Patriots offense has become far too scheme heavy

[DaBruinz]

It was SF 31 - NE 10 in the 3rd quarter.

When NE mounted a comeback in the 4th, SF just went out and scored more points just like Brady does when things get too close for comfort.

This is the whole problem: The pass defense cannot come up with a stop when you need them. Im not counting on things to be that much better in 2013 unless changes are made personnel wise either. Im not counting on Dennard like I did with Bodden and McCourty. Talib is such a gamble with a 1 year suspension looming.

Clearly you didn't watch the game too well because the Pats started their comeback in the 3rd quarter with their last 2 series and carried that momentum into the 4th quarter.

You talking about the pass defense has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, you mentioning it actually hurts the OPs idea that the offense is too "scheme heavy" (which makes no sense at all since ALL teams use schemes in their offense).

The whole problem with your comment is that you ignore so many different issues that it would take a whole thread to discuss them. And it's been done, yet you've ignored them because you refuse to open your eyes and take other things into consideration.

 

[DaBruinz]

The best offense of all time scoring 14 points is not a matter of concern?

Not when you stop and look at all the different factors that lead to the team only being able to put up 14 points. Many of those factors were beyond their control. Like the O-line getting the flu. Like Mike Carrey standing there in awe of the fact that Manning didn't go down and was still able to lob the pass to Tyree. Carrey, after the game, said he should have blown the whistle because Manning was clearly in the grasp. And he apologized to Manning because Manning could have gotten hurt. Or their best CB having an interception go right through his fingers and then laughing about it.

Yes, in the past, the team had the talent to over-come those things. But, it's nearly impossible to keep that amount of talent in the salary cap era.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, anomalies exist, but the Pats offense falling flat in the playoffs has become a consistency, big difference there.

First and foremost, it's not the same Pats offense that has fallen flat in each of the play-offs.

Secondly, as someone else mentioned, you seem to ignore the successes they've had in the play-offs.

The reality is that each year is different. In 2007, the Pats offense was running with 3 WRs. Since 2009, their primary formation was the 2TE set, unless they had injuries, which has forced them into a different set that they weren't prepared for. And that falls on the coaches and management. But the reality is that it's nearly impossible to have that much talent on your team where you can switch from a 2 TE base formation to a 3 WR base formation and be successful..

 

[Deus Irae]

Why cant you comprehend that GOOD defenses are stopping this team from winning its 4th Super Bowl Championship?

And there's the obligatory red herring!

Maybe if you go back and look at the points scored by the Pats in post season losses you will figure it out. Heres a clue for you. Vs Baltimore, this last AFCC, the Pats were shut out in the 2nd half after only being able to score 1 TD and 2 FGs.

I know what the points were. Here's a clue for you: the score is not all that needs to be looked at.


Then again, you know all of this already, because you're doing nothing but rehashing your same arguments again and again. You've had your ass handed to you on these topics time and again, but you always jump right back in with the same poorly thought out arguments instead of doing a little bit more research and better analysis.

 

[Rob0729]

Why cant you comprehend that GOOD defenses are stopping this team from winning its 4th Super Bowl Championship?

Maybe if you go back and look at the points scored by the Pats in post season losses you will figure it out. Heres a clue for you. Vs Baltimore, this last AFCC, the Pats were shut out in the 2nd half after only being able to score 1 TD and 2 FGs.

Does David Tyree play defense? Did Asante Samuel play offense?

The Pats were within a minute of winning their fourth and fifth Super Bowl and the Pats' defense in back to back Super Bowl appearances allowed Eli Manning to march down the field for long TD drives. In the 2007-2008 Super Bowl, the Pats defense allowed Manning to lead a 14 play, 83 yard TD drive down by 4 with 2:42 left on the clock. In the 2011-2012 Super Bowl, Manning drove 88 yard in 9 plays for the game winning TD in 2:49 seconds leaving the Pats 57 seconds to respond to score a TD. Yet, we are blaming the offense.

Yes, it is the complex offense that let Manning drive for two game winning TD drives in two different Super Bowls that both started deep in Giants' territory with very little time left in the game.

 

[ivanvamp]

Does David Tyree play defense? Did Asante Samuel play offense?

The Pats were within a minute of winning their fourth and fifth Super Bowl and the Pats' defense in back to back Super Bowl appearances allowed Eli Manning to march down the field for long TD drives. In the 2007-2008 Super Bowl, the Pats defense allowed Manning to lead a 14 play, 83 yard TD drive down by 4 with 2:42 left on the clock. In the 2011-2012 Super Bowl, Manning drove 88 yard in 9 plays for the game winning TD in 2:49 seconds leaving the Pats 57 seconds to respond to score a TD. Yet, we are blaming the offense.

Yes, it is the complex offense that let Manning drive for two game winning TD drives in two different Super Bowls that both started deep in Giants' territory with very little time left in the game.

