- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,107
- Reaction score
- 52,115
The Patriots were fairly balanced, not putting a huge premium on the passing game, up until 2007. Of course, part of it was just maximizing their personnel, and with Moss and Welker, it would seem logical to play a lot of spread shotgun. In 2010, of course, we saw the emergence 2 TE offense, but the running game was still more of a charade that was setup by the passing game, much like a changeup. I think it's fair to say that since 2007, the Patriots have relied significantly more on shotgun, 3+ WR sets, often with five guys on the line and a running back to help with blocking, but we don't see a lot of max protection and we certainly don't see a lot of power running. Their overall philosophy is, in general, to throw the ball a lot and score a lot of points early and often, whereas defensive teams (ala the Patriots 2001-06) tend to play for field position and capitalize on mistakes.
There's little debate that the pass-first offense has done incredible things in the regular season. In the playoffs, it has been a mixed bag. Here are the playoff point totals pre and post 2007.
2001-06
16
24
20
17
24
32
20
41
24
28
13
37
24
34
In 14 games, the Patriots scored at least 20 points in 11 out of 14 games. They averaged 25.3 points per game.
2007-15
31
21
14
14
21
45
23
17
41
13
43
16
35
45
28
27
18
In 17 games, the Patriots have scored at least 20 points in 11 out of 17 games. They averaged 23.9 points per game.
What does this mean?
Maybe nothing; it's a small sample size, and in games where they scored 20 or less, they were 2-1 with a better defense and 0-6 since they made big changes. But if you look at the distributions, it's pretty clear that this is a BOOM-or-BUST offense in the postseason.
Since 2007, the Patriots have scored between 19-34 points just 6 times in 17 games (35%). Most every other game has been a huge offensive output (35+) or a clunker (18 -). From 2001-06, they scored in that range 9 times in 14 games (64%).
I don't have the exact stats, but my best guess in the 2001-06 teams during the regular season would be close to middle-of-the-pack for regular season ppg at around 22-24, whereas the 2007-present team would be somewhere up or even over 30. Little doubt that this offensive scheme works better in the regular season than the playoffs.
STFU, We just won a Super Bowl.
The heavy passing offense can work...I'm not saying it isn't our best option. Again, some of it has to do with the defense as well and no longer having a wrecking crew of a 3-4 defensive line and front 7. However, it is very concerning that this offense is also built for a lot of duds. Let's face it: we watched in shock and horror as the 2007 team was grounded in the SB, but that same result has happened five times since then, always with a similar theme that a great pass rush can ruin a one-dimensional passing offense, which has nowhere else to turn when things get bad. Far more sacks, more pressures, more interceptions than the Patriots used to allow.
There's little debate that the pass-first offense has done incredible things in the regular season. In the playoffs, it has been a mixed bag. Here are the playoff point totals pre and post 2007.
2001-06
16
24
20
17
24
32
20
41
24
28
13
37
24
34
In 14 games, the Patriots scored at least 20 points in 11 out of 14 games. They averaged 25.3 points per game.
2007-15
31
21
14
14
21
45
23
17
41
13
43
16
35
45
28
27
18
In 17 games, the Patriots have scored at least 20 points in 11 out of 17 games. They averaged 23.9 points per game.
What does this mean?
Maybe nothing; it's a small sample size, and in games where they scored 20 or less, they were 2-1 with a better defense and 0-6 since they made big changes. But if you look at the distributions, it's pretty clear that this is a BOOM-or-BUST offense in the postseason.
Since 2007, the Patriots have scored between 19-34 points just 6 times in 17 games (35%). Most every other game has been a huge offensive output (35+) or a clunker (18 -). From 2001-06, they scored in that range 9 times in 14 games (64%).
I don't have the exact stats, but my best guess in the 2001-06 teams during the regular season would be close to middle-of-the-pack for regular season ppg at around 22-24, whereas the 2007-present team would be somewhere up or even over 30. Little doubt that this offensive scheme works better in the regular season than the playoffs.
STFU, We just won a Super Bowl.
The heavy passing offense can work...I'm not saying it isn't our best option. Again, some of it has to do with the defense as well and no longer having a wrecking crew of a 3-4 defensive line and front 7. However, it is very concerning that this offense is also built for a lot of duds. Let's face it: we watched in shock and horror as the 2007 team was grounded in the SB, but that same result has happened five times since then, always with a similar theme that a great pass rush can ruin a one-dimensional passing offense, which has nowhere else to turn when things get bad. Far more sacks, more pressures, more interceptions than the Patriots used to allow.
