the offensive strategist in charge.

We need 3 points, need to move about 40 yards, we have all 3 timeouts, and what do we do? Call all slow-developing 7 step drops, and 2 bombs to a double/tripple covered Randy Moss. Game over.

How do you KNOW that Brady didn't AUDIBLE to that based on what he saw from the defense?

 

[DaBruinz]

By the way, blame does go to Brady and Belichick. Belichick is too hands off with McDaniels, who is the same age as Brady and is in over his head in terms of total knowledge.

Anyways, we have now had crushing losses to Denver, Indy, and NY, and a common denominator is McDaniels. First the excuses were 'we don't have the offensive talent', now it's 'the Giants D was God was no one could have beat them, ever'. Sounds A LOT like the 90's Bledsode apologists.

It only sounds like the Bledsoe apologists when you insist on being ignorant about where the blame lies.

I have new for you, but Belichick was the one calling the plays in 2005, not McDaniels. Brady is, actually, the bigger common denominator in the picture and you clearly let him skate on the issue.

 

[maverick4]

db I also attributed blame to Brady.
HOWEVER, Brady has come through in the past before in big playoff moments.

The common denominator for these devastating losses since our last SB win, is McDaniels. First it was the 'we don't have enough talent on offense' excuse for McD, then it was 'the Giants D was God and no team could have beaten them' excuse.

Brady had been clutch pre-McDaniels, and hasn't been as clutch with McD calling the plays.

While Brady has the option of audibling, who are you to say that Brady isn't just a good soldier who more often than not, goes with the play called unless he sees an obvious blitz?

 

[maverick4]

I have new for you, but Belichick was the one calling the plays in 2005, not McDaniels. .

Now you're starting to sound like a crazy person.
Everyone knows McDaniels was the OC, with BB taking the heat for him his first year as such a young coordinator.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unless ESPN and all the other stat references are wrong, when we're talking passes thrown in excess of 20 yards Stallworth had only 4 all season. 5 if you count the one additional pass for 20 yards on the nose.

My guess is you're factoring in Yards After the Catch - whereas I'm looking at the stats on how deep the pass was thrown.

If you're counting Stallworth's running ability after the catch then I suppose you probably actually consider Maroney a "deep threat" as well - after all he had 4 catches and averaged 29 yards on them - with a long pass and run of 43 yards.

Maroney might have broken off some great runs after the catch, but I don't think you'll find him being signed as a deep threat WR even though he was nearly as productive as Stallworth in that realm.

I don't think DBs are waiting back 20 yards for Maroney - and statistically they needent worry too much more about Stallworth the way he was utilized.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that Stallworth wasn't utilized as a deep threat - or that McDaniels didn't see a need to look to anyone other than Moss as a deep threat, accepting the consequences of that?

Is it that your argument is "untenable" or are you just an "ass"? My guess is both as you seem to have a habit of ignoring the point of people's posts, singling out statements to take them out of context and using that as an excuse to call people's opinions "untenable" and call them childish names.

Your argument was verifiably wrong, so I pointed that out. It's not the fault of me, or anyone else but you, that your argument was easily disproven. However, given the Brady-to-Moss-to-Brady-to-Gaffney pass that you chose to just completely ignore as you attempted to make your argument, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Next time, double check your data and word your claims better.

As for how they used Stallworth, I've noted some things elsewhere that I thought could have been done involving him going deep and Moss going underneath. I'm just not stupid enough to try blaming the offensive coordinator of a one loss season for the tendency to throw the ball deep to a player who is possibly the greatest deep ball receiver in NFL history, unless I have a real case.

Then again, I use evidence, logic and reasoning. You seemingly preferred to ignore all three of those things in this instance.

 

[stcjones]

(posted this in last night's temporary forum, I guess it wasn't migrated over to the main one):

I was very disappointed by the play-calling, and before you say it's because we lost, I have been calling out McDaniels' work a few times this season even when we were winning and scoring a bazillion points. The offensive calls were slow to adjust, and didn't take advantage of the Giants' going for the pass rush every single down. Where were the 3-step drops, no huddle, inside runs and traps and draws, the slants, the screens? When it was clear our O-Line couldn't handle the Giants' pass rush in the first quarter, we should have stopped going for the home run and all the slow-developing plays that we kept trying to do in the second half, especially in the final drive. There is no excuse for 5 sacks and 18 knockdowns of Brady in the game, the O-Line was outplayed but you also have to blame the playcalling for stats like that.

