Is Josh McDaniels any good?

[Deus Irae]

The Pats ran a total of 70 plays and 20 were runs @ 4.5 yac.

McMartz is infatuated with the pass.

Again, Ridley's runs:

1
2
5
7 (called back, holding penalty)
17
1 (called back, holding penalty)
4
0
1
12
8
0
0

6 out of 11 were for 2 yards or less. Only 3 of 11 gained more than 4 yards, which is the same number that went for no gain.

 

[SVN]

Need to lookup the posts where obrien was bashed almost daily and even weiss was. What happened to 'brady being the coach on the field' theory then ?

 

[patsinthesnow]

I just wanted to re-emphasize this.

Last season, Woodhead had 40 receptions, and he averaged 11.2 yards per catch.

This season, the RBs combined have 28 receptions and are averaging just 7.5 yards per catch. Bolden, who caught only 2 passes all last season and is the team's current leading RB receiver, has 100 yards on 15 catches (6.7 ypc) to go along with drops, missed receptions due to stopping on routes, and the like. The team is being forced to throw to the RBS more often, but with much less impressive results.

The loss of Woodhead has been huge, particularly coupled with the injury to Vereen.

Speaking of Woodhead...

How the hell is he on pace for 91 receptions 1,111 total yards, and 9 total TDs? Those are friggin stud numbers for a 3rd down RB.

Part of me feels good for him. The Chargers are using him even more than we did.

Really though, if some Notre Dame scrub and an Eagles special teamer get a film, I hope some studio makes a movie about the 5'7 Division II White RB legend that is Danny Woodhead. I sure do miss him.

 

[doesntmatter1]

Josh is pretty good. A loss can't take that away from him. I just wish we would run the ball more even when it isn't working. I'm talking running on both 1st and 2nd downs and even 3rd if it is three yards or less. It is sickening to me that 3rd and 2 is a pass 90% of the time. This is another reason I don't understand having so many rbs on the roster. I truly don't think we run it enough for ridley or any back to actually be tired by the end of the game.

The only time we consistently ran the ball was in 08 when brady was hurt. So I am starting to wonder how much of a roll brady plays in us not running the ball. Brady and our passing game is struggling and we still won't run.

 

[manxman2601]

Speaking of Woodhead...

How the hell is he on pace for 91 receptions 1,111 total yards, and 9 total TDs? Those are friggin stud numbers for a 3rd down RB.

Part of me feels good for him. The Chargers are using him even more than we did.

Really though, if some Notre Dame scrub and an Eagles special teamer get a film, I hope some studio makes a movie about the 5'7 Division II White RB legend that is Danny Woodhead. I sure do miss him.

Wait. What? Those are friggin' stud numbers for a WR. Well almost. Have to tip one's hat to the Chargers.

 

[Rob0729]

For all the talk about McDaniels not running the ball, the Pats are average in YPG (14th), rushing attempts (13th), and yards per attempt (11th). So the Pats don't ignore the run like a lot of people want to make it out to be.

 

[Deus Irae]

For all the talk about McDaniels not running the ball, the Pats are average in YPG (14th), rushing attempts (13th), and yards per attempt (11th). So the Pats don't ignore the run like a lot of people want to make it out to be.

People confuse individual play calls that they don't like with a complete systemic failure.

 

[Brady6]

I know Tom Brady hasn't been Tom Brady lately (although he did give you a little taster against the Saints) but seriously I think no one has sucked as bad as McDaniels this season.

His play calling BLOWS MY MIND. Someone tell me why yesterday when Ridley started to get rolling against the toughest front in the league he decided to go empty back and let Tom sling it like a Madden game when clearly he and our receivers aren't exactly playing Madden-esque football right now?

I would honestly have more faith in letting Tom run a Denver style offense where they just say 'Hey Peyton, what you think' than McDaniels calling his god awful plays right now.

Surely red zone creativity and atrocious 3rd down percentage comes down to the lack of play call inspiration to get guys open from your OC because i refuse to believe that Brady who has been all time great in both categories is the reason.

