The Day the Offense Died

[PonyExpress]

Hmm, thanks for the info, more stuff to chew on. I'm not saying the offense is perfect this year, far from it. The point is that there's no evidence of the O being worse off with McDaniels than it was with Weis. I'm not sure I agree with your use of yards per play and "scoreability" ( I totally agree turnovers are a big problem this year but that is an execution problem rather than a game plan/coaching problem). So scoreability calculates points per yard gained, but that is not, as it says on the linked page, only a measure of offense. If you are consistently given bad field position your rank will be lower since you need longer drives to score. Lack of turnovers the first 9-10 weeks of the season, along with I think 2 points total from the D/return teams, will greatly skew this value down for the Pats. I mean, come on, you point out that Chicago's offense sucks, yet they rank #2 in scoreability! I would even go a step further and say the fact that the Pats are #11 in scoreability, yet #8 in scoring offense says the offense is scoring more points than they should be expected to. As for yards per play, that to me is just a reflection on the Pats not executing on the long pass plays. McDaniels calls a few a game, enough in my opinion, but how often does the offense complete them? Again, that's an execution thing, whether its a Brady over/underthrow, guys that stop running all the way through the route (I'm looking at you Chad Jackson!), guys just plain dropping the ball, or good coverage by the defense. Again though thanks for providing the info, I enjoy thinking about it even if in the end I disagree with the conclusion.

Chicago's unexpected number of points scored is due to contributions from their defense and special teams, whether in TDs, turnovers, punts forced which provide more offensive opportunities, or good field position. The fact the Pats are ranked #11 despite excellent defense and Special teams contributions is an indication of offensive mediocrity.

 

[Rob0729]

NEM's point is what I have been telling him when he used to criticize Weis's play calling. But as you pointed out, this criticism DOES NOT always apply. Yesterday was such a day. Your analysis shows that.

OTOH, there are some games or drives that are set up for failure. Running for a yard on second and ten or more, almost guarantees a third and very long. If there is an INT, or a pass defensed, or sack on third down; that is an example of the criticism that NEM is saying. It just didn't apply to yesterdays' game or any of its drives.

There are even situations where it is appropriate to run on second and long. For example, if you have good field position, want to maintain it, and are perfectly willing to punt it back deep to an ineffective offense and let the D look for a turnover close to the opponent's goaline.

NEM and I have discussed the necessity of "wasting" offensive plays, which he refuses to accept. Overall you want to keep the overall run/pass ratio such that it is difficult to predict in the future what the Pats will do. It is even more important for specific situations. If you always pass on second and long, the DCs will notice and then you can't do it in crunch time when it is imperative to do so. So you must occasionally "waste" plays to keep the opponents from being able to predict plays accurately.

Weis used to do this, and it drove NEM nuts. Weis would also purposely run plays with little chance of success, in effect 'wasting" a play to set up conditions for a later play with a much greater chance of success, but nevertheless looks like the failed play. lots of fans used to criticize these inexplicable calls without recognizing what was going on.

Would agree that running on second and ten and only picking up a yard or two is a dumb move, but that is one of the tendencies that McDaniels picked up from Weis. Weis had a tendency to throw on first and run on second. I wonder if that is a Belichickian philosophy over an OC philosophy.

McDaniels ain't perfect. But a lot people who compare him to Weis have to remeber that he wasn't either, I have seen few criticisms about McDaniels that haven't been levied to Weis in the past. I think people quickly forget how much Weis was vilified in 2002.

 

[Rob0729]

You may not want to conceed the importance of yards per play as a factor of offensive efficiency, which is understandable, because it hurts you argument. That does not change the fact that in Give-aways, yardage efficiency, and scoring efficiency per yard, that Pats' offense is mediocre. The cumulative stats you cite are bloated because the Pats D has been the exact opposite of the offense: takeaways, yards per play and scoring defense per yard are all outstanding. This defensive efficiency has given the Pats O every advantage and helped them accumulate favorable statistics in an UNEFFICIENT manner, contrary to your argument.

