The Day the Offense Died

[skri65]

I dont recall seeing anyone say that "its not good enough." Obviously it was good enough to win.

However, that doesnt necessarilly mean that everything was just perfect. After all, we were playing what is considered the WORST team in the NFL...and we didnt actualltake the final lead until the last minutes of the game..and AT HOME.... In good weather conditions...

If you think that is all fine...then that is your perogative.

Many of us feel that with significantly better playcalling, more agressive, and earlier in the game instead of waiting until time is running out.... this game, and many others, could have gone easier..because other then three wins on the road by good scores, all of our other victories hav ebeen nail biters and many need not have gone down that way if not for poor play calling on offense.. And, lets not forget that the defense played huge rolls in secujring those wins.

We need to be in much safer position late in games where one mistake would change W to L.

Alright. Fair enough. But I think the failures of this offense has just as much to do with execution as it does playcalling. You take away the fumbles over the past few weeks, and this is one of the more efficient offenses in the league.

It will never be perfect. I have a feeling that had the team executed the playcall well, than many of you would nto be criticizing it. (Yes, I do understand that execution is largely dependent on playcalling. But I intentionally am putting part of the blame on the players and not on the OC because I believe the players could be executing each play call much better).

Overall, I still think we have a very good offense. Like I said, we were the ONLY team so far to put up 300 yards on the Bears. Perhaps our differences lay in that many of you demand perfection when no such thing exists. I am pleased with our offense. It could be better, but it also could be much worse. If they continue to gel and our McDaniels continues to improve, we will be dangerous in the playoffs. In my mind, we already are.

The Colts ONLY put up 17 points against the Titans. Off with the O.C.'s head!!

 

[Brownfan80]

My biggest complaint with McDaniels is that he comes out like he's asleep at the wheel when games start. He uses scripted plays , form what I hear, and he just seems way too slow to adjust and change. And becasuse of that, games are far too close, and when in games like that, the pressure will cause those int's and fumbles to occur.

For example, through 12 games...

The Pats have a grand total of 48 points in the first quarter.

5 of those games were ZERO
and another 2 games were only 3 points.

And that is the crux of McDaniels problems, IMO...and his play calling in first quarters has been absolutely horrendous, and because of it, the team is in close struggles that could have been, and should have been, totally different, with us holding leads that would force the opponents to change their course, into our hands.

48 total 1st quarter points in 12 games.....PITIFUL

And, BTW, only 52 in 3rd quarters, which show once again that the play calling is lackluster when they come out onto the field when there should have been adjustments, and they werent made. And,6 games with 3 points, or less, in the 3rd quarter.

McDaniels, IMO, does not have killer, go for the throat, instinct.

We have a defense that's allowing the second least points per game in the league. Is it so crazy that McDaniels is playing field position to start games? Is it so crazy that this field position gameplan takes time to wear down the defense and thus scores more points in the second half of games or halves?

The 'lack of success early' is misleading. How many games have we trailed at halftime? That stat would weigh heavily on whether or not your quoted stats matter at all. This team plays differently based on the score. This is not a pedal to the metal offense and never has been. This offense has always been about winning Time of Possession and Field Position. In rare games it's worked out other than that, but that is this team's MO. And it's been working.

We're 9-3. Obviously this offense has a gameplan. Even the 'pitiful' parts are part of that gameplan. And it's successful, so I really don't see how you're complaining about it.

 

[Rob0729]

My biggest complaint with McDaniels is that he comes out like he's asleep at the wheel when games start. He uses scripted plays , form what I hear, and he just seems way too slow to adjust and change. And becasuse of that, games are far too close, and when in games like that, the pressure will cause those int's and fumbles to occur.

For example, through 12 games...

The Pats have a grand total of 48 points in the first quarter.

5 of those games were ZERO
and another 2 games were only 3 points.

And that is the crux of McDaniels problems, IMO...and his play calling in first quarters has been absolutely horrendous, and because of it, the team is in close struggles that could have been, and should have been, totally different, with us holding leads that would force the opponents to change their course, into our hands.

48 total 1st quarter points in 12 games.....PITIFUL

And, BTW, only 52 in 3rd quarters, which show once again that the play calling is lackluster when they come out onto the field when there should have been adjustments, and they werent made. And,6 games with 3 points, or less, in the 3rd quarter.

McDaniels, IMO, does not have killer, go for the throat, instinct.