On the contraire we have to give a huge thumbs up to Matt Patricia for the way he's finally got his D playing the way it should.

McDaniel’s 1.0 did ride mostly on Tom Brady’s and Bill Belichick’s coattails but he was also an aggressive and creative offensive coordinator, the only similarities I have seen with McDaniel’s 2.0 is his ability to ride the coattails of Brady and Belichick.

These are my issues with him and they are based on 2012 and this season:

1. The offense lacks any identity, in the period of 3 downs it goes from a spread offense, to an I-formation power run offense, to a vertical offense.
2. He locks into JAG’s, gives them snaps over the better players in some attempt to “will” them to success.
3. His personnel decisions, of all the player McDaniel’s has played a part in adding over the last 2 seasons Michael Hoomanawanui would currently be considered the best, behind him you have Danny Amendola, Brandon Lloyd, Daniel Fells, Spencer Larsen and Daniel Fells.
4. His use of personnel on the field, if I have to watch Blount take one more snap over Ridley this season I am going to break my TV and what the **** is this Develin experiment all about? Let’s take yesterday for instance, Stevan Ridley is coming off his best game of the season so McDaniel’s makes the strategic decision to wait 2 drives before letting him get on the field and give him 11 carries for the game.
5. His play calling is awful, I must say what was that at least 5 times a game, it lacks any flow and is one of the main reasons Tom Brady is on pace to be sacked 46 times this season.

Brady’s stats the 2 years prior to McDaniel’s 2.0:

2010
3900 passing yards
65.9% completion %
7.93 yards per attempt
36 touchdowns
111 QB rating

2011
5235 passing yards
65.6 completion %
8.57 yards per attempt
39 touchdowns
105.6 QB rating

Brady’s stats with McDaniel’s 2.0:

2012
4827 passing yards
63% completion %
7.58 yards per attempt
34 touchdowns
98.7 QB rating

2013 (7 games)
1708 passing yards
55.4% completion %
5.99 yards per attempt
8 touchdowns
75.3 QB rating

Brady dropped in every statistical category upon McDaniel’s return, in fact outside of 2007 in which a monkey could have called that offense and been successful Brady has not had a QB rating over 100 with McDaniel’s as the OC, he was over 100 in 2 of 3 seasons with O’Brien and the 1 he was under was the first season back from the ACL/MCL tear.

McDaniel’s is not a good OC, he failed in his 2 seasons in Denver only to have Fox come in and take a Tebow led team to the playoffs while McDaniel’s was failing as the OC out in St Louis. Fans need to stop hanging their hats on the 2007 season when he led a 27 year old Brady with Moss, Welker and Stallworth as his receivers to a prolific season. Brady has also never won a SB with McDaniel’s as the OC.

Edit: One additional note for those who will say McDaniel’s has a more balanced offense, Brady threw the ball last season more times than he ever has in his career (637 times) and is on pace to throw it even more this season (651 times).

 

[ausbacker]

Speaking of Woodhead...

How the hell is he on pace for 91 receptions 1,111 total yards, and 9 total TDs? Those are friggin stud numbers for a 3rd down RB.

Part of me feels good for him. The Chargers are using him even more than we did.

Really though, if some Notre Dame scrub and an Eagles special teamer get a film, I hope some studio makes a movie about the 5'7 Division II White RB legend that is Danny Woodhead. I sure do miss him.

He's putting up those numbers because they're not using him as a 3rd down back. McCoy's integration of Woodhead into the Chargers O has been particularly impressive. That said, Vereen would probably have comparable numbers if he wasn't sitting on the sidelines with this surgically repaired thumb.

 

[Brady6]

Wait. What? Those are friggin' stud numbers for a WR. Well almost. Have to tip one's hat to the Chargers.

They should have signed Woodhead over Amendola, his skillset would have fit well in the slot and SD has used him there quite a bit this season. I would have rather had the Edelman/Woodhead combo and the extra $24.5 mil than the Amendola/injury-report combo we currently are blessed with.

