The Offense Is Generally Doing Its Job

[emoney_33]

If your down playing the offense then explain this to me. I could be wrong by 1 maybe 5 places but to be the top 5 in the NFL is all one can work for.
N.E. #1
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2010 OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY RATINGS

N.E. OL #4
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2010 OFFENSIVE LINES

I used theses stat last year for this site, and it was pretty accurate. I really think maybe one of the 3 phase is responsible, but not offense. Just my opinion. Just remember no one is doing well or dominating in the NFL this year.

The overall rankings include the first 4 games where the offense was pretty damn good and efficient. If you took the rankings of just the last 4 games you'd see an entirely different picture.

 

[ATippett56]

It's pretty much the opposite, the defense played MUCH better in the last 4 than the first 4.

The New England Patriots defense was miserable against the Cleveland Browns. As a matter of fact, the New England Patriots defense played its worst game of the year against the Cleveland Browns without Tom Brady throwing even one interception.

 

[dhamz]

Thanks man, so whats causing the possession problem? Are you guys scoring to quickly? We had that problem last year and in 2008. Your 3rd down conversion looks great.

Too many 3 and outs on offense and a 3rd down defense that has been terrible is a recipe for bad time of possession numbers.

 

[emoney_33]

The New England Patriots defense was miserable against the Cleveland Browns. As a matter of fact, the New England Patriots defense played its worst game of the year against the Cleveland Browns without Tom Brady throwing even one interception.

Seriously, this gets really annoying when I say "last 4" and your response is ONE friggin game. It's like if I say Brady was really accurate in the Dolphins game, will you go and point to ONE miscue. Come on!

 

[ATippett56]

Seriously, this gets really annoying when I say "last 4" and your response is ONE friggin game. It's like if I say Brady was really accurate in the Dolphins game, will you go and point to ONE miscue. Come on!

Meanwhile, the last four game offensive analogy includes the Patriots lowest offensive output of the season. A football game where Patriots wide receivers and Patriots tight ends decide to ad lib routes to the frustration of Tom Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

It's pretty much the opposite, the defense played MUCH better in the last 4 than the first 4. The offense has had a lot more opportunities in the last 4 games than the first 4 games and have done less with them.

Anyone who says the offense doesn't miss Moss at all is either blind or biased. The offense misses Moss in the sense that it misses a legit deep threat that the defense HAD to account for. It's very ignorant of the game of football to suggest otherwise.

So they miss him because of some mysterious unprovable effect, and to not accept that is ignorant, after BB said Moss wasn't dictating coverage?
Have you watched the coaching tape and analyzed the coverages against us?
Ylour comments about first 4 vs second 4 are not correct, and clearly based on your agenda to continue to try to spread your Moss love at the erxpense of facts.

 

[emoney_33]

Meanwhile, the last four game offensive analogy includes the Patriots lowest offensive output of the season. A football game where Patriots wide receivers and Patriots tight ends decide to ad lib routes to the frustration of Tom Brady.

WTF are you talking about? Honestly, you aren't making sense to me and I don't even know what you are arguing at this point?

Patriots offense was better in the first 4 games than the last 4 games ON AVERAGE. Patriots defense was better in the last 4 games than the first 4 games ON AVERAGE.

 

[mgteich]

IMHO. the patriots offense would likely be better with a downfield threat or TWO. In the offseason, and in analysis of last year, many suggested that having ONLY one effective downfield threat was not enough.

We are m,ixing up two issues, the need to stretch the defense and whether a particular player was the answer in this year's offense.

Perhaps, for you, it is a fact that no downfield threat is needed, and that deep threats are unneeded on certain teams, much like fullbacks. I don't believe that for a minute.

HOWEVER, the offense may indeed be better with the change in personnel, and the change in offensive philosophy. It will take a bit of time for the new offense to gel, and it will take a bit of health on the part of the remaining receivers.

But the fact remains that we had the top receiver duo in the nfl in 2009 and now we have no downfield threats. Our offense scares no one.

The BOTTOM LINE is that this team is one of the very best in the league in 2010, with all its flaws. The KEY has been that we have one of the lowest interception rates in the league as well as the lowest fumble rate. We will need to continue to have fewer mistakes than other teams. We can win, but we need to make fewer mistakes. We just aren't that good a team.

