Patriots offense has become far too scheme heavy

[Snake Eyes]

Your argument simply isn't true. That's the problem.

41 points against the Texans
45 points against the Broncos


You, and the others griping without thinking points through, ignore those games because they kill your arguments.

THOSE are the anomalies.

 

[Rob0729]

You're cherry picking a few plays, there were tons of other plays which aren't quite as highlight worthy which harmed drives, maybe if we converted even one of those 3rd downs we wouldn't have been in the position where the dropped INT by Samuel was critical.

As far as defending the complicated offense, why is it that I keep hearing about "less moving parts" makes something a lot more reliable and sought after.

Something should be only as complicated as it needs to be, part of the problem with trying to be overly complicated is that you can often confuse yourself along with your opponent. Many great teams with plenty of rings between them did NOT have a complicated offense, the Packer sweep wasn't complicated but was very difficult for defenses to stop. The Cowboys of the early 90s didn't run a lot of plays, they were just very good at executing the ones they did run.

It's been a while since we won the Lombardi, and many teams with "simple" offenses have won it in the mean time. Perhaps more time should be spent on making the offense "effective in the playoffs" rather than 'complicated'. One final thing, a lot of teams have been having fast success with newly drafted QBs because they're altering their schemes to fit what the QBs have been doing, there's a lesson there.

I am not cherry picking plays. I am pointing to multiple reasons why the Pats lost the last two Super Bowls not related to the offense. So if David Tyree doesn't convert a third down or Asante Samuel catches the INT on the Giants' game winning drive, the Pats still lose the 2007 Super Bowl because they are disqualified for having a too complicated offense?

The Pats don't confuse themselves all that much. Other than a small handful of players, the Pats seem to be on the same page with one another most of the time. The offense is just fine.

And BTW, how does simplifying the offense stop a team that can rush the passer very well with four rushers from rushing the passer? Simplifying things would make it easier for them to blitz and send 5 rushers since they don't have to flood more people into coverage to account for the Pats' complicate schemes since they will know what routes the Pats are likely to run.

 

[Rob0729]

That's crap. So an offense with a top 3 QB, a top 10 TE, a top 10 WR, and one of the best #2 WRs in the game should just get shut down?

The Pats didn't get shut down. They moved the ball very well. What they were missing was their red zone target who happens to be the best TE in football.

You take away Anquan Boldin from the Ravens and do you think they would have won the Super Bowl? Or the AFCCG? The Super Bowl definitely not. The AFCCG, probably not.

 

[Rob0729]

Yes, anomalies exist, but the Pats offense falling flat in the playoffs has become a consistency, big difference there.

BS. The offense helped to get the Pats to a Super Bowl and AFCCG in back to back years. That isn't an anomaly. A healthy Gronk probably gets the Pats one Super Bowl ring and possibly two those years.

Yes, there are things that need to be improved on both sides of the ball, but arguing the offense is too complicated is a stupid argument. Keeping Gronk healthy in the playoffs is the biggest thing this offense needs to do.

 

[Ring 6]

Three playoff losses and two superbowl losses and in all of them, the offense did not perform as expected. Those "sometimes" are at the worst possible times. OP called it scheme heavy. Maybe i am off base or not with my alluding to a certain style that a couple of teams play where i see similar things with the same damn result - fact is, it ain't working when most needed. It hurts me to write this.

We haven't won the SB since 2004. In all of those years we lost our last game. When you lose your offense and defense generally didn't do as well as normal, especially when you win more games in that stretch than any other team.
There really isn't a mysterious secret thing going on that makes the team different in playoff games than in the regular season. They lost. They lost to different teams playing different styles.
You have now moved on to the Giants learned how to beat us by letting us dominate them in the regular season game as proof certain styles beat us.
The fact is in that game we had as many open receivers as we had all season and the OL chunked it. If you watch that game you will see at least a dozen plays where Brady is hit as he is throwing knocking the pass off target. The only difference was our OL bloked in week 17 and didn't in the SB. That is not a scheme thing.
Also if you are tying it to scheme there is simply no way you can include 07, 10, and 12 in the same discussion.