But that is a McDaniel’s influenced decision as well, the biggest failure of McDaniel’s is that he did not see the value of Wes Welker and Danny Woodhead he thought that just anyone could slide into those roles and be successful.

 

[crypto]

Again, Ridley's runs:

1
2
5
7 (called back, holding penalty)
17
1 (called back, holding penalty)
4
0
1
12
8
0
0

6 out of 11 were for 2 yards or less. Only 3 of 11 gained more than 4 yards, which is the same number that went for no gain.

Why the hell would people want more of that?

Ahahahaha. I don't think I've ever seen such a hilariously dishonest presentation of data in an argument like this.

You said that "3 of 11 [carries] gained more than 4 yards" after providing a list that includes four such gains.

You used "2 yards or less" to manufacture a higher rate ("6 out of 11") for a category that would make Ridley look bad. You then used "more than 4 yards" rather than an appropriately parallel "4 yards or more" to manufacture a lower rate for a category that would make Ridley look good.

Here's what happens if you categorize properly: 5/11 carries went for <2 yards and 4/11 carries went for >4 yards. The five carries that went for <2 yards netted 2 yards at 0.4 per carry. The four carries that went for >4 yards netted 42 yards at 10.5 per carry. (Alternatively: 6/11 went for 2 yards or fewer; 5/11 went for 4 yards or more.) Suddenly the disparity - hardly present in the first place, and even then utterly meaningless - evaporates.

Moving on. I maintain that you've blatantly skewed your metrics to make Ridley look bad. For argument's sake I'll pretend otherwise, but fair is fair: You have to subject Ivory to the same treatment.

Yards gained on Ridley's 11 carries: 1, 2, 5, 17, 4, 0, 1, 12, 8, 0, 0.
Yards gained on Ivory's first 11 carries: 8, 4, 4, 3, 5, 0, -2, 2, 3, 1, 0.
Ridley: 6 carries for 2 yards or fewer; 4 carries for more than 4 yards.
Ivory: 5 carries for 2 yards or fewer; 2 carries for more than 4 yards.

On his first 11 carries, Ivory ran for 28 yards at an average of 2.5 per carry. That's barely more than half as many yards as Ridley gained on the same number of carries. Ivory's performance was indisputably worse than Ridley's. Ivory is worse than Ridley.

At this juncture we can return to your original question:

Why the hell would people want more of that?

Yeah, why the hell would the Jets want more of Ivory?

Maybe because he wound up surpassing 100 yards on the ground?

Shockingly, good things sometimes happen when you give your flagship running back just a little bit more than 11 carries in 60 minutes.

 

[Brady6]

He's putting up those numbers because they're not using him as a 3rd down back. McCoy's integration of Woodhead into the Chargers O has been particularly impressive. That said, Vereen would probably have comparable numbers if he wasn't sitting on the sidelines with this surgically repaired thumb.

It was my position that Woodhead should have signed and used as a slot receiver, he was sure handed, understood how to get open and create space, and he was much more athletic than Welker.

Woodhead
Height: 5075
Weight: 197
40 Yrd Dash: 4.38
20 Yrd Dash: 2.50
10 Yrd Dash: 1.44
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 20
Vertical Jump: 38
Broad Jump: 10'01"
20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.20
3-Cone Drill: 7.03


Welker
Height: 5086
Weight: 195
40 Yrd Dash: 4.65
20 Yrd Dash:
10 Yrd Dash:
225 Lb. Bench Reps:
Vertical Jump: 30
Broad Jump: 9'5"
20 Yrd Shuttle: 4.01
3-Cone Drill: 7.09

 

[manxman2601]

They should have signed Woodhead over Amendola, his skillset would have fit well in the slot and SD has used him there quite a bit this season. I would have rather had the Edelman/Woodhead combo and the extra $24.5 mil than the Amendola/injury-report combo we currently are blessed with.

But that is a McDaniel’s influenced decision as well, the biggest failure of McDaniel’s is that he did not see the value of Wes Welker and Danny Woodhead he thought that just anyone could slide into those roles and be successful.

