Does McDaniels hold this team back?

JoeSixPat said:

Dude...

You're the one who said Gaffney was a deep WR - not me. Don't run away from that now.

I love Gaffney - and he occasionally breaks some big ones - yet so does Lawrence Maroney... but he's no deep threat.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said, as you well know.

JoeSixPat said:

On the other points - Guys - am I really the only one who realizes our passing attack sucked in 2006? Don't leave me hanging here.

Click to expand...

#7 offense in the NFL. If the offense sucked so much, how was the O.C. ever able to get that high a ranking out of the team? Way to kill your own argument, though.

JoeSixPat said:

In other words DEFENSES HAD NO RESPECT FOR OUR DEEP GAME. This had major adverse consequences. DBs moved up toward the line of scrimmage. Brady felt intense pressure at times and did a great job avoiding sacks. The field effectively shortend. RBs, TEs and WRs alike encountered tighter coverage. It was not good.

Click to expand...

Again, despite your claims, the Patriots did not just abandon the long game. By your definition of 'long', the Patriots went 'long' more often in 2006 than in 2007.

JoeSixPat said:

Am I really the only one (besides Belichick obviously) who noticed that? Do you think it was a conincidence that Belichick brought in not one, not two, not three, but FOUR new WRs last year?

Click to expand...

Wait! Are you saying that the team thought the wide receivers weren't good enough? And, yet, the team was still #7 in offense in the entire NFL? Who was the O.C. that was able to get such a high ranking out of such an awful group of receivers?

JoeSixPat said:

And yet Deus has proven that we had a healthy deep game in 2006. Heck - one that rivaled 2007. They say one can make statistics say whatever one wants them to. Obviously they are right.

Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't make that argument. Again, you know that full well. You do like to lie and put words in people's mouths, don't you? You claimed that the team totally abandoned the deep passing game. I showed you that by your own definition, the team threw 'long' more often in 2006 than in 2006. I never claimed the deep game was healthy or unhealthy. I simply pointed out that the data showed you were wrong.

JoeSixPat said:

I remember all throughout that season there were similar arguments. Guys who argued vociferously that the pass attack was one of the best (7th as it turned out statistically) It seemed like a good handful of people were letting arbitrary statistics get in the way of their eyeballs.

There were actually a few people here just like him who, after the 2006 season argued that we were ALL SET at WR! With Caldwell and Gaffney!!??? They had STATISTICS to prove it! Go back and look up the post-season threads on it!

I'm damn glad we had as great an offense as we did this year. But I can't help but wonder what could have happened if we had another deep WR opposite Moss. We signed one in Stallworth - but McDaniels either couldn't or wouldn't use Stallworth in that way.

Couldn't or wouldn't is really the question.

Click to expand...

Not really. All the evidence you need is there. You're wrong. Admit it and move on.

Deus Irae said:

That's not what I said, as you well know.



#7 offense in the NFL. If the offense sucked so much, how was the O.C. ever able to get that high a ranking out of the team? Way to kill your own argument, though.



Again, despite your claims, the Patriots did not just abandon the long game. By your definition of 'long', the Patriots went 'long' more often in 2006 than in 2007.



Wait! Are you saying that the team thought the wide receivers weren't good enough? And, yet, the team was still #7 in offense in the entire NFL? Who was the O.C. that was able to get such a high ranking out of such an awful group of receivers?



Actually, I didn't make that argument. Again, you know that full well. You do like to lie and put words in people's mouths, don't you? You claimed that the team totally abandoned the deep passing game. I showed you that by your own definition, the team threw 'long' more often in 2006 than in 2006. I never claimed the deep game was healthy or unhealthy. I simply pointed out that the data showed you were wrong.



Not really. All the evidence you need is there. You're wrong. Admit it and move on.

Click to expand...

Wow - its like talking to a brick wall.

The fact is a team's offense can be ranked #7 and still be in some SERIOUS NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.

Your argument isn't with me Deus - its with Belichick who is smart enough to see beyond a #7 ranking and KNOW that his offense needed a major overhaul - to the point where the leading WR from 2006 was cut.

The fact also is a team's offense can be ranked #1 and STILL have some areas of signficant concern.

