Excellent proposal: reduce the complexity of the offense

[pherein]

The Patriots lost largely because the defense couldn't stop the Giants and change field position, and because Welker, Branch and Hernandez had critical drops. Just as with the Saints, it wasn't about the run game, although both teams would obviously have been thrilled with more from it.

TommyBrady12 was pointing to rushing yards for the Patriots in their Super Bowls as if they meant something, yet the Giants lost the rushing yards battle in half of their playoff games this season and in one of their 4 wins in 2007, and have come away with 2 Super Bowl victories on the strength of their defensive line and big plays in the passing game.

As much as I respect you opinion. I just don't subscribe to this point of view.
The post going into the playoffs on this site and others was our strength at passing and run game.
Your right about how you lost. I think. TB made the passes, they were not caught. We didn't drop passes thou.
Maybe you didn't see the 1st quarter or drive when we ran down their throats. The 49ers could not stop us, then guys fell. Its the difference between dictating and hoping. If you can run you own that team, if you can only pass you hope it happens correctly , if you can do both now you have something.
You need a run game or you can't threaten any defense , their front 4 will just blitz all day. You lost to the Giants because you didn't have one, so they could treat you as 1 dimensional. I mean really why would they care if you ran a run play? its not going to succeed . So, pass defense and triple cover forget the run Pats can't do it. You made yourself very easy to call plays on defense

 

[Deus Irae]

quite a running game the Giants unleashed throwing into double coverage on that key completion late in the 4th quarter...what WAS the Giants final ypc figure?? They rushed for 20 more yards on 9 more attempts than the Patriots and had a 4.1 ypc to the Pats 4.5...

again...you PASS to win these days

The Giants were dead last in the NFL in rushing yards last year, yet they won the Super Bowl. Somehow that magically means that "This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game.", even though Welker holding on to that pass almost guarantees a Patriots win.

:bricks:

 

[Deus Irae]

As much as I respect you opinion. I just don't subscribe to this point of view.
The post going into the playoffs on this site and others was our strength at passing and run game.
Your right about how you lost. I think. TB made the passes, they were not caught. WE didn't drop passes thou.
Maybe you didn't see the 1st quarter or drive when we ran down there throats. The 49ers could not stop us, then guys fell. Its the difference between dictating and hoping. If you can run you own that team, if you can only pass you hope it happens correctly , if you can do both now you have something.
You need a run game or you can't threaten any defense , their front 4 will just blitz all day. You lost to the Giants because you didn't have one, so they could treat you as 1 dimensional. I mean really why would they care if you ran a run play? its not going to succeed . So, pass defense and triple cover forget the run Pats can't do it.

No offense here, but your own posts helped my case. The lack of a running game by the previous 2 SB winners helps my case. The Giants winning the Super Bowl with the #32 ranked running game in the NFL helps my case.

The Patriots lost the Super Bowl for the reasons I, and others, had been talking about all year long with that team. The inability to threaten the middle-deep portion of the field allowed defenses to get up short and tight on the Patriots offense (as an aside, that makes it more difficult for a running game to be effective). The inability to stop opposing quarterbacks allowed opposing teams to put up more points against the 2011 Patriots than had been put up against any other BB coached Patriots team except the 2002 squad. Both of those weaknesses were on display in the Super Bowl.

It would be great if the Patriots had an offense that could score at will with either the running game or the passing game. 32 teams in the NFL feel that same way. 32 teams in the NFL don't have that kind of offense, and that includes your Saints, whose running game is remarkably consistent and potent at home on the rug, and remarkably inconsistent on the road.

The Saints ran for over 100 yards in every home game. They were under 100 yards in 5 of 9 games on the road, and were held under 60 yards in 3 of those 5 games. All 4 of the Saints losses came when they were held to under 100 yards rushing. So, was the problem with the Saints that they needed a stronger running game? No, according to your own, earlier, argument:

PT was knocked out that game , you know that. They were not stoping him until the hit. WE lost because of defense, no one put 32pts on them except us. Our offense shredded the top defense in the the nfl and the defense couldn't stop one of the worst offenses in the playoffs, like last year, pretty simple.
You saw the giants game, it was turnovers . Heck, we had 6 turnovers vs them and they still almost lost. Has nothing to do with run game.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

you guys aren't getting it. My argument has to do with THIS team and what it has to do to win. Not the 49ers, not the packers, etc. Giants may be didn't rush the ball great in other playoff games, but they had a defense to take heat off eli if he wasn't playing well, and most importantly, eli wasn't playing fraidy cat.

