Patriots offense has become far too scheme heavy

[Deus Irae]

Most of us understand that luck and injuries have played a part in the Patriot's "failure" to win a Super Bowl since 2005. But, how does that render any discussion about improving the Pats in 2013 or discussing how they could have been better in 2012 irrelevant?

It doesn't. You seem to have missed the point of the post.

 

[tonyto3690]

The very same people will tell you:

Offensive scheme is the problem!
Drafting is the problem!
Lack of talent is the problem!
Terrible secondary is the problem!
Brady's not as good anymore, and that's the problem!
Welker/Brady/Hernandez/etc... chokes, and that's the problem!
Playcalling is the problem!
Passive defense is the problem!
No pass rush is the problem!


It just depends on which threads get started that day, because they're just looking for scapegoats instead of taking the time to actually look at what's been happening. The notion that luck, injuries, and a combination of many things (including some of those mentioned above) are what's been the "problem" is too much for them to grasp, so they focus on one item at a time, scream out that it's [highlight]the[/highlight] problem, and then repeat the process when the next possibility is brought up. If someone started a thread that mentioned that hot dogs cost more in the playoffs, this same core group would insist that hot dog prices were why the Patriots were losing in the playoffs.

So when you base your entire team around one player being dominant and that player is injured, that is just bad luck?

No. That is just stupid planning. A good scheme and good game plan would be so they you aren't dependent on X, Y, Z, 1, 2... 5, 6 etc. all falling perfectly into place to work.

This Patriots offense is built entirely on flawless execution, which is simply not realistic to ask for on a consistent basis against playoff defenses. Without Gronk none of our guys can simply break the game open by their own sheer talent, and even Gronk is limited by the fact he's a tight end, ie. not the fastest player on the field, ever.

How many times have we seen Welker run down from behind by a guy he had a 10 yard head start on? Welker is a great player, but being that go to big play receiver is clearly not his role.

We've seen our team underachieve year after year in the playoffs because we're super reliant on individuals and more often than not those players are injured or don't come through because the burden is too great on them to play perfectly.

Welker in 09
Brady in 10
Gronk in 11
Gronk in 12

You know, maybe having a superstar offense that relies one everything going perfectly in the playoffs just might not be the best idea. Look at the Peyton era colts, they never won ANYTHING with that philosophy. It wasn't until they just ran the ball 40 times a game and defense was super dominant that they won. In fact they were much more likely to go 1 and done than anything else because of the moronic scheme put in place.

Championship teams don't rely on luck. They make their own. Stop making excuses.

 

[fgssand]

We haven't won the SB since 2004. In all of those years we lost our last game. When you lose your offense and defense generally didn't do as well as normal, especially when you win more games in that stretch than any other team.
There really isn't a mysterious secret thing going on that makes the team different in playoff games than in the regular season. They lost. They lost to different teams playing different styles.
You have now moved on to the Giants learned how to beat us by letting us dominate them in the regular season game as proof certain styles beat us.
The fact is in that game we had as many open receivers as we had all season and the OL chunked it. If you watch that game you will see at least a dozen plays where Brady is hit as he is throwing knocking the pass off target. The only difference was our OL bloked in week 17 and didn't in the SB. That is not a scheme thing.
Also if you are tying it to scheme there is simply no way you can include 07, 10, and 12 in the same discussion.

So, you are saying the OL "chunked" it...I agree, they sure did. Seems to me a pressure defense created the sacks and pressure that led to their "chunking". Isn't that what I said too?

Style, scheme, technique......none of it matters. Fact is the offense did not score as they usually do and the defense could not make that final stop (as they did when we were winning, not losing superbowls). We have been so damn close in 3 of the last 5 years and one of those five we were bradyless.


What makes it so hard to take, is not that we've lost, but how we've lost. Also, while I give the Giants & Ravens all the credit in the world for getting done what we could not - I do not feel they had the better teams. That also makes it hard to swallow.

Nothing wrong here that a Championship wont cure though.....2014 is going ot be our year.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Championship teams don't rely on luck. They make their own. Stop making excuses.

What a silly notion. Of course championship teams rely on luck. From David Patten's unconsciousness moment, to an opposing kicker booting the ball out of bounds and giving the Patriots the ball at the 40, to David Tyree getting the ball up against his helmet at just the right angle to keep it from sliding off when he got drilled, the Patriots have been on both sides of the 'luck' coin.