My eyeballs told me that Moss was literally draped in coverage at times.

Yet we had no one deep on the other side of the field drawing coverage away from him.

That's troubling, that's concerning. And no - Jabbar Gaffney or Kevin Faulk or Reche Caldwell are not going to be drawing deep coverage, no matter what your statistics say.

And THAT has consequences. Luckilly I actually WATCH the games and don't just look at the stat sheet.

Yet apparently I'm the only one who notices these things.

JoeSixPat said:

Wow - its like talking to a brick wall.

The fact is a team's offense can be ranked #7 and still be in some SERIOUS NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.

Your argument isn't with me Deus - its with Belichick who is smart enough to see beyond a #7 ranking and KNOW that his offense needed a major overhaul - to the point where the leading WR from 2006 was cut.

Click to expand...

No, my argument is with you and your ridiculous agenda. You just stated that the offensive firepower was so weak that it needed an overhaul. Somehow, however, you just ignore the fact that the team was the #7 scoring offense in the NFL with that offense. Again, who was the O.C. who took such poor talent and got them to the #7 ranking, and to the AFCCG with a huge lead until the team's defense collapsed?

JoeSixPat said:

The fact also is a team's offense can be ranked #1 and STILL have some areas of signficant concern.

Click to expand...

Well, it's possible, but it clearly wasn't the case last season.

JoeSixPat said:

My eyeballs told me that Moss was literally draped in coverage at times.

Click to expand...

Really? Was it the double teams or the triple teams giving you such an amazing insight?

JoeSixPat said:

Yet we had no one deep on the other side of the field drawing coverage away from him.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you expect there to be? If you know anything about sports, you know that teams stop the opposing team's best players and try to make the other players on that team beat them. Teams would roll coverage to Moss and leave the other side in a one-on-one situation. They would also simply run one safety very deep and let him be the freelancing help on the deep ball. Naturally, since Moss was busy setting the NFL all-time touchdown record, he was drawing the most attention. However, as I've pointed out to you before, the rest of the team was able to take advantage of this with deep receptions of their own. As I've already pointed out to you, Brady threw 60 passes which qualify as "long" by your definition. 26 of those passes were caught. Moss caught 13 of them, which means that other players caught the other 13.

It's called football.

JoeSixPat said:

That's troubling, that's concerning. And no - Jabbar Gaffney or Kevin Faulk or Reche Caldwell are not going to be drawing deep coverage, no matter what your statistics say.

Click to expand...

It's not troubling, for more than one reason:

1.) You're argument is wrong, as the evidence proves.

2.) Even if you were right, which you aren't, it led to the most prolific offense in NFL history.

JoeSixPat said:

And THAT has consequences. Luckilly I actually WATCH the games and don't just look at the stat sheet.

Yet apparently I'm the only one who notices these things.

Click to expand...

That's because you're the one making it up. And don't start with that "I actually watch the games" crap. Your lack of knowledge of the basics of your own argument is all but criminal. By your own metrics, you're entire argument is crap. Trying to use something as stupid as "I actually watch the games" when your eyes clearly didn't see what was actually going on is just a silly argument on your part. After all, according to your argument, the Patriots completely abandoned the deep game in 2006. Of course, the facts, as demonstrated to you and using your own definition of a 'long' pass, prove that you're wrong. Then again, being wrong hasn't stopped you from repeating the same nonsense over and over.

Some more numbers for you, JoeSixPat, according to ESPN.com:


Brady had 13 completions of more than 30 yards in 25 attempts.

Brady 31-40yds: 6-9
Brady 41+: 7-16
Total: 13-25 (.520)

E. Manning 31-40yds: 3-19
E. Manning 41+: 1-5
Total: 4-24 (.167)

P. Manning 31-40yds: 9-20
P. Manning 41+: 0-2
Total: 9-22 (.409)

Palmer 31-40yds: 3-15
Palmer 41+: 4-14
Total: 7-29 (.241)

Brees 31-40yds: 6-16
Brees 41+: 1-3
Total: 7-19 (.368)

Anderson 31-40yds: 4-13
Anderson 41+: 0-2
Total: 4-15 (.267)

Cutler 31-40yds: 3-14
Cutler 41+: 2-8
Total: 5-22 (.227)

