Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

BB clearly believes the positives outweigh the negatives because he has run an offense that is over 50% shotgun.

When Mangini was defensive coordinator, he hardly blitzed ever and the corners played off the ball. This was in stark contrast to how the D played before he became coordinator, or after when BB took over. Even though the defense was horrible, Belichick didn't step in until very late in the season.

This gives an idea of how much autonomy he gives his coordinators, even when they are bad. BB has less reason to step in on the offense - it's not his specialty, and it always produced statistically (it's hard to be bad offensively when Brady is your QB).

Just because the Patriots played a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean every single play call was under BB's control.

Also, it's not convincing to say that moving forward BB continues to have such support for shot gun, when his priority moves this off season were to add talent at TE, RB, and O-Line. BB adding a near-retired 3rd receiver doesn't really support your point.

 

[maverick4]

So we'd at least have to estimate the ratio is 5:1 or 4:1, which is still high.

I think you'd agree that it doesn't change the conclusion from that ratio, that this disproportionate ratio could be a big key for the opposing defense when we line up in shot gun, and arguably improve their pass rush as well.

 

[maverick4]

I have a question.

Is it your position that offenses that are pass oriented don't win simply because they are pass oriented? I've never heard that argument before, the argument is typically that pass oriented teams don't win because they HAVE TO pass a lot to cover up other deficiencies.
Are you saying that a team that doesn't need to run a wide open offense (ie the 07 Pats) are a worse team because they choose to?

Did you read the first two pages of this thread (before the McKid trolls came in)? The focus was on discussing whether certain types/styles of play, across various professional sports, simply aren't as conducive to winning championships as other styles of play... even if they produce sexy stats or tons of wins.

I wouldn't put it the way you put it. It's true that oftentimes horrible teams with bad defenses are behind in games, or don't have strong running games, and so have to be pass-emphasis teams to win. However, there are also teams which are good teams with long term winning records, which are pass-first or have a pass-emphasis, who historically throughout NFL history have not had good success in terms of winning championships.

The point is subtle. I think it's necessary to be explosive, to have the weapons, to basically be able to throw the ball when you need to. But, that's just part of being a balanced team which can adapt to the other team's weaknesses. The teams which stubbornly keep doing the same thing over and over (and a sign of this could be using the same formation over 50% of your plays), especially passing-wise, have gotten stopped by physical defenses who know what's coming. There are tons of examples of this from teams in NFL history.

 

[maverick4]

And if we could run out of a goal-line set all the time with high efficiency and low stuffed stats, I'm sure we'd do that too.

I just tried looking for that post you made about how even with our disproportionate shot gun use, that the Pats average yards per depth on passes was among the lowest in the league.

How do you know that what you described is not related to exactly what we are talking about?

Meaning, the opposing D keys off that in shot gun formation it's highly likely to be a pass, and so their pass rush is better, Brady has less time to throw, gets hit while throwing, and that the average depth on receptions is thus way shorter than for any other team? Also, comparing avg yards per play from shot gun vs when under center is not a good way to determine whether to keep using shot gun, especially when way more plays under center are rushes, and way more plays under shot gun are passes - the data is skewed simply because successful passes on average generate more yards than successful rushes. The way you're over-valuing passing by focusing on the efficiency metric (avg yards per play), is the same reason horrible teams stay in the cellar by drafting sexy wide receivers instead of fixing their lines first.

In terms of why I don't like our style despite its success, think of it this way. Using your own goal line example, it would be like if a team knew that whenever an offense was in goal line, that it was a 5:1 ratio in favor of running. The defense would obviously stack the box and key in on the run. Let's say the offense has hall of fame talent at RB, center, and both guards, and so even though the defense knows it's a run, they still can't stop it. However, the RB takes a vicious beating every time because he's breaking three or four tackles every time but is so good that he still makes it work. This RB just had two injuries in three years, and yet people want to keep running the same style of play that punishes the star RB.