The final drive was, in one word, inexcusable. We had 30 seconds, all 3 timeouts, and we basically chuck it deep to Moss twice and also have a sack on *another* slow developing pass pattern?

Basically, I think Josh McDaniels is one of the luckest coaches in the NFL. The Pats are so stacked at offensive talent that this guy gets bailed out for average playcalling that is not just slow to adjust, but also becoming very predictable. Well, the Superbowl exposed his inexperience, it shows he doesn't know what to do against certain things, he may be a good worker but he isn't a strategy genius. And Belichick should be more hands-on with the offense instead of let such a young guy run the show.

I couldn't agree more with you......and Yes, McDaniels is one of the "luckiest" coaches in the NFL.......and even though we did have alot of blowouts with the playcalling.....He also "shot us in the foot" with his playcalling and LACK OF ADJUSTMENTS against the better defenses/teams.........I would have loved to have seen what a GREAT, and seasoned OC could have done with that offense.....and I truly believe, that a GOOD OC would have found some way to create offensive plays that would have offset the Giants ONE DIMENSIONAL pass rush......and allowed us (the far better team) to WIN the SB.......But get ready for more Boy Blunder next year......because he ain't going anywhere!.....

 

[stcjones]

I've been tough on McDaniels in the past as well - though its interesting to note the 180 degrees difference he's had in personnel and therefore 2 very different challenges.

In 2006 I fault him for completely giving up on a deep game - even though he didn't have the greatest talent I don't think you can EVER give up on trying to keep defenses honest.

He gave up and the team paid the consequences, with the OL deserving twice as much credit for a job well done in 2006 than in 2007.

In 2007 he had Moss - and while the Brady to Moss combination - that of course opened up Welker quite nicely - was unstoppable in the first half, teams began to adjust in the 2nd half and I never saw McDaniels adjust well. We certainly had some additional talent on the field and I don't feel like he utilized Stallworth all that well, or even Watson.

I hope that the lure of a record for Moss and Brady didn't affect his playcalling, but it remained far too Moss centered for my preference, especially when Moss was being double teamed consistently.

Most people won't look beyond the 16-0 mark and therefore wouldn't think of criticizing McDaniels, but he's far from perfect, and has learned, I hope, two polar opposite lessons on playcalling in the last 2 years.

"teams began to adjust in the 2nd half and I never saw McDaniels adjust well." Amen to that brutha........

 

[stcjones]

People keep apologizing for this guy like they apologized for Bledsoe.
First the excuse was the lack of offensive talent, but even with a stacked offense the guy falls apart when it comes to big time games against tough defenses. One great example is our last superbowl drive with 3 timeouts, what does the guy do, call multiple deep bombs and low developing plays to Moss, when he knows Brady has been sacked or knocked down 20+ times already in the game.

The past 3 straight years against Denver, Indy, and NY, this guy has been out-coached on the offensive side of the ball.
Can't blame the lack of talent anymore, at some point people have to start looking at the guy responsible for calling the plays, being the field strategist, and running the unit.

great, great post here.......yeah...the last 3 plays of the SB were PAINFUL to watch.....nothing like the drives in 2001 and 2003.....tactical plays to set up a FG........instead throw 3 hail mary's? Cmon Joshie......man up and answer that tactical approach!!!

 

[JoeSixPat]

Your argument was verifiably wrong, so I pointed that out. It's not the fault of me, or anyone else but you, that your argument was easily disproven. However, given the Brady-to-Moss-to-Brady-to-Gaffney pass that you chose to just completely ignore as you attempted to make your argument, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Next time, double check your data and word your claims better.

As for how they used Stallworth, I've noted some things elsewhere that I thought could have been done involving him going deep and Moss going underneath. I'm just not stupid enough to try blaming the offensive coordinator of a one loss season for the tendency to throw the ball deep to a player who is possibly the greatest deep ball receiver in NFL history, unless I have a real case.

