Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

He didnt lead the league multiple years,he led it once, your article shows that.
Until you include sacks and hits after releasing the ball, you have no point.
There is absolutely no question that the shotgun's purpose is to give the QB moe time to throw. What do you think the purpose of the shotgun is?

Over a two year period Tom Brady was "hit while throwing" the most in the leagu. Additionally, it very unambiguously counts "hits while throwing", something you didn't catch before either and tried to nitpick at. This stat still has value, no matter how much you want to dismiss it.

As for shot gun, it gives the QB a better spot to see all the receivers and saves a few seconds from having to drop back. For slower developing plays, and with a fearless player like Brady who will stand in the pocket and make the tough throw, it may actually increase risk which you keep discounting. For you to continue to argue that shot gun actually protects the QB, when there is a stat showing how much Brady got hit more than almost any other QB, is hilarious.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

You're blaming the shotgun for higher injury rates, aren't you? So, let's see the QB injury rates for all the possible combinations.

Surely you have them, since you know that the shotgun is more likely to lead to injury.

I'm just going by what Maverick4 posted and stats don't lie. It's also very disturbing that Brady has been severally injured in two out of the last three games. There's nothing wrong with them going back to a run first team.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm just going by what Maverick4 posted and stats don't lie. It's also very disturbing that Brady has been severally injured in two out of the last three games. There's nothing wrong with them going back to a run first team.

Clearly, stats can be made to lie. But, that's besides the point. Maverick doesn't have any stats on what I asked, even though he made a claim about them. When he gets us the pre-2005 stats, we'll worry about him. Until then, he's just someone making crap up.

You made an argument about the shotgun. Let's see those stats that don't lie. Please get me my breakdown, or one which answers the same basic question.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Why was it mind boggling that the Pats would come out in a 4 receiver set vs. the Chiefs. Especially since they didn't have much of a pass rush the year before and their CBs were older and slower. I have shown video of the hit before that showed that the protection was solid and Brady didn't hold onto the ball that long. It was a freak accident where everyone did everything right (except Moss fumbling the pass) and the defender was lucky to get up after being blocked to the ground and lunge at Brady. It could have happened on a quick screen with max protect.

I would be extremely shocked if the Pats don't use the 4 WR set a lot especially when they spent a lot of attention on WR during the offseason to upgrade the depth at the position including adding a burner like Galloway. It looks like to me that they are trying to accomplish what they tried with Stallworth two years ago. They want to have two outside burners which will leave Moss in a lot of one on one match ups deep. The addition of Galloway tells me that the spread is going to survive the loss of McDaniels.

This just can't be. That would mean Belichick, the king of situational awareness, is actually responsible for the use of the spread offense and the shotgun here.

You know, when mav first came here he was a youngster with little real football knowledge just looking to learn. Too bad NEM was at his zenith here at the same time. Mav has become the next generation NEM.

 

[unoriginal]

As for shot gun, it gives the QB a better spot to see all the receivers and saves a few seconds from having to drop back. For slower developing plays, and with a fearless player like Brady who will stand in the pocket and make the tough throw, it may actually increase risk which you keep discounting.

To argue this, we'd need the hits stats for all the QBs in the league over the same time frame, along with the percentage of time they began plays in the shotgun. Coupled with passing attempts, which we do have, we could see if a higher % of hits corresponded with a higher use of the shotgun.

For you to continue to argue that shot gun actually protects the QB, when there is a stat showing how much Brady got hit more than almost any other QB, is hilarious.

That stat is dependent on pass attempts. What we are interested in, vis a vis the shotgun, is the hit rate.

 

[Deus Irae]

To argue this, we'd need the hits stats for all the QBs in the league over the same time frame, along with the percentage of time they began plays in the shotgun. Coupled with passing attempts, which we do have, we could see if a higher % of hits corresponded with a higher use of the shotgun.


That stat is dependent on pass attempts. What we are interested in, vis a vis the shotgun, is the hit rate.

Hit rate is only helpful if you factor in a whole host of things. That is, in fact, an enormous part of the issue. If QB1 throws the ball away faster than QB2, for example, that will impact the outcome if you can't find a way to adjust for that. Furthermore, you need to find a way to actually define 'hit' in such a way that it's logical and consistent.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Clearly, stats can be made to lie. But, that's besides the point. Maverick doesn't have any stats on what I asked, even though he made a claim about them. When he gets us the pre-2005 stats, we'll worry about him. Until then, he's just someone making crap up.

You made an argument about the shotgun. Let's see those stats that don't lie. Please get me my breakdown, or one which answers the same basic question.

