An offensive case study: 2003 AFC Championship

[BradyManny]

This is a pass-first league and a pass-first offense. We do without the fullback and the blocking tight end because they are liabilities in the passing game and can be superseded by Faulk and Watson.

We want to run a zone-blocking scheme because it promises guaranteed yards but we don't have the blocking tight ends to collapse the corner or the fullback to lead on inside zone and erase the penetration on an outside stretch. So the running back has to step around a lunging body in the backfield or else backside pursuit runs faster than the offensive line can push through the box.

Our offensive line is actually pretty good all things considered so half the time we get holes created where a defensive lineman gets ridden out of the play. The other half of the time the running back looks like he's trying to run around a moving wall. So we get a running game that swings between 10 yard gains and 1 yard gains almost at random.

That's my general take on it.

Interesting take, as usual.

Seems to me both Baker & Watson should be good enough blockers, and maybe the Matthews guy from NYG is as well.

As for the spread - it's hard to argue w the success of the 2007 offense, I'm just not sure its the best offense to beat a Rex Ryan type defense. In theory, sure, spread the field and you can create 1 on 1 matchups. But if the team has good corners, like the Jets, and those corners are allowed to get away w/ a lot (thanks, refs) then you're in trouble.

I'd be interested to see how a 2-wide 2 TE 1 RB no huddle would fare. It might force the opposing D to keep its base D on there, but you can split out 5 pass-catching targets [not using the word "wide" here to avoid confusion] if you wanted and get some really favorable matchups, b/c our TEs and RBs all can catch the ball. Or you can just run w the two TEs on the line. Or, leave 1 TE (Baker) on the line and split Watson out and have the threat to do both. It'd also set up play action, which Brady seems to be lethal in, and we used to do a lot more of it seems.

Once upon a time we took TEs in the 1st round b/c it can be one of the most valuable and versatile positions on the field. I think both Watson and Baker are multi-purpose TEs.

 

[unoriginal]

Seems to me both Baker & Watson should be good enough blockers, and maybe the Matthews guy from NYG is as well.

Half the time they use Watson he's standing up in the slot or on the wing of the offense. Neither is a strong blocking position: from the slot blocking out means blocking in space, blocking in leaves a flanking defender you'd have to lead on and the Pats don't have a fullback; from the wing gives him an extra two steps to engage in the box. And he's not the best inline blocker regardless.

As for the spread - it's hard to argue w the success of the 2007 offense, I'm just not sure its the best offense to beat a Rex Ryan type defense. In theory, sure, spread the field and you can create 1 on 1 matchups. But if the team has good corners, like the Jets, and those corners are allowed to get away w/ a lot (thanks, refs) then you're in trouble.

Ryan's defense is great against the Pats because he uses zone blitzes and the range of his excellent FS's (Ed Reed, Kerry Rhodes) to give his defense a manpower advantage in the short zones. Anything in the deep zones he relies on his pass rush and the ball-hawking safeties to make the offense pay on a significant percentage of those plays.

Typically what the Colts have done is use personnel that are adept at running option routes in the middle of the field. From a balanced offensive set that gives them a hot read on both sides of the defense and constrains the Ravens' ability to zone blitz, and the option quality keeps multiple linebackers occupied and the safety in the middle of the field, so they can't slide under or jump outside routes.

See: Cowboys vs. Ravens with Jason Witten.
Also see: that hot read we threw to Jabar Gaffney to pick up the last first down against the Ravens in 2007. He was on the side of the zone blitz and hence uncovered.

I'd be interested to see how a 2-wide 2 TE 1 RB no huddle would fare. It might force the opposing D to keep its base D on there, but you can split out 5 pass-catching targets [not using the word "wide" here to avoid confusion] if you wanted and get some really favorable matchups, b/c our TEs and RBs all can catch the ball. Or you can just run w the two TEs on the line. Or, leave 1 TE (Baker) on the line and split Watson out and have the threat to do both. It'd also set up play action, which Brady seems to be lethal in, and we used to do a lot more of it seems.

Once upon a time we took TEs in the 1st round b/c it can be one of the most valuable and versatile positions on the field. I think both Watson and Baker are multi-purpose TEs.

