Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

Offensive coordinators who use the shotgun choose to SACRIFICE the mystery of what the play will be in order to GAIN the advantages the shot gun provides.

Putting 3 TEs on the field ABSOLUTELY improves your run blocking. They are better run blockers than the WRs. That is an advantage. The POTENTIAL disadvantage is that the defense may also put larger people on the field.
Are you more successful with a TE blocking a LB or a WR blocking a S? Whileyour blocking is better, their ability to defend is better. Which impact is larger? That is the NET EFFECT.

Yet more insane/obtuse thinking on your part.

The net effect CHANGES based on context, it's not absolute. The net benefit decreases the more you keep using a formation, the more PREDICTABLE it gets for the opposing defense.

If you kept running 3-TE anytime you needed 3 yards or less, the D would obviously know what you were doing and be better at stopping it, or at the very least it would physically punish your star running back more. If you kept running shot gun in certain situations, the defense will know what's coming, and their pass rush will be way better than it would be compared to teams which don't use shot gun as much.

 

[Ring 6]

We've already addressed this, but once again you keep twisting the argument into completely meaningless tangents.

Belichick wants to win, but he gives his coordinators tons of autonomy. He doesn't control the in-game play calls usually, and even with sh*tty coordinators whose units suck for a long time, he still lets them do when they want for almost an entire season (like with Mangini).

Your arguments are weak. You're so warped that you still try to claim Belichick didn't improve RB, TE, and O-line this off-season simply because the number of bodies who left and joined at those positions is the same.

How did we already address this when you just now characterized the Patriot decision making as follow, arrogance and stubborness?

When did I say BB didnt improve the RB and TE positions? (The OL is essentially the same)
YOU said that Alex Smith, Chris Baker and Fred Taylor are proof positive that BB has learned the lesson you want to teach him and is going to revert to the single wing or something.
I pointed out that he also signed 2 WRs and drafted a third, meaning THERE IS NO CONCLUSION TO WHAT OFFSEASON ACQUISITIONS INDICATE ABOUT A CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY.
You are posting as if he signed OJ Simpson, Larry Csonka, cut his QB, and got rid of all his pass blockers in favor of 450 lb run blockers.

 

[maverick4]

Since you've exhibited a pattern here of distorting facts or conclusions, I no longer trust your use of stats or facts.

I just looked up the Yankees stats. They won championships in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In NONE of those years did they have a player who hit more than 30 home runs.

The years they did NOT win the championship, in 1997, 2001, and every year beyond, they have had a player with more than 30 home runs.

See for yourself, change the year at the end to switch years:
2001 New York Yankees Batting, Pitching, & Fielding Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

 

[Deus Irae]

Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean his points are invalid. Like every QB in the NFL, Brady has gotten knocked around a lot whether you guys believe it or not. Whether you're in the shotgun or not, passing the football is going to put any QB vulnerable to hits.

Actually, I don't agree with him BECAUSE his points are invalid. Because he's clueless about the topic, agenda-driven and unwilling to admit the blatantly obvious, he makes invalid points and only other ignorant posters agree with him. This, sadly, is what happens when you have a conclusion first and then try to cram the facts to fit that conclusion rather than looking at the facts and then forming a conclusion based upon them.

As for QBs getting being vulnerable to hits when they pass, welcome to football. Shockingly, running backs become vulnerable to hits when they run with the football, too. Don't even get me started on what happens to wide receivers when they catch the football, those poor guys.

At the end of Maverick4's original post is something we should consider,


The last time a "pass happy" offense won the super bowl was the Rams of '99. Since then, Maverick4 brings up a good point. Every super bowl winner since the Rams of '99 had a heavy emphasis on defense and an offense that can get the job done. This is the kind of team the Pats were when they won 3 super bowls in 4 seasons.

Really? Some points:

• "pass happy" isn't an actual term, so you'd need to define it.
• the 2001 Patriots were 6th in the NFL in scoring and passed more than they ran
• the 2003 Patriots were 12th in the NFL in scoring and had a greater pass/rush discrepancy than in 2001
• the 2004 Patriots were 4th in the NFL in scoring and did, in fact, feature the ground game with Dillon
• the 2006 Colts were certainly not a defensively driven team, being #2 in offense and #23 on defense. They also passed far more than they ran
• the 2007 Giants, freak winners of a Super Bowl, weren't even the running oriented team that you'd initially think: 544 pass attempts to 469 rushing attempts. That's right.... they were "pass happy".
• This past year's Steelers: 506 pass attempts to 460 rush attempts

Pro Football & NFL History - Pro-Football-Reference.com

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Pats offense, but I think Maverick4's point is that running the same thing over and over again is going to get you exposed like they did in the super bowl against the Giants.