Garrard 31-40yds: 2-9
Garrard 41+: 2-6
Total: 4-15 (.267)

M. Hasselbeck 31-40yds: 1-12
M. Hasselbeck 41+: 3-6
Total: 4-18 (.222)

Kitna 31-40yds: 4-16
Kitna 41+: 1-6
Total: 5-22 (.227)

McNabb 31-40yds: 1-9
McNabb 41+: 2-7
Total: 3-16 (.188)

Rivers 31-40yds: 2-17
Rivers 41+: 2-5
Total: 4-22 (.182)

Roethlisberger 31-40yds: 6-8
Roethlisberger 41+: 2-8
Total: 8-16 (.500)

Romo 31-40yds: 7-14
Romo 41+: 0-0
Total: 7-14 (.500)

Schaub 31-40yds: 6-10
Schaub 41+: 1-2
Total: 7-12 (.583)

Warner 31-40yds: 1-6
Warner 41+: 1-3
Total: 2-9 (.222)

Young 31-40yds: 2-13
Young 41+: 1-6
Total: 3-19 (.158)

Out of this extensive group of quarterbacks, only Schaub threw 31+ yards passes at a higher percentage than Brady (and that's even when you include the second half incompletions/interceptions against Miami in the 'get Randy the record' bombfest), and the closest any quarterback came to Brady's 13 completions at that distance was Peyton Manning, who was a distant second with just 9.

You can try to make the argument that the team was hurt by some misuse of Stallworth all you want. The numbers show otherwise.

And one more tidbit, from Footballoutsiders.com:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php

For players with a minimum of 50 passes thrown their way:

Moss was #1 in DPAR, #4 in DVOA, 62% catch%
Welker was $4 in DPAR, #10 in DVOA, 77% catch%
Stallworth was #31 in DPAR and #20 in DVOA, 62% catch%
Gaffney was #41 in DPAR and #11 in DVOA, 72% catch%

That's right.... according to Football Outsiders, Stallworth had the lowest value, per play, of the top 4 Patriots receivers, and had a lower catch percentage than Gaffney. Given those numbers, there's little wonder that Stallworth was beaten out by Gaffney.

Also, in his previous two seasons that you rave about so much in comparison to this past season, Stallworth was 39th in DPAR and 35th in DVOA in 2006 (49% catch%), and 24th in DPAR and 44th in DVOA in 2005 (54% catch%). In other words, in his 2 'great' seasons as the #1 deep threat, he was about 50/50 to even catch the ball when it was thrown in his direction (Football Outsiders doesn't break down bad passes vs. drops, etc.). The O.C. you're whining about helped get him up to over 60% in his catch%.

Also, just for fun, toss in the numbers which show that last season was the first time in Stallworth's career that he had more than 40 catches AND averaged over 15 ypc.

BB should have fired McDaniels for not putting enough points up last season. Talk about a lack of production

allright, u guys at the throats of each other seriously need to chill out a bit


damn this offseason virus

Deus Irae said:

Some more numbers for you, JoeSixPat, according to ESPN.com:


Brady had 13 completions of more than 30 yards in 25 attempts.

Brady 31-40yds: 6-9
Brady 41+: 7-16
Total: 13-25 (.520)

E. Manning 31-40yds: 3-19
E. Manning 41+: 1-5
Total: 4-24 (.167)

P. Manning 31-40yds: 9-20
P. Manning 41+: 0-2
Total: 9-22 (.409)

Palmer 31-40yds: 3-15
Palmer 41+: 4-14
Total: 7-29 (.241)

Brees 31-40yds: 6-16
Brees 41+: 1-3
Total: 7-19 (.368)

Anderson 31-40yds: 4-13
Anderson 41+: 0-2
Total: 4-15 (.267)

Cutler 31-40yds: 3-14
Cutler 41+: 2-8
Total: 5-22 (.227)

Garrard 31-40yds: 2-9
Garrard 41+: 2-6
Total: 4-15 (.267)

M. Hasselbeck 31-40yds: 1-12
M. Hasselbeck 41+: 3-6
Total: 4-18 (.222)

Kitna 31-40yds: 4-16
Kitna 41+: 1-6
Total: 5-22 (.227)

