The Playoff Problem on Offense: Not Talent

[Deus Irae]

This just makes me remember how overblown this "drop" was. Welker's momentum was clearly taking him away from his body, and it was difficult to bring the ball back into it. It wasn't a perfect throw, nor was it a fantastic catch that could have been made. Patriots lost the SB for a lot of reasons; there were much easier drops than that throughout the game, including in the 4th quarter with Hernandez and Branch. I am also not convinced the Pats win it even if they'd converted that play.

There are balls throws every quarter that are just a bit off and the WR doesn't come down with it. Pats played mistake free ball the whole game except for ONE throw that got intercepted, while the Giants were extremely lucky once again that their fumble (or was it 2?) bounced their way. Other than that, it was a very evenly matched game and the turnovers, or lack thereof, were the difference.

It's not overblown at all. The first picture shows the problem. Welker had his hands too close together while trying to catch the ball. He dropped the ball even before he hit the ground. Essentially, had Welker kept his hands open about 1/2-1 inch wider on that attempt instead of bringing them too far together, the Patriots would have won their 4th Super Bowl.

 

[patfanken]

also another thing: im pretty sure officiating changes b/w the reg. season and the playoffs

the way calls are made in the postseason, our offense gets negatively affected, it seems the secondaries of any team (including us) can get away with more contact than is allowed within rules, and is allowed during the reg. season

As long as they are allowing a similar amount of contact to our guys, its not a problem. In most cases our offensive structure is going to be better than out opponents.

 

[patfanken]

IIRCC against Denver this year, the Pats torched them with the run/hurry up as they stayed small with extra DBs. Therefore, I don't think the Rex Ryan strategy will work again.

Ryan's strategy that night was brilliant because by going to max coverages, and playing more match up zones than man to man, he went totally against his previous philosophy. It totally caught the Pats offense off guard, and Brady was out of sync the entire night. Now that we've seen it, it will never work again....as we have seen in every meeting with the Jets since that night, were I think our LOW offensive production has been around 29 points

 

[patfanken]

-

I hate to say it, but the offensive execution of late has been as shaky as it's been all year. Bedard has it right. He was on EEI this morning and said the passing offense isn't scary teams the way it normally would. He said Lloyd & Brady not being completely on the same page has left this team with the same deficiency that has haunted it for several years now.

Y'know I really like Bedard, but this statement optimizes how spoiled we have become. I mean how scary would the Lions offense be without Calvin Johnson. How scary would the Texans offense be without Andre Johnson, etc etc. The Pats have played almost the entire year without the most important player in their offense not named Tom Brady, and that's the 2nd TE. This is doubly true when that 2nd TE is the Gronk.

When you think about all the injuries along the OL, the loss of Edelman, the loss of Hernandez and Gronk, etc, and yet we still managed to cobble together ANOTHER 550 point season. So while Bedard was complaining about routes that were not precisely run, did he ever consider the conditions they were playing under?

Nothing effects a passer more than the wind, and the despite the wind that was strong enough to negate FG attempts longer than 30 yds, Brady was throwing lasers that made the wind irrelevant, but on the other hand made it a very difficult ball for receivers to catch on such a cold night.

Are there things to clean up. Sure there are, There ALWAYS are things to improve on. Personally in this case Bedard is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Either that or he was told to write something provocative. Those damned editors can such pricks.

 

[mayoclinic]

Y'know I really like Bedard, but this statement optimizes how spoiled we have become. I mean how scary would the Lions offense be without Calvin Johnson. How scary would the Texans offense be without Andre Johnson, etc etc. The Pats have played almost the entire year without the most important player in their offense not named Tom Brady, and that's the 2nd TE. This is doubly true when that 2nd TE is the Gronk.

When you think about all the injuries along the OL, the loss of Edelman, the loss of Hernandez and Gronk, etc, and yet we still managed to cobble together ANOTHER 550 point season. So while Bedard was complaining about routes that were not precisely run, did he ever consider the conditions they were playing under?

