Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[Ring 6]

Do the math. It means that when we are in shot gun, the defense plays pass all the way and their pass rush gets better.

I did the math
50% < Stubbornly doing the same thing every time

 

[Ring 6]

What is foolish on your part is your continued, hilarious denial that since we pass/run at over a 5:1 ratio when we are in shot gun, that it doesn't improve the opposing pass rush whatsoever, and isn't a huge key for the opposing defense. That is what I mean by doing the same thing over and over again - when we are in shot gun (which we are often), it's a huge giveaway to the defense to ignore the run and makes their pass rush better.

Are you out of your mind???????
I've said many, many, many times including the last time you made this ignorant statement that I accept that going to the shotgun creates an advantage for the pass rusher havig less concern for the run.
I also said that it creates an advantage for the offense in limiting the effect of the pass rush.

So, accepting the favorable and unfavorable aspects of something and concluding that the net effect is what matters is 'continued, hilarious denial'.

It would seem that you have it backwards, as you seem to refuse to accept that the reason a shotgun formation exists is that offensive experts feel it gives them some type of advantage.

 

[Ring 6]

See, I'm not saying it's not successful. The offense definitely is. I'm arguing a more subtle point, which is that despite its success, that it's flawed and not championship conducive.

It's like looking at the NY Yankees, with a lineup full of home run hitters and big hitters. They score tons of runs, they have a great winning record, but you know that come playoff time they're not going to win a ring. Their style historically does not win championships. Any Red Sox fan knows this, the Sox failed for 86 years trying to win a championship by focusing on sexy offensive bats and home runs.

Actually the Yankees won a lot of title under Joe Torre with a lineup full of big hitters.
You are confused.
A lack of pitching is why baseball teams lose. Some of those teams have enough hitting to get closer to overcoming that lack of pitching. You have decided that it is the good hitting that is the flaw.
Your Red Sox history could use some lessons too. They did not fail to win Championships because they thought 'sexy offensive bats and home runs' was the best way to win, they did so because they were in a park that was the best hitters park in baseball, and therefore their hitting stats, and pitching stats as well were inflated by it. You simply didn't pay attention if you think the Red Sox tried to accumulate more and more hitters and ignored pitching. They built the team with respect to the ballpark, which meant power was more useful than speed, but to analogize that to usingte shotgun in the NFL is inane.

 

[Ring 6]

I guess the irony of you responding to all the guys you have had on your ignore list for a long time escapes you.... You're beginning to sound ever more like someone who also believed there was a conspiracy organized to thwart his attempts to enlighten this board.

Well, this explains a lot.
Maverick must have the SPECIAL ignore button. Thats the one that allows you to pretend anything that doesnt support your position is not there.
This is why he keeps posting things that have been refuted, ignores pointed questions, and is incapable of learning from the posts written in response to his uneducated ones.
Now it all makes sense.
I wonder if I can get the Selective Ignore button put on my account?

 

[maverick4]

Actually the Yankees won a lot of title under Joe Torre with a lineup full of big hitters.

You simply didn't pay attention if you think the Red Sox tried to accumulate more and more hitters and ignored pitching. They built the team with respect to the ballpark, which meant power was more useful than speed, but to analogize that to usingte shotgun in the NFL

It's an apt analogy because there are certain styles across various sports, which put up monster stats and even get plenty of wins, but which have a long history of not winning championships.

The recent Yankees 4-ring dynasty wasn't full of power hitters, look it up. You're clearly talking about something out of your league at this point. The Yankees had hitters who could grind out pitch counts, make timely hits, and hit the occasional HR when they needed to, on top of solid pitching and defense. Their offensive lineup wasn't based on creating a power hitting lineup. Only the past few Yankees seasons have increasingly focused on signing up the biggest free agent power hitters du jour, and they haven't won a championship since they've deviated.

You're ignorant to say the Red Sox for 86 years did not value hitting more than pitching. They clearly did. Look at almost any era, even the good Sox teams, prior to 2004. Those pre-04 teams were disproportionately focused on power hitters, and not acquiring enough elite pitchers on their rosters.