To go for the throat, you need players who can go for the throat. Weis was famous for throwing a deep bomb right after we turn the ball over. He was predictable that way. Who do we send for a deep bomb out of this receiving corp? To have killer instinct you need players who can trust to make big plays. Caldwell and Watson are the two most reliable. Neither have the speed to do a 40 yard bomb on a consistent basis and Watson has a fumbling problem recently.

Last year, the Pats did go for the throat because they had Branch and Givens. This year we can't. Would you be happier if the Pats wasted a down throwing down the field to Chad Jackson who would either drop the ball or not adjust his route to get the ball? Would that make you happy? Blow a series of downs going for the the throat when we don't have the receivers to go for the throat?

We have a team with limited weapons. That means we are limited in the gameplans we can use. The fact that we are doing so well should be a credit to McDaniels. If someone told you this time last year that our two starting WRs would be Troy Brown and Reche Caldwell, you would say the Pats would be luck to be 8-8 this year.

McDaniels is far from perfect, but I don't think Weis would develop gameplans to go for the throat with this team. The Pats are all about developing gameplans that will best put their players in the best chance to succeed. With what we have, we need to be in a more modest, less agressive offense. Heck, only two months ago, most of our WRs barely knew our playbook.

 

[AzPatsFan]

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 remember 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.

Belichick's philosophy on both O and D is to take what the opponent gives you. Attack his weaknesses and cover up your own.

He is perfectly happy to pass for five yards on first down to a WR with a CB playing off him. And then run for five more with two runs on 2nd and 3rd with an inferior running game for the the first down to move the chains. That was how the Antowain running game (typically) worked.

At the end of the day the O accumulated near 100 yards on the ground even if it took almost 40 carries and a measly 2.5 ypc to get there. The could never had had enough tries (35-40 carries) to get third and long completions when the opponents were playing pass, to roll up those stats, if the O had run on run downs, and passed on pass downs.

Pass when they expect you to run, and run when they expect you to pass or cross them up with a screen or some other trick (reverse) play.

How many times has a second and long run worked?

Not many, but not never, either.

Faulk has made a career in the NFL running for big yardage on "passing" downs. The DCs shake their head when it either works or (probably) fails, but next time they are still unsure what those wacky Patriots will do. They are afraid to over commit on a Blitz, cause the crazies just might run. Weis/JM/BB have succeeded. It has just made the Pats pass protection job a whole lot easier.

A famous Civil war general called it "... jes hitting 'em where they ain't!"

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Belichick's philosophy on both O and D is to take what the opponent gives you. Attack his weaknesses and cover up your own.

He is perfectly happy to pass for five yards on first down to a WR with a CB playing off him. And then run for five more with two runs on 2nd and 3rd with an inferior running game for the the first down to move the chains. That was how the Antowain running game (typically) worked.

At the end of the day the O accumulated near 100 yards on the ground even if it took almost 40 carries and a measly 2.5 ypc to get there. The could never had had enough tries (35-40 carries) to get third and long completions when the opponents were playing pass, to roll up those stats, if the O had run on run downs, and passed on pass downs.

Pass when they expect you to run, and run when they expect you to pass or cross them up with a screen or some other trick (reverse) play.

How many times has a second and long run worked?

Not many, but not never, either.

Faulk has made a career in the NFL running for big yardage on "passing" downs. The DCs shake their head when it either works or (probably) fails, but next time they are still unsure what those wacky Patriots will do. They are afraid to over commit on a Blitz, cause the crazies just might run. Weis/JM/BB have succeeded. It has just made the Pats pass protection job a whole lot easier.

A famous Civil war general called it "... jes hitting 'em where they ain't!"

The Pats teams of the past under Weiss were known for great first drives and the pats were usually front runners, putting pressure on the opponent to score.

 

[Rob0729]

The Pats teams of the past under Weiss were known for great first drives and the pats were usually front runners, putting pressure on the opponent to score.

That isn't true. The Pats in 2004 were known for their great opening drives. Previous years they weren't. In 2003 during the regular season they scored on the opening drive seven times - 4 Field goals and 3 TDs and one of the TD drives was a one play ten yard TD drive. In 2002, we scored on the opening drive six times during the season - 3 field goals and 3 TDs. Until 2004, one of the knocks on Weis was that he couldn't orchestrate a TD drive on the opening drive in most games.

I really think people have rose colored glasses when looking back at Weis' tenure here. People obviously forget that he was Josh McDaniels in 2002. If you went on any Patriots' message board in 2002 and people were trashing him like they do with McDaniels now.

