Offensive Playcalling was Average to Atrocious

[maverick4]

I will ask you one last time.

I don't need to address those because I already responded, I said you sound just like a 90's Bledsoe apologist coming up with LISTS of other things that contributed to losses. When did I ever say McDaniels is solely to blame, you moron?
As far as I'm concerned, your constant lists are only more proof that your primary motivation is to defend McDaniels at all costs, just like a 90's Bledsoe apologist. While the other three of us can assign blame to the O-Line, Brady, Belichick, but ALSO McDaniels, you keep acting as if McDaniels is infallible, because you keep having orgasms while looking at Brady's regular season stats under McDaniels.

 

[Rob0729]

OR, maybe it's because defense is Belichick's specialty?

Seriously, this is just you coming up with more warped and weak arguments to defend McDaniels.

And one of my biggest criticisms of Belichick IS that he is so hands off on the youngster, he shouldn't give McDaniels so much autonomy when this kid is going up against DC's with much more experience.

LOL! Yeah, because Belichick had nothing to do with the offense when he served as the QB coach after **** Reibein died. Talk about weak arguments.

Sorry, Belichick likes to delegate responsibility, but he has always been involved with the offensive side of the ball especially in the development of Brady.

As for Belichick's hands off approach, I defer to him on this because he knows what he is doing.

 

[maverick4]

I agree in general people are too sensitive about critique to McD, and I agree with the reason for it - NEM's rants. Let's face it, McD is more spiritedly defended around here than Tom Brady or Bill Belichick. And I do think McD gets blame for things he shouldn't, but I also wish Brady or BB would get the same rallying cries McD does.

Yea I feel like they're all in attack mode, as if they are debating NEM. Nope, you are debating three other individuals, who weren't bashing Weiss every week, and in my opinion have legit complaints about a pretty good young coach slightly in over his head.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't need to address those because I already responded, I said you sound just like a 90's Bledsoe apologist coming up with LISTS of other things that contributed to losses. When did I ever say McDaniels is solely to blame, you moron?
As far as I'm concerned, your constant lists are only more proof that your primary motivation is to defend McDaniels at all costs, just like a 90's Bledsoe apologist. While the other three of us can assign blame to the O-Line, Brady, Belichick, but ALSO McDaniels, you keep acting as if McDaniels is infallible, because you keep having orgasms while looking at Brady's regular season stats under McDaniels.

In other words, you want to minimize the real reasons we lost the games so you can blame McDaniels. Why blame the real reasons we lost when we can ignore the facts of the games and drop the load right on McDaniels lap.

The Pats scored 34 points vs. Indy and had a 21-6 first half lead, but it was clearly McDaniels fault the Pats lost that game. Any sense of rational logic would say to look at the defense and ask how the Colts could score 32 second half points, but logic and blaming McDaniels don't match up so well.

Thank you for exposing yourself as a fraud McDaniels hater with an agenda. I miss NEM. Eventhough he used BS logic, he wouldn't avoid questions like this by ignoring the questions and deflecting it with accusations that it Bledsoe apologist logic. At least he would make it interesting.

 

[BradyManny]

Yea I feel like they're all in attack mode, as if they are debating NEM. Nope, you are debating three other individuals, who weren't bashing Weiss every week, and in my opinion have legit complaints about a pretty good young coach slightly in over his head.

LAST TIME I POST IN THIS THREAD I SWEAR:

I think the thing is is that the OC has become such a polarizing issue. It's a "you're either with us or against us" on both sides. For someone like me who occasionally criticizes McD but generally is in approval of how effectively he runs an offense, it feels like a tough situation.

 

[Rob0729]

While I don't agree much with your specific complaints re: play-calling, I agree in general people are too sensitive about critique to McD, and I agree with the reason for it - NEM's rants. Let's face it, McD is more spiritedly defended around here than Tom Brady or Bill Belichick. And I do think McD gets blame for things he shouldn't, but I also wish Brady or BB would get the same rallying cries McD does.

I have no problem with people criticizing McDaniels. He did not call a perfect game. I do take offense to bogus claims that he is the reason for all of the playoff losses since Weis left or that he didn't try to change things up especially that bogus rumor that McDaniels adamently said to Brady that he wasn't going to change anything.