So they miss him because of some mysterious unprovable effect, and to not accept that is ignorant, after BB said Moss wasn't dictating coverage?
Have you watched the coaching tape and analyzed the coverages against us?
Ylour comments about first 4 vs second 4 are not correct, and clearly based on your agenda to continue to try to spread your Moss love at the erxpense of facts.

 

[IllegalContact]

Yes, there is. It is called win percentage.

the broncos were 6-2 last year. today's record is just a momentary snapshot.

the offense is pretty shabby. I lay blame on the personnel decisions. going with a bunch of 30-something RB's, leaving yourself exposed with a guy like randy moss......yeah, he had to go, but he could have still helped. moss for draft pick for branch deals are mere wheel-spinning which has left the pats to live and die by rookie and UFA on offense. they won't always get the job done. I understand they are only rookies, but the scheme is suffering now because of it. Looks great for next year, though.

 

[IllegalContact]

So they miss him because of some mysterious unprovable effect, and to not accept that is ignorant, after BB said Moss wasn't dictating coverage?
Have you watched the coaching tape and analyzed the coverages against us?
Ylour comments about first 4 vs second 4 are not correct, and clearly based on your agenda to continue to try to spread your Moss love at the erxpense of facts.

the moss effect is that they have had to change the way they do things in the middle of the season.

this is not about whether or not moss should have been moved, but rather what one should expect once the move was made. much harder for the underneath to get open, especially when they are focusing on welker. everyone can move closer to teh LOS now because they know nothing is going to happen over the top and nothing has

 

[mgteich]

No, this is a coaching "effect", not a Moss effect.

The coaches decided NOT to change the offense in the offseason or before Moss left. They decided to run the 2009 offense with Moss, Welker, Tate, Hernandez and Edelman (with Price in the wings). We also had Holt, but saw no problems when he was njured, since Tate was looking good.

The FO brought in Crumpler, Grankowski AND Hernandez. One would have thought that a chancge in philosophy was in the wind. The change did not come until the offense sputtered some.

So, now we have an offense in transition. That is good news. We have good reason to believe that our offense (and our defense) will be much better for the last quarter of the year.

the moss effect is that they have had to change the way they do things in the middle of the season.

this is not about whether or not moss should have been moved, but rather what one should expect once the move was made. much harder for the underneath to get open, especially when they are focusing on welker. everyone can move closer to teh LOS now because they know nothing is going to happen over the top and nothing has

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Sure the offense has been good statistically, but I think they have been pretty inconsistent. Last I checked, there isn't a stat for that.

Actually there is a stat for consistency. It is rarely ever reported. But it is called standard deviation.

The Pats have scored on avg 27.4 points, with a std dev of 10.7.
The Dolphins have scored on avg 17.9 points with a std dev of 5.2.

So while the Dolphins haven't been as effective at scoring points they have been more consistent in the scores.

The Jets have scored an avg of 22.8 points per game (second best in the AFCE) with a std dev of 12.4 (most inconsistent in the AFCE)

The Bills have scored on avg 18.8 points with a std dev of 10.2.

 

[emoney_33]

So they miss him because of some mysterious unprovable effect, and to not accept that is ignorant, after BB said Moss wasn't dictating coverage?

Andy, drop your bias of Moss for a second and just forget that his name exists. There is no mysterious nor unprovable effect. It's a very clear and obvious effect. When you have a legit deep threat defenses play different than when you have no credible deep threat. Are you suggesting that defenses are playing exactly the same against us in the last 4 weeks as they were in the first 4 weeks?

Have you watched the coaching tape and analyzed the coverages against us?
Ylour comments about first 4 vs second 4 are not correct, and clearly based on your agenda to continue to try to spread your Moss love at the erxpense of facts.

I don't give a damn about Moss at this point, the fact is we lost our ONLY deep threat after week 4. There is a pretty clear and large correlation of the trade and disparity in offensive output. Obviously none of us have coaching tape and cannot definitively analyze the precise and exact cause of the large drop in offensive production. If we need coaching tape to discuss correlations then this message board should shut down.