Are you sure you've actually seen a football game?

 

[Ring 6]

So, you are saying the OL "chunked" it...I agree, they sure did. Seems to me a pressure defense created the sacks and pressure that led to their "chunking". Isn't that what I said too?

The Giants weren't a 'pressure defense' they had good pass rushing DL who on tht day greatly outplayed our OL.

Style, scheme, technique......none of it matters. Fact is the offense did not score as they usually do and the defense could not make that final stop (as they did when we were winning, not losing superbowls). We have been so damn close in 3 of the last 5 years and one of those five we were bradyless.

Right, but the argument that there is one thing lacking, or one way to always beat us is simply wrong.
We have been good enough to contend, but we haven't been good enough to finish.

What makes it so hard to take, is not that we've lost, but how we've lost. Also, while I give the Giants & Ravens all the credit in the world for getting done what we could not - I do not feel they had the better teams. That also makes it hard to swallow.

How do you define better? To me, the purpose of being an NFL team is to win a SB, and nothing else. The team that wins it is, by definition, the best, and the one that comes cloeset is next, and so on.
I don't know how the team that didn't achieve the sole shared goal could be 'better' than the one that didn't and would ask, better at what?

Nothing wrong here that a Championship wont cure though.....2014 is going ot be our year.

Frankly we haven't been good enough but have been as close as it gets for longer than any team deserves to be, so it stands out.

 

[Ring 6]

So when you base your entire team around one player being dominant and that player is injured, that is just bad luck?

No. That is just stupid planning. A good scheme and good game plan would be so they you aren't dependent on X, Y, Z, 1, 2... 5, 6 etc. all falling perfectly into place to work.

This Patriots offense is built entirely on flawless execution, which is simply not realistic to ask for on a consistent basis against playoff defenses. Without Gronk none of our guys can simply break the game open by their own sheer talent, and even Gronk is limited by the fact he's a tight end, ie. not the fastest player on the field, ever.

How many times have we seen Welker run down from behind by a guy he had a 10 yard head start on? Welker is a great player, but being that go to big play receiver is clearly not his role.

We've seen our team underachieve year after year in the playoffs because we're super reliant on individuals and more often than not those players are injured or don't come through because the burden is too great on them to play perfectly.

Welker in 09
Brady in 10
Gronk in 11
Gronk in 12

You know, maybe having a superstar offense that relies one everything going perfectly in the playoffs just might not be the best idea. Look at the Peyton era colts, they never won ANYTHING with that philosophy. It wasn't until they just ran the ball 40 times a game and defense was super dominant that they won. In fact they were much more likely to go 1 and done than anything else because of the moronic scheme put in place.

Championship teams don't rely on luck. They make their own. Stop making excuses.

You seem to have a total lack of understanding.
Teams don't normally stay good this long.
This team is being elevated by Brady, Welker, Gronk to be competitve year in and year out like no other. They aren't building the team around a few guys they are building a team that has a few guys that elevate them above all others in the long run, but not above one or 2 teams that put it all together in one season.

 

[ivanvamp]

How do you define better? To me, the purpose of being an NFL team is to win a SB, and nothing else. The team that wins it is, by definition, the best, and the one that comes cloeset is next, and so on.
I don't know how the team that didn't achieve the sole shared goal could be 'better' than the one that didn't and would ask, better at what?

I understand what you're saying, and on one level this seems like it should be right. But we all know that in a one-and-done playoff format, where a random bounce of an oblong football can change the outcome, it's too simplistic to say that the team that wins the Super Bowl is automatically better than a team that doesn't. The Patriots were clearly better than the Cardinals this past season, and yet the Cardinals beat the Patriots.

In any one single game, a lesser team can beat a better team.

The team that wins the Super Bowl is automatically the NFL Champion, but not automatically the "best team".

 

[ivanvamp]

You seem to have a total lack of understanding.
Teams don't normally stay good this long.
This team is being elevated by Brady, Welker, Gronk to be competitve year in and year out like no other. They aren't building the team around a few guys they are building a team that has a few guys that elevate them above all others in the long run, but not above one or 2 teams that put it all together in one season.

I think this is an excellent way of putting it. Very well said.