I don't want to conceed that yards per play is a factor because it isn't in certain offenses not because it affects my arguement. When we went to a dink and dunk offense, our YPP was very low.

The fact of the matter is that we are 6th in the league in 3rd down efficiency (42.1%), first in fourth down efficency (82.4%), and third in total first downs (262). Those numbers are more important to me than yards per play. Because if you get over five yards a play, you should be able to drive the ball. Those numbers aren't bloated by the defense. Those go directly to the offensive efficiencies. Are you going to ignore those stats?

As for scoring per yards, we are 6th in the league in yards per game and 8th in the league in points per game. So our points per yards is not bad at all. The fact of the matter is we are one of the top scorers in the game and we are one of the top teams in first downs and third and fourth down conversions. That means we move the ball and we score.

Yes, we are high in giveaways, but that is in part because we second in the AFC in fumbles. And how many of Brady's INTs were bounced out of the receiver's hands? I think at least four that I can remember. Those aren't McDaniels fault.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: The Day the Offense rises, (is always the next game!)

One of the true measures of offensive efficiency is YARDS PER PLAY. The Pats average 5.18 yards per play, #14 in the league. The main reason the Pats rank higher in terms of overall YARDAGE is because of the quality of the Pats defense, which gives the Offense more opportunities. Furthermore, the Pats offense has turned the ball over 24 times (ranking #22 in the league) more than any other potential playoff team except Chicago with the awful Rex Grossman, and Seattle, who were missing their starting QB and RB for half the season. As a final note, look at the SCOREABILITY INDEX at http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=986&Category=2. The scoreability index measures yards per point scored as an indication of scoring efficiency. The Pats are ranked #11. When you have one of the great QBs in NFL history in his prime, and have the #14 offense in yardage efficiency, the #22 offense as far as holding onto the ball, and the #11 offense in scoring efficiency, there is ALOT of room for improvement.


Over the last 2 seasons, in big games against solid teams, the problems just outlined have usually been exaggerated. Some games against marginal competition have been saved only by going 2 minute/no huddle when the conventional offense has predictably failed. The base offense has often looked uninspired, unprepared, even confused. The same Turnover mistakes are made week after week, suggesting that the players are not responding to coaching. When the season was slipping away from the team against Detroit, it was Scarnecchia who rallied the O on the sideline, not the O coordinator. These are symptoms of a leadership void due to several potential factors: (1) lack of leadership from the coaching staff on the O side of the ball, probably due to inexperience (2) a faulty O philosophy that does not suit the current personnel (3) trouble adjusting when the initial plan does not work. In an earlier post on this thread I quoted Profootballweekly to underscore the fact that others around the league have noticed the Pats offensive inconsistency, which they attribute to new personnel, a substandard WR corps, a simplified playbook, struggling RBs, an inability to adjust, and some injuries on the O-line.

The Pats need to acknowledge these problems and correct them before they can become SB champions.The SB is sitting right there in front of them. They have the heart the grit the defense and the QB to seize it. It would be a shame if needless offensive blunders cost this team a chance at immortality, as they did last year.

NO they don't. They were not an offensive power in 2001, nor 2003. How do you expect to improve if you don't practice the plays that you are having problems doing? How do you "... acknowledge these problems and correct them..." with out trying to execute them until you improve?

There is no OC, that NEM likes with the possible exception of Mike Martz, since Coryell is no longer coaching. I also guarantee that NEM would soon be complaining about Martz too, when the Team didn't score 45 points every game and never had to punt.

The reality is that the Patriots under Belichick, will never invest so much draft attention to build an "Air Coryell" or "Greatest Show on Turf". Why ? Because they couldn't devote enough attention to have even a poor Defense.

Above all, Belichick knows that complete teams, with a good offense and defense, and depth to with stand the inevitable injuries, is likely to win more often than an extremely talented club on one or the other side of the ball and also consequently weak on the other side. The proof of the pudding is the record that affirms, his thesis.

This offense has more intrinsic talent than most, but it is still very young and inexperienced. It has three rookies playing at RT, RB and kicker. It has four new WRs to the team. In spite of that its a top ten O. Its just too bad that this playoff club ONLY HAS a top ten O and D.