 

[Ring 6]

That isn't true. The Pats in 2004 were known for their great opening drives. Previous years they weren't. In 2003 during the regular season they scored on the opening drive seven times - 4 Field goals and 3 TDs and one of the TD drives was a one play ten yard TD drive. In 2002, we scored on the opening drive six times during the season - 3 field goals and 3 TDs. Until 2004, one of the knocks on Weis was that he couldn't orchestrate a TD drive on the opening drive in most games.

I really think people have rose colored glasses when looking back at Weis' tenure here. People obviously forget that he was Josh McDaniels in 2002. If you went on any Patriots' message board in 2002 and people were trashing him like they do with McDaniels now.

How can Weis be overrated? NEM didnt like him either.

 

[Brownfan80]

To go for the throat, you need players who can go for the throat. Weis was famous for throwing a deep bomb right after we turn the ball over. He was predictable that way. Who do we send for a deep bomb out of this receiving corp? To have killer instinct you need players who can trust to make big plays. Caldwell and Watson are the two most reliable. Neither have the speed to do a 40 yard bomb on a consistent basis and Watson has a fumbling problem recently.

Last year, the Pats did go for the throat because they had Branch and Givens. This year we can't. Would you be happier if the Pats wasted a down throwing down the field to Chad Jackson who would either drop the ball or not adjust his route to get the ball? Would that make you happy? Blow a series of downs going for the the throat when we don't have the receivers to go for the throat?

We have a team with limited weapons. That means we are limited in the gameplans we can use. The fact that we are doing so well should be a credit to McDaniels. If someone told you this time last year that our two starting WRs would be Troy Brown and Reche Caldwell, you would say the Pats would be luck to be 8-8 this year.

McDaniels is far from perfect, but I don't think Weis would develop gameplans to go for the throat with this team. The Pats are all about developing gameplans that will best put their players in the best chance to succeed. With what we have, we need to be in a more modest, less agressive offense. Heck, only two months ago, most of our WRs barely knew our playbook.

Great, great post. Bravo.

 

[BradyManny]

Would you be happier if the Pats wasted a down throwing down the field to Chad Jackson who would either drop the ball or not adjust his route to get the ball? Would that make you happy?

That was one play and now all of a sudden we should stop passing to him deep? Football players make mistakes, we move on. It wasn't a particularly great throw by Brady either, no one in their right mind has suggested Brady should stop throwing deep balls. I don't know why everyone gets off by criticizing this group of wide receivers, particularly Jackson.

 

[Rob0729]

That was one play and now all of a sudden we should stop passing to him deep? Football players make mistakes, we move on. It wasn't a particularly great throw by Brady either, no one in their right mind has suggested Brady should stop throwing deep balls. I don't know why everyone gets off by criticizing this group of wide receivers, particularly Jackson.

Jackson has shown several times that he has trouble getting that extra gear going deep and has been able to be easily defended deep at times. I also think he has not been able to adjust routes to get under the ball. Am I ready to give up on him though? No. I think he can still be that deep threat in the future, but he needs to work on his game.

My point is AT THIS POINT we cannot trust him to be that deep threat and be aggressive in our play calling. I'm talking the here and now and I don't think Jackson is ready to be a consistent deep threat.

I think our receiving corp is underrated, but I do think it is limited. I think Caldwell over the last month or two has been as productive as Givens or probably Branch were in previous years. I think Gaffney is a pretty good #3 WR. Brown still is a good receiver, but not great. When Gabriel gets on the field, he can do good things.

I just don't see this receiving corp the type of receiving corp that you want to get too overly aggressive with. I don't think they are good enough to be as aggressive as we were last year or in 2004. The receving corp as a whole are not as good as they were in previous years and I don't think they are in sync enough with Brady to be overly aggressive.

I am satisfied with our receiving corp, but I do realize this group has limitations.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

My complaint during those drives was the lack of agressiveness in the red zone, and on too many occasions we had to settle for three points instead of seven. The numbers prove it out.

6 TD's in 32 attempts.

Yet, the Pats are #2 in the league in red zone TD percentage... so somebody must be doing SOMETHING right in the red zone.

 

[Rob0729]

You are absolutely correct. Jackson has proven that he has good hands, and has the speed....he was awesome in college and in his few brief appearances here, he has done well. A drop will happen with even the greatest, it happens all the time.

About his injury, I really dont know the facts, and neither does anyone else.

My feeling is, that when he has played he has not been used properly.... and its time that he gets the plays in his direction.