How can you possibly know that? Unless you have insight into how BB and JM split responsibilites, you can't. I'm fairly persuaded that letting Woodhead go was probably folly (assuming we had a choice) but you are letting your dislike for McDaniels go a step to far here. All your doing is guessing. Your posts are very worthwhile when dealing in facts but you tend to communicate opinion as fact and that's not so worthwhile I'm afraid.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Its pretty sad how you can predict every 2nd and long play will be a run for 2 yards or less. Thats because the defenses know exactly what the Patriots are doing in that situation because they do it every time. Embarrasingly too predictable, and it makes no sense, especially against a D-line like the Jets.

The argument that he abandons the run too fast is inaccurate, he runs the ball plenty, just in stupid situations when you shouldnt be running and the defense can easily stop it. Save the run plays for 2nd and 5, not 2nd and 14 after a sack or run for a loss. Maybe hes thinking running on a long distance down will catch the defense off guard, but it doesnt. Because they do it every time. The defense is fully on guard every time.

Not to mention the random lobs and bombs down field on 3rd down, instead of trying to move the chains. If you are going to take a long shot, do it on 1st of 2nd so you have time to recover. Don't lob the ball 20 yards down field on 3rd and 4 and hope Gronk can jump over a perfectly positioned defender to make the catch.

And dont get me wrong, I am well aware of the WR struggles, but the playcalling, and more specifically, the situational playcalling, has been absolutely mind blowing. Its like Josh is trying to outsmart himself and make nonsensical playcalls on purpose. Like does he think its a mind game that will confuse the opponent by making painfully bad play call choices?

As a fan, I shouldnt be able to predict how EVERY SINGLE play is going to fail specifically, before the ball is even snapped. And yet I have done that on so many occasions this year, with the exception of the Falcons game.

End rant.

NEM is that you ...

 

[Deus Irae]

Ahahahaha. I don't think I've ever seen such a hilariously dishonest presentation of data in an argument like this.

You said that "3 of 11 [carries] gained more than 4 yards" after providing a list that includes four such gains.

Umm.... did you notice that 2 of those were called back because of an offensive holding penalty? Ridley ran 13 times, but he was credited with only 11 in the game. I broke down the 11 legally credited plays. There's nothing misleading about that.

You said that "3 of 11 [carries]You used "2 yards or less" to manufacture a higher rate ("6 out of 11") for a category that would make Ridley look bad. You then used "more than 4 yards" rather than an appropriately parallel "4 yards or more" to manufacture a lower rate for a category that would make Ridley look good.

No, I used 2 yards or less because that was how it broke down. There were no 3 yard carries. I used "more than 4 yards" because 4 ypc is pretty much a statistical norm when one looks at RBs, so being "more" than that would be above that norm (i.e. 5+). You might have noticed that I didn't use "four yards or less", either, instead keeping the 4 yard gain in its own category, had you not been so gung ho about trying to equate "Not how Crypto would do it in his attempt to smear the O.C." with "dishonest".

Here's what happens if you categorize properly: 5/11 carries went for <2 yards and 4/11 carries went for >4 yards. The five carries that went for <2 yards netted 2 yards at 0.4 per carry. The four carries that went for >4 yards netted 42 yards at 10.5 per carry. (Alternatively: 6/11 went for 2 yards or fewer; 5/11 went for 4 yards or more.) Suddenly the disparity - hardly present in the first place, and even then utterly meaningless - evaporates.

Not surprisingly, since you aren't trying for objectivity or honesty, you've got the numbers wrong. Hell, you added in the >4 carry without adding it to the final attempts totals, and you completely ignore the additional <2 carry in the process.

Moving on. I maintain that you've blatantly skewed your metrics to make Ridley look bad.

And I've proven you to have gotten it wrong.

For argument's sake I'll pretend otherwise, but fair is fair: You have to subject Ivory to the same treatment.