Legitimate complaints about McDaniels are fine, but there are quite a few people who want to lay it on whenever McDaniels' name is mentioned and blame him for everything and not give him credit for anything. The problem is that there is a lot more of the latter than the former.

McDaniels did not call a great game, but he was far from the only reason the Pats lost nor the biggest. To lay the loss at his feet is inaccurate. Giving a share of the blame pie is justified, but I wouldn't give him a bigger piece than the o-line.

 

[BradyManny]

McDaniels did not call a great game, but he was far from the only reason the Pats lost nor the biggest. To lay the loss at his feet is inaccurate. Giving a share of the blame pie is justified, but I wouldn't give him a bigger piece than the o-line.

No, I agree 100% on this as well. But, for instance, I would say he's higher up the list than Brady, though I feel Brady has gotten far more undeserved blame for the loss than he should. And it's because questioning a player and their execution is ultimately a much less polarizing action than questioning a coach, particularly a Pats OC, for the aforementioned reason.

OK, now I'm really leaving this thread.

 

[Deus Irae]

While I don't agree much with your specific complaints re: play-calling, I agree in general people are too sensitive about critique to McD, and I agree with the reason for it - NEM's rants. Let's face it, McD is more spiritedly defended around here than Tom Brady or Bill Belichick. And I do think McD gets blame for things he shouldn't, but I also wish Brady or BB would get the same rallying cries McD does.

I think that people would not be so 'sensitive' (as you put it) to the complaints about McD, or anyone else, if there were some actual facts involved in the attackers' arguments that made sense. That's not really the case here, though. Let's break down relevant facts to this argument:

1.) We're being told that teams stopped the long passing game better as the year went on when every single game in the second half of the season featured at least one pass play that went for 40+ yards for the Patriots. Now, this is after 4 of the first 8 games had no pass plays that went for 40+ yards.

2.) Ranking the opposing defenses. First half: 19,5,18,24,21,13,30,11. Now, to add a little more intrigue to that, remember that San Diego was playing terribly at the time, and nothing like the #5 defense in the NFL. Still, even keeping San Diego's 5 ranking, that's a total of 141, which averages out to 17.625. Second half: 1,18,9,22,2,19,30,17. Now, that's a total of 118, which averages out to 14.75. So, teams in the second half were better defensive teams than the teams in the first half. Why should anyone be surprised if there was a corresponding drop off in scoring?

3.) How many 'bad weather' games occured in the first half of the season? I believe that the answer can safely be credited as 0. That was not the case in the second half, which also impacted the scoring totals and deep game. Anyone wishing to argue that this is not true need only to watch the second Jets game to realize their error.

4.) Brady was hurt in the San Diego game and clearly wasn't back to 100% in the Super Bowl. Unless McD is the one who injured Brady, the O.C. shouldn't be shouldering blame for Brady's lower quality of play. After all, for example, it wasn't McD telling Brady to get picked 3 times in the AFCCG, including once in the endzone on a pass that should have been lobbed to the back of the endzone, was it?

5.) There's even an argument that the problem was a lack of passes going 21+ yards in the air to players other than Moss, even though I've already posted the numbers disproving that as well.

6.) There's also an argument that because Stallworth didn't get more passes going 21+ yards in the air, he was somehow misused. This argument overlooks two obvious points, of course. First, it's just someone's opinion that he was being misused, and the record setting point total amassed by the team pretty much puts an end to that notion. Second, Gaffney (who had 5 such passes) was getting some of those passes as he took snaps away from Stallworth, and Stallworth did have 4 of those 'long' catches to Moss' 11. Some people remember the Brady-Moss-Brady-Gaffney pass. Apparently, those complaining about the deep game missed that one. They also seem to be ignoring another notable fact: Stallworth was let go and not brought back after seeing his playing time reduced over the course of the season. Will the next claim be that Stallworth was simply made a scapegoat?