 

[maverick4]

Why would I need stats to prove that the shotgun provides better protection when that is the entire purpose of using it?

Just because a formation in theory is supposed to work a certain way, doesn't mean it works that way for the Pats, or any team which overly relies on the same formation over and over. If we used shot gun and ran draws 90% of the time, you can't expect that play to give more yards per rush than normal rushing plays, even though in theory it should.

The total hits number doesn't really fit your insistence that it provides more protection. Screen passes are supposed to diffuse an aggressive pass rush, it doesn't always work that way either, especially if you a ton of screen passes and the defense keys in on it.

I agree with you that *IF* a defense doesn't know what is coming, or doesn't have data showing that a team overwhelmingly passes when it is in shot gun, that shot gun could provide more protection and time for the QB to make a play. But, the theory doesn't really work when the defense knows or can expect whether the play will be a rush or a pass.

 

[Ring 6]

When Mangini was defensive coordinator, he hardly blitzed ever and the corners played off the ball. This was in stark contrast to how the D played before he became coordinator, or after when BB took over. Even though the defense was horrible, Belichick didn't step in until very late in the season.

This gives an idea of how much autonomy he gives his coordinators, even when they are bad. BB has less reason to step in on the offense - it's not his specialty, and it always produced statistically (it's hard to be bad offensively when Brady is your QB).

Just because the Patriots played a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean every single play call was under BB's control.

Also, it's not convincing to say that moving forward BB continues to have such support for shot gun, when his priority moves this off season were to add talent at TE, RB, and O-Line. BB adding a near-retired 3rd receiver doesn't really support your point.

I disagree. The defenses we have run under different coordinators have been very similar and the style has as much to do with personell as play call preference.

I didnt say every play call was under his control, but you are ignorant if you think something like running 50% of the plays from the shotgun doesnt need his endorsement.

I dont have to convince you that the same philosophy we have seen for 2 years will remain in tact. The fact that he has done so, had the best offense in NFL history in 07, then the most efficient in the league the 2nd half of last year with a green QB means it is reasonanble to assume he isnt going to change.
You would need to show reason he would change, and the fact that off-season acquisitions were basically equal across all position groups is pointless.

 

[maverick4]

I disagree. The defenses we have run under different coordinators have been very similar and the style has as much to do with personell as play call preference.

I didnt say every play call was under his control, but you are ignorant if you think something like running 50% of the plays from the shotgun doesnt need his endorsement.

So first you deny that the defense, defensive style, and play calls, have been different under Romeo, Mangini, and Dean Pees... then in the next breath you imply/agree that they were different and that it was due to personnel reasons? Pick a side, you're not making sense.

Who knows how much Belichick endorses the offense. He certainly initiated the trips to see Meyer and adapted it, but nobody knows including yourself. Using the same thinking, Belichick "endorsed" Eric Mangini's sh*tty non-aggressive defense for much of 2005, a defense which almost never blitzed and routinely gave up huge plays. It's not as simple as you try to make it. Belichick gives his coordinators tons of autonomy. What you see on the field may generally be his vision, but the execution and play calls are largely delegated.

 

[maverick4]

and the fact that off-season acquisitions were basically equal across all position groups is pointless.

So now you're trying to say the off-season changes were essentially no change or no improvement, just because you're counting the number of bodies who left and came at each position?

Newsflash: the tight ends, running backs, and O-line that we brought in are better than the bodies that are leaving at those positions. It's silly, and you know it, to argue that a position got better or worse based on how many more extra bodies were brought in, without considering the talent of those players who left or joined.

At this point you're just arguing from a deliberately and completely biased perspective.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Really, can we just kill this thread already and get it over with. The guy's just bumping his own thread that almost everyone else has stopped caring about at this point.

 

[unoriginal]

I just tried looking for that post you made about how even with our disproportionate shot gun use, that the Pats average yards per depth on passes was among the lowest in the league.

How do you know that what you described is not related to exactly what we are talking about?