What are the patriots' options to win in the playoffs if tom doesn't play well like against the jets in 2010, ravens in 2009, or giants 2011? Hint: he doesn't have a defense. Fixing the running game would be the easier thing to do as it may take some time to build the defense.

Without tom, the passing game suffers, and without that the team is done. I like brandon lloyd, but how is he going to help if tom can't throw the ball because of a ferocious pass rush? Even with a healthy gronk the offense struggled against the ravens and giants earlier this year.

 

[Rob0729]

you guys aren't getting it. My argument has to do with THIS team and what it has to do to win. Not the 49ers, not the packers, etc. Giants may be didn't rush the ball great in other playoff games, but they had a defense to take heat off eli if he wasn't playing well, and most importantly, eli wasn't playing fraidy cat.

What are the patriots' options to win in the playoffs if tom doesn't play well like against the jets in 2010, ravens in 2009, or giants 2011? Hint: he doesn't have a defense. Fixing the running game would be the easier thing to do as it may take some time to build the defense.

Without tom, the passing game suffers, and without that the team is done. I like brandon lloyd, but how is he going to help if tom can't throw the ball because of a ferocious pass rush? Even with a healthy gronk the offense struggled against the ravens and giants earlier this year.

Among THIS TEAM's priorities, RB is relatively low. Last year's teams needed the following things far more than a strong running game to have won the Super Bowl last year:
- A secondary that didn't collapse on the final drive
- A healthy Gronk
- An outside receiver threat
- A consistent pass rush

You don't want to talk about other teams, but you bring up the Super Bowl season Patriots to show proof the Pats need a strong running game that are no more relevant to the current Patriots. Those teams were constituted very differently than the current Patriots and the league is different. In the Super Bowl years (other than 2004), the Pats were constituted as a team that leaned on its defense and asked the offense to not make mistakes. Today, the Pats are the exact opposite and lean on the offense and ask the defense to bend, but not break.

 

[Rob0729]

in response to the above, i'm not saying the pats have to have a 1500 yard rusher to win another super bowl. but clearly it has to be STRONGER (the word i used in my original post) than it is now. Low YPC in the super bowl by NY fails to account for what the giants did - kill clock. the giants dominated the time of possession. killing more clock means tom has less time to do anything. and conversely, if the patriots were able to dominate time of possession, eli would have had less time to do his magic acts.

and yes welker dropped that pass, tyree/manningham made that amazing catch, blah blah blah, but how is that going to help next year? are you seriously going to argue that the patriots only need to tinker here and there because of one miracle play in the SB and are good as golden for next year? bottom line is the team got lucky to be in the SB after that AFCCG showing and a defense that struggled all year. there is no guarantee they will be back. after SB 42 it took 4 years to get back to the super bowl. in another 4 years brady will be 39.

some of you may not see the urgency in getting a strong running game. brady will be 35 at the start of next season. QB skills diminish quite a bit after 36. elway won two super bowls late in his career, but he did so because of terrell davis. the time is now for ridley to step up and take some of the heat off tom.

What Super Bowl were you watching. The Patriots were in the lead for most of the second half. The Pats scored 17 unanswered points vs. the Giants and held the lead fron after their first drive in the second half until the Giants' last drive. What team tries to kills clock from behind?

The reason why the Giants dominated time of the possession was because because of Brady's safety, the Giants had the ball for most of the first quarter.

What does a team that won back to back Super Bowls in the late 90s have to do with the Pats' today. In the late 90s, running games were far more important than they are today because of the NFL rules. In the late 90s, there were not the rules that protected the QB, rules that hindered the defenders from hitting receivers catching over the middle, or an emphasis on the 5 yard chuck rule. If today's NFL was the same as it was in 1998, you would have a point. It isn't. The running game is slowly dying. The FB position (despite the Pats acquiring two) is a dying position.