McNabb 31-40yds: 1-9
McNabb 41+: 2-7
Total: 3-16 (.188)

Rivers 31-40yds: 2-17
Rivers 41+: 2-5
Total: 4-22 (.182)

Roethlisberger 31-40yds: 6-8
Roethlisberger 41+: 2-8
Total: 8-16 (.500)

Romo 31-40yds: 7-14
Romo 41+: 0-0
Total: 7-14 (.500)

Schaub 31-40yds: 6-10
Schaub 41+: 1-2
Total: 7-12 (.583)

Warner 31-40yds: 1-6
Warner 41+: 1-3
Total: 2-9 (.222)

Young 31-40yds: 2-13
Young 41+: 1-6
Total: 3-19 (.158)

Out of this extensive group of quarterbacks, only Schaub threw 31+ yards passes at a higher percentage than Brady (and that's even when you include the second half incompletions/interceptions against Miami in the 'get Randy the record' bombfest), and the closest any quarterback came to Brady's 13 completions at that distance was Peyton Manning, who was a distant second with just 9.

You can try to make the argument that the team was hurt by some misuse of Stallworth all you want. The numbers show otherwise.

Click to expand...

And do you think Deus, that Randy Moss might have had something to do with those numbers? (The answer? Moss had 11 of those 13 completions of 31 yards or more. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=1433)

You know my contention isn't that Randy Moss didn't catch a lot of deep passes. But apparently YOU'RE trying to twist my comments that way to prove your point.

It's that the the lack of a consistent deep threat lining up opposite to Moss failed to draw double and triple team coverage away from Moss. As you yourself admit Moss was even triple teamed at times.

Now you can continue to add up every player on the team and attempt to equate them as one WR - but we know that opposing DC's don't design coverage like that.

They don't keep a guy deep on the opposite field to cover Gaffney, Faulk, Welker, or Maroney just because if you add up the stats of FOUR PLAYERS they look pretty signfiicant.

That's the inherent flaw with your argument. You add up ALL the stats of other players and you assert collectively that adds up to a significant deep threat.

Well last time I checked that's not the way the game works.

Thank goodness Belichick didn't listen to fans like you who could use statistics to prove that the 2006 pass attack was among the best in the NFL.

He knew it had a serious flaw - the lack of a deep game.

I doubt that Belichick is going to listen to fans that are so simple minded as to spout out "16-0" and "#1 Offense" as the ultimate reason why no upgrades are necessary either - both on offense and defense.

Deus Irae said:

And one more tidbit, from Footballoutsiders.com:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php

For players with a minimum of 50 passes thrown their way:

Moss was #1 in DPAR, #4 in DVOA, 62% catch%
Welker was $4 in DPAR, #10 in DVOA, 77% catch%
Stallworth was #31 in DPAR and #20 in DVOA, 62% catch%
Gaffney was #41 in DPAR and #11 in DVOA, 72% catch%

That's right.... according to Football Outsiders, Stallworth had the lowest value, per play, of the top 4 Patriots receivers, and had a lower catch percentage than Gaffney. Given those numbers, there's little wonder that Stallworth was beaten out by Gaffney.

Also, in his previous two seasons that you rave about so much in comparison to this past season, Stallworth was 39th in DPAR and 35th in DVOA in 2006 (49% catch%), and 24th in DPAR and 44th in DVOA in 2005 (54% catch%). In other words, in his 2 'great' seasons as the #1 deep threat, he was about 50/50 to even catch the ball when it was thrown in his direction (Football Outsiders doesn't break down bad passes vs. drops, etc.). The O.C. you're whining about helped get him up to over 60% in his catch%.

Also, just for fun, toss in the numbers which show that last season was the first time in Stallworth's career that he had more than 40 catches AND averaged over 15 ypc.

Click to expand...

Once again, you're digging your own grave with the numbers.

Do these stats indicate that Stallworth has no talent, skill or ability? Or do they illustrate that he was misused by his OC, asking him to do things beyond his capabilities?

You spout statistics - state the "one and only" conclusion deemed so by you and declare everyone else's interpretation "WRONG".

The hubris you show speaks volumes of your character.