Isn't it fair to say that in both of those Super Bowl losses, both units should shoulder some blame? I mean, look at it this way:

Offense:
- Good: Scored enough points in both games to have a lead late in the fourth quarter.
- Bad: Only scored 14 and 17 points, respectively, meaning they put a undue burden on defenses to play better than normal to win.

Defense:
- Good: Held the opponents to just 17 and 21 (yes, I know there was a safety, which should go in the bad column for the offense), respectively, which any of us would have taken before either game.
- Bad: Allowed the Giants to march down the field in the last minutes of both games to score game-winning touchdowns.

Seems pretty clear that neither the offense nor the defense was to blame full, but that each shares responsibility.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you serious? They're predictable NOW. Take a look at a game and see if you can tell, by their pre-snap formation, whether it's a run or a pass. I can guess correctly about 90% of the time, I'm thinking that pro DCs are likely even better and can also come up with some nifty ways to stop it.

Seriously? If the defense knew what was coming, the offense would stink. The offense has scored more points in the last 3 years than any team has ever scored in 3 years.
This could seriously be the most obtuse post in the history of this board.

 

[supafly]

The Pats were within a minute of winning their fourth and fifth Super Bowl and the Pats' defense in back to back Super Bowl appearances allowed Eli Manning to march down the field for long TD drives. In the 2007-2008 Super Bowl, the Pats defense allowed Manning to lead a 14 play, 83 yard TD drive down by 4 with 2:42 left on the clock. In the 2011-2012 Super Bowl, Manning drove 88 yard in 9 plays for the game winning TD in 2:49 seconds leaving the Pats 57 seconds to respond to score a TD. Yet, we are blaming the offense.

Many of those factors were beyond their control. Like the O-line getting the flu. Like Mike Carrey standing there in awe of the fact that Manning didn't go down and was still able to lob the pass to Tyree. Carrey, after the game, said he should have blown the whistle because Manning was clearly in the grasp. And he apologized to Manning because Manning could have gotten hurt. Or their best CB having an interception go right through his fingers and then laughing about it.

Thanks to both of you for ruining my GD day..

I may never get over the fact that both of these games ended this way, and that we didn't at least win one of them.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Seriously? If the defense knew what was coming, the offense would stink. The offense has scored more points in the last 3 years than any team has ever scored in 3 years.
This could seriously be the most obtuse post in the history of this board.

I don't think they'd do quite as well if they didnt have crap teams like the Jets and Bills to pad their stats, that's evident when they do up against quality defenses, and the past several playoff games have shown that.

 

[supafly]

I don't think they'd do quite as well if they didnt have crap teams like the Jets and Bills to pad their stats, that's evident when they do up against quality defenses, and the past several playoff games have shown that.

The "past several playoff games" have included scores of 45 and 41 also, and those came against top 5 overall defenses for the year.

They also put up 34 against SF, and an easy 23 (should have been 26 but for the ten second runoff penalty) against SEA. Earlier in the year they put up 30 against Baltimore too, down there on their turf.

I think it's obvious that they have been able to beat some top 5 defenses very handedly (DEN, and HOU 2x this year) while getting slowed down against others.

There's absolutely nothing that proves that once we play good defenses we suddenly falter. Nothing at all.

 

[Rob0729]

Isn't it fair to say that in both of those Super Bowl losses, both units should shoulder some blame? I mean, look at it this way:

Offense:
- Good: Scored enough points in both games to have a lead late in the fourth quarter.
- Bad: Only scored 14 and 17 points, respectively, meaning they put a undue burden on defenses to play better than normal to win.

Defense:
- Good: Held the opponents to just 17 and 21 (yes, I know there was a safety, which should go in the bad column for the offense), respectively, which any of us would have taken before either game.
- Bad: Allowed the Giants to march down the field in the last minutes of both games to score game-winning touchdowns.

Seems pretty clear that neither the offense nor the defense was to blame full, but that each shares responsibility.

Again, it is a team sport. Never laid it on the defense. I was pointing to how you cannot blame the schemes on everything that went wrong in Super Bowl losses. I was responding to a post that said good defenses are preventing the Pats from winning their fourth Super Bowl. I was pointing how it wasn't the offense in the last two Super Bowls that gave up leads in the final minutes of the game as a counter to that point.

Also, I don't know how complicated schemes affected the fact that in the 07 Super Bowl it seemed that the Giants' 4 man rush were in the backfield the second Brady snapped the ball. Did Mankins have one of the worst games of his career because Moss had to decide presnap whether he was running a screen, deep route or a quick out based on the defensive formation?

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think they'd do quite as well if they didnt have crap teams like the Jets and Bills to pad their stats, that's evident when they do up against quality defenses, and the past several playoff games have shown that.

Like Houston?
The Patriots scored 218 points in 6 games vs division opponents. That is 36.3ppg
They scored 339 in the other 10, an average of 33.9 per game.

33.9 ppg over a 16 game schedule would have ranked them 5th all time, so your point about division opponents is entirely incorrect.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think they'd do quite as well if they didnt have crap teams like the Jets and Bills to pad their stats, that's evident when they do up against quality defenses, and the past several playoff games have shown that.