I'm all for the Pats upgrading the running game. I totally disagree it is THE REASON the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since the 2004 season. I think it is a relatively minor reason. Far more of the responsibility for the lack of more rings fall on the other side of the ball. Again, three out of the last four Super Bowl winners won the game without even rushing 60 yards. That is proof positive that having a strong running game isn't as necessary as you make it.

The Pats have tried to help the running game this offseason. Yes, they let BJGE get away (personally despite his 2010, I think is more of a JAG than a stud), but they added Tony Fiammetta who many believe was the reason why DeMarco Murray was successful since Murray's production dropped significantly when Fiammetta inactive and it returned when Fiammetta returned from his health issues. Fiammetta could potentially allow either Ridley or Vereen to explode this season.

 

[Rob0729]

Common Rob,, there isn't a single QB in the NFL that won't tell you they don't need a good run game, why ?
I hope your not telling me the Patriots don't need Forte or some relief for Brady. I mean Bradys amazing but he's not perfect, and when you rely on him to be so, and he has a bad game, your going to lose.
Its best to supply him with enough weapons so when he has a bad day, others can compensate. Having a bad running game helps no one in NE. Its an excuse. He needs better to help, and thats very proven. You can't be 1 dimensional or defense plan for it.
You ready don't think sproles or PT would have given you an edge in the SB?

I don't expect you to agree with me, we didn't make the SB, but contemplate it. The Pats with our back field. And you where brilliant to want Forte, who wouldn't, but with sproles or PT you would have won that SB.

Again, running games are becoming less and less important. Sure a team would like to have a strong running game, but it isn't as necessary as it once was. The Pats got to a Super Bowl without one. The year before the Packers won the Super Bowl with the league's 24th ranked running game.

Again, Forte and Sproles are not a good argument for your cause. The reason why both are dangerous are their ALL PURPOSE yards, not just their rushing yards. Sproles is a change of pace RB. What made him so dangerous was that he was a multiple threat. Defenses didn't know if he was going to run the ball or catch a pass in the flat when he was in the game. If he couldn't catch the ball, he would be a JAG. This has nothing to do with a strong running game, it was because Sproles made the Saints' offense more complicated because no one knew if he was a receiver or runner every play. The Pats have had success to a lesser extent with Danny Woodhead doing the same thing.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

What Super Bowl were you watching.
I'm all for the Pats upgrading the running game. I totally disagree it is THE REASON the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since the 2004 season. I think it is a relatively minor reason. Far more of the responsibility for the lack of more rings fall on the other side of the ball. Again, three out of the last four Super Bowl winners won the game without even rushing 60 yards. That is proof positive that having a strong running game isn't as necessary as you make it.

The Pats have tried to help the running game this offseason. Yes, they let BJGE get away (personally despite his 2010, I think is more of a JAG than a stud), but they added Tony Fiammetta who many believe was the reason why DeMarco Murray was successful since Murray's production dropped significantly when Fiammetta inactive and it returned when Fiammetta returned from his health issues. Fiammetta could potentially allow either Ridley or Vereen to explode this season.

i see what you're saying, but i don't see the pats winning if brady continues to go into Fraidy Cat mode as he does against the top pass rushing teams. of all the top quarterbacks, brady seems to panic the most against those types of teams. all i'm saying is that i think he needs someone else on offense to help shoulder the load. if brady struggles there is NO ONE on the offense to pick up the slack. as brady goes the team goes. if he has one off day in the playoffs the team goes packing.

as far as fiammetta is concerned, let's hope for the best. im not saying the patriots running next year is automatically going be average, but ridley has to step up big in my opinion if the team is going to go anywhere. his development (and vareen) to me is more important than the addition of brandon lloyd.

you can blame the defense all you want, but i saw a defense in the super bowl that held a very powerful giants team to only 19 points. for the worst defense in the league, this is a spectacular improvement. they lost because the offense couldn't make the clutch plays either in super bowl 42 or 46.