I'd be interested too. I can't recall Watson running an option route though, they usually use Moss for that deep and Welker short. Watson always seems to be running full pelt when he's thrown to.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Interesting you diminish the Pats 03 offense. The Jets only had 1 TD, yet they beat the vaunted Patriots last week. There are always excuses to go around.

Would you rather have a physical talented D and a wily offense, or an explosive offense and serviceable D?

In this day and age, I'd probably pick the explosive offense and serviceable defense. If you could still beat up on receivers, than I'd be fine with a dominant Defense, but that isn't the case anymore.

Really, though, the problem is that Belichick might not have really had a choice. It's a matter of what is available. It is very possible that Belichick realized it would be easier and more cost-effective to put together an explosive offense (since you only need to add parts around Brady) and a good defense (with great upside) than it would to go for a dominant defense.

Again, though, with Brady playing with this "new" team, we are 19-2. Consider that Brady played 2 of those games after coming back from a year-long knee injury, you really don't get any better than that.

 

[skinnydog]

2 WR / 2 TE / 0 FB / 1 RB - 18 / 65 = 28%
3 WR / 1 TE / 0 FB / 1 RB - 16 / 65 = 25%
2 WR / 1 TE / 1 FB / 1 RB - 14 / 65 = 22%
1 WR / 2 TE / 1 FB / 1 RB - 8 / 65 = 13%
5 WR / 0 TE / 0 FB / 0 RB - 7 / 65 = 11%
0 WR / 3 TE / 1 FB / 1 RB - 2 / 65 = 3%

Shotgun # - 11 / 65 = 17%
Play Action # - 11 / 37 = 30%
Draws # - 6 / 30 = 20%
Screens # - none

What jumps out to me is that only 17% of the plays were run out of the shotgun. Now it seems like the opposite. With Brady under center, the defense has to at least consider the run and other than on obvious passing downs the defense probably takes a half second or so to decide what the play is and fully commit to it. Add in play action and Brady can probably hold the defense for a full second if he starts out under center. In the shotgun so much I think the defense plays pass from the snap. The only thing the front seven are thinking about before the snap is what kind of blitz to stunting pass rush to run. At the snap they are after Brady.

Frankly the lone back standing next to Brady does nothing to keep the defense honest. No defense thinks Faulk is going to put up a 100 yard rushing game out of that formation.

Being one dimensional doesn't just mean the Pats pass a lot, but also that passing out of the shotgun so much means the other teams defense always know from the snap of the ball or before what is coming.

 

[maverick4]

What jumps out to me is that only 17% of the plays were run out of the shotgun. Now it seems like the opposite. With Brady under center, the defense has to at least consider the run and other than on obvious passing downs the defense probably takes a half second or so to decide what the play is and fully commit to it. Add in play action and Brady can probably hold the defense for a full second if he starts out under center. In the shotgun so much I think the defense plays pass from the snap. The only thing the front seven are thinking about before the snap is what kind of blitz to stunting pass rush to run. At the snap they are after Brady.

Frankly the lone back standing next to Brady does nothing to keep the defense honest. No defense thinks Faulk is going to put up a 100 yard rushing game out of that formation.

Being one dimensional doesn't just mean the Pats pass a lot, but also that passing out of the shotgun so much means the other teams defense always know from the snap of the ball or before what is coming.

Great post.

Your common sense is going to fly over the heads of many stat-whores here who are in love with the predictable, pass happy, shot gun offense.

Any failures on the offense due to the defense anticipating (and playing better against) our plays, will be blamed by these types due to 'poor execution'.

 

[duff5678]

i don't think people understand how difficult it is for an o line to pass block 50 plays a game. this is not the 07 offense, these first 2 games are frighteningly similar to the super bowl loss. the play callings arrogance isn't being backed up by the execution. if this continues, i think they must consider going back to more of an 03 look.

 

[skinnydog]

There's nothing wrong with the shotgun, it's just that using it all the time, makes it too easy for the defense to figure out what is coming. Fred Taylor and at times Marony have actually looked pretty good. Either as a lone back behind Brady under center is a look I'd like to see more of this Sunday.