Come playoff time...In the NBA the better low post team will beat the flashier fast break or 3-point-emphasis teams. In baseball, the teams with the best pitching usually beat the power hitting teams. In the NFL, physical defenses usually find a way to shut down explosive, high flying passing offenses. There are countless, countless, examples of this happening over at least 50+ years of history across three sports.

 

[maverick4]

I did the math. 50% < Stubbornly doing the same thing every time

Once again you set it up using a deliberately flawed definition that has no meaning. I never said it was stubborn because they do it 'every time'.

It's just like when previously you insanely tried to argue the Pats didn't upgrade at TE, RB, or O-line this off-season, simply because you counted how many bodies left or joined at those positions. No sane person would determine if a position improved or got worse simply based on how many #'s of players joined or left at that spot. Either you lack simple reasoning abilities, or you deliberately argue from a biased perspective, distorting any metric until it makes zero sense but which you use weakly to support your case.

The math is very easy as it relates to shot gun. We use it over 50% of the time. When we use it, we pass more than 5 times for every 1 time we run it. This creates a very obvious key for the defense, and improves their pass rush. This is what I mean by doing the same thing over and over: when we are in shot gun, we almost always pass the ball, and it is folly, arrogant, and stubborn to be doing that so often.

 

[maverick4]

I accept that going to the shotgun creates an advantage for the pass rusher havig less concern for the run.
I also said that it creates an advantage for the offense in limiting the effect of the pass rush.

So, accepting the favorable and unfavorable aspects of something and concluding that the net effect is what matters

You're not considering the net effect.

It only limits the effect of the pass rush, if you aren't using it a disproportionate amount of time. The fact that when we use it, we almost always pass, and that we use this formation so much compared to other formations, negates any original positive effects it is supposed to have in theory.

It's like saying, 3-TE formations are supposed to make it easier to run the ball. That may be true in theory, but if you run the same 3-TE formation the majority of your plays, you don't think the opposing defense is going to negate any perceived initial theoretical benefits??????

 

[glm]

You're not considering the net effect.

It only limits the effect of the pass rush, if you aren't using it a disproportionate amount of time. The fact that when we use it, we almost always pass, and that we use this formation so much compared to other formations, negates any original positive effects it is supposed to have in theory.

It's like saying, 3-TE formations are supposed to make it easier to run the ball. That may be true in theory, but if you run the same 3-TE formation the majority of your plays, you don't think the opposing defense is going to negate any perceived initial theoretical benefits??????

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Seriously, this thread needs to end. Everyone has their opinion and nothing that anybody says is going to change another person's original opinion. Everybody has valid points about the subject, but there is no need to keep beating a dead horse when the season hasn't even started. Ian, if your seeing this, please lock it.

 

[Ring 6]

Seriously, this thread needs to end. Everyone has their opinion and nothing that anybody says is going to change another person's original opinion. Everybody has valid points about the subject, but there is no need to keep beating a dead horse when the season hasn't even started. Ian, if your seeing this, please lock it.

Yoiu dont have to read it if you dont want to.

 

[Deus Irae]

Seriously, this thread needs to end. Everyone has their opinion and nothing that anybody says is going to change another person's original opinion. Everybody has valid points about the subject, but there is no need to keep beating a dead horse when the season hasn't even started. Ian, if your seeing this, please lock it.

Maverick doesn't have any valid points of any significance. That's been established pretty conclusively.

 

[maverick4]

doesn't have any valid points of any significance.

Yet another worthless post from the board's resident Douche. What is this, a thousand for you now?

This thread was moving along nicely the first few pages, before trolls like you showed up.

 

[Ring 6]

It's an apt analogy because there are certain styles across various sports, which put up monster stats and even get plenty of wins, but which have a long history of not winning championships.

