Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

That does not, however, mean that all things equal conservative approaches produce more wins for the same team.

I'm not talking about only wins though. We know there are plenty of teams in history that won plenty of games and great success by being known as passing teams. I'm talking about winning championships, and the record isn't on the side of those teams who were flashy/explosive when they didn't need to be. Like I said, I liken it to the obsession over home runs and power hitters - sure you could build a winning team that way, but not likely one that brings home rings.

 

[maverick4]

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 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.

PFKen this is essentially my pet peeve as well, basically showing your hand in poker when you don't have to. It is a huge disadvantage for the defense if they don't know pre-snap if a play is run or pass, but the Pats have a 5:1 ratio of passing rather than rushing when in shot gun.

I do agree with everyone's posts that shot gun has put up monster stats, that Brady does well in it, and that in general it gives the QB more time to see the whole field. What I disagree with, is that giving away such an obvious tell for the defense is a good idea, and if such a style overly relying on shot gun or the pass-first is even conducive to winning championships (not just wins).

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I'm beginning to think this is an intellect problem.
Ther purpose of a shotgun formation is to move the QB into his drop, so that he is in throwing position sooner, and can see the field better to get rid of the ball and limit the effect of the pass rush. This is FACT. It is INCONTRIVERIBLE. 100% of everyone who knows anything about football would agree this is WHY you use a shotgun. You just said that isnt true because if you ran a draw 90% of the time from the shotgun it wouldn't work.
You just refuted a quadratric equation with 2+2 doesnt equal 744. Nice work.

I have said (perhaps the problem is you dont read what others post) that the shotgun produces the CONFLICTING dynamics that:
1) You align in order to protect your QB better and
2) You are more likely telegraphing your play so the defense can rush the QB with less worry about the run

See, your argument is not required to disprove #1 because that would be impossible.
Your argument is to prove that #2 outweighs #1, and that the Patriots coaching staff is ignorant to that fact.

 

[Snake Eyes]

maverick4,

Do you think Brady's ankle issues played into the amount of shotgun plays used in the Superbowl?

Also, because I don't yet have the number of posts to start a thread on it, what do you think adding Michael Vick to our offence would make a big difference?

thanks

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not talking about only wins though. We know there are plenty of teams in history that won plenty of games and great success by being known as passing teams. I'm talking about winning championships, and the record isn't on the side of those teams who were flashy/explosive when they didn't need to be. Like I said, I liken it to the obsession over home runs and power hitters - sure you could build a winning team that way, but not likely one that brings home rings.

Who are the teams that were good enough to win Championships but didnt because they were pass first?
I think you will find that most of the teams you would name were pass first teams only because of other flaws they were compensating for, except for the 2007 Patriots who were 1 1/2 minutes from a perfect season. I don't think they are the example to make your case.

Look, I'm all for conservative, smashmouth football. I like that style better. But that doesnt mean that when you have Tom Brady and Randy Moss you make your team worse by throwing the ball and having the highest scoring offense in NFL history.
I would imagine the Patriots could have taken a knee in place of 100 of their passes that season and still been 18-0, but they also still would have been 18-1.

 

[Ring 6]

PFKen this is essentially my pet peeve as well, basically showing your hand in poker when you don't have to. It is a huge disadvantage for the defense if they don't know pre-snap if a play is run or pass, but the Pats have a 5:1 ratio of passing rather than rushing when in shot gun.

I do agree with everyone's posts that shot gun has put up monster stats, that Brady does well in it, and that in general it gives the QB more time to see the whole field. What I disagree with, is that giving away such an obvious tell for the defense is a good idea, and if such a style overly relying on shot gun or the pass-first is even conducive to winning championships (not just wins).