Myself, I'm open to the notion that, as many people have said that "Stallworth had trouble with the playbook".

That's why I don't assert that Stallworth should have been used in complicated offensive schemes. That's why I assert that he should have been used as a simple, deep sideline pass option enough to draw coverage away from Moss.

Everyone seems to admit that such a simple deep route is not considered "complicated", then go out of their way to assert that Stallworth could not handle complicated plays - go on to "prove it" and then assert that Stallworth was used APPROPRIATELY by McDaniels by asking him to run complicated plays as opposed to the simple deep routes I suggest.

Every stat you've thrown back has proven my point.

I know you view it as proving your point as well.

The difference between us is that I can understand the limitations of over-reliance on statistics, and you remain completely closed minded to what everyone could see with their eyes.

Moss would not have been so consistently double and triple teamed if the offense had made opposing teams "pay" with an alternative deep threat.

That fact alone demonstrates that there was no alternative deep threat on the team - just like in 2006 we all know there was no deep threat PERIOD (regardless of whether you have statistics to prove otherwise).

Let me just recap one last time - using Deus' own stats focusing on passes thrown 31 yards deep or more.

He asserts Randy Moss was not the lone deep threat and therefore my contention that using Stallworth - a proven deep threat with Philadelphia - as complimentary deep threat who would have drawn coverage away from Moss is completely erroneous.

I assert Randy Moss was the lone deep threat on the team and that indeed, McDaniels erred in not utilizing a weapon at his disposal in Stallworth.

Now let's look at Deus' stats.

Brady 31-40yds: 6 receptions
Brady 41+: 7 receptions

13 receptions thrown by Brady.

Now how many of those went to Moss - and how many of those went to ALL the other "Deep threat WRs" on the team (forgetting for a second that one can't logically add up all other players stats and view them as one single player)?

11 of those 13 deep receptions went to Moss.

Let me help Deus with the math.

That means 2 receptions of 30 yards or more went to ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS ON THE TEAM.

And yet he continues to argue that McDaniels play calling in that regard wasn't overly focused on Moss.

Would Moss have been so draped in coverage had McDaniels asserted himself calling on Brady to spread the field more? Likely not. And in turn - that would have freed up Moss - possibly allowing he and other WRs (in particular Stallworth) to all have BETTER production than they did.

A default argument that "We were the #1 offense in 2007" doesn't change that anymore than saying "We were the #7 offense in 2006" changed the fact that we had a seriously flawed passing attack that season.

Deus Irae said:

And one more tidbit, from Footballoutsiders.com:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php

For players with a minimum of 50 passes thrown their way:

Moss was #1 in DPAR, #4 in DVOA, 62% catch%
Welker was $4 in DPAR, #10 in DVOA, 77% catch%
Stallworth was #31 in DPAR and #20 in DVOA, 62% catch%
Gaffney was #41 in DPAR and #11 in DVOA, 72% catch%

That's right.... according to Football Outsiders, Stallworth had the lowest value, per play, of the top 4 Patriots receivers, and had a lower catch percentage than Gaffney. Given those numbers, there's little wonder that Stallworth was beaten out by Gaffney.

Also, in his previous two seasons that you rave about so much in comparison to this past season, Stallworth was 39th in DPAR and 35th in DVOA in 2006 (49% catch%), and 24th in DPAR and 44th in DVOA in 2005 (54% catch%). In other words, in his 2 'great' seasons as the #1 deep threat, he was about 50/50 to even catch the ball when it was thrown in his direction (Football Outsiders doesn't break down bad passes vs. drops, etc.). The O.C. you're whining about helped get him up to over 60% in his catch%.

Also, just for fun, toss in the numbers which show that last season was the first time in Stallworth's career that he had more than 40 catches AND averaged over 15 ypc.

Click to expand...

These are more the numbers we need to see to really tell if Stallworth was really being under utilized or just not getting the balls going his way whether it is his fault or not. Considering he had a alot less balls thrown his way than either Welker or Moss, that 62% is much bigger when comparing it to Welker's and Moss' percentage. Laws of averages would sugguest the percentage of throws caught would go down as more balls are thrown your way since that percentage doesn't distinguish between dropped balls and errant throws. I do think that does hint to that Brady and Stallworth just weren't on the same page as much as other WRs at his disposal.