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand what you're saying, and on one level this seems like it should be right. But we all know that in a one-and-done playoff format, where a random bounce of an oblong football can change the outcome, it's too simplistic to say that the team that wins the Super Bowl is automatically better than a team that doesn't. The Patriots were clearly better than the Cardinals this past season, and yet the Cardinals beat the Patriots.

In any one single game, a lesser team can beat a better team.

The team that wins the Super Bowl is automatically the NFL Champion, but not automatically the "best team".

2007 drove this point home, all too well. :bricks:

 

[ivanvamp]

2007 drove this point home, all too well. :bricks:

Of all the losses the Patriots have ever had, that one is still the hardest one for me to take. Perfect season - and status of "greatest team of all-time" - on the line, cementing Brady's legacy as the undisputed GOAT, capping a record-setting year, losing the ridiculous way they did.............. ugh.

:bricks: indeed

 

[Ring 6]

I understand what you're saying, and on one level this seems like it should be right. But we all know that in a one-and-done playoff format, where a random bounce of an oblong football can change the outcome, it's too simplistic to say that the team that wins the Super Bowl is automatically better than a team that doesn't. The Patriots were clearly better than the Cardinals this past season, and yet the Cardinals beat the Patriots.

The Cardinals didn't win the SB and had a worse season than the Patriots.

In any one single game, a lesser team can beat a better team.

The team that wins the Super Bowl is automatically the NFL Champion, but not automatically the "best team".

Again, best at what?
The purpose of the team is to win the SB. I don't know how one that doesnt can be better than one that does.
How are you defining better?
Again, the reason they are a team is to win the SB so the one that does it has to be the best, because they accomplished the singular goal.
Being better 'most days' isn't the goal of an NFL team. Being the one that wins the SB is.

 

[Ring 6]

2007 drove this point home, all too well. :bricks:

But the 2007 Giants were a better NFL team than the 2007 Patriots.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Cardinals didn't win the SB and had a worse season than the Patriots.

Agreed. But that wasn't the point of bringing up the Cardinals, as you well know. The point was that any team can beat any other team in one game. Sometimes the better team doesn't win any single particular game. Even if that game is the Super Bowl.

Again, best at what?

Best at all kinds of things.

The purpose of the team is to win the SB.

That's the ultimate goal, yes.

I don't know how one that doesnt can be better than one that does.

Because you're looking at it far too simplistically. Again, let's just step back a moment. What's the goal of any single game? To win the game, right? So the team that wins that game is automatically better than the team that loses that game, right? By your logic, this has to be the case.

How are you defining better?

There are all kinds of metrics out there to help us determine that. Certainly I give plenty of weight to winning the Super Bowl, but the better team does not always win any particular game, including the Super Bowl.

Again, the reason they are a team is to win the SB so the one that does it has to be the best, because they accomplished the singular goal.

Again, the goal of any particular single game is to win it, so the team that wins that game is automatically better than the team that loses it, by your logic. Thus, Arizona is better than the Patriots because they beat the Patriots and achieved their goal while the Patriots did not.

Being better 'most days' isn't the goal of an NFL team. Being the one that wins the SB is.

Right. And if you achieve that goal, you automatically earn the title of *NFL CHAMPION*, no questions asked. But that doesn't automatically make you the "best team" in the NFL.

Put it another way: look at the NCAA Tournament. In 1985, the Georgetown Hoyas had one of the best teams in recent years in men's basketball. They were the defending national champions, and they faced a team in Villanova that they had already beaten twice that year. Going into the championship game, here were the numbers:

Georgetown: 35-2, Big East regular season and tournament champions, beat Villanova twice, #1 seed

Villanova: 24-10, lost twice to Georgetown, #8 seed

By any measure, Georgetown was *significantly* better than Villanova. They proved it over the long haul of the season, they proved it in head-to-head matchups, they proved it statistically. But when they played in the NCAA championship game, Villanova played a perfect, once-in-a-lifetime game, and won by 2.

By your logic, Villanova was a "better" team than Georgetown because they achieved the ultimate goal. But they weren't. They played a game for the ages, something that they could never repeat given a hundred tries (they shot 90% (!) from the floor in the 2nd half, 79% (!) from the floor over the course of the entire game - unheard of before or since). They were not the better team. But they were the better team that night, and they were the NCAA Champions, and that's all that matters.

 

[Triumph]

Clearly you didn't watch the game too well because the Pats started their comeback in the 3rd quarter with their last 2 series and carried that momentum into the 4th quarter.