Historically most dominant NFL teams have had a unique identity. A 'we are going to do this, try and stop us' mentality. Very few have been deceptive.
It is the difference between saying
A) We are going to win or lose doing what we do best or
B) We need to not let you know what we are going to do

Ironically, the Patriots have always been a team that has been built around the premise of gameplanning for opponents, of 'taking what the defense gives'.
What you seem to have confused is that the Patriots still do this, however, in 2007 'what the defense gave' was what they were incapable of stopping, a passing game of Brady, Moss, Welker etc.
The Patriots have chosen to exploit what the defense gives them in the passing game by going from a shotgun formation which gives the QB a better view of the field, and allows for quicker developing plays.
You seem to be arguing as if you think that we have adopted an offense that says no matter what the defense does, we need to get in the shotgun and throw the ball deep.
That is simply not the case.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Where does it say he got 20% 1st downs?

 

[maverick4]

Ther purpose of a shotgun formation is to ... It is INCONTRIVERIBLE.

the shotgun produces the CONFLICTING dynamics that:
1) You align in order to protect your QB better and
2) You are more likely telegraphing your play so the defense can rush the QB with less worry about the run

Your argument is to prove that #2 outweighs #1

I'm not debating the purpose of shot gun, I'm talking about what actually happens, especially for the Pats. The purpose of 3-TE formations are usually to win short yardage runs, but that doesn't always work either, especially if you use it way too much and the other team scouts you. You could repeat the 'purpose' of any formation till you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it always true in reality, especially if you use the same thing over and over with an obvious key to the opposing defense on whether it's a run or pass.

This is the whole point. We pass more than run at over a 5:1 ratio when we are in shot gun. An opposing defense has a way better pass rush knowing they can just rush the QB and sprint up field. You're also in denial that an opposing team's improved pass rush could be linked to all the hits Brady takes while throwing.

 

[maverick4]

You seem to be arguing as if you think that we have adopted an offense that says no matter what the defense does, we need to get in the shotgun and throw the ball deep.
That is simply not the case.

This is silly.

During and after 2007, all teams knew just how potent Moss and Welker were, and yet we still went in shot gun over 50% of the time, overwhelmingly passing compared to running from that formation.

That isn't taking what the defense gives you, it's stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again, because you keep daring the other team to stop it. I would argue that this type of mentality/style works better if you're a run-focused or run-dominant team, who passes when the defense over-leverages against the run, rather than the inverse.

 

[unoriginal]

Where does it say he got 20% 1st downs?

Kevin Faulk, New England Patriots, NFL - CBSSports.com Football

He had 10 carries on 3rd down last year and picked up 2 1st downs.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Kevin Faulk, New England Patriots, NFL - CBSSports.com Football

He had 10 carries on 3rd down last year and picked up 2 1st downs.

I think it's fair to say that that sample size is small enough that it's tough to draw meaningful conclusions from it, especially since in some cases getting the first down was likely secondary (the aforementioned 3rd and 15s where we took the easy 7-12 yards).

 

[unoriginal]

I think it's fair to say that that sample size is small enough that it's tough to draw meaningful conclusions from it, especially since in many cases getting the first down was likely secondary.

Yes, that was part of patfanken's original point: that Faulk's 3rd down carries were draws on 3rd and long less focused on picking up 1st downs and more focused on gaining yardage for special teams.

He was incorrect in that these carries did not artificially raise his average.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes, that was part of patfanken's original point: that Faulk's 3rd down carries were draws on 3rd and long less focused on picking up 1st downs and more focused on gaining yardage for special teams.

He was incorrect in that these carries did not artificially raise his average.

Definitely, to clarify: I'm not stating that all of Faulk's draws were 3rd down plays that gained yardage for special teams. Just stating that of the carries that he did have on third down, at least some of them were likely for that purpose.

 

[RDS11]

This is silly.

During and after 2007, all teams knew just how potent Moss and Welker were, and yet we still went in shot gun over 50% of the time, overwhelmingly passing compared to running from that formation.