No, Maverick's 'point', such as it is, is that significant use (he used 50% as the cutoff in order to avoid obvious comparisons shredding his argument) of the shotgun formation is bad because it limits the offense and, somehow, makes QBs more vulnerable. Of course, the evidence of the past 2 seasons destroys this argument, but he keeps spouting the same drivel even in the face of that evidence. 16-0 with Brady, 11-5 with Cassel, the highest scoring total in NFL history, less than 3 minutes from being considered by many as the greatest team in NFL history, and Maverick is basically whining because a backup wide receiver made the catch of his life by using his helmet instead of his hands.

Going into '09, I think the Pats best plan of attack is to be more balanced during the regular season and then unleash the '07 attack during the postseason. There is no reason to do it every single game.

No, going into '09, the Patriots' best plan of attack is to do what it takes to become the best team possible while still winning, and to do this every game of the season so that the team is used to playing that way once the playoffs come around.

 

[Ring 6]

Yet more insane/obtuse thinking on your part.

The net effect CHANGES based on context, it's not absolute. The net benefit decreases the more you keep using a formation, the more PREDICTABLE it gets for the opposing defense.

If you kept running 3-TE anytime you needed 3 yards or less, the D would obviously know what you were doing and be better at stopping it, or at the very least it would physically punish your star running back more. If you kept running shot gun in certain situations, the defense will know what's coming, and their pass rush will be way better than it would be compared to teams which don't use shot gun as much.

Your argument is better if you dont steal words like 'obtuse' from me.

Who the F@#K quantified the net effect?
I am arguing, as if I am speaking to a 3 year old that there IS a net effect.


I said I would conclude you werent smart enough if you didnt understand, but one more try before I give up.

If I tell you I am passing, you will have a pass rushing advantage. If I ALIGN so that it is harder for you to get to my QB, then I MITIGATE that advantage.

Why doesnt every kick get blocked in the NFL? You are totally telegraphing it, and letting the defense know what you are doing. Gee, perhaps it is because the kicker ALIGNS 7 yards behind the center so he can get the ball kicked before any one can block it.
Do you want to revolutionize football and kick from the I formation to trick them?

 

[Ring 6]

Since you've exhibited a pattern here of distorting facts or conclusions, I no longer trust your use of stats or facts.

I just looked up the Yankees stats. They won championships in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In NONE of those years did they have a player who hit more than 30 home runs.

The years they did NOT win the championship, in 1997, 2001, and every year beyond, they have had a player with more than 30 home runs.

See for yourself, change the year at the end to switch years:
2001 New York Yankees Batting, Pitching, & Fielding Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

I believe you just accused me of lying.
"Since you've exhibited a pattern here of distorting facts"

You know as well as I do that this is a FLAT OUT LIE.
The statistics I posted about the Yankees are 100% accurate.

I expect an apology from you for that implication, or I will absolutely put you on ignore, and never respond to a post of your again.
Careful with accepting that because I may be the only person on this board with the patience to interact with your annoying @ss.
I will expect that apology IMMEDIATELY.

 

[maverick4]

Route to Super Bowl doesn't require star receiver | Rick Gosselin Columns | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News

[ Quite simply, the game has changed – as have offensive priorities. The blue-chip wide receiver isn't as important in the championship equation as he was in the 1990s.

Neither of the last two Super Bowl champions – Pittsburgh in 2008 or the New York Giants in 2007 – had a Pro Bowl wide receiver that season. Neither had a Pro Bowl quarterback, for that matter. The Steelers finished 17th in the NFL in passing and the Giants were 21st.

When the New England Patriots won back-to-back titles in the 2003 and 2004 seasons, their top wideouts failed to crack the NFL's top 30 in receiving those seasons. Deion Branch finished 42nd in 2003 and David Givens 40th in 2004. Baltimore's top wideout in its 2000 championship season was Qadry Ismail, who finished 68th in the NFL.

Only two NFL champions in the 2000 decade lined up a Pro Bowl wide receiver in their Super Bowl seasons – Troy Brown for the Patriots in 2001 and Marvin Harrison for the Indianapolis Colts in 2006. The rest preferred quantity over quality on the flank. ]
------

This stat is interesting because Marvin only has a ring because of Pats and Bears chokes, and Troy Brown was added to the pro bowl team after the fact. So basically, it's a general but strong guide that teams with a pro bowl receiver = much less chance of a ring.

 

[maverick4]

The statistics I posted about the Yankees are 100% accurate.

I said I don't trust YOUR USE of facts or stats. Why do you have such problems interpreting information or text?

The stat you dug up may be true, but as I said above, I don't trust your conclusions from the facts. Even the stat you found showed the Yankees hit less homers than their counterparts.

 

[Ring 6]

I said I don't trust YOUR USE of facts or stats. Why do you have such problems interpreting information or text?

The stat you dug up may be true, but as I said above, you lie or distort the conclusions. Even the stat you found showed the Yankees hit less homers than their counterparts.

No apology, no mas.
Have fun posting back and forth with yourself.

 

[maverick4]

No apology, no mas.
Have fun posting back and forth with yourself.

I don't consider it a big loss not conversing with someone who exhibits a pattern of coming up with conclusions that have nothing to do with the facts presented.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't consider it a big loss not conversing with someone who exhibits a pattern of coming up with conclusions that have nothing to do with the facts presented.