 

[JoeSixPat]

LAST TIME I POST IN THIS THREAD I SWEAR:

I think the thing is is that the OC has become such a polarizing issue. It's a "you're either with us or against us" on both sides. For someone like me who occasionally criticizes McD but generally is in approval of how effectively he runs an offense, it feels like a tough situation.

Thanks for a very reasonable post.

I'm on record saying I support McDaniels staying but don't think we need to kid ourselves about the way he did, or rather didn't use his two deep WR threats this year (and how he gave up on the deep game in 2006) and the cumulative effect that had.

I'm not pinning a Super Bowl loss on him either and know you can't really just look at one game.

 

[BradyManny]

I think that people would not be so 'sensitive' (as you put it) to the complaints about McD, or anyone else, if there were some actual facts involved in the attackers' arguments that made sense. That's not really the case here, though. Let's break down relevant facts to this argument:

F it, I'm posting here in this thread....

Bottom line, I agree with 1-6 of your points.

Specifically Stallworth, whose bandwagon I never truly got on. He proved to be an unreliable jump-ball catcher, was moderately responsible for a handful of Brady picks by mis-playing balls (post season included), and ultimately only proved his worth as a catch and run YAC guy. Stallworth was not mis-used, Stallworth turned out to not be that great a receiver, or at least not for this team.

Honestly, Chad Jackson COULD be the perfect receiver for this team (alongside Moss and Welker) and COULD take this group to the next level. As it is, with Gaffney as the #3 now, the offense will most certainly continue at at least as high a level as it was performing last season.

 

[maverick4]

McDaniels' biggest apologists are just like Bledsoe apologists.
One of the FIRST things they bring up (and masturbate to) are huge yardage stats or fantasy football mentality.

You know, it's possible to assign blame to multiple units and coaches, it's kind of ridiculous that ANY criticism on McDaniels gets vehemently defended here.

 

[Rob0729]

McDaniels' biggest apologists are just like Bledsoe apologists.
One of the FIRST things they bring up (and masturbate to) are huge yardage stats or fantasy football mentality.

You know, it's possible to assign blame to multiple units and coaches, it's kind of ridiculous that ANY criticism on McDaniels gets vehemently defended here.

No stupid arguments like McDaniels being the common link to all our playoff losses the last three years get vehemently offended.

McDaniels "apologists" also bring up irrelevant things like the 32 points the Pats' defense gave up in the second half (It is ridiculous not to expect any offense to overcome the other team only scoring 38 points) and three fumbles, two on special teams. McDaniels 'realists" know it was just the defense and special teamers reacting to the ineptitude of McDaniels.


Your bashing of McDaniels is almost like the stupid bashing of Vrabel in the other thread.

 

[maverick4]

I never said McDaniels was the SOLE reason for our last 3 crushing playoff losses, this is YOU trying to distort my arguments.

But whether you like it or not, scoring 14 points in the Superbowl, with one of the most talented offensive units in league history, IS indicative of non-stellar offensive coaching, and a non-elite offensive mind. Sure Brady and Belichick are at fault too, but you guys refuse to have this Superbowl loss in any way reflect on McDaniels play calling abilities.

But you'll just reply with how the Giants D was ordained by God, and how no OC could beat them.

 

[stcjones]

Where was this argument when our biggest free agent acquisition of the 2002 season (Donald Hayes) was slow to pick up the playbook and our offense struggled late in the year? I mean Brady only passed for over 200 yards 3 of the last 7 games that year. Why wasn't Weis criticized when the offense was clearly struggling and their biggest acquisition was a bust because he would run the wrong routes? I mean if it fair to criticize McDaniels for this with the best single season offense of all time, why isn't it fair to criticize Weis when the 2002 offense was grounded. In two of the last three games, Brady didn't get 140 passing yards that season.

I swear nearly every for argument people have made for trashing McDaniels, you can go back and find a situation where Weis had the same problem. Except Weis is still a genius and McDaniels sucks.

The fact of the matter is McDaniels is an above average OC and getting better. He going into his third year as an OC and will only get better with experience. You look around the league at all the OCs that are considered the best and you can find that they have made as many mistakes as McDaniels have, some a lot more.