Yards gained on Ridley's 11 carries: 1, 2, 5, 17, 4, 0, 1, 12, 8, 0, 0.
Yards gained on Ivory's first 11 carries: 8, 4, 4, 3, 5, 0, -2, 2, 3, 1, 0.
Ridley: 6 carries for 2 yards or fewer; 4 carries for more than 4 yards.
Ivory: 5 carries for 2 yards or fewer; 2 carries for more than 4 yards.

On his first 11 carries, Ivory ran for 28 yards at an average of 2.5 per carry. That's barely more than half as many yards as Ridley gained on the same number of carries. Ivory's performance was indisputably worse than Ridley's. Ivory is worse than Ridley.

At this juncture we can return to your original question:Yeah, why the hell would the Jets want more of Ivory?

Maybe because he wound up surpassing 100 yards on the ground?

I don't give a rat's ass about Ivory, or his carries against a weak run defense front in comparison to carries against the #1 rushing defense in the NFL. They are a red herring, and I'm sure you realize that.

Shockingly, good things sometimes happen when you give your flagship running back just a little bit more than 11 carries in 60 minutes.

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day, and I've been on this site a lot. BTW, Ivory took 34 carries to get to that 104 yards. He averaged just about 3 YPC, which is crap.

Use your head next time. By not doing so, you pretty much helped me to make my point about the nature of the anti-McDaniels posters.

 

[Brady6]

How can you possibly know that? Unless you have insight into how BB and JM split responsibilites, you can't. I'm fairly persuaded that letting Woodhead go was probably folly (assuming we had a choice) but you are letting your dislike for McDaniels go a step to far here. All your doing is guessing. Your posts are very worthwhile when dealing in facts but you tend to communicate opinion as fact and that's not so worthwhile I'm afraid.

I think we or at least most of us present assumptions in a statement that projects actuality, I could have said “in my opinion” but in my opinion if you’re posting in a forum unless something is accompanied with a link or source the majority of the time it is going to be someone expressing an opinion.

It is my opinion that McDaniel’s did not see the value in Wes Welker and Danny Woodhead that he should have because if he had they both were available at a responsible rate and they would have been resigned, of course Belichick and Kraft own some of that responsibility as well but I have to think that McDaniel’s expressed a belief that he could run a successful offense without either of them otherwise I do not think the decision would have been made.

 

[Deus Irae]

NEM is that you ...

When the anti-O.C. threads start rolling out, it's as if NEM left dozens of clones....

 

[Deus Irae]

I think we or at least most of us present assumptions in a statement that projects actuality...

Nonsense. You're pulling those claims out of your ass, nothing more.

 

[Brady6]

Nonsense. You're pulling those claims out of your ass, nothing more.

I just said it was an assumption, an assumption equates to a hunch, and you labeling what I said as a claim would equate to an assertion or affirmation those are two very different things. The fact is by you saying my post is a “claim I pulled from my ass” implies that what I wrote was invalid, so in retrospect you’re speaking in the same tone projecting fact but really you’re just doing the same thing you just ripped me for and stating your assumption that it did not happen because of McDaniel’s, an assumption that has not been validated anymore than my assumption was, actually the fact that Woodhead and Welker are not here reflects a likelihood that my position is closer to accurate than your position.

So I wouldn’t be so fast to criticize what I did, because you’re basically guilty of the same offense pal..

 

[supafly]

When the anti-O.C. threads start rolling out, it's as if NEM left dozens of clones....

As you've said before, attempting to call out the OC in a relatively consistently successful offense is an error in judgement and/or simply an opinion that should be kept to one's self.

I have no problem when people have issues with certain plays here and there. To me that is just human nature. There are always things that we feel can be done better in specific situations. It's just part of being a fan (IMO).

However when you seriously have a problem with a successful coordinator and his general approach overall, it may be best to keep those opinions close to the vest. These are professional guys who have excellent track records and a good rapport with both Brady and Belichick. I think it's more of a "2 or 3 way thinking" thing, then actually feeling that it's just all on McDaniels. For all we know McDaniels may be overruled on certain occasions, at least during checks.