Just forget Moss, we've been struggling on offense for 4 weeks, and the scariest part is that it has trended down for 4 straight weeks. Maybe it's just an aberration, but no one can debate the offense has indeed been struggling for 4 weeks.

 

[Ring 6]

IMHO. the patriots offense would likely be better with a downfield threat or TWO. In the offseason, and in analysis of last year, many suggested that having ONLY one effective downfield threat was not enough.

We are m,ixing up two issues, the need to stretch the defense and whether a particular player was the answer in this year's offense.

Perhaps, for you, it is a fact that no downfield threat is needed, and that deep threats are unneeded on certain teams, much like fullbacks. I don't believe that for a minute.

HOWEVER, the offense may indeed be better with the change in personnel, and the change in offensive philosophy. It will take a bit of time for the new offense to gel, and it will take a bit of health on the part of the remaining receivers.

But the fact remains that we had the top receiver duo in the nfl in 2009 and now we have no downfield threats. Our offense scares no one.

The BOTTOM LINE is that this team is one of the very best in the league in 2010, with all its flaws. The KEY has been that we have one of the lowest interception rates in the league as well as the lowest fumble rate. We will need to continue to have fewer mistakes than other teams. We can win, but we need to make fewer mistakes. We just aren't that good a team.

What I am saying is that this issue is so overrated its foolish.
Its being made out as if when we had Moss he went deep and took 6 guys with him, and now we can send people deep and no one will bother to cover them.
The NFL is not like NBA man to man defense. Defenses are called to cover the entire field. If defenses are not covering the deep part of the field, we will throw deep.
BB himself said Moss was not dictating coverage. We are seeing the same coverages, in different propottins. BB said on the first 5 3rd down vs Cleveland the Browns played 5 different coverages. Some think that is different than if we had Moss and they played 5 on Moss coverage.

The entire topic is a misconception.

If we had a 'deep threat' whatever that is, we may complete a couple more long passes a year. I dont think its a critical difference.

 

[Ring 6]

the moss effect is that they have had to change the way they do things in the middle of the season.

this is not about whether or not moss should have been moved, but rather what one should expect once the move was made. much harder for the underneath to get open, especially when they are focusing on welker. everyone can move closer to teh LOS now because they know nothing is going to happen over the top and nothing has

That is inaccuate. If defenses are playing man on the outside receivers with no deep help, Brady would be throwing deep to the outside receivers.
I swear its like people here think Moss ran a 3.5 40 and all the other WRs run a 6.5

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, drop your bias of Moss for a second and just forget that his name exists. There is no mysterious nor unprovable effect. It's a very clear and obvious effect. When you have a legit deep threat defenses play different than when you have no credible deep threat. Are you suggesting that defenses are playing exactly the same against us in the last 4 weeks as they were in the first 4 weeks?

I have absolutely no Moss bias.
You have a horrible misconception of the coverages we faced then and now. Its understandable because you are trying to guess what they are from TV without the ability to see enough of the field.
Its not man to man coverage in the NBA. You must defend the entire field. If Brandon Tate runs a go with single coverage and no safety help, Brady will throw to him.

I don't give a damn about Moss at this point, the fact is we lost our ONLY deep threat after week 4.

From her you have seemed quite obsessed with him.

There is a pretty clear and large correlation of the trade and disparity in offensive output.

No, there really isn't.

Obviously none of us have coaching tape and cannot definitively analyze the precise and exact cause of the large drop in offensive production. If we need coaching tape to discuss correlations then this message board should shut down.

So you are arguing that if you can't make up what the coverage against us is,and use that as a fact, there is no point in having a message board?

Just forget Moss, we've been struggling on offense for 4 weeks, and the scariest part is that it has trended down for 4 straight weeks. Maybe it's just an aberration, but no one can debate the offense has indeed been struggling for 4 weeks.

But that just isnt true.
The difference in yards from game 1-4 to game 4-8 is 160 yards, which is almost completely attributable to the schedule, including which half of it the Bills were on.
The point difference is special team and defensive scoring, not offensive.
We have lost 2 games, and in those 2 games we turned the ball over 3 times each. In 6 wins, we turned the ball over a TOTAL of 3 times. THAT is the issue, not some made up idea that teams used to defend Moss and ignore the rest of the team and now dont even put a safety deep. If we did have the coaches tape, you would see teams defended the whole field in the first 4 games, and the whole field in second 4 games, and at best you may find a handful of plays where they take a little more risk playing man outside. You are implying its a totally different strategy all game long, and that is just wrong. Your opinion is as popular as it is uniformed, but it is still incorrect.

 

[Ring 6]

No, this is a coaching "effect", not a Moss effect.

The coaches decided NOT to change the offense in the offseason or before Moss left. They decided to run the 2009 offense with Moss, Welker, Tate, Hernandez and Edelman (with Price in the wings). We also had Holt, but saw no problems when he was njured, since Tate was looking good.

The FO brought in Crumpler, Grankowski AND Hernandez. One would have thought that a chancge in philosophy was in the wind. The change did not come until the offense sputtered some.

So, now we have an offense in transition. That is good news. We have good reason to believe that our offense (and our defense) will be much better for the last quarter of the year.

That is just not right. The 2010 offense did not resemble the 2009 offense at all while Moss was here. Moss had 9 catches in 4 games, and Welker only had 26.
Last season they were catching over 15 passes a game combined, not less than 9. There is a huge difference between an offense where the top 2 guys catch over 200 passes (even with Welker injured) and more than half the receptions to being on a pace to catch about 140.

 

[mgteich]

The 2009 style offensive wasn't working as well in early 2010. That is one of the reasons that Moss was sent packing and the offense was changed.

That is just not right. The 2010 offense did not resemble the 2009 offense at all while Moss was here. Moss had 9 catches in 4 games, and Welker only had 26.
Last season they were catching over 15 passes a game combined, not less than 9. There is a huge difference between an offense where the top 2 guys catch over 200 passes (even with Welker injured) and more than half the receptions to being on a pace to catch about 140.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

What I am saying is that this issue is so overrated its foolish.
Its being made out as if when we had Moss he went deep and took 6 guys with him, and now we can send people deep and no one will bother to cover them.
The NFL is not like NBA man to man defense. Defenses are called to cover the entire field. If defenses are not covering the deep part of the field, we will throw deep.
BB himself said Moss was not dictating coverage. We are seeing the same coverages, in different propottins. BB said on the first 5 3rd down vs Cleveland the Browns played 5 different coverages. Some think that is different than if we had Moss and they played 5 on Moss coverage.

The entire topic is a misconception.

If we had a 'deep threat' whatever that is, we may complete a couple more long passes a year. I dont think its a critical difference.

With a guy like Moss on your team, opponents will double cover him and tend to keep their focus on him which will help other players open up. I don't think it's him being a "deep threat" that makes an offense dangerous, but just being a great receiver will make an offense dangerous and can help make others more productive.

 

[mgteich]

You act as if speed, separation and skill just don't matter in a wide receiver. Just put Edelman or Tate out there and throw to them if they are single covered!

The reality is that Moss is considerably faster than our other wideouts, especially when they are injured. It is also true that Moss was able separate better than they do.

You make fun of everyone's lack of knowledge, and continue to give basketball examples as if basketball is relevant.

All I can say is that if coaches wouldn't be coaching if they covered Moss and Edelman in the same way. I suggest that you go back and re-watch the Minny game and see how many times Moss was single-covered, how tight the coverage was, and how many defensive backs had responsibility on each play. Belichick's strategy was to take Moss out of the game. You can choose to believe that any wideout would have gotten the same coverage. That is YOUR choice.
===========

That being said, Moss wanted to go. Moss no longer fit in TO THE NEW OFFENSE. And, Moss did not have any animosity for his teammates or the front office. The team decided to take the offense in a different direction. I agree with the new philosophy. But I think it ludicrous to make believe that any old receiver can command the same coverages as Moss. Perhaps we should bring Aiken back to run those routes as he did last year!

That is inaccuate. If defenses are playing man on the outside receivers with no deep help, Brady would be throwing deep to the outside receivers.
I swear its like people here think Moss ran a 3.5 40 and all the other WRs run a 6.5