That isn't taking what the defense gives you, it's stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again, because you keep daring the other team to stop it. I would argue that this type of mentality/style works better if you're a run-focused or run-dominant team, who passes when the defense over-leverages against the run, rather than the inverse.

I just don't get it...it worked even if the defense knew what was coming...so what's your point ?

Also, according to Cold Hard Football Facts.com which has several nice articles on the subject, great running team have had a lot less success historically than great passing team. In other words, that a championship team needs first and foremost a great running game is a myth.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The defense can continue to 'give' something even if it knows that it's coming. For example, in 2007 defenses knew that the ball was going to Moss, but they underreacted until pretty close to the end of the season, at which point you started seeing some truly bizarre coverages that left other guys completely open because defenses were busy tripling Moss.

It's a testament to how good Moss is that, even when consistently doubled, you can make a case that the defense is still 'giving' elements of his game. If that wasn't the case, then it would not have been possible for him to catch 22 TDs. And that says nothing of the other receiving weapons.

 

[maverick4]

I just don't get it...it worked even if the defense knew what was coming...so what's your point ?

The point is that it works spectacular in the regular season, but just like other explosive offenses before it, doesn't work so great in the playoffs.

It's like the running back example I gave a few pages back. If every time a team lined up in I-formation they ran 5:1 over pass, and they used this formation over 50% of their plays, the defense would stack the box and key in on the run. Let's say your RB and his inside blockers were so great that it didn't matter, the D couldn't really stop it, except for the fact that because the defense knew what was coming, the RB took vicious hits and had to break 3-4 tackles every time in order to get his yards. Let's also say this RB has had two injuries his last three years, including a major one right before this season. See anything concerning or anything you'd want to change or think about?

 

[RDS11]

The point is that it works spectacular in the regular season, but just like other explosive offenses before it, doesn't work so great in the playoffs.

It's like the running back example I gave a few pages back. If every time a team lined up in I-formation they ran 5:1 over pass, and they used this formation over 50% of their plays, the defense would stack the box and key in on the run. Let's say your RB and his inside blockers were so great that it didn't matter, the D couldn't really stop it, except for the fact that because the defense knew what was coming, the RB took vicious hits and had to break 3-4 tackles every time in order to get his yards. Let's also say this RB has had two injuries his last three years, including a major one right before this season. See anything concerning or anything you'd want to change or think about?

You can't compare those 2 situations. First, the running plays would have to be able to produce the same average yards par play than a passing play which is not the case. Simple math : even if you average 5 yards per carry, which is great, almost all NFL team, if not all of them, are averaging more than that on pass plays. Therefore, the chances of limiting an offense to less than 10 yards on 3 consecutive plays is greater if the offense run 3 straight run plays rather than 3 passing plays.

Also, as I mentioned, great running teams have historically not done so well. If memory serves me well, from the CHFF article, about 50% of the 25 greatest running teams of all-time didn't even make the playoffs. So even if you say that the shotgun type offense is not so great to win championship, it is at least better to get you to the championship game than a great running game.

Finally, there's wear and tear with every NFL players over the years. But are you serious when comparing a running back who gets hit at least once per carry (or very close to that rate), therefore about 300 times per year, to Tom Brady which at the most got hit 86 times over 2 years (according to the dubious stats from ESPN) ?? That is just crazy...

By the way, the only other time that Brady might have missed a game (other than last year) was in 2002 under Weis and the 'standard offense'. Even if they had qualified for the playoffs, Brady would not have started in the playoffs because of a bad arm. So making the assumption that only the shotgun offense is the reason Brady's injuries is not accurate.