People forget that other than 2004, our offense was never more than above average and many times very average during Weis' rein at OC. Weis was only asked to not turnover the ball and play ball control offense most of the time and let the defense do the rest. Since Crennel and Weis has left, the offense has been asked to carry a lot more of the load. Truth is we do not know how Weis would have handled this role because even in 2004 he was never in this situation with this team. In 2004, it was the most balanced we ever had with offense and defense, but the defense was still dominant. We haven't had a dominant defense since.

Without the offense being like it was this year, there was no way we would have won nearly as many games as we did. The offense carried this team this year and significant part of the credit goes to McDaniels whether you like it or not.

"Where was this argument when our biggest free agent acquisition of the 2002 season (Donald Hayes) was slow to pick up the playbook and our offense struggled late in the year?" Alright for starters.....let's NEVER put Donald Hayes and Donte Stallworth in the same category........NEXT Question!

"Why wasn't Weis criticized when the offense was clearly struggling and their biggest acquisition was a bust because he would run the wrong routes? I mean if it fair to criticize McDaniels for this with the best single season offense of all time, why isn't it fair to criticize Weis when the 2002 offense was grounded."

This is a simple one Rob......Weis NEVER had the offensive weapons to play with that McD had this year.....and although it is hard to say "well if Charlie was here he would have done even more" etc......I do think Weis would have made the adjustments when it mattered MOST....in the Super Bowl......I am not saying that Weis was the greatest OC of all time.....but he seemed to step up in the BIG games when needed and closed the deal.....McD was asleep at the wheel in the SB.........How could he not find some way to slow down or punish FOUR players from rushing ON EVERY play?

"People forget that other than 2004, our offense was never more than above average and many times very average during Weis' rein at OC. Weis was only asked to not turnover the ball and play ball control offense most of the time and let the defense do the rest. "

Again, goes back to the offensive WEAPONS Robby.......Weis NEVER had the kind of incredibly talented players that McD had the luxury of coaching this year.....Branch was our top offensive threat.....and he couldn't carry R. Moss' jock.......

"Truth is we do not know how Weis would have handled this role" (this year?)

Very true.....but in my opinion.....Weis' management of the O in the SB would have lead to another championship........Oh well.....the discussion is mute......in BB we trust.,....and if we have one more successful season ....McD will be gone anyways....off to a HC position....sheesh!

 

[Rob0729]

"Where was this argument when our biggest free agent acquisition of the 2002 season (Donald Hayes) was slow to pick up the playbook and our offense struggled late in the year?" Alright for starters.....let's NEVER put Donald Hayes and Donte Stallworth in the same category........NEXT Question!

"Why wasn't Weis criticized when the offense was clearly struggling and their biggest acquisition was a bust because he would run the wrong routes? I mean if it fair to criticize McDaniels for this with the best single season offense of all time, why isn't it fair to criticize Weis when the 2002 offense was grounded."

This is a simple one Rob......Weis NEVER had the offensive weapons to play with that McD had this year.....and although it is hard to say "well if Charlie was here he would have done even more" etc......I do think Weis would have made the adjustments when it mattered MOST....in the Super Bowl......I am not saying that Weis was the greatest OC of all time.....but he seemed to step up in the BIG games when needed and closed the deal.....McD was asleep at the wheel in the SB.........How could he not find some way to slow down or punish FOUR players from rushing ON EVERY play?

"People forget that other than 2004, our offense was never more than above average and many times very average during Weis' rein at OC. Weis was only asked to not turnover the ball and play ball control offense most of the time and let the defense do the rest. "

Again, goes back to the offensive WEAPONS Robby.......Weis NEVER had the kind of incredibly talented players that McD had the luxury of coaching this year.....Branch was our top offensive threat.....and he couldn't carry R. Moss' jock.......

"Truth is we do not know how Weis would have handled this role" (this year?)

Very true.....but in my opinion.....Weis' management of the O in the SB would have lead to another championship........Oh well.....the discussion is mute......in BB we trust.,....and if we have one more successful season ....McD will be gone anyways....off to a HC position....sheesh!

Again, the legend of Charlie Weis is greater than the actual man. The Pats offense was not all that great in either the Eagles' or Rams' Super Bowl. He is a very good OC, but people have made up this legend in their minds.