How can it possibly be a contender, in such circumstances?

The League better beware the next year or two, though.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't want to conceed that yards per play is a factor because it isn't in certain offenses not because it affects my arguement. When we went to a dink and dunk offense, our YPP was very low.

The fact of the matter is that we are 6th in the league in 3rd down efficiency (42.1%), first in fourth down efficency (82.4%), and third in total first downs (262). Those numbers are more important to me than yards per play. Because if you get over five yards a play, you should be able to drive the ball. Those numbers aren't bloated by the defense. Those go directly to the offensive efficiencies. Are you going to ignore those stats?

As for scoring per yards, we are 6th in the league in yards per game and 8th in the league in points per game. So our points per yards is not bad at all. The fact of the matter is we are one of the top scorers in the game and we are one of the top teams in first downs and third and fourth down conversions. That means we move the ball and we score.

Yes, we are high in giveaways, but that is in part because we second in the AFC in fumbles. And how many of Brady's INTs were bounced out of the receiver's hands? I think at least four that I can remember. Those aren't McDaniels fault.

By the way, adding even more weight to the importants on our third and fourth down conversions as an indicator of how efficient our offense is, we are 8th in third down attempts in the league (164 attempts). There are only two teams who attempted as many third downs or more than the Pats who have a better conversion rate (Dallas a 7 and New Orleans at 5) and the after us the first team with a better conversion rate is 16th in 3rd down attempts (San Deigo). We are second in fourth down attempts trailing Minnesotta by one attempt.

 

[PonyExpress]

I want to add that I hope I am wrong and proved to be a contrarian fool, and the many posters who are arguing against my fears have the last laugh. Trust me I will join in.

 

[Rob0729]

One of the true measures of offensive efficiency is YARDS PER PLAY. The Pats average 5.18 yards per play, #14 in the league. The main reason the Pats rank higher in terms of overall YARDAGE is because of the quality of the Pats defense, which gives the Offense more opportunities. Furthermore, the Pats offense has turned the ball over 24 times (ranking #22 in the league) more than any other potential playoff team except Chicago with the awful Rex Grossman, and Seattle, who were missing their starting QB and RB for half the season. As a final note, look at the SCOREABILITY INDEX at http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=986&Category=2. The scoreability index measures yards per point scored as an indication of scoring efficiency. The Pats are ranked #11. When you have one of the great QBs in NFL history in his prime, and have the #14 offense in yardage efficiency, the #22 offense as far as holding onto the ball, and the #11 offense in scoring efficiency, there is ALOT of room for improvement.

Over the last 2 seasons, in big games against solid teams, the problems just outlined have usually been exaggerated. Some games against marginal competition have been saved only by going 2 minute/no huddle when the conventional offense has predictably failed. The base offense has often looked uninspired, unprepared, even confused. The same Turnover mistakes are made week after week, suggesting that the players are not responding to coaching. When the season was slipping away from the team against Detroit, it was Scarnecchia who rallied the O on the sideline, not the O coordinator. These are symptoms of a leadership void due to several potential factors: (1) lack of leadership from the coaching staff on the O side of the ball, probably due to inexperience (2) a faulty O philosophy that does not suit the current personnel (3) trouble adjusting when the initial plan does not work. In an earlier post on this thread I quoted Profootballweekly to underscore the fact that others around the league have noticed the Pats offensive inconsistency, which they attribute to new personnel, a substandard Wr corps, a simplified playbook, struggling RBs, an inability to adjust, and some injuries on the O-line.

The Pats need to acknowledge these problems and correct them before they can become SB champions.The SB is sitting right there in front of them. They have the heart the grit the defense and the Qb to sieze it. It would be a shame if needless offensive blunders cost this team a chance at immortality, as they did last year.

By the way, I forgot to mention if Yards Per Point Scored was really an indicator of how good a team's offense really is (as Cold Hard Football Facts alludes to), how are Buffalo, Baltimore, and Jacksonville in the top ten? You know why? Those teams don't score a lot of points, but they don't get a lot of yards either. Buffalo is the clearest example why this stat is flawed. They are among the worst in yards (31st in the league) and points scored (25th). Based on the Cold Hard Football facts article, they are a better offense than the Pats. That is laughable.


