Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[glm]

Actually I think Belichick has already 'gotten it', I just enjoy talking to clowns here so their posts look silly a year from now. Look at Belichick's moves, his priority the moment free agency started was to acquire Fred Taylor, Chris Baker, Alex Smith, draft multiple O-linemen including using high picks.

It'll be icing on the cake to see these ball washers react after their ex-coordinator, who is doing a great job displaying more situational dis-awareness, falls on his face.

What about Galloway, Lewis, and the lack of a fullback?

 

[Deus Irae]

Light, Graham, Watson were drafted before 2005.

If you look at from 2005, there was a trend towards lots of high picks on offensive skill guys like Chad Jackson, Maroney, Thomas (a pass catching TE), and trading picks for Moss and Welker. These picks were towards creating the offense we see today, a finesse pass-happy offense.

You're pointing to Maroney when you mentioned Taylor. Watson was a pass catching tight end that you're now distancing from those high offensive skill guys when that's precisely why he was drafted. You're pointing to offensive linemen as if it's anything approaching a surprise that the team would be looking to find the future behind a 31 year old left tackle and a soon-to-be 33 year old right guard.

Pittsburgh's offense was more pass oriented than New England's. The Colts offense did not consist of more than 50% of its snaps out of the shotgun. The Patriots are 27-5 since they began taking more than 50% of the snaps out of the shotgun, including 16-0 in 2007.

In other words, you've got no point, no argument, and no real facts on your side beyond a backup receiver managing to hold on to a pass that was off his helmet.

 

[Rob0729]

Actually I think Belichick has already 'gotten it', I just enjoy talking to clowns here so their posts look silly a year from now. Look at Belichick's moves, his priority the moment free agency started was to acquire Fred Taylor, Chris Baker, Alex Smith, draft multiple O-linemen including using high picks.

It'll be icing on the cake to see these ball washers react after their ex-coordinator, who is doing a great job displaying more situational dis-awareness, falls on his face.

LOL! I said I was done posting, but this post was too funny to pass up. I kinda agree with you. When Belichick acquired a slow, big, over the middle possession receiver like Joey Galloway, I said the dink and dunk is back. Do you really think Belichick would be dumb enough to send a slow guy like Joey Galloway deep. The one weakness in Joey Galloway's game is that he doesn't have speed to go down field.

I do think Belichick woke up one day and said that he felt that the offense was too good and was tired of it carrying the defense the last two years and the only way the defense is going to learn is if the offense is downgraded. He would rather go 8-8 and teach the defense a lesson than win with a high powered offense.

Seriously, what offseason move says anything about him changing. Galloway is a blazing speed deep threat. McDaniels used a lot of two TE sets and uses the TE to block so adding Baker and Smith would have happened even if McDaniels was here. Taylor replaces LaMont Jordan and isn't a full-time back anymore. He fits into the RB by committee approach the Pats have been using since aft the 2004 season. When did McDaniels pull off linemen. Last time I checked, the shotgun offense still uses 5 o-linemen and blocking and protecting Brady is still a job requirement for an o-linemn.

 

[fester]

One thing about these trolls is they'll hijack threads.

Notice how not one of them even addressed the thread topic that over 50% of the overall plays were from shot gun, and how the vast majority of passing plays were shot gun.

And according to Football Outsiders, those plays were effective and efficient. So what is your point? You disagree with the style and you think that you could do better. Please stop jerking off in public, it is unsightly. I'll trust BB and company know a bit more about football than you and therefore I trust their decision that going to a modified spread with a heavy running attack (as noted upthread the Pats ran the ball more often and at a higher percentage than the rough and tough Steelers)

If something works, and the Pats offense does, why ***** if it does not meet your style criteria.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

:beatingcoming:

And according to Football Outsiders, those plays were effective and efficient. So what is your point? You disagree with the style and you think that you could do better. Please stop jerking off in public, it is unsightly. I'll trust BB and company know a bit more about football than you and therefore I trust their decision that going to a modified spread with a heavy running attack (as noted upthread the Pats ran the ball more often and at a higher percentage than the rough and tough Steelers)

If something works, and the Pats offense does, why ***** if it does not meet your style criteria.

:yeeha:


This is the only way to deal with mav's obcession with Josh. Reasoning is a waste of time.


:youtheman:

 

[Ring 6]

This is like asking, 'why do deep 4-WR passes get higher average yards per play than I-formations'? I strongly disagree with these type of stats. For example, it's possible the I-formation may get you more positive yards on average and also a higher chance of 1st down conversion success, but it won't look as good as the shotgun which will get more yards per successful play.