You do realize that in the Super Bowl against the Eagles, the Pats had six three and outs? Or that two of their four scoring drives started on the Eagles' side of the field? The defense stepped up in that game.

Or how about the Super Bowl vs. the Rams where the Pats only had one drive go farther than 50 yards? Or that they punted seven times? Or that they only scored 13 points on offense in that game? Or that the Pats defense scored six less points than the Pats offense in that game? Yes, that game had "the drive", but the rest of the game the Pats offense was fairly enemic.

The only Super Bowl the Pats played that the defense didn't carry the offense for most of the game was the Carolina Super Bowl.

People seem to forget the Pats won Super Bowls primarily on the back of their defense.

As for the talent thing, we can all agree that last year's offensive talent was the worse since 2000. Yet, the Pats offense last year had more yards and scored more points than any Charlie Weis offense besides the 2004 offense. I'm not talking this year vs. any year that Weis coached. I am talking McDaniels' OC career vs. Weis' OC career.

As for Donald Hayes vs, Stallworth, Hayes was the guy that the Pats wanted and they did not try to revise the offense to accommodate him nor should they. McDaniels shouldn't have revised his offense to accomodate Stallworth either. If Stallworth didn't understand the playbook, then he shouldn't play. Plain and simple. He was a 3rd/4th WR and you don't revise your offense to accomodate a 3rd WR. You move on down the depth chart which is exactly what they did.

 

[Rob0729]

I never said McDaniels was the SOLE reason for our last 3 crushing playoff losses, this is YOU trying to distort my arguments.

But whether you like it or not, scoring 14 points in the Superbowl, with one of the most talented offensive units in league history, IS indicative of non-stellar offensive coaching, and a non-elite offensive mind. Sure Brady and Belichick are at fault too, but you guys refuse to have this Superbowl loss in any way reflect on McDaniels play calling abilities.

But you'll just reply with how the Giants D was ordained by God, and how no OC could beat them.

No you said McDaniels was the main reason or "the common denominator". An assertion that couldn't be farther from the truth.

BTW, who is putting words in whose mouth. I said McDaniels didn't call a good game in the Super Bowl. I disagree with you in other years in the playoffs and I do not judge a OC based on one game even as important as the Super Bowl. Many great coaches (which I am not saying McDaniels fits in) have had bad games in the Super Bowl including some guys who are in the Hall of Fame.

Another thing that you are putting words in my mouth about is the Giants D. I never said they were Gods and that no OC could have beaten them. They came into the game with a great gameplan, hungrier, and battled harder in the trenches. Their defense wanted it more than our offense and I am talking both players and coaching staff. Just like the Pats defense wanted it more than the Rams in February of 2002. I still put far more blame on the offensive line than anyone in this game. Most people agree.

 

[maverick4]

I still put far more blame on the offensive line than anyone in this game. Most people agree.

It's so simplistic to just blame a group of 5 guys, without looking into how play calls, offensive plays, and lack of adjustments to defensive pressure also factor into this.

 

[Ring 6]

It's so simplistic to just blame a group of 5 guys, without looking into how play calls, offensive plays, and lack of adjustments to defensive pressure also factor into this.

Show me how it was play calling and not execution.

 

[Ring 6]

It's so simplistic to just blame a group of 5 guys, without looking into how play calls, offensive plays, and lack of adjustments to defensive pressure also factor into this.

Isnt it more simplistic to balme 1 guy than 5?

 

[Rob0729]

It's so simplistic to just blame a group of 5 guys, without looking into how play calls, offensive plays, and lack of adjustments to defensive pressure also factor into this.

I guess you could blame it on the one or two 7 step drops that McDaniels had Brady do eventhough he spent a large portion of the game in the shotgun. Brady was in the shotgun 41 of 69 offensive plays (only two or three were on running plays). Yet your analysis of McDaniels includes how the Pats had 4 straight seven step drops in the last drive when Brady was in the shotgun on every play (no one does a seven step drop in the shotgun since that would be the equivalent of a 15-20 step drop).

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=280203017&period=0