Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

Kobe scored more than Gasol. Pierce scored more than Garnett. Wade scored far more than O'Neal.

This sounds like you're saying a ground-focused NFL offense would need more total rushing yards/TD's/points than passing yards or receiving yards/TD's/points... more ridiculous responses from you denying that those teams with the best low post game won. In any of the major sports, the sexy offensive teams usually lose to the lunch pail teams with strong low-post/hitting-OBP/ground-game offensive teams.

 

[Fencer]

Factors important to the success of an offense and its team include but are not limited to:

• Average yards gained per play -- obviously
• Turnovers allowed -- obviously
• Variance in yards gained per play -- an offense that was absolutely guaranteed to gain EXACTLY 2.6 yards every play and never turn the ball over would be, literally, a perfect offense.

 

[efin98]

Can you argue the merits of the points being made, without dismissing it as a McDaniels thread? Probably not, you're still too busy washing his balls.

...washing his balls? I've never posted anything about him so you have no idea what the hell I think about him or his offensive schemes.

But that answer summed it up, it's a veiled anti-McDaniels thread.

 

[maverick4]

[*]Variance in yards gained per play -- an offense that was absolutely guaranteed to gain EXACTLY 2.6 yards every play and never turn the ball over would be, literally, a perfect offense.
[/LIST]

Don't you mean guaranteed 3.4 yards per play (or, I see what you mean if it's 4 downs and guaranteed)? What about an offense with twice as many yards every play with twice as much variance? Hypothetically speaking. Better, worse, or same? I say worse. The lower variance is more valuable.

There's a reason it's rare to see teams win rings in which their main bread and butter is about being pass-heavy (in the NFL), home runs or power hitters (MLB), or fast-break and 3-pointers (NBA).

 

[Deus Irae]

More idiocy from the one who would take the torch. How sad.

 

[maverick4]

Douche, do you have anything of substance to add, or just more verbal diarrhea on your part?

 

[Rob0729]

Can you argue the merits of the points being made, without dismissing it as a McDaniels thread? Probably not, you're still too busy washing his balls.

It's like deja view all over again. You have used this argument over and over again to bash McDaniels. You are complaining about the offensive philosophy (for the 900th time) under McDaniels. Just because you have come to this conclusion that people aren't catching on that you are bashing McDaniels if you just bash his play calling and philosophy and not actually mention him by name doesn't mean that people aren't catching onto your ploy.

The fact of the matter the Patriots adopted much of Urban Meyer's spread offense which is run primarily out of the shotgun even on running plays. It has been such a complete and utter failure that other teams are now approaching Meyers to pick his brain to adapt his system into their NFL offense.

It is funny that you use an article that states that the Pats had the best offense the second half of the season last year to make an argument why it is a bad thing. This vertical offenses don't win championships crap is just that crap. Offenses alone don't win or lose championships especially prior to this decade where the rules weren't so stacked against defenses and refs let teams play in the playoffs and not call everything. The term defenses wins championships is not just a cute saying. Nine times out of ten, the team that plays better defense, not neccessarily better offense wins the Super Bowl.

 

[Deus Irae]

Douche, do you have anything of substance to add, or just more verbal diarrhea on your part?

Yes, oh foolish one.....

27-5, and 16-0 with the #1 QB.

 

[efin98]

Yes, oh foolish one.....

27-5, and 16-0 with the #1 QB.

How dare you bring facts here...shame on you!

Gee worked so poorly that he got a promotion out of it...worked so bad that other teams are trying to copy it...got so bad that it took the offensive line breaking down to slow it.

Yep, it's a failure all right

 

[maverick4]

27-5, and 16-0 with the #1 QB.

I love winning too, but you sound just like a Colts fan from 2003-2004. The Colts during that time also won tons of games, put up tons of stats, and had success. They didn't win any rings though, some other less flashy team did, even when their defense failed them in championship games.

 

[Rob0729]

So let's recap. According to Football Insider, the Pats had the best offense in the league in 2007 and the last half of 2008 with two different QBs (one who had zero starts since high school coming into the season) which obviously means McDaniels sucked and lacked "situational awareness". Now that we have that clear, can we just close the thread and not go on endlessly with this BS?