I don't really buy into a lot of these homemade statistical formulas. So I won't really get DPAR and DVOA. But I will say that Football Outsider's home cooked formulas are better than most.

JoeSixPat said:

Once again, you're digging your own grave with the numbers.

Do these stats indicate that Stallworth has no talent, skill or ability? Or do they illustrate that he was misused by his OC, asking him to do things beyond his capabilities?

You spout statistics - state the "one and only" conclusion deemed so by you and declare everyone else's interpretation "WRONG".

The hubris you show speaks volumes of your character.

Myself, I'm open to the notion that, as many people have said that "Stallworth had trouble with the playbook".

That's why I don't assert that Stallworth should have been used in complicated offensive schemes. That's why I assert that he should have been used as a simple, deep sideline pass option enough to draw coverage away from Moss.

Everyone seems to admit that such a simple deep route is not considered "complicated", then go out of their way to assert that Stallworth could not handle complicated plays - go on to "prove it" and then assert that Stallworth was used APPROPRIATELY by McDaniels by asking him to run complicated plays as opposed to the simple deep routes I suggest.

Every stat you've thrown back has proven my point.

I know you view it as proving your point as well.

The difference between us is that I can understand the limitations of over-reliance on statistics, and you remain completely closed minded to what everyone could see with their eyes.

Moss would not have been so consistently double and triple teamed if the offense had made opposing teams "pay" with an alternative deep threat.

That fact alone demonstrates that there was no alternative deep threat on the team - just like in 2006 we all know there was no deep threat PERIOD (regardless of whether you have statistics to prove otherwise).

Click to expand...

No, the difference is that I don't keep my opinion in the face of the evidence, whereas you're not willing to admit you're wrong. This is a waste of time because the evidence against your position is overwhelming and yet you can't even admit the blatantly obvious.

Deus Irae said:

What do you mean "How am I wrong?"?



That was your assertion. It was demonstrably wrong.

Click to expand...

Deus Irae said:

What part of Welker having the longest reception needs explaining? That alone proves your argument wrong.

Then, if you take away the longest reception for each player, Welker had a higher YPC than Stallworth, so it wasn't just one pass where Welker had more yardage on a catch than Stallworth.

Stallworth's receptions were for 7, 18 and 9 yards. There were 2 incompletions thrown his way.

Welker's receptions were for 8,9,15,7,-2,16,19,3,5,13 and 10 yards. There were 3 incompletions thrown his way. 5 of his 11 receptions were for 10 yards or more. Only 3 of his receptions went for fewer than the 7 yards that was Stallworth's shortest gain.

Click to expand...

What is hard to understand about this Welker caught 5 bubble screens for 8,9,-2,3,5 which avgs. 4.6 per bubble screen while on Stallworth's only bubble screen he gained 18 yards on 3rd & 18 no less. I am not saying he is better player or had a better game all I am saying is on that particular route Stallworth is a better option.

wpdougie2180 said:

What is hard to understand about this Welker caught 5 bubble screens for 8,9,-2,3,5 which avgs. 4.6 per bubble screen while on Stallworth's only bubble screen he gained 18 yards on 3rd & 18 no less. I am not saying he is better player or had a better game all I am saying is on that particular route Stallworth is a better option.

Click to expand...

So you are stating Stallworth is better on a bubble screens based on one catch he caught? So whenever Vrabel catches the ball on offense, he catches a TD. Does that mean McDaniels is wrong to ever use Watson as the receiving TE in the end zone over Vrabel.

Sorry, but you are talking six plays total and only one by Stallworth. That is clearly not enough information to asertain which player is better at a bubble screen. If you had a season long total and each had several dozen catches in that formation to compare, then you might have a case. One catch could mean anything from a different match up to a breakdown in coverage, a missed tackle, etc.

Rob0729 said:

So you are stating Stallworth is better on a bubble screens based on one catch he caught? So whenever Vrabel catches the ball on offense, he catches a TD. Does that mean McDaniels is wrong to ever use Watson as the receiving TE in the end zone over Vrabel.