Then again, I use evidence, logic and reasoning. You seemingly preferred to ignore all three of those things in this instance.

So - you're saying exactly WHO was the other deep threat on the team? Was it Maroney? Faulk? Gaffney?

Prove to me again that McDaniels utilized someone other than Moss as an alternative deep threat when he was double, even triple teamed - or in any instance for that matter. I must have missed it.

And why NOT blame the offensive coordinator? Who should we blame - the ball boy?

And I take it your frequent use of the word "ass" and other childish insults is what you consider "evidence, logic and reasoning?"

 

[Deus Irae]

So - you're saying exactly WHO was the other deep threat on the team? Was it Maroney? Faulk? Gaffney?

Prove to me again that McDaniels utilized someone other than Moss as an alternative deep threat when he was double, even triple teamed - or in any instance for that matter. I must have missed it.

And why NOT blame the offensive coordinator? Who should we blame - the ball boy?

And I take it your frequent use of the word "ass" and other childish insults is what you consider "evidence, logic and reasoning?"

Both Stallworth and Gaffney were used deep, as their numbers show. Now, you can argue that you would have wanted them used more than they were and that would be one thing. However, you chose to argue something that the numbers show was incorrect.

In other threads, I've stated that I would like to have seen the following:

1.) Moss and Stallworth in motion to keep the bump coverage loose

2.) More slant patterns for Moss and Stallworth, especially Stallworth with his YAC ability

3.) Using Moss as the short decoy to lure the safety up while another receiver breaks deep


However, while I'd like to have seen such things, and I believe they would have been helpful (especially Stallworth off of a slant), I have no significant evidence to show that it would have made any difference. Unlike you, I don't go out there blaming the O.C for something unprovable. 18-0 prior to the Super Bowl is overwhelming evidence that the O.C. knew what the hell he was doing, despite what a bunch of message board coaches may bleat.

 

[stcjones]

If you actually read my post I didn't say anything about failings ONLY in the Super Bowl - so your argument doesn't really work.

I said it was a cumulative effect over the course of the year... that in turn led to Moss becoming less and less of an impact player.

To reiterate, my point was that they didn't look beyond Moss for a deep threat throughout the season. Stallworth is a deep threat talent - but was he really used that way? Did they use Stallworth to make teams pay for double covering Moss? My feeling is absolutely not. I'm not knocking Stallworth - just the way he was used.... i.e. not enough as a deep threat to take pressure off of Moss. That's what we all talked about when Stallworth was signed - yet apparently McDaniels didn't see it that way or think there was a benefit to having another deep threat on the other side of the field.

That's part of the reason why Moss wasn't the same type of impact player towards the end of the year as he was at the beginning, and why he wasn't a big part of the Super Bowl either. Defenses learned that they could double team Moss and not be burned deep by Stallworth.

So you're completely missing my point by illustrating how Moss did not have a big game in the Super Bowl - actually your making my point. Had McDaniels been more diverse in his playcalling and utilization of more players, especially Stallworth as a deep threat, earlier in the season, and as a consistent alternative to Moss, I suspect Moss would have had more opportunities in the 2nd half, as well as in the Super Bowl.

And while they certainly looked to Welker throughout the season, I don't think I'm alone in expressing surprise that Stallworth wasn't used more, and specifically more as a deep threat, and even Gaffney had only 36 receptions on the year.

The passing game largely consisted of Moss deep (actually Moss was a good all around threat which definitely isn't bad) and Welker short (10 ypc - which includes yac). That lack of diversity over time limited Moss' effectiveness in the 2nd half of the season, and by limiting what was really our only utilized deep threat, defenses were able to shorten the field considerably compared to the first half of the season.