The score was SF 31 - NE 10 to begin the 4th quarter. A 3 TD lead.

Revisionists history will never change that fact. Football | NFL | Boxscore - 49ers v Patriots - washingtonpost.com

You talking about the pass defense has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, you mentioning it actually hurts the OPs idea that the offense is too "scheme heavy" (which makes no sense at all since ALL teams use schemes in their offense).

The 2 are related. If youve followed the team these last few years I shouldnt have to explain why.

The whole problem with your comment is that you ignore so many different issues that it would take a whole thread to discuss them. And it's been done, yet you've ignored them because you refuse to open your eyes and take other things into consideration.

The scheme needs an overhaul to give Brady more play makers. The 2 TE offense only works if both TEs are healthy at the end.

 

[Ring 6]

The scheme needs an overhaul to give Brady more play makers. The 2 TE offense only works if both TEs are healthy at the end.

The TEs were not healthy this year, and the Patriots scored the 3rd most points in NFL history. I think the offense worked.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed. But that wasn't the point of bringing up the Cardinals, as you well know. The point was that any team can beat any other team in one game. Sometimes the better team doesn't win any single particular game. Even if that game is the Super Bowl.

I don't understand what you are arguing.
I define the best team as the team that achieves the singular goal they all share.
If you disagree, then simply answer what is the team that lost the SB better at?

Best at all kinds of things.

What does that even mean? Is the best team the one that is best at run blocking? At beating bad teams? At passing the ball?
I say the best team is the one that accomplishes what every teams plays for.
What 'all kinds of things' outweigh that?

That's the ultimate goal, yes.

Therefore the one team that achieves it is the best.

Because you're looking at it far too simplistically. Again, let's just step back a moment. What's the goal of any single game? To win the game, right? So the team that wins that game is automatically better than the team that loses that game, right? By your logic, this has to be the case.

The goal is to win the SB. The Bronocs beat the Ravens in the regular season, that doesn't make them the better team. They were the better team in the regular season, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to win the SB. The best team is the one that accomplishes the goal.
You actually are overcomplicating it. You are trying to find criteria other than acheiving the singular goal to define best.

There are all kinds of metrics out there to help us determine that. Certainly I give plenty of weight to winning the Super Bowl, but the better team does not always win any particular game, including the Super Bowl.

There don't need to be metrics. Stats don't win championships.
By your explanation, the goal of NFL teams is to be considered the best by a variety of metrics.
That is silly. The best team is the one that accomplshes the singular shared goal, and there is absolutely no disputing that is the sole goal of NFL teams.

Woud you rather be the 2011 Packers who every thought was the best team or the 2011 Giants who went out on the football field and proved it?

Again, the goal of any particular single game is to win it, so the team that wins that game is automatically better than the team that loses it, by your logic. Thus, Arizona is better than the Patriots because they beat the Patriots and achieved their goal while the Patriots did not.

Well that clearly isn't my logic, since no team has the goal of an undefeated season, and every team has the goal of winning the SB.
Trying to put something in my argument that isn't there doesn't make your argument better. But you seem to want to keep doing it.

Right. And if you achieve that goal, you automatically earn the title of *NFL CHAMPION*, no questions asked. But that doesn't automatically make you the "best team" in the NFL.

IMO it does, because 'best' and 'only one to achieve its goal' are the same thing.

Put it another way: look at the NCAA Tournament. In 1985, the Georgetown Hoyas had one of the best teams in recent years in men's basketball. They were the defending national champions, and they faced a team in Villanova that they had already beaten twice that year. Going into the championship game, here were the numbers:

Georgetown: 35-2, Big East regular season and tournament champions, beat Villanova twice, #1 seed

Villanova: 24-10, lost twice to Georgetown, #8 seed

By any measure, Georgetown was *significantly* better than Villanova. They proved it over the long haul of the season, they proved it in head-to-head matchups, they proved it statistically. But when they played in the NCAA championship game, Villanova played a perfect, once-in-a-lifetime game, and won by 2.

By your logic, Villanova was a "better" team than Georgetown because they achieved the ultimate goal. But they weren't. They played a game for the ages, something that they could never repeat given a hundred tries (they shot 90% (!) from the floor in the 2nd half, 79% (!) from the floor over the course of the entire game - unheard of before or since). They were not the better team. But they were the better team that night, and they were the NCAA Champions, and that's all that matters.