 

[Patspsycho]

This thread has gotten way off track; It's not about why we lost the superbowl It's not about Ocho. It's not about the running game. Its not about how successful the Pats offense has been. This is all about a question that has been discussed at every coaches clinic I went to for well over a decade....and the decades before I became a coach and the decades since I left the profession. It's about the question of the benefits of complexity of scheme vs the benefits of better execution due to simplicity. I've seen arguments that have almost come to blows in coaches rooms over this little question.

There is no right or wrong answer here. Otherwise, some where along the last 100 years, a definitive answer would have emerged. That is what makes it such an interesting discussion. Its and issue that has comes up time and time again at ALL levels of the sport.

Tony Dungy built his long and successful career on the way he ran his "Tampa 2". One of the key elements of his defensive philosophy was NOT moving his DBs all around the field in order to confuse his opponent. He believed if his players were aligned in the same position all the time, they would react better and better to what they were seeing, both over the course of an entire season, AND, within the game itself.

Then you get **** Lebeau's zone blitzing schemes. The key to the success of this strategy isn't so much about how complex it looks to the offense, but how SIMPLE he has made it for his defensive people to learn and operate, so that operating it from a comfort level, and can react rather than think.

One of the great under reported skills of a great football coach is SEMANTICS. The ability to create a virtual language that imparts a great deal of knowledge in the minimum amount of verbiage. The teaching skill of taking something very complex and breaking down to what appears to be simple to the person who has to execute the skill. AND he has to be able to do it so it works to the lowest common denominator of the team. Coaching isn't easy, especially in football, where scheme plays such a critical part on both sides of the ball.

That's the beauty of football. There is NO one way to do it successfully. And that is why this thread, when its on point, is so fascinating. Its the holy grail. Trying to find just the right mixture of scheme and execution for your team. I guarantee you its a constant point of discussion in the Patriots coaching rooms.

Precisely what I was trying to get at!

 

[Rob0729]

i see what you're saying, but i don't see the pats winning if brady continues to go into Fraidy Cat mode as he does against the top pass rushing teams. of all the top quarterbacks, brady seems to panic the most against those types of teams. all i'm saying is that i think he needs someone else on offense to help shoulder the load. if brady struggles there is NO ONE on the offense to pick up the slack. as brady goes the team goes. if he has one off day in the playoffs the team goes packing.

as far as fiammetta is concerned, let's hope for the best. im not saying the patriots running next year is automatically going be average, but ridley has to step up big in my opinion if the team is going to go anywhere. his development (and vareen) to me is more important than the addition of brandon lloyd.

you can blame the defense all you want, but i saw a defense in the super bowl that held a very powerful giants team to only 19 points. for the worst defense in the league, this is a spectacular improvement. they lost because the offense couldn't make the clutch plays either in super bowl 42 or 46.

There are other reasons why Brady was in "Fraidy Cat" mode including Gronk being able to walk and Mankins playing with a torn ACL. I think the problem in the Super Bowl had more to do with the Pats over relying on three receivers (Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez) and when one of them was far less than 100%, it allowed opposing defenses to take away the other two.

Besides, Brady did go on a strong run in the Super Bowl from the second to midway through the third quarter (he went 16 for 16 passing), but was thrown off his rhythm when he reinjured his shoulder.

Again, I don't disagree that the Pats could use a better running game. I dispute that it is THE REASON why the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since the 2004 season. I think it is a relatively small reason. It was a factor, but clearly not THE FACTOR.

 

[Patspsycho]

Maybe at the beginning, but not at the end. And, in case you missed it, there were adjustments being made by ALL the WRs. People telling eachother to move and such.. But, like so many, you'd just rather make BS claims that have no real hard evidence than admit to the idea that Brady may just have not been paying attention to Chad.

BS claims? Really? I have the games on my drive and I can rewatch them anytime and even right up to the last regular season game, Chad was making mistakes.

Hopefully his first full off-season with the Pats will help, but this year was a complete throwaway.

 

[PatsDeb]

Shouldn't this thread be merged with the April Fool's thread?

 

[PatsFan37]

This thread has gotten way off track; It's not about why we lost the superbowl It's not about Ocho. It's not about the running game. Its not about how successful the Pats offense has been.
...
It's about the question of the benefits of complexity of scheme vs the benefits of better execution due to simplicity.