The recent Yankees 4-ring dynasty wasn't full of power hitters, look it up. You're clearly talking about something out of your league at this point. The Yankees had hitters who could grind out pitch counts, make timely hits, and hit the occasional HR when they needed to, on top of solid pitching and defense. Their offensive lineup wasn't based on creating a power hitting lineup. Only the past few Yankees seasons have increasingly focused on signing up the biggest free agent power hitters du jour, and they haven't won a championship since they've deviated.

You're ignorant to say the Red Sox for 86 years did not value hitting more than pitching. They clearly did. Look at almost any era, even the good Sox teams, prior to 2004. Those pre-04 teams were disproportionately focused on power hitters, and not acquiring enough elite pitchers on their rosters.

Come playoff time...In the NBA the better low post team will beat the flashier fast break or 3-point-emphasis teams. In baseball, the teams with the best pitching usually beat the power hitting teams. In the NFL, physical defenses usually find a way to shut down explosive, high flying passing offenses. There are countless, countless, examples of this happening over at least 50+ years of history across three sports.

You just make it too easy.
The Yankees 4 Championship teams since 1996 averaged 192 HRs. The 9 non champ teams averaged 209. So, you see a philosophical difference that is costing them championships by having an additional home run every 10 games???
The Red Sox HIT WELL and PTICHED POORLY because they were in the most hitter friendly park, not because they favored hitting. They had more power than speed because their ballpark deemphasized the value of speed. Duh.
Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, DeWayne Wade, etc say hi and wonder why you think they couldn't beat those low post teams they beat.

You have now decided to compare NFL teams with good defenses AND good offenses to teams with only good offenses and have come to the miraculous conclusion that the former do better than the latter. Hooray for you!!!

 

[glm]

Yet another worthless post from the board's resident Douche. What is this, a thousand for you now?

This thread was moving along nicely the first few pages, before trolls like you showed up.

 

[Ring 6]

Once again you set it up using a deliberately flawed definition that has no meaning. I never said it was stubborn because they do it 'every time'.

. This is what I mean by doing the same thing over and over: when we are in shot gun, we almost always pass the ball, and it is folly, arrogant, and stubborn to be doing that so often.

You said they stubbornly do the same thing over and over. 50% says you lied.

Folly, arrogant and stubborn = highest scoring offense in NFL history.

You've got some real issues if you think that Bill Belichick or anyone employed by the Patriots have decided to put stubborness and arrogance ahead of winning.
What you are saying here is that the team made a contrived effort to do something ill-advised just because they were stubborn and arrogant. Did winning 18 in a row factor into it at all, or were they just doing it to annoy you.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Maverick doesn't have any valid points of any significance. That's been established pretty conclusively.

Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean his points are invalid. Like every QB in the NFL, Brady has gotten knocked around a lot whether you guys believe it or not. Whether you're in the shotgun or not, passing the football is going to put any QB vulnerable to hits.

At the end of Maverick4's original post is something we should consider,

I also don't think that pass-happy spread offenses have a strong history of being on championship-winning teams. We've seen this with the 01 Rams, the 04 Colts, and the 07 Pats, who all got beaten by more physical defenses in the playoffs. The Pats used shotgun and 3/4-WR way too much the past two years; even under Cassel it was almost always shotgun for passes, which telegraphs to the D what are you doing.

The last time a "pass happy" offense won the super bowl was the Rams of '99. Since then, Maverick4 brings up a good point. Except for the Colts of 2006, every super bowl winner since the Rams of '99 had a heavy emphasis on defense and an offense that can get the job done. This is the kind of team the Pats were when they won 3 super bowls in 4 seasons.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Pats offense, but I think Maverick4's point is that running the same thing over and over again is going to get you exposed like they did in the super bowl against the Giants.

Going into '09, I think the Pats best plan of attack is to be more balanced during the regular season and then unleash the '07 attack during the postseason. There is no reason to do it every single game.

 

[maverick4]

The Yankees 4 Championship teams since 1996 averaged 192 HRs. The 9 non champ teams averaged 209.

The Red Sox HIT WELL and PTICHED POORLY because they were in the most hitter friendly park, not because they favored hitting.

Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, DeWayne Wade, etc say hi

Look at the individual hitting stats on the lineups of those 4 Yankees teams. Clearly not power heavy, just a bunch of guys who could occasionally hit for power, but came through with lots of timely hits in playoff games. You even dug up the info to show that they were less focused on power hitting. Bravo to you for once again taking a stat and then twisting it in the wrong way.

Funny you keep blaming it on the ball park. The Red Sox, in the SAME ball park you keep making excuses in, started winning championships the moment they started focusing on getting premiere pitching. The Red Sox didn't pitch poorly pre-2004 because of the ball park, because they've since won rings with the same ball park. They didn't focus on pitching before Theo showed up, and is a major (if not the biggest) reason they didn't win for 86 years. Your reasoning is completely flawed.

Kobe won mostly with Shaq, Wade had Shaq. The other ring Kobe got, happened because Pau Gasol completely embarassed Howard in the playoffs. Kobe lost his other finals appearances to teams with better low post games. Jordan is pretty much the only one ever to win without a dominant big man, he was simply that good, and in a sport in which one guy on a 5-man team can truly change the game.

 

[maverick4]

if you think that Bill Belichick or anyone employed by the Patriots have decided to put stubborness and arrogance ahead of winning.

We've already addressed this, but once again you keep twisting the argument into completely meaningless tangents.

Belichick wants to win, but he gives his coordinators tons of autonomy. He doesn't control the in-game play calls usually, and even with sh*tty coordinators whose units suck for a long time, he still lets them do when they want for almost an entire season (like with Mangini).

Your arguments are weak. You're so warped that you still try to claim Belichick didn't improve RB, TE, and O-line this off-season simply because the number of bodies who left and joined at those positions is the same.

 

[Ring 6]

You're not considering the net effect.

It only limits the effect of the pass rush, if you aren't using it a disproportionate amount of time. The fact that when we use it, we almost always pass, and that we use this formation so much compared to other formations, negates any original positive effects it is supposed to have in theory.

It's like saying, 3-TE formations are supposed to make it easier to run the ball. That may be true in theory, but if you run the same 3-TE formation the majority of your plays, you don't think the opposing defense is going to negate any perceived initial theoretical benefits??????

Do you understand what the word NET means? Hint it isnt about fishing.

I'm going to say this one last time. I seriously will consider you not intelligent enough to follow it if you don't get it this time.

From the OFFENSES persepctive
It is an ADVANTAGE to have your QB 5 yards behind the center, seeing the defense rather than dropping back. It gives less time to get to him before he makes a decision and gets rid of the ball. It allows more quick deeloping routes, it lets him see the field and coverage and pass rush better.
It is a DISADVANTAGE to be in the shotgun and somewhat telegraph that you are throwing.

The NET EFFECT is which outweighs the other.

Offensive coordinators who use the shotgun choose to SACRIFICE the mystery of what the play will be in order to GAIN the advantages the shot gun provides.

How can you still not understand that? I'm not even giving an opinion.

Now to your TE debacle of a theory.

Putting 3 TEs on the field ABSOLUTELY improves your run blocking. They are better run blockers than the WRs. That is an advantage. The POTENTIAL disadvantage is that the defense may also put larger people on the field.
Are you more successful with a TE blocking a LB or a WR blocking a S? Whileyour blocking is better, their ability to defend is better. Which impact is larger? That is the NET EFFECT.

 

[maverick4]

The last time a "pass happy" offense won the super bowl was the Rams of '99. Since then, Maverick4 brings up a good point. Except for the Colts of 2006, every super bowl winner since the Rams of '99 had a heavy emphasis on defense and an offense that can get the job done. This is the kind of team the Pats were when they won 3 super bowls in 4 seasons.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Pats offense, but I think Maverick4's point is that running the same thing over and over again is going to get you exposed like they did in the super bowl against the Giants.

Going into '09, I think the Pats best plan of attack is to be more balanced during the regular season and then unleash the '07 attack during the postseason. There is no reason to do it every single game.

And the 1999 Rams barely won that game, against a far inferior Titans team.