Also, this is taken directly from the article you quote:

Remember, the Scoreability Index is a team-wide measurement, not just a measurement of offensive efficiency. It takes into account a variety of factors, such as the proficiency of defense and special teams, red zone defense and turnover differential.

 

[PonyExpress]

By the way, I forgot to mention if Yards Per Point Scored was really an indicator of how good a team's offense really is (as Cold Hard Football Facts alludes to), how are Buffalo, Baltimore, and Jacksonville in the top ten? You know why? Those teams don't score a lot of points, but they don't get a lot of yards either. Buffalo is the clearest example why this stat is flawed. They are among the worst in yards (31st in the league) and points scored (25th). Based on the Cold Hard Football facts article, they are a better offense than the Pats. That is laughable.


Also, this is taken directly from the article you quote:

Remember, the Scoreability Index is a team-wide measurement, not just a measurement of offensive efficiency. It takes into account a variety of factors, such as the proficiency of defense and special teams, red zone defense and turnover differential.

You are conveniently misunderstanding the stat. The fact that the Pats have a quality defense and special teams unit underscores the underachieving nature of the Pats' O. The Pats' scoring efficiency should be even higher considering the quality field position the offense receives and the takeaways provided by the defense. The reason the offense isn't taking as much advantage as it should of these gifts is because it gives the ball away more than almost every other playoff contender and averages mediocre yardage per play.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re:More nonsense

Statsistics don't lie but liars ...

Running clubs will always have a lower ypp then passing teams. So what? Any running game averaging over 4 ypc and lots of carries, is a team that can grind you to death...

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: More nonsense

Statsistics don't lie but liars ...

Running clubs will always have a lower ypp then passing teams. So what? Any running game averaging over 4 ypc and lots of carries, is a team that can grind you to death...

The Pats average under 4 yards per carry. They are #22 in the league in Yards per Carry (3.9), behind Oakland, Miami, Detroit, among others.

 

[Stokes]

You are conveniently misunderstanding the stat. The fact that the Pats have a quality defense and special teams unit underscores the underachieving nature of the Pats' O. The Pats' scoring efficiency should be even higher considering the quality field position the offense receives and the takeaways provided by the defense. The reason the offense isn't taking as much advantage as it should of these gifts is because it gives the ball away more than almost every other playoff contender and averages mediocre yardage per play.

One factor that really drags them down in the rankings that you are ignoring is that they have 2 points total from defense/returns. Chicago has something like 40 points from D/returns. That brings the Pats down relative to other teams, and has nothing to do with offense. Also as far as turnovers, yes the Pats are near the top now, but that is only due to back to back 5 turnover games. Before that they were one of the worst in the league as far as getting takeaways, so that until recently was a negative as far as field position for them, not a positive.

Just to clarify though, I agree with you that the offense has been only OK so far (though improving lately), but its not the fault of McDaniels, that's my main point.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

You are conveniently misunderstanding the stat. The fact that the Pats have a quality defense and special teams unit underscores the underachieving nature of the Pats' O. The Pats' scoring efficiency should be even higher considering the quality field position the offense receives and the takeaways provided by the defense. The reason the offense isn't taking as much advantage as it should of these gifts is because it gives the ball away more than almost every other playoff contender and averages mediocre yardage per play.

I don't think you'll get much argument about the need for the turnovers to stop.

But...

Yards per play tells you something, but it hardly seems like a particularly good yardstick to measure general offensive success. It seems to priveledge certain types of offenses more than others -- a team that moves the ball 80 yards on 2 big plays, then gets 5 yards on 3 downs in the red zone will have an impressive 17 yards per play, but wind up with three points. A team that stages a 16 play, 90 yard touchdown drive has much fewer ypp, but because of their ability to consistently move the chains and sustain drives, has demonstrated better offensive capability.

Personally, I like the DVOA stats at Footballoutsiders.com, but they can be pretty arcane, and require a lot of explanation.