Meaning, the opposing D keys off that in shot gun formation it's highly likely to be a pass, and so their pass rush is better, Brady has less time to throw, gets hit while throwing, and that the average depth on receptions is thus way shorter than for any other team?

If Cassel was under significant pressure and getting hit a lot, he would be tossing interceptions frequently and we wouldn't be moving the ball efficiently. Since he did not fumble or toss interceptions at an above average rate and the offense performed very well — and Football Outsiders tells us we ran 30% more screens than any other team — we must conclude these plays were by design, and not the result of Cassel trying to flip the ball to his safety valve while getting plowed under.

Also, comparing avg yards per play from shot gun vs when under center is not a good way to determine whether to keep using shot gun, especially when way more plays under center are rushes, and way more plays under shot gun are passes - the data is skewed simply because successful passes on average generate more yards than successful rushes. The way you're over-valuing passing by focusing on the efficiency metric (avg yards per play), is the same reason horrible teams stay in the cellar by drafting sexy wide receivers instead of fixing their lines first.

I wasn't just focusing on passing; Football Outsiders noted our draw plays from shotgun were twice as effective as the league average. And I can see why you'd be wary of shotgun passing if you evaluated it thus:

Pro: none — not applicable
Con: may cause the QB to get injured?

In terms of why I don't like our style despite its success, think of it this way. Using your own goal line example, it would be like if a team knew that whenever an offense was in goal line, that it was a 5:1 ratio in favor of running. The defense would obviously stack the box and key in on the run. Let's say the offense has hall of fame talent at RB, center, and both guards, and so even though the defense knows it's a run, they still can't stop it. However, the RB takes a vicious beating every time because he's breaking three or four tackles every time but is so good that he still makes it work. This RB just had two injuries in three years, and yet people want to keep running the same style of play that punishes the star RB.

If the RB has been injured but the offense is still running efficiently, then it's not really a concern, is it? It would be a concern if the RB got injured frequently and then the offense went in the crapper, but that hasn't been the case with the Pats.

And I don't know about the high-ankle sprain, but Brady's knee injury definately didn't occur in the shotgun. It was single back with a motioned H-back, a five-step drop off a play-fake. If it had been shotgun Brady probably would have gotten the ball out quicker.

 

[Rob0729]

Really, can we just kill this thread already and get it over with. The guy's just bumping his own thread that almost everyone else has stopped caring about at this point.

I was hoping Ian would have killed this thread when he closed the other maverick started non-bashing bashing of McDaniels which was basically the same thread with a different useless stat to start to bash McDaniels. The only significant difference I see with this thread is that unoriginal brought the big guns and destroyed his argument with a mountain of facts which he quickly dismissed.

 

[patfanken]

[/COLOR]


If the RB has been injured but the offense is still running efficiently, then it's not really a concern, is it? It would be a concern if the RB got injured frequently and then the offense went in the crapper, but that hasn't been the case with the Pats.

And I don't know about the high-ankle sprain, but Brady's knee injury definately didn't occur in the shotgun. It was single back with a motioned H-back, a five-step drop off a play-fake. If it had been shotgun Brady probably would have gotten the ball out quicker.

I haven't read the entire thread, and pardon me if this has been mentioned before....BUT. Your post reminded me of an insight I discovered when in a football discussion with some old coaching buddies of mine.

I was ranting about my own pet peeve (as a former DC) when the Pats on third and short more times than not come out in the shot gun. This drives me nuts, because one of the hardest things for a defense is determining pass or run in situations when the off offense is free to do both.

When you come out in the shot gun, you are essentially making it easier for the defense, and it seems so unneccessary to concede this edge through alignment. I have no problem passing on 3rd and short, but why tell the defense before hand. BTW don't tell me you can still run from the shot gun. I know that, but you are limited to draws, and draw like plays, which are chancy in a short yardage situation.