Nothing effects a passer more than the wind, and the despite the wind that was strong enough to negate FG attempts longer than 30 yds, Brady was throwing lasers that made the wind irrelevant, but on the other hand made it a very difficult ball for receivers to catch on such a cold night.

Are there things to clean up. Sure there are, There ALWAYS are things to improve on. Personally in this case Bedard is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Either that or he was told to write something provocative. Those damned editors can such pricks.

Take away Brady, Gronk, Welker, Hernandez and Ridley, and the offense isn't going to scare anyone.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Vollmer just got straight-up beat, but I have no idea why the rest of the line is standing around watching Tom in the endzone. Also, it looks like Wes is signaling that he is open and that BJGE is about to get open.

Feck.
Like

Your right, if Brady had 2 more seconds they probably get off to a good start with a big gain on the first offensive play of the game. I guarantee when they get there this year they're gonna start off better than last year.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Your right, if Brady had 2 more seconds they probably get off to a good start with a big gain on the first offensive play of the game. I guarantee when they get there this year they're gonna start off better than last year.

The linemen have got to commit holding in that situation. Knock Tuck on his butt. What's worse? A three-yard penalty or two points and loss of possession?

 

[aluminum seats]

The linemen have got to commit holding in that situation. Knock Tuck on his butt. What's worse? A three-yard penalty or two points and loss of possession?

Thought a holding penalty there was a safety?

 

[The Brandon Five]

Thought a holding penalty there was a safety?

If the holding takes place in the end-zone, yes, but otherwise it is half the distance to the goal. The LOS was the six yard-line. At the point of that picture, it is too late, I guess. I have no idea why O'Brien dialed up that kind of play when we had no idea how Vollmer was going to hold up. High risk, questionable reward. Welker drop likely does not matter if we actually take some time off the clock by actually, you know, possessing the ball. Not to mention the possibility of going on a scoring drive like we did once we actually had the ball. I think the D was a little gassed by the fourth quarter given that the TOP was so lopsided. It is incredible that we still almost won the game.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

If we're looking at YPA and YPC as measurements of aggressive play-calling against teams we've played more than once, it's worth comparing to our Super Bowl years.

2001
St. Louis
Regular: 17 points, 6.85 YPA, 9.73 YPC, 2 sacks
Playoffs: 20 points, 5.37 YPA, 9.06 YPC, 2 sacks

2003
Tennessee
Regular: 38 points, 7.06 YPA, 12.88 YPC, 3 sacks
Playoffs: 17 points, 4.90 YPA, 9.57 YPC, 0 sacks

Indianapolis
Regular: 38 points, 6.74 YPA, 9.08 YPC, 2 sacks
Playoffs: 24 points, 6.41 YPA, 10.77 YPC, 0 sacks

2004
Indianapolis
Regular: 27 points, 8.82 YPA, 12.88 YPC, 2 sacks
Playoffs: 20 points, 5.33 YPA, 8.00 YPC, 3 sacks

Pittsburgh
Regular: 20 points, 6.30 YPA, 10.84 YPC, 4 sacks
Playoffs: 41 points, 9.86 YPA, 14.79 YPC, 2 sacks

Super Bowl Years
Regular: 28 points, 7.15 YPA, 11.08 YPC, 2.6 sacks
Playoffs: 24.4, 6.37 YPA, 10.43 YPC, 1.4 sacks

Since then
REGULAR: 33.3 POINTS; BRADY 8.6 YPA, 12.4 YPC, 2 SACKS (PER GAME
PLAYOFFS: 22 POINTS; BRADY 6.6 YPA, 9.9 YPC, 2.9 SACKS (PER GAME)

Brady has actually been a bit more aggressive in terms of passing, but the scoring has dropped a bit. The discrepancy looks a bit bigger because the offense in the regular season has improved significantly, but that hasn't translated to a higher post-season number.