Sorry, but you are talking six plays total and only one by Stallworth. That is clearly not enough information to asertain which player is better at a bubble screen. If you had a season long total and each had several dozen catches in that formation to compare, then you might have a case. One catch could mean anything from a different match up to a breakdown in coverage, a missed tackle, etc.

Click to expand...

No I'm basing this on a whole season specifically plays against Dallas, Cleveland, Redskins, Giants, Colts, Jacksonville, Buffalo and Ravens. It's not a coincidence they usually called this play on 3rd & long and it usually worked. And your making my point Stallworth only got it called for him once and it gained 18 but Welker got it called for him 5 times and his long was only half of Stallworth's that's not good coaching especially since they couldn't move the ball.

wpdougie2180 said:

No I'm basing this on a whole season specifically plays against Dallas, Cleveland, Redskins, Giants, Colts, Jacksonville, Buffalo and Ravens. It's not a coincidence they usually called this play on 3rd & long and it usually worked. And your making my point Stallworth only got it called for him once and it gained 18 but Welker got it called for him 5 times and his long was only half of Stallworth's that's not good coaching especially since they couldn't move the ball.

Click to expand...

I don't know how I am making your point. Your logic doesn't make sense. Just because Stallworth got 18 yards on one screen doesn't mean he would get a single yard more if they three 20 screens to him. One play is not enough to prove that Stallworth would have been better at the bubble screens in that game. If McDaniels revised his gameplan based on on successful play, then that would be bad coaching.

As for some of the games you state, Stallworth was rather Andre Davis like (get one big catch and then be non-existent the rest of the game). You are definitely making out his contributions to be something they are not.

One Buffalo game he had one catch for 28 yards and another 5 catches for 56.

In the Redskins game, he had 4 catches for 44 yards with 22 yards being the longest in a game we scored 52 points. How exactly did he come up big there? Especially since Gaffney had just as many catches for 5 less yards and his longest was only one yard shorter than his.

The Indy game, the guy was the epidome of what Andre Davis was with us in 2005. He made two catches and one was for a long bomb.

In both Giants games, he had only three catches for 32 and 34 yards respectively. I don't know if you should be touting his prowess for those games even if he got one 18 yard screen pass.

As for calling on him on third and long and usually worked, where's your proof of this. According to Football Outsiders, that isn't the case. I do think it is shocking that an OC would throw to a 3/4 WR on third downs because most OC only throw to those guys on third and long because that is when you usually have three and four WR sets on third and long.

So is McDaniels using bad coaching and not doing a FB draw on third and long. The logic move would be that you put 4 WRs out there and spread out the defense. In a four WR set, Stallworth may be matched up with a dime backer which means he has a mismatch that he doesn't have on first or second down and is able to exploit that mismatch. That may be why he is more successful in situations where the Pats have so many WRs on the field than when it is a two or three WR set. Ever think of that?

You see you inconsistent production from Stallworth and blame McDaniels and I see inconsistant production and blame the player. 9.5 times out of 10 it is the player and not the OC who has the problem especially since McDaniels coaching didn't hurt Moss, Welker, Faulk, or Gaffney.

To me you are proving the guy was inconsistent and like Andre Davis was, was good for one good play a game. I really doubt that if Brady and McDaniels could recreate those one play a game over and over again, they would have. Inconsistent play from a player is almost always the player's fault.

Rob0729 said:

I don't know how I am making your point. Your logic doesn't make sense. Just because Stallworth got 18 yards on one screen doesn't mean he would get a single yard more if they three 20 screens to him. One play is not enough to prove that Stallworth would have been better at the bubble screens in that game. If McDaniels revised his gameplan based on on successful play, then that would be bad coaching.

As for some of the games you state, Stallworth was rather Andre Davis like (get one big catch and then be non-existent the rest of the game). You are definitely making out his contributions to be something they are not.

One Buffalo game he had one catch for 28 yards and another 5 catches for 56.

In the Redskins game, he had 4 catches for 44 yards with 22 yards being the longest in a game we scored 52 points. How exactly did he come up big there? Especially since Gaffney had just as many catches for 5 less yards and his longest was only one yard shorter than his.

The Indy game, the guy was the epidome of what Andre Davis was with us in 2005. He made two catches and one was for a long bomb.