Now the last thing...as great as Brady is, if the offense has to be radically different for him to be able to play, then it's time to move on to another QB. It's harsh, but that's the way it's always been in sports. As I said, a great running back will only produce 5 yards per running play, while any second string QB will produce more than 5 yards per passing play. So if you have to run more than you used to in order to protect your QB, this is not going to help the offense and therefore the team. It's a sign you have to change your QB, even if it's Tom Brady.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You can't compare those 2 situations. First, the running plays would have to be able to produce the same average yards par play than a passing play which is not the case. Simple math : even if you average 5 yards per carry, which is great, almost all NFL team, if not all of them, are averaging more than that on pass plays. Therefore, the chances of limiting an offense to less than 10 yards on 3 consecutive plays is greater if the offense run 3 straight run plays rather than 3 passing plays.

Also, as I mentioned, great running teams have historically not done so well. If memory serves me well, from the CHFF article, about 50% of the 25 greatest running teams of all-time didn't even make the playoffs. So even if you say that the shotgun type offense is not so great to win championship, it is at least better to get you to the championship game than a great running game.

Finally, there's wear and tear with every NFL players over the years. But are you serious when comparing a running back who gets hit at least once per carry (or very close to that rate), therefore about 300 times per year, to Tom Brady which at the most got hit 86 times over 2 years (according to the dubious stats from ESPN) ?? That is just crazy...

By the way, the only other time that Brady might have missed a game (other than last year) was in 2002 under Weis and the 'standard offense'. Even if they had qualified for the playoffs, Brady would not have started in the playoffs because of a bad arm. So making the assumption that only the shotgun offense is the reason Brady's injuries is not accurate.

Now the last thing...as great as Brady is, if the offense has to be radically different for him to be able to play, then it's time to move on to another QB. It's harsh, but that's the way it's always been in sports. As I said, a great running back will only produce 5 yards per running play, while any second string QB will produce more than 5 yards per passing play. So if you have to run more than you used to in order to protect your QB, this is not going to help the offense and therefore the team. It's a sign you have to change your QB, even if it's Tom Brady.

Plus there's the fact that running plays offer far less in terms of variation and responsiveness than passing plays. The closer analogy to a RB running every down out of I formation would be just chucking the ball up to Randy Moss on every play, no matter how many guys were covering him. The reason why you can run so many plays out of the shotgun formation is because, within it, there is virtually unlimited possibility for different plays at different distances across different areas of the field. As a result, it's not even remotely comparable.

 

[unoriginal]

I feel I need to return to one of maverick4's points from earlier that I answered the cheap way, using mostly words and not stats:

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

It was a decent observation that deserves a better answer. [post=1432499]The Pats threw the 2nd shortest average pass in the league last year.[/post] Originally I posted that information to dispel concerns that the Pats' offense required the QB to stand in the pocket and wait for long routes to develop. But what if the short average was not the design of the offense, but the result of Cassel dumping the ball off constantly under a ferocious pass rush?

Here are the top 4 teams from that list, all under or at 5 yards a pass:

Team		YAC	Yards	Rec	Avg. Catch Depth
Cincinnati	1238	2677	303	4.75
New England	2154	3790	339	4.83
New York Jets	1808	3516	347	4.92
Washington	1699	3291	318	5.01

Here are the turnover stats for their QBs on the year along with Football Outsiders' DVOA offensive rankings, organized by turnover:

Team		Int	Fum	[B]Turn[/B]	Off. Value Rank
New York Jets	23	10	[B]33[/B]	15
Cincinnati	15	13	[B]28[/B]	28
New England	11	7	[B]18[/B]	3
Washington	6	7	[B]13[/B]	21

Jason Campbell's 13 "oopsies" were 2nd lowest in the league last year after Chad Pennington's 10.

These stats indicate that New England was getting good yards per play and avoiding turnovers with their short passes, suggesting they were not forced by undue QB pressure.

 

[maverick4]

These stats indicate that New England was getting good yards per play and avoiding turnovers with their short passes, suggesting they were not forced by undue QB pressure.

After all the work you've done... how would you reconcile the most hits while throwing on Brady his last two years? And do you see any link whatsoever with our disproportionate shot gun use, or see it as a coincidence with zero possible link?