The 2.5 point drop in scoring wouldn't be as significant if the defense wasn't giving up an average of 3.2 points more per game. During the play-offs in our Super Bowl years, the defense gave up an average of 17.2 points compared to 20.5 Combined with the offensive drop, that's almost a 6-point differential in the play-offs from our Super Bowl years vs. other years.

That has a serious effect on close games. During the Super Bowl years, we were 6-0 in one-possession games. Since that time, we've gone 2-4 in one-possession play-off games. We won 3 Super Bowls by a FG and lost 2 Super Bowls by a combined 7 points.

I certainly agree the problem isn't talent, but it's also important to recognize the playoffs are a totally different game, and we won't be able to easily replicate regular season success.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If we're looking at YPA and YPC as measurements of aggressive play-calling against teams we've played more than once, it's worth comparing to our Super Bowl years.

2001
St. Louis
Regular: 17 points, 6.85 YPA, 9.73 YPC, 2 sacks
Playoffs: 20 points, 5.37 YPA, 9.06 YPC, 2 sacks

2003
Tennessee
Regular: 38 points, 7.06 YPA, 12.88 YPC, 3 sacks
Playoffs: 17 points, 4.90 YPA, 9.57 YPC, 0 sacks

Indianapolis
Regular: 38 points, 6.74 YPA, 9.08 YPC, 2 sacks
Playoffs: 24 points, 6.41 YPA, 10.77 YPC, 0 sacks

2004
Indianapolis
Regular: 27 points, 8.82 YPA, 12.88 YPC, 2 sacks
Playoffs: 20 points, 5.33 YPA, 8.00 YPC, 3 sacks

Pittsburgh
Regular: 20 points, 6.30 YPA, 10.84 YPC, 4 sacks
Playoffs: 41 points, 9.86 YPA, 14.79 YPC, 2 sacks

Super Bowl Years
Regular: 28 points, 7.15 YPA, 11.08 YPC, 2.6 sacks
Playoffs: 24.4, 6.37 YPA, 10.43 YPC, 1.4 sacks

Since then
REGULAR: 33.3 POINTS; BRADY 8.6 YPA, 12.4 YPC, 2 SACKS (PER GAME
PLAYOFFS: 22 POINTS; BRADY 6.6 YPA, 9.9 YPC, 2.9 SACKS (PER GAME)

Brady has actually been a bit more aggressive in terms of passing, but the scoring has dropped a bit. The discrepancy looks a bit bigger because the offense in the regular season has improved significantly, but that hasn't translated to a higher post-season number.

The 2.5 point drop in scoring wouldn't be as significant if the defense wasn't giving up an average of 3.2 points more per game. During the play-offs in our Super Bowl years, the defense gave up an average of 17.2 points compared to 20.5 Combined with the offensive drop, that's almost a 6-point differential in the play-offs from our Super Bowl years vs. other years.

That has a serious effect on close games. During the Super Bowl years, we were 6-0 in one-possession games. Since that time, we've gone 2-4 in one-possession play-off games. We won 3 Super Bowls by a FG and lost 2 Super Bowls by a combined 7 points.

I certainly agree the problem isn't talent, but it's also important to recognize the playoffs are a totally different game, and we won't be able to easily replicate regular season success.

Nice post, cpf. Tying into your point a little more, in my opinion field position and 3rd down stops/conversions are HUGE in the playoffs and because post 2006 Pats are more pass oriented and face better defenses in the playoffs.
In turn, post 2006 Pats have faced better offenses and have been susceptible to giving up yards and 3rd down conversions which has limited their number of offensive possessions and lessened their field position.

 

[brdmaverick]

Bill Walsh always said that to win a Super Bowl, a football team needs to win in every single way possible. Passing, running, defensively, special teams, luck, health, mental toughness, etc. I don't want to get too fanboyish but going back to the playoff losses since 04, this team is in a best position to win the Super Bowl better than any other team (yes- I said that).