Well right in the middle of my righeous rant, my buddy points this fact out that I didn't realize (he came from the offensive side- a former QB). Many QBs, and I think Brady is one of them like the shot gun NOT because it gives them more time, but because its easier get a read on the defense. He said the key is the QBs head. When you are dropping back, your head is moving making it more difficult to focus over a BROAD area, especially when you consider the mass confusion going on around you as you make your drop. You also have your shoulders turned, which cuts off part of the field to your vision. Then when you reach your spot, you have to refocus on whats going on down field as well as with the rush.

Guys like Brady, when they are in the shot gun, catch the ball with their vision focused down field before the ball even gets to them. Their shoulders are square and they can see the full field. Their head is still, so they don't lose focus. Simply it is THAT much easier and effective for some QBs to throw the ball from the shot gun, than dropping back. Not only that you see the rush better, and as you noted in your post (I'd forgotten) Brady was hurt dropping back. Kind of makes you wonder, ya know?

Like most things in football, there is rarely an absolute right thing, its always a trade off. In this case the Pats have decided that the efficiency they get from throwing the ball from the shotgun and Brady's comfort level, is worth giving up the threat of a run when they are under center.

Just thought I'd add that. I still get pissed though, but at least now I can accept it better.

 

[Deus Irae]

I haven't read the entire thread, and pardon me if this has been mentioned before....BUT. Your post reminded me of an insight I discovered when in a football discussion with some old coaching buddies of mine.

I was ranting about my own pet peeve (as a former DC) when the Pats on third and short more times than not come out in the shot gun. This drives me nuts, because one of the hardest things for a defense is determining pass or run in situations when the off offense is free to do both.

When you come out in the shot gun, you are essentially making it easier for the defense, and it seems so unneccessary to concede this edge through alignment. I have no problem passing on 3rd and short, but why tell the defense before hand. BTW don't tell me you can still run from the shot gun. I know that, but you are limited to draws, and draw like plays, which are chancy in a short yardage situation.

Well right in the middle of my righeous rant, my buddy points this fact out that I didn't realize (he came from the offensive side- a former QB). Many QBs, and I think Brady is one of them like the shot gun NOT because it gives them more time, but because its easier get a read on the defense. He said the key is the QBs head. When you are dropping back, your head is moving making it more difficult to focus over a BROAD area, especially when you consider the mass confusion going on around you as you make your drop. You also have your shoulders turned, which cuts off part of the field to your vision. Then when you reach your spot, you have to refocus on whats going on down field as well as with the rush.

Guys like Brady, when they are in the shot gun, catch the ball with their vision focused down field before the ball even gets to them. Their shoulders are square and they can see the full field. Their head is still, so they don't lose focus. Simply it is THAT much easier and effective for a QB to throw the ball, than dropping back.

Like most things in football, there is not absolute right thing, its always a trade off. In this case the Pats have decided that the efficiency they get from throwing the ball from the shotgun, is worth giving up the threat of a run when they are under center.

Just thought I'd add that. I still get pissed though, but at least now I can accept it better.

Maybe this will help, too. In the past 5 seasons, Faulk has been essentially the 3rd down and shotgun back. His yards per rush attempt:

4.7
2.8 (partial season only)
4.9
4.3
6.1

If teams ignore the running threat while this team is in the shotgun, teams will be giving up a lot of plays in the running game.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think you'd agree that it doesn't change the conclusion from that ratio, that this disproportionate ratio could be a big key for the opposing defense when we line up in shot gun, and arguably improve their pass rush as well.

Why spend your time arguing the hypothetical (defenses can get a better pass rush against the Patriots when they are in the shotgun) when the statistics about this were shared earlier in the thread (defensive pressure was average in the shotgun)?

 

[TruthSeeker]

The point is subtle.

I'll say. So subtle that most of us can't see it after 240 posts.