In both Giants games, he had only three catches for 32 and 34 yards respectively. I don't know if you should be touting his prowess for those games even if he got one 18 yard screen pass.

As for calling on him on third and long and usually worked, where's your proof of this. According to Football Outsiders, that isn't the case. I do think it is shocking that an OC would throw to a 3/4 WR on third downs because most OC only throw to those guys on third and long because that is when you usually have three and four WR sets on third and long.

So is McDaniels using bad coaching and not doing a FB draw on third and long. The logic move would be that you put 4 WRs out there and spread out the defense. In a four WR set, Stallworth may be matched up with a dime backer which means he has a mismatch that he doesn't have on first or second down and is able to exploit that mismatch. That may be why he is more successful in situations where the Pats have so many WRs on the field than when it is a two or three WR set. Ever think of that?

You see you inconsistent production from Stallworth and blame McDaniels and I see inconsistant production and blame the player. 9.5 times out of 10 it is the player and not the OC who has the problem especially since McDaniels coaching didn't hurt Moss, Welker, Faulk, or Gaffney.

To me you are proving the guy was inconsistent and like Andre Davis was, was good for one good play a game. I really doubt that if Brady and McDaniels could recreate those one play a game over and over again, they would have. Inconsistent play from a player is almost always the player's fault.

Click to expand...

Notice a trend in each game mentioned that he had one long catch, in each game besides the Colts game those plays came on a bubble screen. Notice the type of play it is in which it involves nothing but catching the ball and running . How can you be inconsistent when literally all you do is stand there and catch the ball nothing else. And no where did I say he came up big all I said is it's a play that worked all year and in the Super Bowl and gave examples with the great success that came with it when they called it(which was once a game)but they called a couple of times a game for Welker to lesser succes every time. So your going to tell me every time you call a play for a guy he gets good yardage your going to only call it once a game and this became very much the case as I said in the Super Bowl. And how can you make the assessment that it would only work once a game when they never tried again especially considering it worked every time they did it even in the Super Bowl.

And since everyone is so stat crazy and won't believe their own eyes

Welker caught 100 catches for 908 yds which is a 9.08 avg on pass ranging from behind the line to up to 10 yards. Stallworth caught 32 catches for 362 yards which is an avg. of 11.3 on passes ranging from behind the line to up 10 yards. All this proves is Stallworth is a better YAC guy which I thought was the whole point of a bubble screen.

Deus Irae said:

No, the difference is that I don't keep my opinion in the face of the evidence, whereas you're not willing to admit you're wrong. This is a waste of time because the evidence against your position is overwhelming and yet you can't even admit the blatantly obvious.

Click to expand...

You're the one who just posted stats showing that there were only two non-Moss receptions of 30 yards or more the entire year.

So you're simultaneously proving that collectively, if one could roll all other receivers in the roster into one (which one of course cannot) it more than equals the role I wanted Stallworth to play on the team.

Yet at the same time you prove 11 out of 13 deep bombs went to Moss - not to Stallworth - and not to a make believe conglomoration of all other receivers.

You're now arguing with yourself!

wpdougie2180 said:

And since everyone is so stat crazy and won't believe their own eyes

Welker caught 100 catches for 908 yds which is a 9.08 avg on pass ranging from behind the line to up to 10 yards. Stallworth caught 32 catches for 362 yards which is an avg. of 11.3 on passes ranging from behind the line to up 10 yards. All this proves is Stallworth is a better YAC guy which I thought was the whole point of a bubble screen.

Click to expand...

Welker caught over 3 times more balls from behind the line and up to 10 yards than Stallworth. That can skew the averages. If both Stallworth and Welker get 30 yards on a pass at the line of scrimmage, it helps Stallworth's average far more because he has less catches. So the difference may not be all the different.

Besides, Welker is a primary WR and Stallworth was a back up. Welker plays primarily from the slot which means he is getting more passes over the middle with less opportunities to get YAC. Stallworth lines up near exclusively on the outside and most of his passes were to the outside which gives him more opportunity to to get YAC.

I think you are still stretching to try to prove that Stallworth deserved the ball more than Welker. You ask any unbiased observer and ask them if you were to have Brady throw a screen pass to and most will say Welker.