I want to see him on a deep post patterns, but unfortunately, McDaniels hasnt got that play in his one page play book.

Actually, I am concerned about Jackson's speed. On several of his deep passes he doesn't appear to have football speed. He had problems out running Charles Tillman who will never be known as a burner. Eventhough that one play should have been called a face guard, if Jackson had the speed on that play he should have had a yard cushion on Tillman.

If the Pats had faith in Jackson they would throw it deep. They have several times in the past and he has yet to catch a deep ball. He has made some great short and intermediate plays, but nothing on the deep ball.

The Pats have tried to go deep with Jackson and Caldwell with no success. I don't believe the Pats should waste plays going deep when they have next to no shot at making the play.

 

[Rob0729]

That is something we really dont know because, IMO, they have been handcuffed by the play calling and not really given opportunities to show how good, or agressive they may be.

In some instances when we needed to go downfield quickly, they performed extremely well, but those are the only times they have been given the chance to show what they can do...Who is to say that they cant be very, very productive. They just need to be throw to more often, and in different ways,and at different times than we are now seeing.

Its like liver. If yu dont try it, you dont know if you like it, or not.

How do we know what their limitations are, or arent, if we dont check them out on a more consistent basis?

They are checking it in practice. Maybe Brady isn't connecting with Jackson in practice. If he isn't there, why in the world would they do it in a game?

The fact of the matter is that McDaniels was calling the plays last year and with Branch and Givens, he did go deep and play aggressively quite a bit. So McDaniels is not afraid to do that with the right personnel. It seems pretty obvious to me that he and Belichick don't feel they have the talent or at least the experience and continuity between QB and WRs to be aggressive.

Other than Caldwell and Brown, what WR has been consistently getting balls and making plays? Jackson has ten catches all year and his longest catch was 35 yards and that was an intermediate pass with yards after the catch. Gabriel has been in the dog house. Gaffney is good for one or two plays a game. I don't see this WR corp that we can start throwing long bombs and getting aggressive like people want.

We have a decent WR corp, but nothing great. We do not have the weapons to be the Pats passing offense of last year or 2004. We just don't have the guns.

You can't put this all on McDaniels. He is creating an offense for the talent he has. He has made mistakes and some big ones, but a bigger mistake would try to form fit this offense into the offense that you suggest because he doesn't have the weapons. That would have been like Belichick and Crennel in 2001 when they realized they didn't have the linemen for a 3-4 defense deciding to stick to that defense because it was what they wanted to run rather doing what they did and switch to a 4-3 because that gave them the best chance of winning.

 

[PonyExpress]

As I continue to follow this argument, I am struck by the obstinacy of supporters of the current offensive system to acknowledge what are obvious problems. As much as they continue to accuse NEM, justifiably, of a persistent agenda, they continue to absolve themselves of similar bias. They seem to be amusing themselves by argumentation rather than facing reality, which involves the continued struggles of the base 2 TE offense. In fact, the struggles of the base offense have not even been addressed, statistically or otherwise, by its defenders in this thread. The "offense as a whole" has been defended, a misleading position due to the fact that the spread offense has repeatedly rescued this team from offensive malaise.

There is a pathological reluctance to criticize the offensive coaching/scheme, which is just as wrong as the opposite agenda. With these zealots, Either everything is wonderful, despite Tom Brady's own concerns about inconsistent production, or the players are responsible for poor execution. I suppose the credo that a leader is "responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do" is no longer current, and the offensive scheme/coaching is beyond question.

The success of the spread vs. the base offense is common knowledge at Gillette and there is likely intense debate there about the offensive direction of the team. The signs of such a debate are all over the newspapers. There was talk from players about how the spread brought "more energy" to the team, Brady acknowledging that it was more commonly used under Weis and that he feels most "comfortable" making his reads from the spread, although he feels confident with whatever play the "coaching staff sends in" to him (an ambiguous compliment IMO). The lack of success of the running game would also feed such an internal debate.

There is nothing disloyal, hyperbolic, pathological about questioning the offense's direction. Zealots who want to pigeon-hole critics of the offensive scheme as chicken littles are out of line.

 

[BradyManny]

Jackson has shown several times that he has trouble getting that extra gear going deep and has been able to be easily defended deep at times. I also think he has not been able to adjust routes to get under the ball. Am I ready to give up on him though? No. I think he can still be that deep threat in the future, but he needs to work on his game.