Let me use another sport as another example. In the NBA, some 3-point specialists or perimeter players have more average points per shot, but it doesn't mean shooting a ton of 3-pointers or jump shots is championship basketball. Low post dominance and defense in the NBA is still the best way to win championships. "Low post" dominance in the NFL is like having a strong ground game as the bread and butter, NOT using mostly shotgun (i.e. 3-pointers).

Another sports example: home runs and power hitters tend to score more points per hit, and yet championship baseball is almost always still about timely hitting, getting on base, and defense. A lot of Pats fans are obsessing over offensive stats the same way Red Sox fans used to obsess over home runs and having power hitting teams. Those Sox teams didn't win a championship for 86 years.

But you are making up the reason you find the stats lack value.
IF it were the case that the average yards per play were not apples to apples, i.e. a few big plays, then you would have a point, but you have not show that is the case.
In fact, I think if you look at the true facts, based upon down and distance, you would find the Pats play selection out of the shotgun vs non-shotgun is very similar. (Naturally the raw % of passes is higher in the shotgun because it is ALSO used in obvious passing situations)
It is very likely that a big reason for the difference (particularly in 2008) is that the shotgun protects the QB better so you have positive plays or incompeltes instead of sacks.

You honestly can't be serious if you are saying Patriots fans put stats over winning. You have to be blinded by prejudice to think that.

 

[efin98]

But you are making up the reason you find the stats lack value.
IF it were the case that the average yards per play were not apples to apples, i.e. a few big plays, then you would have a point, but you have not show that is the case.
In fact, I think if you look at the true facts, based upon down and distance, you would find the Pats play selection out of the shotgun vs non-shotgun is very similar. (Naturally the raw % of passes is higher in the shotgun because it is ALSO used in obvious passing situations)
It is very likely that a big reason for the difference (particularly in 2008) is that the shotgun protects the QB better so you have positive plays or incompeltes instead of sacks.

Funny, I mentioned that about sacks already and he ignored it...

 

[Ring 6]

You post winning records but ignore failures and make excuses for not getting rings... just like a 2003-2004 Colts fan. You guys will never understand why you keep getting stuffed by more physical defenses in the playoffs.

Since 2000 we are 14-3 in the playoffs. There was one loss to a phyisical defense. How do you take that as we 'keep getting stuffed by more physical defenses in the playoffs"

 

[Ring 6]

Stop making this thread about an ex-coordinator. Stop ignoring or addressing the fact that over 50% of plays from shot-gun is moronic.

Keep blaming the D and make excuses. While you're at it, just ADMIT you were a Colts fan making the same excuses for the Colts from 2003-2004. The 01-04 Pats offenses had way crappier talent on almost all positions and still bailed out the D because they played an offense that had less risk and less success variation in key moments.

I want to make sure I understand something.
I will preface it with: 2008 shouldnt be in the discussion because of no Brady. 2005 shouldn't be in the discussion because the talent level was a step down, and we really werent a SB caliber team.

So, this discussion boils down to 01,03 and 04 vs 06 and 07

Are you saying that the Patriots defense was as good in 06 and 07 as it was in 01,03,04?
And then concluding that the PLAY OF the offense was worse in 06 and 07 than 01,03,04 which in your opinion was because of the greater use of the shotgun?

Is that the argument you are making? That if the 06 and 07 teams played offense like the 01-04 teams, the defense was still good enough that we would have won those SBs?

 

[RDS11]

Why people are still arguing about this ? In one post, Maverick4 is using a non-official stat to make a point and in this tread he is refuting an official statistics because it goes against his believes. It just proves that he won't listen to any argument...

Seriously now...McDaniels is gone. If you hate him so much, just go register to a Broncos forum. I'm sure you will find a lot of friends over there.

 

[patriotscpfc]

Here's my thoughts.

Who cares?

Are we winning out of the shotgun? Yes.

So, does it matter that we do it? No.

 

[maverick4]

Are we winning out of the shotgun? Yes.
So, does it matter that we do it? No.

Sounds like Phoenix Suns fans in love with the fast break.

By the way, there's no doubt it's a prolific offense. I just don't think history shows that it wins rings, the same way that a baseball team built to bash home runs and stacked with power hitters doesn't have a good history of winning rings either.

 

[maverick4]

You honestly can't be serious if you are saying Patriots fans put stats over winning. You have to be blinded by prejudice to think that.