 

[Deus Irae]

I love winning too, but you sound just like a Colts fan from 2003-2004. The Colts during that time also won tons of games, put up tons of stats, and had success. They didn't win any rings though, some other less flashy team did, even when their defense failed them in championship games.

Could you name all the times that the Colts, or any other team in NFL history, went 16-0 in the regular season? In fact, how many teams in NFL history have every had a perfect regular season? From your post, I'm sure the Colts have done it just about every year.

 

[PatsChamp88]

The fact that your still nitpicking over the offensive line, use of shotgun formation, and others over Woods when the 2009 season hasn't even started proves that your still not over 2007.

GET OVER IT!

 

[maverick4]

This vertical offenses don't win championships crap is just that crap.

Running shotgun over 50% of your plays is garbage. You can't name more than 5 teams in the past 30 years of NFL history that won playing even close to that kind of style.

You guys really should switch teams and start rooting for the Phoenix Suns, NY Yankees, and Indy Colts, other teams that play flashy, highlight-reel style. They suit your love for stats and blind excuse-making whenever your teams fall short.

 

[Deus Irae]

So let's recap. According to Football Insider, the Pats had the best offense in the league in 2007 and the last half of 2008 with two different QBs (one who had zero starts since high school coming into the season) which obviously means McDaniels sucked and lacked "situational awareness". Now that we have that clear, can we just close the thread and not go on endlessly with this BS?

We can't for 2 very good reasons:

1.) We're not allowed to treat the O.P. with the written disdain that he so richly deserves.

2.) The mods have not stepped in to prevent the O.P. from continuing with the nonsense.

 

[Rob0729]

I love winning too, but you sound just like a Colts fan from 2003-2004. The Colts during that time also won tons of games, put up tons of stats, and had success. They didn't win any rings though, some other less flashy team did, even when their defense failed them in championship games.

Isn't ironic the one time the Colts' defense actually showed up for the playoffs, they won the Super Bowl? Even with Manning sucking the the first two playoff games and Marvin Harrison being none existent the entire Super Bowl run?

 

[LeonPowe]

The good news is, we don't have McDaniels around here anymore having Brady starting off the season throwing 50 times and getting injured in the first freaking game.

 

[Rob0729]

Running shotgun over 50% of your plays is garbage. You can't name more than 5 teams in the past 30 years of NFL history that won playing even close to that kind of style.

You guys really should switch teams and start rooting for the Phoenix Suns, NY Yankees, and Indy Colts, other teams that play flashy, highlight-reel style. They suit your love for stats and blind excuse-making whenever your teams fall short.

Just because no one else has done something doesn't mean it won't work. That is a silly argument. No one ran a defense like the Steel Curtain defense before the 70s and it won 4 championships.

I am not making blind excuses, I put the blame where it should be and not blame McDaniels for every playoff lose when it defies simple logic. Just because the I blame the Pats' defense more than McDaniels for gives up 35 points in the second half of the AFC Championship against the Colts doesn't mean I am an excuse maker. It means I have a brain and don't have a blind hatred for the guy.

 

[Rob0729]

We can't for 2 very good reasons:

1.) We're not allowed to treat the O.P. with the written disdain that he so richly deserves.

2.) The mods have not stepped in to prevent the O.P. from continuing with the nonsense.

Unfortunately, unless maverick steps over the line like NEM did, he does have a right to continue this crap. I don't believe in censorship on these boards and we are just as responsible for responding to him.

 

[efin98]

Just because no one else has done something doesn't mean it won't work. That is a silly argument. No one ran a defense like the Steel Curtain defense before the 70s and it won 4 championships.

I am not making blind excuses, I put the blame where it should be and not blame McDaniels for every playoff lose when it defies simple logic. Just because the I blame the Pats' defense more than McDaniels for gives up 35 points in the second half of the AFC Championship against the Colts doesn't mean I am an excuse maker. It means I have a brain and don't have a blind hatred for the guy.

...or you actually watched the game closely and understood what the heck was going on.

So if I'm following the logic here by the OP when it's the offensive line's fault, it's the offensive coordinator whose at fault? When it's the defense's fault for giving up those points, it's the offensive coordinator's fault?