My point is AT THIS POINT we cannot trust him to be that deep threat and be aggressive in our play calling. I'm talking the here and now and I don't think Jackson is ready to be a consistent deep threat...

I am satisfied with our receiving corp, but I do realize this group has limitations.

Fair enough, I misjudged your point.

Nonetheless, I take exception to your suggestion that we can't trust Jackson on the deep routes. First, he hasn't been in enough to really have a true sample and make a judgement, but we've seen him get open consistently. Granted, he's dropped two long passes he should've had, he's also shown signs he is worthy of throwing the ball to deep.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, if we want him to improve, we have to give him the chance to prove himself in the game consistently. I can only speak from a basketball standpoint, but as someone who road a lot of pine, I know the toughest thing for an athelete is to shine when you are only given a few opportunities a game. It's even harder for a rookie, we want this guy to learn, the best way to do that is learn in the game.

I'll point to Doc Rivers and how he's handling the C's right now. I'm actually a Doc fan, but his justification for not playing Gerald Green or Big Al more is "they haven't earned it in practice", not realizing that the biggest strides in their development are going to come from playing in the actual game itself, not practice. There truly is so much you can learn in practice, doesn't matter if you put pads on or not, it's not the game, it's not the same experience at all.

I think BB is handling Jackson, Maroney and all his other rookies very well, but the fanbase seems to be judging CJack far too soon.

 

[Rob0729]

As I continue to follow this argument, I am struck by the obstinacy of supporters of the current offensive system to acknowledge what are obvious problems. As much as they continue to accuse NEM, justifiably, of a persistent agenda, they continue to absolve themselves of similar bias. They seem to be amusing themselves by argumentation rather than facing reality, which involves the continued struggles of the base 2 TE offense. In fact, the struggles of the base offense have not even been addressed, statistically or otherwise, by its defenders in this thread. The "offense as a whole" has been defended, a misleading position due to the fact that the spread offense has repeatedly rescued this team from offensive malaise.

There is a pathological reluctance to criticize the offensive coaching/scheme, which is just as wrong as the opposite agenda. With these zealots, Either everything is wonderful, despite Tom Brady's own concerns about inconsistent production, or the players are responsible for poor execution. I suppose the credo that a leader is "responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do" is no longer current, and the offensive scheme/coaching is beyond question.

The success of the spread vs. the base offense is common knowledge at Gillette and there is likely intense debate there about the offensive direction of the team. The signs of such a debate are all over the newspapers. There was talk from players about how the spread brought "more energy" to the team, Brady acknowledging that it was more commonly used under Weis and that he feels most "comfortable" making his reads from the spread, although he feels confident with whatever play the "coaching staff sends in" to him (an ambiguous compliment IMO). The lack of success of the running game would also feed such an internal debate.

There is nothing disloyal, hyperbolic, pathological about questioning the offense's direction. Zealots who want to pigeon-hole critics of the offensive scheme as chicken littles are out of line.

What is so wrong about our offense. We are in top 10 in scoring and yard. In the top 5 in red zone efficiency. In the top five in first downs and 3rd and 4th down efficiency. We are the top five in both points per drive and TDs per drive. We are the only team to play the Bears to get over 300 yards on offense this year. This offense isn't nearly as bad of shape as you want to make it.

Yes, there are problems with the offense. I think it was much more clearly that execution was the problem more so than play calling the past two weeks. I see the problem being turnovers and penalties (penalties at least against the Lions) that have been the biggest problem with our offense. That isn't McDaniels' fault.

I think what McDaniels bashers are failing to realize that our offense is pretty good despite turning over our receiving corp and not having two starting quality WRs. McDaniels can do a better job, but I think he has done a pretty good one with the cards he was dealt. We don't have Branch and Givens anymore. Troy Brown is our starting WR rather than being our third or fourth WR (remember he was a potential cut in 2004 because he was so low on the depth chart). We don't have a Christian Fauria as a reliable #3 TE.

I am not a zealot. I don't think everything is rosey. I see the Pats' offensive problems which aren't as many as some people make them out to be aren't laid on McDaniels' shoulders.

It strikes me that McDaniels haters refuse to admit the most obvious problem with this offense - we don't have receivers. I agree that I would like like us to go down the field more and go three and out all time. An agressive offense is much better than an effective one. But we will have to live with a crappy offense that scores on more of their drives than about 27 other teams in the league and scores more points than 24 other teams in the league. Only if we could have the 22nd ranked offense in scoring per drive and scoring that is more aggressive.