You make many good points....Moss did disappear more and more towards the end of the year, as more teams started blanketing him.....WHEN that happened McD/BB never seemed to adjust in getting Donte more involved in the deep passing game.......Yes, Welker became even MORE utilized....but hardly ever in a deep threat, stretch the field approach.....so we became predictable.....Blanket Randy....let them get the short dump off to Wes.....our utilization of Watson also went downhill....Where was the TE usage in the SB? I disagree strongly that NO adjustments could be made in the SB against the Gints....They were just too good.......Shame on the offensive line play....THEY were the PRIMARY reason we lost SB 42.....and they should be ashamed of half a##ing it out there......but put plenty of McD's inability to adjust.....get creative with the short drops....RB option passes......etc to stop the ONE dimensional attack of the Gints.....

 

[stcjones]

I didn't realize Faulk and Maroney and Gaffney were all deep threats.

Thanks for setting me straight on my "untenable" argument.

Do you just not read other people's posts and just prefer to be argumentative?

In the entire 2007 regular season, Brady completed just 4 passes to Stallworth that were more than 20 yards.

Just 4. After 16 regular season games it became clear to DCs that McDaniels wasn't going to use Stallworth as a deep threat to keep the pressure off of Moss.

Compare that to 2006 where Stallworth saw twice that many catches in that category - and his 11-20 yard catches all averaged 20 yards as well (and had a 19 ypc average overall) - effectively quadrupling his 20+ yard output as compared with how McDaniels utilized him.

Compare that to McDaniel's utilization of Moss who had 6 catches that were MORE THAN 40 YARDS! (I'm a bit surprised Moss didn't have even MORE 20+ yard catches but I actually would give McDaniels credit for not SOLELY using Moss as a deep threat, as that would have also been a strategic mistake).

So assuming you've actually read this before responding, who, besides Moss, do you think was the Patriots alternative deep threat to Moss?

Welker? Faulk? Maroney? Gaffney?

You threw out a lot of names and pass catches but for some reason go out of your way to ignore my point about how the lack of an alternative deep threat to Moss had a negative impact.

So on my "untenable" point that with Moss so well covered McDaniels should have exploited Stallworth as a deep threat alternative (which would have in turn likely freed up Moss more) who do you cite as the alternative Deep threat to Moss?

Basically it comes down to this if you're a DC going up against the Patriots:

Take out Moss and you eliminate the Deep Game. Take out the Deep Game and you shorten the field. Yes Welker will catch 10 passes for 100 yards - and you're happy to let him, compared to the alternative of having to cover both Moss and/or Stallworth burn you deep.

DC's might scratch their heads wondering why McDaniels never utilized Stallworth in the deep game, but I'm sure they weren't about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

One thing is certain - unlike 2006 no one can say we didn't have alternatives as a deep threat. We had Moss who was always double teamed, and Stallworth, who averaged 19 ypc in the 2006 season. McDaniels just chose not to use Stallworth as a deep threat to take pressure off Moss and for that I fault him - as doing so would have made a great season for Moss even MORE of a success.

"So on my "untenable" point that with Moss so well covered McDaniels should have exploited Stallworth as a deep threat alternative (which would have in turn likely freed up Moss more) who do you cite as the alternative Deep threat to Moss?"

Bingo....we have Bingo!!!!.....why the heck couldn't he have found some way to get Stallworth involved......this question will never get answered..........

 

[stcjones]

Games are won/lost at the LOS. Pointing the finger at MCDaniels takes away from the fact that our OL got their asses kicked like never before by 4 (four) DL's.

Call all the plays you want, but when the DL lives in your backfield, that gives the LB's and DB's freedom to cover and make tackles. Running plays get blown up, screens get blown up, and 3 step drops only make it easier for the DL's to be on top of the QB quicker.

Ultimately you are correct......The gutless and shameful play of our offensive lineman is what PRIMARILY lost us our chance at history........in second place, not too distant away, was the lack of McD in adjusting to the Gints bringing the 4 DL into our backfield.....It was their ONLY gameplan.....get to Brady....get to Brady....Now, I am not just pointing out his INADEQUACY in mixing up the plays to make them THINK or get burned more......IE quick slants and screens.....RB option passes/dump offs......etc......I am also talking about his inability to get the TE's or ANYONE else more involved in picking up/blocking these FOUR DL's to give Brady some friggin time!!!! Where was that adjustment? Heck, Charlie Weis would have put Junior Seau or Mike Vrabel in there TO BLOCK these jacka##es to give our offense time to breathe!!! It is this kind of creativity/ability to adjust or whatever you want to call it....that McD does not possess......Come to think of it.....where was Vrabs as a receiver in that SB game? Where was Richard Seymour in the backfield to block for a RB or take down one or more of these DL's? Anyone?