Thank you, PFK! And now, to your point and Psycho's original point. Right or wrong, there's a good discussion to be had about passing scheme complexity.

I have one thought to add. When a receiver does not have an option route that depends on the leverage and positioning of the DBs, then the defense has no idea where the receiver will run. The DB can try to follow, but the receiver will always be one step ahead unless the DB gambles.

When a receiver has an option route and the DB has watched enough film, he can fake leverages to force the receiver to react in a way the DB anticipates. "If I fake outside leverage, he'll adjust his route inside. But I'm not really going outside, I'm going to stay inside step for step."

Does that happen? I don't know, I'm a couch potato, so that's really a question for guys like PFK.

So here's the question:
Does an option route package give the top DBs a means of guessing or controlling the movements of receivers by faking leverage? Does a simpler package without options take away that element and force the DBs to focus only their keys and always be a step behind or to gamble?

 

[Patspsycho]

So here's the question:
Does an option route package give the top DBs a means of guessing or controlling the movements of receivers by faking leverage? Does a simpler package without options take away that element and force the DBs to focus only their keys and always be a step behind or to gamble?

The key isn't really what systems you have, because any offense will work if executed perfectly, it's the human flaws that show through, and while a simpler package might reduce the amount of guessing, it's still the execution that counts, so what you look for on film is tell, tendencies, etc., that will betray what will come next.

 

[Deus Irae]

you guys aren't getting it. My argument has to do with THIS team and what it has to do to win. Not the 49ers, not the packers, etc. Giants may be didn't rush the ball great in other playoff games, but they had a defense to take heat off eli if he wasn't playing well, and most importantly, eli wasn't playing fraidy cat.

What are the patriots' options to win in the playoffs if tom doesn't play well like against the jets in 2010, ravens in 2009, or giants 2011? Hint: he doesn't have a defense. Fixing the running game would be the easier thing to do as it may take some time to build the defense.

Without tom, the passing game suffers, and without that the team is done. I like brandon lloyd, but how is he going to help if tom can't throw the ball because of a ferocious pass rush? Even with a healthy gronk the offense struggled against the ravens and giants earlier this year.

Let's go back to where you started:

This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.

Now, it's possible that the team won't win another Super Bowl in the Brady era, but it's been to two of them since the end of the Dillon era, and it was in position win both of them with a defensive stop and/or a play by a wide receiver. Meanwhile, teams who've had nothing for running numbers in the Super Bowl have won it.

I get it just fine. It's just that your argument sucked, and now, apparently, you're changing it.

 

[DaBruinz]

BS claims? Really? I have the games on my drive and I can rewatch them anytime and even right up to the last regular season game, Chad was making mistakes.

Hopefully his first full off-season with the Pats will help, but this year was a complete throwaway.

How do you KNOW that Chad was making mistakes? Were you in the huddle so you know what calls were being made and what routes he was supposed to run? Or are they just your unsupported opinion that he was making mistakes? My guess is that it's the LATTER..

 

[DaBruinz]

Are you seriously trying to say 85 was doing a great job and Brady doesn't know how to find an open receiver?
This is bizarre, even for you.

Maybe you should just not respond if you are going to make asinine comments..

 

[DaBruinz]

This team will not win another super bowl without a stronger running game. They have failed to win a title ever since corey dillon left. Coincidence? Not really. heck with ground and pound even the jets have been to more afc title games in the last several years.

Sorry, but I have to call BS here.

First, The Jets have NOT been to more AFC Title games than the Patriots in the "last several years". They've been to the same amount. TWO.

The Pats had a pretty good running game and didn't use it effectively in the play-offs. That's what you seem to be missing. Not to mention that injuries to Mankins and Gronkowski (arguably the two best run-blockers on the team) definitely took their toll.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maybe you should just not respond if you are going to make asinine comments..

OK...the do as I say not as I do retort...

 

[Patspsycho]

How do you KNOW that Chad was making mistakes? Were you in the huddle so you know what calls were being made and what routes he was supposed to run? Or are they just your unsupported opinion that he was making mistakes? My guess is that it's the LATTER..

I think even you can tell when he lines up in the wrong spot or ran the wrong route or fails to adjust to the coverage.

Or are you telling me you can't tell when a play is broken?