 

[Deus Irae]

THIOSE are the anomalies.

When you're looking at a handful of games, there are no anomalies. The sample size isn't large enough to have them.

 

[DocHoliday]

That's not what you wrote. What you wrote, that I responded to, was:

Um... Yes. When you have an offense of that caliber and were given opportunities that they failed to capitalize on... Why shouldn't you say the offense underperformed?

Care to take a guess how many Super Bowl winners only scored 14 points in history?

 

[Deus Irae]

Um... Yes. When you have an offense of that caliber and were given opportunities that they failed to capitalize on... Why shouldn't you say the offense underperformed?

Care to take a guess how many Super Bowl winners only scored 14 points in history?

Um... No. I'm not going to play yet another game of "Let's move the goalposts". Again.....

You could also say the defense was good enough and the offense was at fault for not putting away the game earlier.

In all 5 SB appearances of the BB era, the defense has allowed at least one late score. (1:37 left in 2001, 1:13 left in 2003, 1:55 left in 2004, 0:39 left in 2007 and 1:04 left in 2011) In 4 of the five games, and (probably not coincidently ) including the 2 games that the Patriots lost, that late score allowed has resulted in the Patriots either being tied or behind.

Only in the Eagles game did the defense not cough up the lead.

 

[chevss454]

The Pats offense has come up short against well coached, experienced veteran defenses who don't get confused by the Pats multiple formations. Even with their great DL, it took some miraculous plays by the Giants to pull off 2 SB wins. The 9ers D was exposed by the Pats and was never the same after we played them. Had the Pats not played so poorly to start the game, the Pats would have won going away imo. Our O was exposed again vs the Ravens in the AFCCG but only b/c Gronk wasn't on the field and Lloyd couldn't pull coverage away from the middle. I didn't see our O as too complicated; I saw it as an O missing 2 critical pieces. One is a healthy Gronk and the other is a healthy upgrade to Lloyd on the outside. Put a WR who demands at least some S help on the outside & watch the middle open up for Gronk, AHern, Ballard et al.

 

[DaBruinz]

People over-analyze the offensive struggles in the last two playoff losses.

The reason is simple: Gronkowski was hurt...

If that is the reason for the failure of the offense, then the entire offensive coaching staff should be fired. Period.

The ONLY player that should affect the offense to the point of it working vs. not working is the QB. The reality is that the Pats had PLENTY of offensive weapons without Gronkowski. They had Welker, Lloyd, Hernandez, Ridley, Vereen and Woodhead. That should be plenty of weapons for this offense to run roughshod over any defense. That is if the coaches call the plays that best utilize those players and the players execute.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Pats offense is broken vs good defenses.

SF, Balt, Sea, NYG pretty much have their way with the NE offense.

The Pats offense put up how many points on SF???

 

[Triumph]

Your argument simply isn't true. That's the problem.

41 points against the Texans
45 points against the Broncos


You, and the others griping without thinking points through, ignore those games because they kill your arguments.

You FAIL.

The issue isnt that the Pats cannot beat up on pretenders like Wade Phillips and the Houston Texans or a Tebow led Denver offense that couldnt move the ball. Its already been hashed over in this thread but evidently youre not good at following along.

 

[DocHoliday]

Um... No. I'm not going to play yet another game of "Let's move the goalposts". Again.....

It's not moving the goalposts to say the offense is just as if not more so liable for losing the SB when it goes from scoring 30+ points a game to 14. It's the same argument, the premise hasn't change an inch.

Regardless, only one team in history has won a Superbowl scoring 14 points.

In all 5 SB appearances of the BB era, the defense has allowed at least one late score. (1:37 left in 2001, 1:13 left in 2003, 1:55 left in 2004, 0:39 left in 2007 and 1:04 left in 2011) In 4 of the five games, and (probably not coincidently ) including the 2 games that the Patriots lost, that late score allowed has resulted in the Patriots either being tied or behind.