All the numbers that focus just on offense says our offense is effective.

 

[Rob0729]

By the way, I have no problem with you disagreeing. But the McDaniels haters zealots are acting the same exact way as the everything is ok zealots. In fact, the everything ok zealots are probably more rational because unlike the McDaniels haters, we acknowlege that things can be better but aren't going to lay everything on McDaniels' feet. We realize that when Troy Brown is one of your starting WRs, there is a talent issue with your receiving corp. Brown is a very good role player, but shouldn't be starting at this point especially since he wasn't good enough to start on this team for years.

By the way, I love it when people accuse people of pigeon holing people by pigeon holing the people they are are accusing.

 

[pats-blue]

My complaint during those drives was the lack of agressiveness in the red zone, and on too many occasions we had to settle for three points instead of seven. The numbers prove it out.

6 TD's in 32 attempts.

Maybe you need to check your facts or your "chart" is WRONG.....The Pats have NEVER been 6 of 32 in the red zone this year and in FACT are CURRENTLY 30 TD's in 47 attempts...good for 2nd in the NFL....HHHMMM kinda blows your theory out of the water doesn't it? Then again when you can obvioulsy make up stuff to fit your agrument then you can always be "right".

By the way here is the link to those stats...where is your link to those bogus stats?
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

 

[Rob0729]

Maybe you need to check your facts or your "chart" is WRONG.....The Pats have NEVER been 6 of 32 in the red zone this year and in FACT are CURRENTLY 30 TD's in 47 attempts...good for 2nd in the NFL....HHHMMM kinda blows your theory out of the water doesn't it? Then again when you can obvioulsy make up stuff to fit your agrument then you can always be "right".

By the way here is the link to those stats...where is your link to those bogus stats?
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

In fairness, I think he was talking about the Pats in 2002 and 2003, not this year.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

As I continue to follow this argument, I am struck by the obstinacy of supporters of the current offensive system to acknowledge what are obvious problems. As much as they continue to accuse NEM, justifiably, of a persistent agenda, they continue to absolve themselves of similar bias. They seem to be amusing themselves by argumentation rather than facing reality, which involves the continued struggles of the base 2 TE offense. In fact, the struggles of the base offense have not even been addressed, statistically or otherwise, by its defenders in this thread. The "offense as a whole" has been defended, a misleading position due to the fact that the spread offense has repeatedly rescued this team from offensive malaise.

There is a pathological reluctance to criticize the offensive coaching/scheme, which is just as wrong as the opposite agenda. With these zealots, Either everything is wonderful, despite Tom Brady's own concerns about inconsistent production, or the players are responsible for poor execution. I suppose the credo that a leader is "responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do" is no longer current, and the offensive scheme/coaching is beyond question.

The success of the spread vs. the base offense is common knowledge at Gillette and there is likely intense debate there about the offensive direction of the team. The signs of such a debate are all over the newspapers. There was talk from players about how the spread brought "more energy" to the team, Brady acknowledging that it was more commonly used under Weis and that he feels most "comfortable" making his reads from the spread, although he feels confident with whatever play the "coaching staff sends in" to him (an ambiguous compliment IMO). The lack of success of the running game would also feed such an internal debate.

There is nothing disloyal, hyperbolic, pathological about questioning the offense's direction. Zealots who want to pigeon-hole critics of the offensive scheme as chicken littles are out of line.

Josh McDaniels has shown zero reluctance to use the spread offense.

I don't recall Brady ever saying that they used it more under Weis, and if he did say it, he was just wrong. The facts just don't bare it out.

Already, in 2006, Brady has had more pass attempts in shotgun and/or 4 wide receiver sets than in all of 2004 or 2003 under Charlier Weis. You can chalk the dearth of use of the spread-offense in 2004 up to the Pats' success running the ball -- but not 2003. It's pretty clear that nobody on the Pats' offensive coaching staff is unaware of the success we've had with the spread offense, and it's apparent by how much they've leaned on it this year.

Now, you can't seriously be suggesting that because the Pats seem to run the spread offense well, we should stop trying to be a balanced offense. That's just insane. The spread offense is nice, but it's just one facet of what the Pats offense should be capable of. Yes, our running game has struggled of late -- this doesn't mean the Pats should abandon all running formations. Quite the opposite, in fact -- we know we've got the shotgun/4-wide thing going well, so doesn't it make the most sense to continue to work on our base formation, which has the potential to be more versatile and unpredictable if we can get the running game going?