'05 to DEN- Missing Rodney, horrible secondary, no running game, limited options in the passing game, 5 turnovers.

'06 to Indy- Missing Rodney, worst 2nd 1/2 defense ever.

'07 to NYG- Injured Brady, Neal, Faulk. Allowed pressure w/ 4-5 man rush and 6-7 DBs. Offense was slowing down and mentally drained. BS Tyree catch, Asante drop. Eli in the grasp...Perfect Storm of hell.

'09- WW out and outmuscled and mentally beaten down by BAL

'10- The pass defense and the lack of a threat to run the football and make plays.

'11- Gronk out. WW drop. Pass D. TB hurt shoulder.

'12- They have a pass defense. They have a pass rush. They have an explosive running game that can cool the pass rush on TB. They have an o-line with depth. They have a versitile passing game. They are mentally tough.

Seems to me that they need some luck, health and play to their capabilities to win...which is all attainable. The fanboy cometh...

Not for nothing but I've seen a lot of posts like this almost justifying or explaining why past teams lost. That doesnt' really translate to this year's success. After all, IF (big 'IF' I hope we don't deal with) we do happen to lose, heading into the '13 season playoffs next year we'll could be saying any combination of the following........

'12 Less than 100% Gronk and Ninko in addition to no Edelman.

'12 Defense filled with rookies who did not perform in their first playoff experience.

...or like how under '11 above it's listed as WW drop. I mean, is that reason to be believe that no one this year will have a key drop? Let's face it, even Brady had a terrible throw in the AFC Championship (missing Gronk for a sure TD). That rarely happens but can play a pivotal role in the game. We can't predict that won't happen again this year.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Nice post, cpf. Tying into your point a little more, in my opinion field position and 3rd down stops/conversions are HUGE in the playoffs and because post 2006 Pats are more pass oriented and face better defenses in the playoffs.
In turn, post 2006 Pats have faced better offenses and have been susceptible to giving up yards and 3rd down conversions which has limited their number of offensive possessions and lessened their field position.

This is an interesting post. I want to dig into it but don't have time (shopping with the wife, gah!) but will come back to this. I'm curious how it looks myself.

One other element is turnovers. In our 3 Super Bowl runs, we turned the ball over 6 times in 9 play-of games, with 4 of those games being turnover-free vs. 25 turnovers forced, +19 in only 9 games. We lost the turnover battle only once, and still won that game against Oakland.

Since that time, we've turned the ball over 25 times in 13 games vs. 20 forced, -5 in 13 games. In the 6 games we've lost, we lost the turnover battle 4 times, and tied in the other 2. Last year, we lost the turnover battle in all 3 games, and have lost the turnover battle in 6 of 13 games.

So ball security is always a huge issue, and one of the biggest differences I can spot between the Super Bowl years vs. since that time.

 

[cstjohn17]

Seems like talent is never an issue if teams can make the Superbowl, it comes down to execution.

Put another way, it is not the best team, it is the team that plays the best.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This is an interesting post. I want to dig into it but don't have time (shopping with the wife, gah!) but will come back to this. I'm curious how it looks myself.

One other element is turnovers. In our 3 Super Bowl runs, we turned the ball over 6 times in 9 play-of games, with 4 of those games being turnover-free vs. 25 turnovers forced, +19 in only 9 games. We lost the turnover battle only once, and still won that game against Oakland.

Since that time, we've turned the ball over 25 times in 13 games vs. 20 forced, -5 in 13 games. In the 6 games we've lost, we lost the turnover battle 4 times, and tied in the other 2. Last year, we lost the turnover battle in all 3 games, and have lost the turnover battle in 6 of 13 games.

So ball security is always a huge issue, and one of the biggest differences I can spot between the Super Bowl years vs. since that time.

Kudos to you cpf for digging into the TO #s as they are a major factor in winning & losing.