Only in the Eagles game did the defense not cough up the lead.

...and in the ones the Patriots did win, the offense overcame this tendency to give up a late score.

According to you, this team loses superbowls when its offense isn't good enough to overcome giving up the late score and wins superbowls when it is.

So is that not an at least equal share of the responsibility going to the offense?

 

[Deus Irae]

You FAIL.

The issue isnt that the Pats cannot beat up on pretenders like Wade Phillips and the Houston Texans or a Tebow led Denver offense that couldnt move the ball. Its already been hashed over in this thread but evidently youre not good at following along.

Your willingness (and need) to ignore or wrongfully minimize games that don't suit your argument by making false arguments does not equal a failure for anyone but yourself.

 

[DaBruinz]

Don't waste your breath offering clarity. Don't you know the Pats do no wrong and only external factors derail them .......the last 8 years.

Clarity? The problem with the statement is that they only stayed in ZONE for parts of 2 series. But, yeah, it's offering clarity..

 

[Snake Eyes]

Simplifying things would make it easier for them to blitz and send 5 rushers since they don't have to flood more people into coverage to account for the Pats' complicate schemes since they will know what routes the Pats are likely to run.

Are you serious? They're predictable NOW. Take a look at a game and see if you can tell, by their pre-snap formation, whether it's a run or a pass. I can guess correctly about 90% of the time, I'm thinking that pro DCs are likely even better and can also come up with some nifty ways to stop it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you serious? They're predictable NOW. Take a look at a game and see if you can tell, by their pre-snap formation, whether it's a run or a pass. I can guess correctly about 90% of the time, I'm thinking that pro DCs are likely even better and can also come up with some nifty ways to stop it.

I love this line of argument. It's only been disproved about a million times.

 

[Triumph]

The Pats offense put up how many points on SF???

It was SF 31 - NE 10 in the 3rd quarter.

When NE mounted a comeback in the 4th, SF just went out and scored more points just like Brady does when things get too close for comfort.

This is the whole problem: The pass defense cannot come up with a stop when you need them. Im not counting on things to be that much better in 2013 unless changes are made personnel wise either. Im not counting on Dennard like I did with Bodden and McCourty. Talib is such a gamble with a 1 year suspension looming.

 

[DaBruinz]

You're cherry picking a few plays, there were tons of other plays which aren't quite as highlight worthy which harmed drives, maybe if we converted even one of those 3rd downs we wouldn't have been in the position where the dropped INT by Samuel was critical.

Cherry picking a few plays?? WHAT? Those are GAME-CHANGING plays. Plain and simple. That's not cherry-picking. That is going right to the heart of the issue. You only call it cherry-picking because it blows up your argument.

It's been a while since we won the Lombardi, and many teams with "simple" offenses have won it in the mean time. Perhaps more time should be spent on making the offense "effective in the playoffs" rather than 'complicated'. One final thing, a lot of teams have been having fast success with newly drafted QBs because they're altering their schemes to fit what the QBs have been doing, there's a lesson there.

Really? LOTS of teams have been finding success by altering their schemes to fit newly drafted QBs? Who are these "LOTS of TEAMS"? The Browns? The Bengals? The Jets? The Dolphins? The Raiders? The Rams? No. You're going to say teams like the Redskins, Colts, and Seahawks. 3 teams do not a WHOLE LOT make.

Not to mention that changing the schemes for the QB (if that is, in fact, what those teams are doing), is hugely different than changing the schemes for ONE Receiver.

 

[Triumph]

Your willingness (and need) to ignore or wrongfully minimize games that don't suit your argument by making false arguments does not equal a failure for anyone but yourself.

Why cant you comprehend that GOOD defenses are stopping this team from winning its 4th Super Bowl Championship?

Maybe if you go back and look at the points scored by the Pats in post season losses you will figure it out. Heres a clue for you. Vs Baltimore, this last AFCC, the Pats were shut out in the 2nd half after only being able to score 1 TD and 2 FGs.