And, by the way, a team that tips off its plays would stink, not be the 3rd highest scoring team of all time because of competition. But you know that, which is why you chose to whiff on your reponse.

 

[Sciz]

Are you serious? They're predictable NOW. Take a look at a game and see if you can tell, by their pre-snap formation, whether it's a run or a pass. I can guess correctly about 90% of the time, I'm thinking that pro DCs are likely even better and can also come up with some nifty ways to stop it.

Did you predict run just like the entire defense on Lloyd's PA TD against the Texans?

 

[ralmat55]

Did you predict run just like the entire defense on Lloyd's PA TD against the Texans?

I did. That's why the play worked so well because it ran contrary to their too predicable tendencies based on their formation and personnel. There was a play earlier in the season in which Danny Woodhead picked up a long 3rd down conversion with a run that was another example of the Patriots benefiting from running a play contrary to their overall predictability.

The Patriots run so much of their offense out of their spread formations and substitute their running back so much that it's pretty hard for them not to be predictable based on formation and personnel. If Ridley lines up with Brady under center 20 plays a game and carries it 15 times, you are predictable. If you run the ball 5 times a game when you are in a shotgun with 4 wide and on 4 of those 5 times, Ridley is the back rather than Woodhead, you are predictable.

It's hard to complain about the overall excellence of the Patriots' offense. But, when they're playing a good defense, being predictable doesn't help.

 

[chasa]

Allow me to put my Flamesuit on.

Thanks,

Ok heres what i think.

I think Brady has gotten complacent. I think he sees he has welker, and hes become too happy with the status quo that his "security blanket" provides.

Before welker came in brady had a revolving door of recievers, and you know what his numbers were not earth shattering, but they were hall of fame worthy good. Brady thrived and grew and he was known as a guy who could get it done regardless of who he was targeting.

Now we have the number 3 offense ever but we cant get the job done?

Welker is getting old, and like it or not he has had more huge drops then clutch catches.

Brady has been playing really well, but his reluctance to trust in young WR makes it impossible for a young guy to come in here and actually get some Reps to get the timing with brady during game day top notch.

David givens, Patton, Branch, Gaffney, Troy brown. These guys are not top tier receivers now, nor when they played, yet Brady was able to get to Superbowl with them repeatedly. I don't think it's about the scheme, I think it's Brady saying "if its not broke dont fix it" hes got the toys he likes, and until we take them away hes not going to play with anything else.


Okay Flame on, i'm ready,

 

[JMC00]

So now the offensive scheme is a problem?

When/if the defense becomes a top 10-15 defense in yards allowed , top 5 in points allowed per game, hold opponents to 36 percent or less on third downs, holds QBs to under 59 percent completion percentage and only allows 220 yards or less passing per game and the Pats lose 13-10 in the AFCC, that's when i'll say the offense is a problem

 

[Deus Irae]

So now the offensive scheme is a problem?...

The very same people will tell you:

Offensive scheme is the problem!
Drafting is the problem!
Lack of talent is the problem!
Terrible secondary is the problem!
Brady's not as good anymore, and that's the problem!
Welker/Brady/Hernandez/etc... chokes, and that's the problem!
Playcalling is the problem!
Passive defense is the problem!
No pass rush is the problem!


It just depends on which threads get started that day, because they're just looking for scapegoats instead of taking the time to actually look at what's been happening. The notion that luck, injuries, and a combination of many things (including some of those mentioned above) are what's been the "problem" is too much for them to grasp, so they focus on one item at a time, scream out that it's [highlight]the[/highlight] problem, and then repeat the process when the next possibility is brought up. If someone started a thread that mentioned that hot dogs cost more in the playoffs, this same core group would insist that hot dog prices were why the Patriots were losing in the playoffs.

 

[Joker]

 

[ralmat55]

The very same people will tell you:

Offensive scheme is the problem!
Drafting is the problem!
Lack of talent is the problem!
Terrible secondary is the problem!
Brady's not as good anymore, and that's the problem!
Welker/Brady/Hernandez/etc... chokes, and that's the problem!
Playcalling is the problem!
Passive defense is the problem!
No pass rush is the problem!


It just depends on which threads get started that day, because they're just looking for scapegoats instead of taking the time to actually look at what's been happening. The notion that luck, injuries, and a combination of many things (including some of those mentioned above) are what's been the "problem" is too much for them to grasp, so they focus on one item at a time, scream out that it's [highlight]the[/highlight] problem, and then repeat the process when the next possibility is brought up. If someone started a thread that mentioned that hot dogs cost more in the playoffs, this same core group would insist that hot dog prices were why the Patriots were losing in the playoffs.

Most of us understand that luck and injuries have played a part in the Patriot's "failure" to win a Super Bowl since 2005. But, how does that render any discussion about improving the Pats in 2013 or discussing how they could have been better in 2012 irrelevant?