I don't have any stats for you, I'm just going by what I saw with my own eyes prior to the super bowl. As much as Brady thought he was ready for the super bowl, I didn't buy it and it showed. During the pre-season, people on this board were freaking out because of the shaky play of the O-line and were worried about Tom going back under center. Despite having Yates start in place of Neal and Brady sitting out the entire pre-season, they opened up in their usual offense which made me cringe. Although it wasn't the O-line's fault, Brady suffered a season ending injury after severally injuring his ankle two game prior to that. I just don't understand how most arguments against what the Pats do upsets some people on this board. All I'm suggesting is that the Pats should cut down the throwing to reduce the chances of Brady getting injured again. In fact, the Pats have shown they can score anyway they choose. There's nothing wrong with the Pats changing their offense and going back to more of a ball control offense, instead of scoring as fast as possible.

 

[maverick4]

That stat is dependent on pass attempts. What we are interested in, vis a vis the shotgun, is the hit rate.

You make great points, unoriginal. It would be tough to figure out this rate, but it would be useful if we could. Still, I would argue that hit rate doesn't matter in this case - the absolute number of 'hits on QB while throwing' is the key figure, not the rate.

I just don't understand how most arguments against what the Pats do upsets some people on this board. All I'm suggesting is that the Pats should cut down the throwing to reduce the chances of Brady getting injured again.

For some on this board, it's sacrilege to criticize the offense or their favorite ex-coordinator. The more you read from them, the more you find they cherry pick when to care about stats or not, depending on whether the discussion is on best QB, best offense, or best team.

 

[efin98]

This thread still being alive has me thinking these questions that I demand an answer to from the resident McDaniels basher-

Since you are so against the shotgun formation yet have yet to provide reasoning nor facts to back up your stance: what are Brady's completion percentages under center vs. in the shotgun? What are his hit numbers in shotgun vs. under center? what are his percentage of running plays vs. passing plays?

Answer those questions. If you can't answer them with actual numbers then you have no basis for the stance against the shotgun except your own personal bias against it

 

[RDS11]

This just can't be. That would mean Belichick, the king of situational awareness, is actually responsible for the use of the spread offense and the shotgun here.

You know, when mav first came here he was a youngster with little real football knowledge just looking to learn. Too bad NEM was at his zenith here at the same time. Mav has become the next generation NEM.

Obviously, he still knows very little. First, volume stats don't mean anything, efficiency stats do. Also, it doesn't say in which situation the QB was hit. In Brady's case, he might get hit more often from under the center than in shotgun formation. Finally, 86 hits + 40 something sacks over 1100 pass plays, it's not that much if we look at the final results, which is having the 2nd best offense of all time. I know that Mav will argue that it is most in the league (again, this is an unofficial stat) but then again, will it drops by 50% if Brady takes all the snaps from under center in a double tight end formation ? Nobody knows but the coaching staff. And if Belichick had been uncomfortable with the offense, McDaniels would have adjusted for sure.

Last thing...something that Mav probably hasn't thought about. If you keep 2 tight ends and a running back in, the defense can put more players around the line of scrimmage. Thus blitz from different angles with different players. On slower developing plays, it will produce more hits on the QB. The purpose of the shotgun and spread formation is to allow the QB to see where the blitz will come from. Also, in order to cover 4 wide receivers, the defense will put less linemen and linebackers on the field & more DBs. Defense can still blitz, but it will come from DBs that are not used to pass rush, and since they are lineup much farther, the QB has much more time to adjust.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Last thing...something that Mav probably hasn't thought about. If you keep 2 tight ends and a running back in, the defense can put more players around the line of scrimmage. Thus blitz from different angles with different players. On slower developing plays, it will produce more hits on the QB. The purpose of the shotgun and spread formation is to allow the QB to see where the blitz will come from. Also, in order to cover 4 wide receivers, the defense will put less linemen and linebackers on the field & more DBs. Defense can still blitz, but it will come from DBs that are not used to pass rush, and since they are lineup much farther, the QB has much more time to adjust.

That's a good point. However, it doesn't stop teams that can counter that like the Giants, Eagles, Ravens and Colts that rush 4 and drop 7. I didn't include the Steelers because for some reason, they hardly give Brady any trouble.

 

[maverick4]

First, volume stats don't mean anything, efficiency stats do.

This isn't categorically true. This is a theory you have which can't be backed up. I can point to the "total QB hits while throwing" stat and you can say the absolute number doesn't matter, only the rate matters. I could argue the 4-WR or shot gun formations are not better than I-formation or single-back, then you'd point to some superior yards-per-average-play number, which I don't think is the right metric or end-all for offense. Under your 'efficiency means everything' philosophy, the Pats should just run shot gun 100% of the time since it gets more average yards... which is silly.

If you keep 2 tight ends and a running back in, the defense can put more players around the line of scrimmage. Thus blitz from different angles with different players. On slower developing plays, it will produce more hits on the QB.

