Can an Xs and Os guy explain to me why Moss is uniquely important to an offense?

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

This is such a flawed way of thinking though, because football is a team game and the Patriots had a much better team back then. They had a better running game, you could argue the O-line was better, and the defense was league better than this one. Back then, they didn't such a big game breaker like Moss.
This team does.

Welsh

It appears your assessment is at odds with management. These deals signifies that the last thing we need are gamechangers.

Also, it seems like people think that the dynasty defenses never gave up positive yardage much less any points. We remember Willie's clutch play in Indy in 2003. We seem to forget there was a 31-10 lead coupled with a defensive collapse or that the defense gave up 2 late TD's in SB XXXLI or a late game tying touchdown in XXXVIII.

The NFL in 2010 is dictated by three areas

Passing efficiency- QB passer rating

Explosive/big play differential- CHFF has a good rundown on these

Turnovers- part of big plays.

Had week 1/3/4 taken place in 2004, we would be talking about how clutch the defense was. In 2010, it's just about yards.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

First of all, 2007 was a special year, and a special offense. Holding them to those standards is totally unrealistic.

I 100% disagree that Moss isn't a precise route runner. He gets in the right place. In an ideal world, I think Moss would still be on the team, but as they said, it's business. This offense is not better for having Branch than Moss. Now, in 2 years time with Tate having more targets, the TEs and Taylor Price, they will benefit from it.

Moss is not a precise route runner...... He never has been. There is NO SUCH THING as a precise 50+ yard route. He thrives in a world that depends on a QB that can heave the ball way downfield. His unique skill was that he could identify the trajectory of a thrown ball and then alter his route to put himself in a position to catch it. He killed defenses by catching bomb, not running long routes. Look at his career....... He excelled when he had a QB that had a strong arm (Culpepper and Brady), but when he was in a system without one (Oakland), he wasn't nearly as effective.

As for ideal "world", that is crap........ You put people on the team that will fill a role. Remember, it was BB that pulled the trigger on Moss, and he has a wee bit more "football" smarts then you and I. He did so for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that Moss's particular skills are, in the short run, expendable. Judging by the fact that he "replaced" him with guy that has 100% different skill set at receiver, should be telling. Hell, we could have probably got Steve Smith for a 4th and bag of footballs, but we didn''t and there is probably a very specific reason we didn't.

Will the 2011 offense make as pretty a highlight package as the 2007 one, absolutely not. It doesn't have to. It has to be effective. So far this season, the Pats are top of the league in PPG and Moss was 4th in total receptions so far (averaging barely 2 catches a game), behind WW, our #2 WR (tate) and a friggen TE. His roll was becoming more limited based on the offensive direction we are going.

It's not a matter of better, or worse...... It's a matter of effective and I think that with the current offensive personnel we have offensively, we have every opportunity to still be VERY effective this year. There is really only ONE non-interchangable part of this offense, and that is BRADY. Everyone else is just a piece of the puzzle, including Moss. The puzzle may look a little different at the end of the day, but this offense will not "cease to function" without the Moss-man. Just like the O-line has not got Brady killed without Mankins.


Branch was selected

 

[rainmaker]

The problem with Moss is that coaches are supposed to call the plays, but Moss would prefer to simply just run the deep route cause that's what's best from a "business standpoint" to lengthen his career. When he was a Viking the 1st time, that made sense because he beat doubles consistently and made plays on terribly thrown balls. In 2007, he could still beat double teams occassionally and burns single coverage. Now, he's "lost a step" and is being covered single coverage by Revis, Cromartie, Davis and losing to them most of the time. Look how tight Cromarties was on him. Occassionally, he burns them deep because he runs it 40 times a game and needs a well thrown ball - Brady and Favre passes were perfect. So if one player always runs deep, gets single covered, that allows the defense to double the underneath guys on 1st and 2nd down and turn to Moss on 3rd when its more worth the risk to bomb it and giving up an int occassionally. Coaches get frustrated because it limits play design and other teams quickly realize he isn't the Moss of old any more and don't need to double him if they have a decent corner with adequate speed to keep up with his deep routes. And if you don't throw to him a few times a game deep, he runs lazy routes because he isn't happy to he simply is too tired from running deep 40 times a game.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

At one time (as recently as 2007) Moss had the ability to get open and catch a TD from an accurate QB even when double covered.

Today, a single CB such as Cromartie or Allen with minimal help from a safety can cover Moss.

It is not completely possible to tell how much of this decline is the natural process of aging and injuries and how much is a lack of effort.

So while it is accurate to say Moss was the second greatest WR to ever play the game. He is no longer the dominant player he once was.

 

[STUB STUB]

Yes, I get it. But my question is, do you know that NFL teams only double cover Moss this frequently, or are you basing this off of perception? And don't take this the wrong way, as I'm really just asking for my own knowledge. I mean, Calvin Johnson is single covered? Don't coaches get fired for doing this?

Finally, do you think that part of the reason Moss is double covered every play is because he runs a deep route into the secondary? I mean, would safeties double him if he ran a four yard out and cutback? With guys like M Austin or D Jackson, it seems like they are doubled once they break through into the open field and are going deep. Since Moss does that every play, wouldn't it reason that he is constantly doubled? And finally, even if Moss does open up the rest of the receivers routes, doesn't he also lower his own percentages of completion due to a long, deep post into double coverage? Take a guy like Reggie Wayne, who is more of a timing, route runner with speed to breakout... who do you think is more valuable overall?