 

[unoriginal]

Well right in the middle of my righeous rant, my buddy points this fact out that I didn't realize (he came from the offensive side- a former QB). Many QBs, and I think Brady is one of them like the shot gun NOT because it gives them more time, but because its easier get a read on the defense. He said the key is the QBs head. When you are dropping back, your head is moving making it more difficult to focus over a BROAD area, especially when you consider the mass confusion going on around you as you make your drop. You also have your shoulders turned, which cuts off part of the field to your vision. Then when you reach your spot, you have to refocus on whats going on down field as well as with the rush.

Guys like Brady, when they are in the shot gun, catch the ball with their vision focused down field before the ball even gets to them. Their shoulders are square and they can see the full field. Their head is still, so they don't lose focus. Simply it is THAT much easier and effective for some QBs to throw the ball from the shot gun, than dropping back. Not only that you see the rush better, and as you noted in your post (I'd forgotten) Brady was hurt dropping back. Kind of makes you wonder, ya know?

Yes, and play-fakes like what Brady was doing exacerbate the problem; a good play-fake requires the QB keeping his head down and looking through the handoff like it was a running play, further lengthening the time he has to wait until he can scan the field. Obviously you're hoping the defense bites on the fake and the rush comes just as late, all the while giving your WRs an extra second or two to get down the field, but in this case the Chiefs were blitzing Pollard — a good idea against a play-action pass or single back zone play like what the Pats were faking.

Like most things in football, there is rarely an absolute right thing, its always a trade off.

Very true.

 

[patfanken]

Maybe this will help, too. In the past 5 seasons, Faulk has been essentially the 3rd down and shotgun back. His yards per rush attempt:

4.7
2.8 (partial season only)
4.9
4.3
6.1

If teams ignore the running threat while this team is in the shotgun, teams will be giving up a lot of plays in the running game.

Yeah, I get it DI, but those averages are skewed the all the 3rd and 15 draws that gain 13 yds. I wonder what stats you'd get in those situations where it was 3rd and 3-4 or less?

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, I get it DI, but those averages are skewed the all the 3rd and 15 draws that gain 13 yds. I wonder what stats you'd get in those situations where it was 3rd and 3-4 or less?

Kevin Faulk - New England Patriots - Situational Statistics - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

Yahoo! also has a 3 year average for the stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4695/situational;_ylt=AjMNc1up6eZ.ZsX5bGdC.K_.uLYF?year=avg

 

[unoriginal]

Yeah, I get it DI, but those averages are skewed the all the 3rd and 15 draws that gain 13 yds. I wonder what stats you'd get in those situations where it was 3rd and 3-4 or less?

Faulk's rushing average last year was actually highest on 1st down: 6.9 yards per carry vs. 5.7 for the other two downs.

But you are right about third down: he got 1st downs on only 20% of his 3rd down carries.

 

[Ring 6]

Did you read the first two pages of this thread (before the McKid trolls came in)? The focus was on discussing whether certain types/styles of play, across various professional sports, simply aren't as conducive to winning championships as other styles of play... even if they produce sexy stats or tons of wins.

I wouldn't put it the way you put it. It's true that oftentimes horrible teams with bad defenses are behind in games, or don't have strong running games, and so have to be pass-emphasis teams to win. However, there are also teams which are good teams with long term winning records, which are pass-first or have a pass-emphasis, who historically throughout NFL history have not had good success in terms of winning championships.

The point is subtle. I think it's necessary to be explosive, to have the weapons, to basically be able to throw the ball when you need to. But, that's just part of being a balanced team which can adapt to the other team's weaknesses. The teams which stubbornly keep doing the same thing over and over (and a sign of this could be using the same formation over 50% of your plays), especially passing-wise, have gotten stopped by physical defenses who know what's coming. There are tons of examples of this from teams in NFL history.

That is why I asked it the way I asked it.
Most 'pass happy' teams are pass happy because they have to be. Its a chicken or egg argument.
Since common sense dictates that generally the team that is clearly superior would have a more conservative gameplan, it is logical that teams playing conservatively are generally more successful. That does not, however, mean that all things equal conservative approaches produce more wins for the same team.