I agree with you on theory. Unfortunately, I operate in the realm of reality, and in the face of facts and statistics, don't close my eyes or dismiss things that go against my worldview. Brady has gotten hit while throwing the most, and it just so happens the Patriots run the most shot gun out of anybody. Most normal people would want to investigate this instead of simply dismiss it. I do acknowledge that there aren't enough stats going back from 2001-2009 which can fully explain what I am saying (if there were stats on it, it wouldn't even be debatable).

The purpose of the shotgun and spread formation is to allow the QB to see where the blitz will come from. Also, in order to cover 4 wide receivers, the defense will put less linemen and linebackers on the field & more DBs. Defense can still blitz, but it will come from DBs that are not used to pass rush, and since they are lineup much farther, the QB has much more time to adjust.

Again, this is theory that isn't backed up by reality as it pertains to the Patriots. I agree with you that shot gun lets the QB see more of the field more quickly, but it doesn't necessarily protect the QB more, especially against defenses which KNOW that when we are in shot gun we usually pass it. When you have a fearless QB like Brady, he's going to take the hit if it means letting a play develop more and even if he sees where the blitz is coming from.

 

[unoriginal]

Hit rate is only helpful if you factor in a whole host of things. That is, in fact, an enormous part of the issue. If QB1 throws the ball away faster than QB2, for example, that will impact the outcome if you can't find a way to adjust for that. Furthermore, you need to find a way to actually define 'hit' in such a way that it's logical and consistent.

Yes, that's true. And it's also true the quality of the offensive line will greatly effect the hit rate. But if we had shotgun snap and hits data for all the teams, over a period greater than two years, one would hope that would balance out somewhat.

You make great points, unoriginal. It would be tough to figure out this rate, but it would be useful if we could. Still, I would argue that hit rate doesn't matter in this case - the absolute number of 'hits on QB while throwing' is the key figure, not the rate.

It matters if we arguing that the base set, not pass/run distribution (which was normal last year) or sheer number of plays, are causing Brady to get hit.

Here are the "% Assaulted" rates (hits while throwing + sacks) cobbled from the few bits of data I've been able to glean from these cluster**** threads:

2007			Hit	Sk	Att	% Assaulted
Kurt Warner		51	20	451	16%
Matt Hasselbeck		36	33	562	12%
[B]Tom Brady		42	21	578	11%[/B]
Carson Palmer		39	17	575	10%
Brett Favre		35	15	535	9%

2006
Kurt Warner		21	14	168	21%
Carson Palmer		47	36	520	16%
[B]Tom Brady		44	26	516	14%[/B]
Brett Favre		43	21	613	10%

Again, we don't know exactly how much time any of these teams spent in the shotgun. All we know is that these QBs were among the Top 5 most hit (but not necessarily the Top 5 most hit + sacked) for each of these years.

Consequently, all we can observe is that: 1) the rate at which Tom Brady was assaulted in the pocket went down with an unknown increase in shotgun snaps, and 2) the rate at which Tom Brady was hit in a shotgun heavy offense is not out of line with the other often-hit QBs.

 

[maverick4]

This just can't be. That would mean Belichick, the king of situational awareness, is actually responsible for the use of the spread offense and the shotgun here.

It's well known Belichick is using a modified Meyer offense, so what? It doesn't help prove your point any better. Obviously Belichick runs the entire ship. But he's also always given his coordinators TONS of autonomy and leeway, especially when those units are not performing poorly. With Mangini's horrible DC performance and even though Belichick is a defensive expert, Belichick still waited till near season's end to take the reins. As for offense, it's really hard to look bad with Tom Brady and the rest of the talent on that squad.

The fact you made that crappy post shows you still don't get it. I could care less who is behind it, you keep trying to make this about McDaniels, when I have a problem with the style more than any individual.

Mav has become the next generation NEM

Yet more baseless insults and ad hominem because you have nothing substantial to back up or win any of your arguments. NEM was a guy who used to criticize an offense what won rings. I had no problem with that offense, because I do not care about sexy stats like some of you do. I do, however, have a problem with people idolizing an offense which has nothing to show for it, and which gets our QB pounded and injured.

 

[maverick4]

Consequently, all we can observe is that: 1) the rate at which Tom Brady was assaulted in the pocket went down with an unknown increase in shotgun snaps,

1. Where does it say that? You don't know if shot gun snaps went up or down, it doesn't say, it just says the last two years we have used shot gun over 50% of the time, and that most of our pass attempts were also from shot gun.

2. I would argue that those other QB's are also known stylistically on being pass-emphasis offenses as opposed to running-emphasis offenses, and that oftentimes the defenses can just key in on pass rushing and getting to the QB instead of worrying about the rush too much, for certain plays or formations.