Actually, there are some here who have openly said they preferred 16-0 over a ring, as well as loved the stats-breaking 07 season even though we didn't finish the job.

See, the Patriots (and many of its fans) have changed a lot. The Patriots of 2005-2008 are a lot different, offensively, from the Patriots of 2001-2004, and it's made some Pats fans' arguments inconsistent as well.

Way before Brady's 2007 season, many used to dismiss stats in order to argue for Brady over Manning, even though Manning had the yards, TD's, tons of wins, etc. There has been a shift, in that many now love to bring up stats, just like 2003-2004 Colts fans, when we talk about best offenses or best teams, and in making excuses for why we keep failing in the playoffs. The list of excuses is as long and sounds as similar to what Colts or Rams fans used to whine about, when the reality is that physical defenses historically stuff finesse offenses.

The 2001-2004 teams were never really about great stats, they were more chameleon-like and adaptive, and I would put the 2003 or 2004 team over the 2007 team in a head to head game.

 

[maverick4]

Are you saying that the Patriots defense was as good in 06 and 07 as it was in 01,03,04?
And then concluding that the PLAY OF the offense was worse in 06 and 07 than 01,03,04 which in your opinion was because of the greater use of the shotgun?

No, but they definitely were strong league top-10 defenses.

1. I think the disproportionate use of shotgun is stupid, and gives the opposing defense major keys/hints that we are passing which ends up making a huge difference in playoff (not regular season) games. I also think there is a link between our high use of shotgun and the fact Brady was the most hit in the league of any QB. This is a valid link, as valid as when others here try to link the disproportionate use of shotgun to our winning record (as opposed to being related to having vastly superior talent). Our disproportionate use of the same formation, and getting stuffed, is similar to how we used to stuff the Colts stretch offense in playoffs and stopping the Rams slants/in-cuts offense - these explosive offenses puts up great stats by using the same formation/scheme over and over, but when a physical team game plans they get stopped in playoffs.

2. The debate over which defense/offense was better is moot and meaningless. The defenses in 01, 03, 04, 06, 07 all failed in the playoffs, and it was up to the offense to tie or win the game. With MUCH crappier talent across most positions, the 01/03/04 offenses came through, whereas the 06/07 offenses with much better talent did not succeed, including some major head-scratching late drive play calls. I think this is also related to our disproportionate use of the same formations, OVER AND OVER, which get stuffed when we need to make a key play late in the game.

 

[patriotscpfc]

Sounds like Phoenix Suns fans in love with the fast break.

By the way, there's no doubt it's a prolific offense. I just don't think history shows that it wins rings, the same way that a baseball team built to bash home runs and stacked with power hitters doesn't have a good history of winning rings either.

And we went 18-1

with that offense. Followed by 11-5 with a different QB who had big success out of the Shotgun.

I'm all for it if it means that we win.

 

[maverick4]

I'm all for it if it means that we win.

I love winning too. But I think that while our recent style wins a lot of games, it is related to why we haven't won a ring since 04. Agree or disagree?

 

[DaBruinz]

The problem with Maverick when he posts these threads is that he insists on looking at just the stats and without putting any perspective on them. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Stats without perspective are worthless.

 

[maverick4]

Stats without perspective are worthless.

What's funny is what spacecrime said, you guys use stats for your own ends as well. It's hard for you to consider that despite our record the past 3 years, that there may be a problem with our offensive style. There is no correlation/causation between our disproportionate use of shot gun and those wins or great seasons. I would put much more of the credit on our vastly superior talent (which can execute almost any plan) and Belichick.

 

[DaBruinz]

...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.

Don't feel too bad, efin. Anytime someone disagrees with Maverick he accuses that person of being a McDaniel's Ball washer.

What Maverick doesn't understand is that most people have him figured out and it really doesn't take the newer members long to figure it out either.

 

[maverick4]

Don't feel too bad, efin. Anytime someone disagrees with Maverick he accuses that person of being a McDaniel's Ball washer.

Actually, the first few pages had no mention of our ex-OC and were focused on the topic of shotgun and comparing it to other sports. Only after the email alert to all the 'the offense is being criticized' McDaniels ball-washers came in, with their own accusations and first bringing up their favorite coordinator into this thread, did the discussion get diverted.

Keep making stuff up though, I know it's part of your usual tactic/cycle:
- blow hard making initial condescending statements
- act like a petulant child, start throwing insults the moment anyone disagrees with you
- make odd generalizations, ad hominem once your argument is lost.