 

[Deus Irae]

You make many good points....Moss did disappear more and more towards the end of the year, as more teams started blanketing him.....WHEN that happened McD/BB never seemed to adjust in getting Donte more involved in the deep passing game

Was the reason, perhaps, that the defenses began employing safety help over the top on every play, thus preventing the long ball? You know, playing defense the way New England does against the Colts?

Yes, Welker became even MORE utilized....but hardly ever in a deep threat, stretch the field approach.....so we became predictable.....Blanket Randy....let them get the short dump off to Wes.....our utilization of Watson also went downhill

Watson was banged up, limiting his effectiveness. Furthermore, Faulk had over 60 catches, Stallworth more than 40 and Gaffney more than 30.

Where was the TE usage in the SB? I disagree strongly that NO adjustments could be made in the SB against the Gints....They were just too good.......Shame on the offensive line play....THEY were the PRIMARY reason we lost SB 42....
and they should be ashamed of half a##ing it out there......

1.) You can't "adjust" to your best interior lineman getting smoked all game long

2.) At least you can admit that the problem was the O-Line, even if you hedge

but put plenty of McD's inability to adjust.....get creative with the short drops....RB option passes......etc to stop the ONE dimensional attack of the Gints.....

There are only two major attempts at such 'adjustment' that the team didn't really try a lot of: screen passes and draw runs. You can't adjust to the quarterback being on the ground and the running back being drilled in the backfield because the O-Line hasn't shown up. In the Super Bowl, the Giants sniffed out the screens and collapsed the pocket from the middle which eliminated the draw as an option. As long as 4 are beating 5 before the QB is even getting set, your offense is going to struggle if you don't have a running QB. And Brady ≠ Michael Vick.

 

[JoeSixPat]

"So on my "untenable" point that with Moss so well covered McDaniels should have exploited Stallworth as a deep threat alternative (which would have in turn likely freed up Moss more) who do you cite as the alternative Deep threat to Moss?"

Bingo....we have Bingo!!!!.....why the heck couldn't he have found some way to get Stallworth involved......this question will never get answered..........

Maybe there is an answer that indeed we'll never know - it certainly is a head scratcher.

Stallworth was an excellent deep threat in 2006 - But in 2007 Stallworth was virtually non-existent in the deep game.

It's the full season of play calling that I base my criticsim... and the habits demonstrated for the entire season indeed did give teams the "blueprint" to largely neutralize the impact of Moss later in the season, knowing McDaniels was typicially not going to make them pay by using Stallworth as a deep threat.

Having TWO deep threats is the prime advantage we all saw in having Moss and Stallworth - but that was never really something that was implemented.

So if you do subscribe to the belief that the Patriots would have benefited from an alternative deep threat to Moss I guess you can either assume McDaniels has a lot to learn as OC - or perhaps Stallworth was secretly injured throughout the season and COULDN'T go deep... which isn't something that I can rule out.

But if he is injured then the Browns might have wasted a signing bonus not much less than what we gave to Moss.

 

[unoriginal]

db I also attributed blame to Brady.
HOWEVER, Brady has come through in the past before in big playoff moments.

The common denominator for these devastating losses since our last SB win, is McDaniels. First it was the 'we don't have enough talent on offense' excuse for McD, then it was 'the Giants D was God and no team could have beaten them' excuse.

Brady had been clutch pre-McDaniels, and hasn't been as clutch with McD calling the plays.

While Brady has the option of audibling, who are you to say that Brady isn't just a good soldier who more often than not, goes with the play called unless he sees an obvious blitz?

Very concise, maverick4. This post sums it the whole argument up for me right here. I'll try to be even more concise:

"Because McDaniels has not won a Super Bowl as Offensive Coordinator, he is to blame for us not winning a Super Bowl while he was Offensive Coordinator."

Isn't that what all this criticism is based on?