 

[unoriginal]

1. Where does it say that? You don't know if shot gun snaps went up or down, it doesn't say, it just says the last two years we have used shot gun over 50% of the time, and that most of our pass attempts were also from shot gun.

For the Pats in the recent past, it’s been all about the shotgun formation. In 2007, New England became the first NFL team to run the shotgun formation on more than 50 percent of their plays, and that trend continued in 2008. Our data shows that teams are more effective and efficient in the shotgun – over the last two years, teams have averaged 5.9 yards per play from the shotgun, and 5.1 under center. Cassel threw 433 passes out of the shotgun and amassed a DYAR [Defense-Adjusted Yards over Replacement] of 531, and a DVOA of 7.8%. Under center, he threw 124 passes for a DYAR of 124 and a DVOA of 2.2%.

So we must assume that we did not run the shotgun formation more than 50% of the time in 2006, meaning we increased the rate of shotgun snaps by an unknown number in 2007, as I wrote.

2. I would argue that those other QB's are also known stylistically on being pass-emphasis offenses as opposed to running-emphasis offenses, and that oftentimes the defenses can just key in on pass rushing and getting to the QB instead of worrying about the rush too much, for certain plays or formations.

Yes, but that's a run/pass ratio argument, and we know last year with Cassel it was 45/55, which is normal.

To see something like 50/50 or lower, for example, would be very unusual. I believe only the Ravens ran last year more than they passed.

 

[maverick4]

So we must assume that we did not the shotgun formation more than 50% of the time in 2006, meaning we increased the rate of shotgun snaps by an unknown number in 2007, as I wrote.

Yes, but that's a run/pass ratio argument, and we know last year with Cassel it was 45/55, which is normal. To see something like 50/50 or lower, for example, would be very unusual. I believe only the Ravens ran last year more than they passed.

1. I wouldn't assume that. We don't have those 06 stats, and it's also possible the 06 stats are skewed because Brady took more time looking for receivers (and taking hits) since they weren't as good. If this were the case, it's odd that the hit number would still be high in 07, but it was...suggesting it wasn't a talent issue but a style/scheme issue.

2. I disagree about run/pass ratio determining whether a team is a pass-emphasis team or not. Almost all teams pass more than run, even the run-emphasis teams. I would argue that those other QB's on that list also use predictable (meaning defense knows it's a pass) spread formations often, and just as when we are in shot gun, the opposing defense knows that it is highly likely to be a pass play and can tee off on the pass rush.

Do you agree, or disagree, that it's possible that when the opposing defense knows a formation or play has an extremely high chance of being a pass, that it makes their pass rush more effective?

 

[Snake Eyes]

maverick4,

You compared passing in football to trying to swing for the fences in baseball regarding why teams fail at critical moments, would deep passes be a more accurate fit to your analogy? I'm thinking that if you were to use a short pass for a few yards it would be very similar to a single to get your man on base.

 

[maverick4]

maverick4,

You compared passing in football to trying to swing for the fences in baseball regarding why teams fail at critical moments, would deep passes be a more accurate fit to your analogy? I'm thinking that if you were to use a short pass for a few yards it would be very similar to a single to get your man on base.

Yes. Deep passes are more like the home run analogy, and we do oftentimes run slow developing plays out of multiple formations. The shot gun, the formation we use by far, has more slow developing deep plays than quick ones. Why do I suspect the shot gun is mostly deep or slow-developing passes? It makes no sense to throw a quick slant from shot gun when you can just do it from under center, with negligible risk of being sacked/hit that fast, and with more space for the receiver to operate since more defenders are on the line.

 

[Deus Irae]

So we must assume that we did not run the shotgun formation more than 50% of the time in 2006, meaning we increased the rate of shotgun snaps by an unknown number in 2007, as I wrote.



Yes, but that's a run/pass ratio argument, and we know last year with Cassel it was 45/55, which is normal.

To see something like 50/50 or lower, for example, would be very unusual. I believe only the Ravens ran last year more than they passed.

What's funny about this is that a similar argument took place about the run-and-shoot a/k/a chuck-and-duck. The differences are real, with varying degrees of importance for this argument, but the concerns are mostly the same. Of course, in 2 of the seasons it was run in Houston, Moon suffered only 23 and 16 sacks, even though he was prone to getting taken down throughout his career, run-and-shoot or not.

Sacks: 458
Games: 208
Sacks/game: 2.20
Sacks/season: 35.2

Brady
Sacks: 203
Games: 113
Sacks/game: 1.80
Sacks/season: 28.7

Now, interestingly, Brady was sacked 41 times in 2001, 31 times in 2002 and 32 times in 2003. He's never been sacked more than 26 times since, and was only sacked 21 times in 2007.