But the boys at FO keep another interesting set of stats... Drive Stats.

Turns out the Pats are 6th in the league in yards per drive, and 5th in points per drive -- the closeness of these two rankings would indicate that the offense's effciency is not really dependant on the defense setting them up.

The fact that the Pats are 4th per drive speaks to their good redzone conversion percentage.

They are also 4th in "Drive Success Rate," which might be the most telling of all these stats -- this is the percentage of down series that result in either a first down or touchdown.

Amazingly, this is all despite being 25th in fumbles per drive, and 17th in INTs per drive.

 

[Stokes]

He's the offensive coordinator, the BOSS, the HEAD MAN of the offense. Who else does the buck stop with?

Um, the players? Not his fault that they aren't executing (again, this is my opinion of what has been wrong when the offense isn't clicking, I understand you don't see it that way).

 

[AzPatsFan]

Re: More nonsense

The Pats average under 4 yards per carry. They are #22 in the league in Yards per Carry (3.9), behind Oakland, Miami, Detroit, among others.

And how many of my favorite play, do these teams execute?

That play is called the "victory knee", reducing the rushing stats by -1 yard per play, adds a negative play to the stats, and probably is wholly responsible for the 3.9 instead of 4.0+ ypc stat...:rocker:

 

[Rob0729]

You are conveniently misunderstanding the stat. The fact that the Pats have a quality defense and special teams unit underscores the underachieving nature of the Pats' O. The Pats' scoring efficiency should be even higher considering the quality field position the offense receives and the takeaways provided by the defense. The reason the offense isn't taking as much advantage as it should of these gifts is because it gives the ball away more than almost every other playoff contender and averages mediocre yardage per play.

Our special teams aren't that great. Our kick return units are. The coverage units aren't. Also, our defense is a bend, don't break defense. So the stats can be skewed by this.

I am not misunderstanding the stats. I think it is irrelevant when talking about offensive efficiencies especially since Cold Hard Football facts agrees with me. How do you know it is the offense that hurts us in this ranking? Maybe it is the coverage units. Our kick coverage unit is 23rd in the league. Our punt coverage is 17th. Maybe it is our pass defense that gives up a lot of yards. Don't you think that our defense is nineth in yards allowed, but third in points allowed might be part of the problem with our ranking in this category. You assume our ranking is because our offense, but as Cold Hard Football Facts pointed out that it might not be the case because it takes a lot of non-offensive information into effect and statistically we are not a good defense when it comes to yards allowed or good special teams when it comes to coverage.

Our offense is taking advantage of our defense. We are getting first downs, converting third and fourth downs, and scoring better than most teams in the league. What else do you want?

 

[Rob0729]

I don't think you'll get much argument about the need for the turnovers to stop.

But...

Yards per play tells you something, but it hardly seems like a particularly good yardstick to measure general offensive success. It seems to priveledge certain types of offenses more than others -- a team that moves the ball 80 yards on 2 big plays, then gets 5 yards on 3 downs in the red zone will have an impressive 17 yards per play, but wind up with three points. A team that stages a 16 play, 90 yard touchdown drive has much fewer ypp, but because of their ability to consistently move the chains and sustain drives, has demonstrated better offensive capability.

Personally, I like the DVOA stats at Footballoutsiders.com, but they can be pretty arcane, and require a lot of explanation.

But the boys at FO keep another interesting set of stats... Drive Stats.

Turns out the Pats are 6th in the league in yards per drive, and 5th in points per drive -- the closeness of these two rankings would indicate that the offense's effciency is not really dependant on the defense setting them up.

The fact that the Pats are 4th per drive speaks to their good redzone conversion percentage.

They are also 4th in "Drive Success Rate," which might be the most telling of all these stats -- this is the percentage of down series that result in either a first down or touchdown.

Amazingly, this is all despite being 25th in fumbles per drive, and 17th in INTs per drive.