See now, while I figure out how to do the ignore function, you had a chance to man up, and you chose not to. Nice.

 

[maverick4]

See now, while I figure out how to do the ignore function, you had a chance to man up, and you chose not to. Nice.

You're acting like a little child, why should I apologize for something I didn't do?
I didn't say you lied, I said you distorted conclusions and that I don't trust YOUR USE of facts to make conclusions. The fact you are acting overly sensitive, taking something and misinterpreting it (once again), doesn't require my apology. Funny you tell me to 'man up' when you're acting like a hurt little boy.

It's not a hard concept to accept from many that on defense, you want to build from the inside out, in the trenches first. Yet, when you switch the topic to offense, suddenly some people that out the window and thinks it's ludicrous to think that an obsession over receivers and passing stats isn't conducive to championships.

 

[maverick4]

If I tell you I am passing, you will have a pass rushing advantage. If I ALIGN so that it is harder for you to get to my QB, then I MITIGATE that advantage.

Why doesnt every kick get blocked in the NFL? You are totally telegraphing it, and letting the defense know what you are doing. Gee, perhaps it is because the kicker ALIGNS 7 yards behind the center so he can get the ball kicked before any one can block it.
Do you want to revolutionize football and kick from the I formation to trick them?

You still keep assuming the net effect/benefit of any formation is absolute, when it's not. The net benefit of using any formation is dependent on the opposing defense's ability to predict what you are doing and to react/act on that.

Your example of field goals is an extreme example, which is irrelevant to non-special teams discussions because it involves many less variables. You are only asking one or two players to perform a simple action, over and over. The kicker kicks the ball after a split second, and there is plenty of space behind center such that it's a low probability play to get blocked.

This is far different from asking the QB to examine the field, locate the open receiver, and hit the open man accurately, before getting hit by a bunch of rabid defensive players who aren't worrying about the run. There are also the extra variables of the receivers beating their man, getting open, and catching the ball.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You just make it too easy.
The Yankees 4 Championship teams since 1996 averaged 192 HRs. The 9 non champ teams averaged 209. So, you see a philosophical difference that is costing them championships by having an additional home run every 10 games???
The Red Sox HIT WELL and PTICHED POORLY because they were in the most hitter friendly park, not because they favored hitting. They had more power than speed because their ballpark deemphasized the value of speed. Duh.
Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, DeWayne Wade, etc say hi and wonder why you think they couldn't beat those low post teams they beat.

You have now decided to compare NFL teams with good defenses AND good offenses to teams with only good offenses and have come to the miraculous conclusion that the former do better than the latter. Hooray for you!!!

New York Yankees Team Yearly Batting Stats - Baseball-Reference.com

1996: 12th in the majors in HRs, 9th in SLG (won WS)
1997: 8th in HR, 5th in SLG
1998: 4th in HR, 4th in SLG (won WS)
1999: 8th in HR, 5th in SLG (won WS)
2000: 6th in HR, 6th in SLG


Those are pretty damn good power numbers throughout. Yet another useless point by mav that is easily refuted, it looks like.

Actually, the real argument that's been raging across baseball over the last decade-plus is the traditional sabermetric approach that was popularized in Oakland in the late 90s was to get high OBP guys who could hit for some power, while deemphasizing a number of other skills (namely, speed).

I say traditional because the philosophy has changed: what it's really about is finding elements that correlate to winning yet are undervalued in the marketplace. So, once Billy Beane disciples ended up in Boston, Toronto, etc., the market corrected to appropriately value OBP, and nowadays you see Oakland teams that emphasize strong defense, which is now extremely undervalued (largely because not all teams quantify it well).

Anyways, if you can analogize the Pats' offense of the past few years to any offensive philosophy in baseball, it's the traditional sabermetric approach. In either case, you're preferring the statistically superior approach, at the expense of situationally "manufacturing" progress in sub-optimal ways.

So let's look back at the Yankee dynasty's OBP for those years:

1996: 3
1997: 1
1998: 1
1999: 2

In short, the sabermetric approach was proven right largely BECAUSE of the Yankee dynasty. They were all about getting guys on base and letting statistical probability take care of the rest. That means less first-to-third on singles, less steals attempted, etc.

 

[maverick4]

From 2006-2008 we ran shot gun about 55% of ALL plays, and in shot gun passed 5 out of every 6 times... predictable.

O'Brien has unbelievably kicked up the predictability a notch in 2009. They showed a stat on ESPN tonight that Brady leads the league in passing from shot gun, an astonishing 75% of all his passes are from shot gun this year.

Why completely eliminate the threat of run, so often??? It completely helps the defensive ends and corner-backs if they know a pass is coming and don't even have to respect the hint of a run.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

We need Weiss back big time. His play calling was extremely balanced. Even when the Pats offense is successful, it irritates me because they run the same plays over and over again. Maroney was running the ball well tonight, yet they continue to bail on him and throw in shotgun. It's too easy to tee off on Brady.