No. Because the purpose of those teams was to win the Championship.
Georgetown playing better in less meaningful games does not make them better than the team that played better in the game that mattered the most.

What you do prior to the Championship game is simply a means to get your there. Winning the Championship game is the point of playing all the other ones.
The 'best' team doesn't fail at the most important time.

 

[Deus Irae]

...The scheme needs an overhaul to give Brady more play makers. The 2 TE offense only works if both TEs are healthy at the end.

What a load of crap. The team that won the Super Bowl this season had a grand total of one "playmaker" on offense (Smith), and that "playmaker" was all but shut down in the Super Bowl. For crying out loud, Boldin essentially played even with Lloyd in the regular season, so he's certainly not a "playmaker" if Lloyd's not one.

Good Lord, man. Take a remedial football class. Read a football 101 book. Do [highlight]something[/highlight] to learn about the bloody game. In this era, no team can afford to have elite players at every position, nevermind routinely having elite players as backups. Injuries to the wrong players will spell doom for a team's chances, more often than not, regardless of scheme/system/style.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't understand what you are arguing.
I define the best team as the team that achieves the singular goal they all share.
If you disagree, then simply answer what is the team that lost the SB better at?





What does that even mean? Is the best team the one that is best at run blocking? At beating bad teams? At passing the ball?
I say the best team is the one that accomplishes what every teams plays for.
What 'all kinds of things' outweigh that?



Therefore the one team that achieves it is the best.



The goal is to win the SB. The Bronocs beat the Ravens in the regular season, that doesn't make them the better team. They were the better team in the regular season, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to win the SB. The best team is the one that accomplishes the goal.
You actually are overcomplicating it. You are trying to find criteria other than acheiving the singular goal to define best.


There don't need to be metrics. Stats don't win championships.
By your explanation, the goal of NFL teams is to be considered the best by a variety of metrics.
That is silly. The best team is the one that accomplshes the singular shared goal, and there is absolutely no disputing that is the sole goal of NFL teams.

Woud you rather be the 2011 Packers who every thought was the best team or the 2011 Giants who went out on the football field and proved it?




Well that clearly isn't my logic, since no team has the goal of an undefeated season, and every team has the goal of winning the SB.
Trying to put something in my argument that isn't there doesn't make your argument better. But you seem to want to keep doing it.


IMO it does, because 'best' and 'only one to achieve its goal' are the same thing.



No. Because the purpose of those teams was to win the Championship.
Georgetown playing better in less meaningful games does not make them better than the team that played better in the game that mattered the most.

What you do prior to the Championship game is simply a means to get your there. Winning the Championship game is the point of playing all the other ones.
The 'best' team doesn't fail at the most important time.

So there are no such things as upsets in championship games? The better team is always the one that wins the championship games?

Andy, you're working very hard to argue a pointless point. The goal is to win the championship, not some mythical "best" team title. The team that wins the championship is the *CHAMPION*, by definition. But we all know that there are occasions where a worse team wins a single game, even if that game is the championship.

Villanova was not a better team than Georgetown. They were worse in every single way but on one magical night they played a once-in-a-generation perfect game, performing in a way that they could never hope to reproduce if they tried a hundred, or even a thousand, times.

So they deserved to be the NCAA Champions. That was the goal, and they achieved it. But they were not *better*. They were better that one magical night, and that's all that matters to them.

Clearly we are not going to agree on this.

 

[Deus Irae]

So there are no such things as upsets in championship games? The better team is always the one that wins the championship games?

Everyone capable of rational thought and who's been exposed to sports on some regular basis understands that sometimes the better teams lose, and that the loss doesn't mean that they aren't the better team. And, by everyone, I mean everyone. The 18-1 2007 Patriots are an example of this. The 1985 18-1 Bears are an example of this. The examples are found throughout sports. You and I both understand that to be true.

 

[ivanvamp]

Everyone capable of rational thought and who's been exposed to sports on some regular basis understands that sometimes the better teams lose, and that the loss doesn't mean that they aren't the better team. And, by everyone, I mean everyone. The 18-1 2007 Patriots are an example of this. The 1985 18-1 Bears are an example of this. The examples are found throughout sports. You and I both understand that to be true.

So are you saying that Andy is just jerking us around or that he's incapable of rational thought?