Right, all good points. But in his prime, Moss could beat a single coverage (corner) at a higher rate than anyone on deep patterns, so it stands to reason that coaches would be less likely to take the risk of moving the safety down. And yes, this is perception. Double coverage and safety help are different, btw; I think you should look up how zone and man coverages work: Football coverage shells - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jays52]

It's hard to lump receivers into rigid categories. There are some guys that contribute in the long game, some guys that contribute in the short game, some guys who can do both, some guys who use hand technique to create seperation, some guys that use quickness and footwork to create seperation, some guys that play the body positioning game, some guys that are great accelerators, some guys that are striders, some guys that use stregth, some guys that use agility. Obviously, this makes things a little more difficult to create a real designation such as "burner".

I see Moss as a guy who is a body positioning guy with exceptional long range speed and ball skills. He currently isn't very agile, nor is he particularly explosive. His height creates a disadvantage for him in the short game. He's never been a particularly quick guy, so that hurts him in the midrange game. What he does well, when his is capable of doing it, is making plays in the deep game and catching balls that are contested. He has a really good feel for coverages and understands the vulnerable areas in each shell. Cover-2, for example is really vulnerable along the numbers and that's what Moss gives an offense. He is also quite good in the endzone with the bodypositioning game with stuff like fades and slants. He is very good at setting corners up, and when he catches a ball in stride he is going to win any race to the pylon against a safety. He's not going to make someone miss, but he is an angle beater which is hard to find.

Ok, so what does this mean to the defense? It means that he must be accounted for on every play, and mandates that his upper quarter of the field is defended. It makes it difficult to bring a safety into the box on his side, and it makes it difficult for a safety to matchup on a tightend. The number one rule for any DB on any level is "don't get beat deep". Moss makes this a very real possibility on any play, and subsequently exposes other areas of the field. He also is going to catch a ball that is deemed uncatchable almost every game. That is probably what really seperates him from the other receivers more than anything. Sure, everyone in the league is capable of making a circus catch, but Moss is probably the best ever on catching stuff that no one should.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Well you see, when X goes up and has two Os, that leaves less Os to cover the rest of the Xs so that the other X can throw the ball to an X that doesn't have an O by it.
And yes, I have tons of football experience as you can tell by my specific football type "X and O" talk. Hope it helped!

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Well you see, when X goes up and has two Os, that leaves less Os to cover the rest of the Xs so that the other X can throw the ball to an X that doesn't have an O by it.
And yes, I have tons of football experience as you can tell by my specific football type "X and O" talk. Hope it helped!

Yeah... we can tell you have tons of football experience.

You have the O's and X's backwards. O for offense. X for defense.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I think I understand the Xs and Os a little better now, and I think a lot of people are hitting on what I was thinking. As several people pointed out, if you can draw a double team and still put up production, that makes you a singular unique talent that basically can't be replaced. However, drawing a double team and opening up the underneath routes in itself is really nothing that special. In addition, almost every elite NFL receiver deals with double coverage on deep routes.

So, Randy Moss putting up good but not spectacular numbers last year, and below average numbers this year, suggests that his contribution to the offense is probably overdone by the media because of Wes Welker's superhuman production and Welker's mediocre numbers before he came to New England. It's obvious that the Patriots will miss Moss, but every team who loses a good player (capable of drawing double teams) will need to make adjustments and naturally other players will step up. Clearly no other receivers on the team have Moss' talent right now, but perhaps the degree of difference is blown out of proportion. What is Moss' value when doesn't catch a lot passes and gain a lot yardage? The media suggests is still very high as a decoy; I, and apparently several other articulate posters, believe this notion is overblown and can be applied to anyone.

I think everyone is over analyzing Belichick's decision on why Moss was not coming back to begin with. My belief is that BB simply looked at Moss' production- not theoretical value that many pundits believe Moss brings in opening up the field- but his actual production, and sees a steep decline from 2007 to 2008 to 2009 to 2010, while Moss' age suggests a sharp decline. How many guys in the league can put up 1200 yards and 10 TDs? Many. And many who are not potential distractions, and many who can also run better situational routes. There is a huge difference between 1600 yards and 23 TDs (2007) and Moss' likely output this year, closer to 1000 yards and 8-10 TDs, with a much lower completion percentage.

This reminds of the Cowboys releasing TO a couple of years ago, although that was prior to the season. TO was beginning a slow, gradual decline from a top-3 dominating receiver to a good, but replaceable receiver who was no longer worth the risk and chemistry problems. The Cowboys, by the way, now have a better and more balanced passing game (the problem is their o-line), primarily utilizing Miles Austin and Dez Bryant, two players who will be there for a long time.

 

[WhiteWesWelker88]

I am a common sense guy and Moss now is not uniquely important to this offense

 

[PowerRunRevival]

I have seen many places the argument that Moss dictates coverages, by forcing to have a safety over the top to protect against the deep ball.

However, having a safety over the top would be useless if he was to run a slant. I think that part of the reason he dictates coverage, is because he runs 9 and 7 routes almost exclusively. The optimistic in me thinks that although Moss is in my opinion the best in the league at deep routes having a receiver who will run all the routes on the tree will confuse the defense more.

Last year Ray Lewis said he knew on most plays where Brady was looking to go with the ball. I attribute this to Moss consistently running deep routes. Faulk ran swing routes and Edelman ran slants. Now even our one of our tight ends can run every route on the tree. I expect to see some pretty inventive formations and route combinations on Sunday.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Yeah... we can tell you have tons of football experience.

You have the O's and X's backwards. O for offense. X for defense.

Suuuure buddy, maybe in Canada or whatever other European Island you are from. Next you are going to tell me that three in a row isn't a field goal.
Three = Three points? Get it? Geez.