I agree the Football Outsider numbers are more accurate because they only look at the offense and don't factor in other parts of the game (hence why Cold Hard Football Facts puts their disclaimer). I think the drive success rate stats are probably the best indicator I have seen so far. It is all about scoring on each drive. If you score on every drive on offense, I don't know how your offense can perform much better. I think the fact that we are the fifth best in points per drive and fourth on TDs per drive tells me that we do do a good job capitalizing on the defensive turnovers. It is also important to point out that our points per drive and TDs per drives are much better this year than they were in 2002 and 2003 under Weis.

 

[PonyExpress]

There is a mission creep going on here. The premise of the thread was that the Pats should use more frequently the no huddle, spread formation offense that Brady has orchestrated with such success over the years. The feeling was that the two TE base offense which the Pats have preferred this year has been inconsistent and needs to be modified or discarded as the base scheme. The example given was the Lions game, where the Patriots' successful drives before halftime and in the 4th quarter came out of the spread. As far as the FO "Drive Stats", (Stats of which I am aware and were the subject of a long and involved thread: http://208.109.107.176/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=43381), I would venture a guess that many of the longest and most successful drives of the season have begun from the spread formation. IOW, there will be a clear difference in "DRIVE STATS" which indicate "AVERAGE YARDS PER DRIVE" and "average points per drive" between drives begun from the spread and drives begun from the base offense. My contention is that the base 2 TE offense is the anchor and the spread offense the wind in the team's sails, and that the success of the spread O is keeping the offense "statistically" afloat.

The fact that the team seems bent on adhering to its base 2 TE offense, which IMO has been mostly a dud, and seems willing to go to the spread only under EXTREME DURESS, suggests that the Offensive Coordinator is stubbornly following a misfit philosophy and not adjusting to what best suits his personnel. The 2 TE offense can work. It is working in Dallas with great success. However, Dallas has a better TE (Witten) than either of the Patriot TEs, a rb who runs with greater consistency than either of the Pats Rbs (Barber) and 2 Wrs of all-pro caliber.

To differ from NEM, the PLAYCALLING is not the issue. The issue is the scheme fitting the personnel. I believe plays that McDaniels calls would probably work very well for the Cowboys, though they flop for the Pats.

 

[skri65]

It's truly amazing. We score 28 points, it's not good enough. We put 300 yards up on a team that had never given up 300 yards this season, it's not enough. ************. This team isn't perfect. We learn how to secure the ball and we have a very good offense, even with the mediocre playcalling.

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: More nonsense

And how many of my favorite play, do these teams execute?

That play is called the "victory knee", reducing the rushing stats by -1 yard per play, adds a negative play to the stats, and probably is wholly responsible for the 3.9 instead of 4.0+ ypc stat...:rocker:

Since you applied rushing statistics selectively, let me do the same. Let's look at the last 8 weeks, since the Pats ran wild through Cinci's depleted LB corps. Here are the Patriot victories:

vs Det: 24 carries/79 yards
vs Chi:34/85
vs. GB: 40/122
vs. Min: 15/85
vs Buf: 27/94
vs Mia: 34/79

That's 174 carries for 544 yards in 6 victories, at 3.12 ypc. Assuming a generous 3 kneel downs per victory (156 carries/562 yards), the team still only averaged 3.6 ypc. That kind of performance, extrapolated over a full schedule, would put the Pats #30 in the NFL in yards per game, and #31 in yards per rush. Not exactly the "running team" that "grinds an opponent down" until kneeling for victory, as you described it earlier.

 

[Brownfan80]

It's truly amazing. We score 28 points, it's not good enough. We put 300 yards up on a team that had never given up 300 yards this season, it's not enough. ************. This team isn't perfect. We learn how to secure the ball and we have a very good offense, even with the mediocre playcalling.

Some people just always need a reason to complain. Some of these people always bang their OC drum. Every year regardless of the OC and regardless of how successful the offense is. They could always do it better, yet have never done so in the NFL.

It's better to just accept that a successful NFL offense isn't good enough for some people.

Nevermind reality, until every single play is a success, then the offense (specifically the playcaller, it's never the execution, even on a week where the players admitted that they themselves came out flat and didn't execute) is a failure.

:blahblah: