We Do Not Need Any More Receivers

[maverick4]

CST, Brady's 2006 and 2003 numbers are almost identical. The only difference is that in important situations back then, we were able to convert 3rd downs and crucial plays. Team stack the box against us now, more so than in 2003, because they know we do not adjust like we used to pre-McDaniels.

 

[unoriginal]

CST, Brady's 2006 and 2003 numbers are almost identical. The only difference is that in important situations back then, we were able to convert 3rd downs and crucial plays. Team stack the box against us now, more so than in 2003, because they know we do not adjust like we used to pre-McDaniels.

Teams stack the box right now because we have a dangerous running game not dependant on Antowain Smith. Who was pretty good, by the by. Could really move the pile in the postseason. But not a dangerous runner.

"Important situations" is a faulty term. All the situations are important. If we're performing almost identically to what we achieved in the past, then the offense's competence has in now way decreased. Memorable situations that decide games come up because other important situations that preceded them were either successful or not, and made relevant by success or failure in situations coming after, and happen so rarely that stating them on a yearly basis suffers from statistical bias due to small sample size.

There's also the issue of scouting to contend with here. Around 2003 or so the Patriots offensive and defensive schemes were "different" in the NFL; the most prominent 3-4 was being run by the Pittsburgh Steelers, and defenses were by and large set up to combat down-the-field offenses like the Titans and Kansas City or hybrid Walsh systems like Denver, Oakland and San Fran. Quarterbacks like Manning were flummoxed by Belichick's schemes because it was both very well done and very new to them, and the same went for Weis' mix-and-match short passing offense as well.

Now its three years later and the Pats have won two Super Bowls, and three coordinators have been hired away from the organization. Its not surprising smart people like Dungy and Manning have figured out ways to even the scheme disadvantage that won us so many "important situations" in the past. Barring wholesale philosophy changes, we should expect to see the same thing happen to us to what has happened to Dungy's Tampa 2 in Indy; our "success" rate in closely matched contests like this years AFCCG will head back down towards 50/50.

 

[cstjohn17]

CST, Brady's 2006 and 2003 numbers are almost identical. The only difference is that in important situations back then, we were able to convert 3rd downs and crucial plays. Team stack the box against us now, more so than in 2003, because they know we do not adjust like we used to pre-McDaniels.

I agree they are very similar, both are the two worst years he has had since becoming a full time starter. No doubt, the in game adjustments and fluidity (not sure if that is a word) of the gameplans have diminished.

For 07 the OC is not going anywhere, he is young and smart no reason to think he won't improve. Again I think WR is not the number 1 concern but don't like the top end of our receiving core and think it can be improved.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Teams stack the box right now because we have a dangerous running game not dependant on Antowain Smith. Who was pretty good, by the by. Could really move the pile in the postseason. But not a dangerous runner.

"Important situations" is a faulty term. All the situations are important. If we're performing almost identically to what we achieved in the past, then the offense's competence has in now way decreased. Memorable situations that decide games come up because other important situations that preceded them were either successful or not, and made relevant by success or failure in situations coming after, and happen so rarely that stating them on a yearly basis suffers from statistical bias due to small sample size.

There's also the issue of scouting to contend with here. Around 2003 or so the Patriots offensive and defensive schemes were "different" in the NFL; the most prominent 3-4 was being run by the Pittsburgh Steelers, and defenses were by and large set up to combat down-the-field offenses like the Titans and Kansas City or hybrid Walsh systems like Denver, Oakland and San Fran. Quarterbacks like Manning were flummoxed by Belichick's schemes because it was both very well done and very new to them, and the same went for Weis' mix-and-match short passing offense as well.

Now its three years later and the Pats have won two Super Bowls, and three coordinators have been hired away from the organization. Its not surprising smart people like Dungy and Manning have figured out ways to even the scheme disadvantage that won us so many "important situations" in the past. Barring wholesale philosophy changes, we should expect to see the same thing happen to us to what has happened to Dungy's Tampa 2 in Indy; our "success" rate in closely matched contests like this years AFCCG will head back down towards 50/50.

I agree. Teams adjusted and adapted to us. Another big difference is in '03 we played the AFCCG at home, in '06 the Colts played it in their home.
It is important this off-season that we adapt to what the Colts are doing. Manning didn't used to be so patient. Now he is just taking all the underneath stuff, and Dallas Clark has a mismatch on the LBs.

 

[maverick4]

I agree. Teams adjusted and adapted to us.

The Patriots always used to scout themselves, identify tendencies, and add new wrinkles year to year to make teams pay for their outdated defensive adjustments.

We haven't done that since McDaniels. He is more interested in running his plays than in adjusting or looking in the mirror at his own tendencies.

 

[Rob0729]

CST, Brady's 2006 and 2003 numbers are almost identical. The only difference is that in important situations back then, we were able to convert 3rd downs and crucial plays. Team stack the box against us now, more so than in 2003, because they know we do not adjust like we used to pre-McDaniels.

We couldn't convert third downs on crucial plays in 2003. That is a falicy. In fact, we probably had more three and outs that year than we did this year and last combined.

Against Tennessee in the playoffs, we had 10 posessions. Four were punts (three were on drives of five plays or less). One was a four and out and change of downs. Two other drives were turnovers.

Against the Jets the first game, we had 5 drives of six plays or less ending in punts and three of them were 3 and out.

Against Dallas we had 5 three and outs and one 4 and out. Against Cleveland, we converted 4 of 14 third downs. The first Miami game we converted 6 of 15 third downs and went 3 and out four times. In the second Miami game, we converted 5 of 18 third downs and went three and out seve times. Against the Giants we converted 1 of 11 third downs and went three and out five times, went 4 and out twice and five and out once.

People really need to go back and look before they speak. Our 2003 offense was far more inconsistent than this one and was horrible at converting third downs.

 

[Oswlek]

The Patriots always used to scout themselves, identify tendencies, and add new wrinkles year to year to make teams pay for their outdated defensive adjustments.

We haven't done that since McDaniels. He is more interested in running his plays than in adjusting or looking in the mirror at his own tendencies.

Maverick, you are going off the deep end with this one.

I don't think you will find a member here who will disagree that the transition from 2004 Weis to 2006 McDaniels was detrimental to NE. But to insinuate that McDaniels is too self-centered or pig headed to self-scout is beyond ridiculous.

Do you really believe that BB would have even hired a guy who refuses to adapt, let alone promote him after a trial year?

If there is anyone who needs a hard dose of reality it is you.

The truth that is out there for all to see is this: McDaniels is a young coach who is growing into the position. Does it suck that NE's coaching isn't as good as it was? Sure. But it is obvious that maintaining the offensive integrity is of paramount importance to BB. How would you have kept the same system and improved the OC coaching over what McDaniels did this year? If you are going to criticize, you must be able to discuss exactly what steps could be done or should be done to improve.

Add to that the obvious issues with WRs this year, and RBs both this year and last and the only answer is that the OC lynch mob is ignoring the facts and are just looking for a martyr.

 

[maverick4]

Against Tennessee in the playoffs, we had 10 posessions. Four were punts (three were on drives of five plays or less). Against the Jets the first game, we had 5 drives of six plays or less ending in punts and three of them were 3 and out. Against Dallas we had 5 three and outs and one 4 and out. Against Cleveland, we converted 4 of 14 third downs.

Rob, that's some nice work, but I'm curious: is there any breakdown on the conversion rates in the first half compared to the second half? I don't remember the Pats in 03 ever being shut out in the 2nd half of any playoff game like we were this year (a pitiful 2 first downs against the Colts in the second half).

For the record, I do know that McDaniels is a work in progress. I fully expect him to improve, just like I expect our other young players to improve. However, acknowledging McDaniels' potential for improvement doesn't change the fact that McDaniels could have adjusted better this year.

1. Brady's 03 and 06 stats are almost identical
2. After working out kinks, our receivers going into the 06 playoffs were comparable to any other unit we have had, and they led playoff receiving yards going into the Colts game
3. Despite a much better backfield, and lots of high offensive draft picks over the past two years, our offense has less ability to make important plays, or to make teams pay for crowding the box, than in the past.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, that's some nice work, but I'm curious: is there any breakdown on the conversion rates in the first half compared to the second half? I don't remember the Pats in 03 ever being shut out in the 2nd half of any playoff game like we were this year (a pitiful 2 first downs against the Colts in the second half).

For the record, I do know that McDaniels is a work in progress. I fully expect him to improve, just like I expect our other young players to improve. However, acknowledging McDaniels' potential for improvement doesn't change the fact that McDaniels could have adjusted better this year.

1. Brady's 03 and 06 stats are almost identical
2. After working out kinks, our receivers going into the 06 playoffs were comparable to any other unit we have had, and they led playoff receiving yards going into the Colts game
3. Despite a much better backfield, and lots of high offensive draft picks over the past two years, our offense has less ability to make important plays, or to make teams pay for crowding the box, than in the past.

I don't have a breakdown, but you are wrong if you think our receiving corp was anywhere as good as the 2003 and 2004 version. If you mean working out the kinks as in the playoffs maybe. But Gaffney had 10 catches the entire season going into the playoffs other than maybe a catch a game he was a none factor until the very end. In 2003, we had 3 WRs with over 440 yards in the season. This year we had one. In 2004, we had two WRs with over 800 yards and this year we had none.

Besides, I feel that if this makeshift WR corp was anything close to the 2003 or 2004 corp, that is a credit to McDaniels not a knock. Our leading WR in the playoffs wasn't even on the team in September. McDaniels had to pull these guys together, simplify the offense so they can pick it up, and still make it creative enough that the opposing defenses couldn't read the offense before the ball was snapped.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Maverick, you are going off the deep end with this one.

Gotta agree with him Mav - WR was not a strong suit this season. Not having a deep threat is like not having a good RB. Everyteam wants one. Not everyteam has one.

Can you win without one? Yes. But can you win more with one. Absolutely.

Thank goodness Caldwell by far exceeded my expectations for him. Where would we have been without him this season?

Yet you don't want to upgrade this position?

Where would we have been WITH a legitimate deep threat this season. Another win, maybe two? A playoff bye? Homefield advantage at least for one more game?

Pick any one and we might have had enough energy to pickup ONE MORE PLAY against the Colts to hold onto that lead and go onto the SB for our 4th Ring in 6 years.

That's a pretty tangible difference maker to me, and a big part of why I KNOW the team will add depth at WR this offseason.

It's ok if you think they don't need to - I just don't think you're going to convince the Patriots front office of that anymore than you have others on this board.

 

[maverick4]

I agree that the Branch fiasco cost the team one or multiple wins, which would have been huge in terms of home field advantage. However, I also think that by playoff time, our WR corp was comparable to any other year (except for 04). So yes, our WR corp was a weakness for much of the season, but I think they are fine now.

I don't think I'm going off the deep end to think that McDaniels still has a long way to go in terms of in-game adjustments. I think he's not just young, but completely inexperienced. He's like a kid who tries hard when preparing for a school exam, and then doesn't know what to do against test questions that are a little more difficult than what he's seen.

 

[mgteich]

I have no doubt that if Branch were on the team for the second half, we would have won. Even if he were on the team for the last four minutes, Brady would have passed twice instead of setting up for the field goal. Would you bet for or against Brady, Branch and the rest of the team gaining 11 yards on two tries.

We NEEDED better receivers against the colts.

I agree that the Branch fiasco cost the team one or multiple wins, which would have been huge in terms of home field advantage. However, I also think that by playoff time, our WR corp was comparable to any other year (except for 04). So yes, our WR corp was a weakness for much of the season, but I think they are fine now.

I don't think I'm going off the deep end to think that McDaniels still has a long way to go in terms of in-game adjustments. I think he's not just young, but completely inexperienced. He's like a kid who tries hard when preparing for a school exam, and then doesn't know what to do against test questions that are a little more difficult than what he's seen.

 

[Oswlek]

I agree that the Branch fiasco cost the team one or multiple wins, which would have been huge in terms of home field advantage. However, I also think that by playoff time, our WR corp was comparable to any other year (except for 04). So yes, our WR corp was a weakness for much of the season, but I think they are fine now.

I don't think I'm going off the deep end to think that McDaniels still has a long way to go in terms of in-game adjustments. I think he's not just young, but completely inexperienced. He's like a kid who tries hard when preparing for a school exam, and then doesn't know what to do against test questions that are a little more difficult than what he's seen.

That is not what I said. McDaniels is not as good as Weis at in-game adjustments. I totally agree with that one.

What I don't agree is that he is *unwilling* to adjust. Take the Denver game, for instance. Weis would have known immediately what to adjust to, but under McDaniels NE shuffled through 2-3 different offensive strategies, all of which unsuccessfully, while Denver eventually put the game away. Is that a game that NE wins with a better OC? I don't know, but there is a good chance. In the first Indy game, Weis would have done a better job of mixing the playcalling up. NE's plan was a good, but mediocre, one of running until the safeties creep up and then going pass heavy. Weis = win? Maybe.

Again, I am not disputing the notion that McDaniels must improve. I know it. You obviously know it. So do BB and JM, too, I would imagine.

All I am saying is that patience must be displayed here. McDaniels is a 30 year old kid that is still learning. But Brady and BB seem to have confidence that he is a keeper, and frankly, that is good enough for me.

 

[maverick4]

That is not what I said. McDaniels is not as good as Weis at in-game adjustments. I totally agree with that one. All I am saying is that patience must be displayed here. McDaniels is a 30 year old kid that is still learning. But Brady and BB seem to have confidence that he is a keeper, and frankly, that is good enough for me.

Oswlek, I think we are in complete agreement then about McDaniels. The only other difference is that I point the finger at him more so than at our receivers. I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

mgteich, we wouldn't have won with Branch. We had Branch in 2005, and McDaniels was still stumped in the Denver game. Branch would have helped us, but McDaniels still doesn't know how to beat a stacked box, or blitzes.

 

[DaBruinz]

I have no doubt that if Branch were on the team for the second half, we would have won. Even if he were on the team for the last four minutes, Brady would have passed twice instead of setting up for the field goal. Would you bet for or against Brady, Branch and the rest of the team gaining 11 yards on two tries.

We NEEDED better receivers against the colts.

No, we needed better execution by our offense in general in the 2nd half. Had they just played like we now they can play, Indy would never have been in the game because the Pats would have stayed 2 TDs ahead of them.

I'm sorry but unless you can see the future, you have no idea how the game would have gone with Branch on this team.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I agree that the Branch fiasco cost the team one or multiple wins, which would have been huge in terms of home field advantage. However, I also think that by playoff time, our WR corp was comparable to any other year (except for 04). So yes, our WR corp was a weakness for much of the season, but I think they are fine now.

I don't think I'm going off the deep end to think that McDaniels still has a long way to go in terms of in-game adjustments. I think he's not just young, but completely inexperienced. He's like a kid who tries hard when preparing for a school exam, and then doesn't know what to do against test questions that are a little more difficult than what he's seen.

As you CORRECTLY pointed out, Branch wasn't really all that much of a deep threat - though he did break enough occasionally to help out in that regard.

My point is that others have been that deep threat in the past. Letting Tim Dwight go (and yes I know he was injured) and not picking up other deep threat opportunities last year (Stallworth was there if we wanted him, same with a few others) that would have made the difference.

Maybe Branch would have helped, but we were dependent on Jackson (and I guess Gabriel) for our deep threat and it just wasn't there. I'd not go into next season without attempting to address that issue.

 

[BradyManny]

Maybe Branch would have helped, but we were dependent on Jackson (and I guess Gabriel) for our deep threat and it just wasn't there. I'd not go into next season without attempting to address that issue.

I'd bank on Jackson being the deep threat. With the lone exception of the deep ball in the first Jets game, all the misses going deep between TB and CJ were TB's fault.

 

[maverick4]

All I am saying is that patience must be displayed here. McDaniels is a 30 year old kid that is still learning. But Brady and BB seem to have confidence that he is a keeper, and frankly, that is good enough for me.

Well I'm saying the same thing about our offensive players. We have stacked this team with top offensive draft picks over the past two years, and they just need to gel now. We don't need to be like the Redskins or Lions and try to throw big money or high picks on a receiver.

 

[maverick4]

In response to the thread someone made today, and in light of Chad Jackson's 6 month injury, I want to reiterate that we still don't need to throw big money or a high draft pick on another receiver.

 

[cstjohn17]

In response to the thread someone made today, and in light of Chad Jackson's 6 month injury, I want to reiterate that we still don't need to throw big money or a high draft pick on another receiver.

I am shaking my head, what is your plan for the WRs? More street free agents?

Big money - No, High draft pick - maybe. It depends what you mean by high. Is Day 1 high? WR is one of the strongest units in the draft, if there is an impact player available the Pats may take a WR.

With a healthy Jackson this was one of the worst units in the NFL, with Jackson being injured they are further weakened.

Here are you projected 2007 WRs:
Gaffney, Caldwell, Kight, Childress, Jackson

Brady is good but he can't make chicken salad out of chicken shoot every year. The Pats have a brutal schedule this year and can't afford to start hitting their stride 1/2 half through the season.