Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[efin98]

I agree with you that if we had all the stats, there wouldn't even be a discussion right now.

That's the whole thing though, you guys also don't have stats to refute that there is zero link between "most hits while throwing" and "over 50% of plays are from shot gun" stats.

...and here we go again, trying to get attention again

 

[maverick4]

Funny, you guys are the ones who keeping bumping the thread.... oftentimes with nothing else to bring in, just the same tired points with zero stats to back it up. At least I have some stats which are interesting to talk about, whereas you just reply with... nothing.

 

[efin98]

Funny, you guys are the ones who keeping bumping the thread.... oftentimes with nothing else to bring in, just the same tired points with zero stats to back it up. At least I have some stats which are interesting to talk about, whereas you just reply with... nothing.

Blah blah blah no stats to back it up blah blah blah same old song and dance over and over again...

Still waiting on the stats demanded in the most hit thread and demanded earlier in this one...

 

[unoriginal]

Thanks for pulling those numbers. It certainly is interesting that the numbers you pull suggest a disparate pass/run ratio out of shot gun that could be a HUGE key for opposing defenses. It would be like seeing a team come out with 3 tight ends in a jumbo or goal line formation, and making it easy for the defense to look for and stuffing the run. Of course, we'd need all the stats in order to definitely conclude this. However, the statistical bar for proving this, demanded from some here, is amusing when they don't seem to apply the same standard to any other opinion or thread on this forum.

Right, as it stands it looks like a key. But the efficiency stats indicate defenses perform poorly against it, so whatever knowledge they glean from the pass/run ratio isn't helping them.

And if we could run out of a goal-line set all the time with high efficiency and low stuffed stats, I'm sure we'd do that too.

Your analysis of the fact that shot gun seems to be mostly short passes is also interesting. Based on what you saw, what would you suggest or look at to re-conciliate the high "hits on QB while throwing" number, if in your mind it's not in any way related to shot gun (which is also impossible to disprove since we don't have all the figures)?

What figures we do have (sacks for all years, hits data for a year heavy with spread shotgun and a year in normal single-back) suggest Brady gets hit at around the same frequency whether in shotgun or not, pursuant of course to other factors like quality of o-line and so on.

I think Belichick's offensive philosophy is trading QB hits and pressure for YAC and turnover margin. The extra second Brady waits in the pocket or the extra defender sent on a blitz means a lot in terms of separation and passing windows. Back in the Weis years the screen game, for example, was so good because Brady invited contact from the defensive line on his pass drops. It's a shame we don't have ESPN's stats for those years because the "hits while throwing" stat would be at 4 a game on RB screens alone.

Consider that at the 2007 rate of a hit or sack 11% of the time Brady passed, he would be hit or sacked 4 times in a game where he passed 36 times, which is a normal game (his average attempts per game that year was in fact 36). In the same game the leading rusher would carry the ball about 20 times, and the leading receiver would catch the ball 7 times, and each would get hit about that often.

I think if the Pats brain trust started to have discussions about whether or not their QB was up to taking a hit a quarter to make the skill players around him more effective — when some of those same players are taking twice or quadruple as many hits at running speed, without the benefit of the byzantine QB protection rules and a flak jacket over the ribs — they'd start having discussions about whether or not they needed a new QB running the offense.

 

[Ring 6]

You keep repeating this, even though the stats show Brady was most hit while throwing of any QB over his last two years, and that we use shot gun more than anybody.

Something doesn't compute in your "brilliant" analysis.

Its getting to the point where you are just ignoring everything anyone says.
You are trying to argue that our offensive philosophy puts Tom Brady in danger.
Your argument is that since you found a statistic that says he was hit the most while throwing he must be in the most danger.
Everyone else is pointing out that your conclusion is based on incomplete information, and most dispute that he was hit more often than normal.
Your response to that is that he was hit the most while throwing.

I have seen a bunch of people in this thread do a lot of research on stats. Why couldn't you simply add sacks to the 'hit' #s you are posting to make them more legitimate?

 

[Ring 6]

I think that everyone understands and agrees thatif you go to the shotgun, the likelihood of passing is higher.
I think its ignorant to not realize that we do run a lot from the shotgun as well.
I think everyone should (but I dont think everyone will admit it) realize that the purpose of putting the QB in the shotgun is to reduce the pass rush by making his read quicker, and putting him farther from the rushers.

Since almost every team uses the shotgun, clearly there are situations where the advantages of the shotgun in protecting the QB outweigh the disadvantage of being more predictable.

I think it is PAINFULLY clear that Bill Belichick and the Patriots coaching staff believe that those positive outweigh the negatives enough to make the shotgun essentially the base offense.

I don't understand how a statistic that is partial and incomplete can touch that logic,

 

[Ring 6]

It has been pointed out numerous times that the unofficial, undefined, partial statistic that is being used as the heart of this argument is flawed.
To show how, here are a few other numbers.
If we add sacks to times hit while throwing, then Carson Palmer was hit more than Brady.
Brady was hit 86 times to Kurt Warners 72 and Steve McNairs 70. Brady played 32 games, Warner 20, McNair 22.
So per game, Warner was hit while throwing 34% more than Brady, and McNair 18% more.
Additionally Ben Roethlisberger (a good example because he has been cited as playing in a conservative offense that doesnt expose him by 'telegraphng that they are passing' was sacked 93 times in those 2 years. We don't have the # of hits while throwing, because you know we bulit an entire argument around the numner next to 5 guys names, but:

Brady had 86 hits while throwing and 47 sacks for a total of 133.
I think its safe to assume that if Roethlisberger was sacked twice as much he was probably hit with throwing at least half as much, huh?

So now our stats only show that Brett Favre was hit less, Palmer, Warner, McNair and Roethlisberger hit more, and we don't know if the others were hit more or less.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There's only one person left to convince, and that guy's a lost cause. I think this thread has run its course, and we ought to just let it die.

 

[maverick4]

I think that everyone understands and agrees that if you go to the shotgun, the likelihood of passing is higher. I think its ignorant to not realize that we do run a lot from the shotgun as well. I think everyone should (but I dont think everyone will admit it) realize that the purpose of putting the QB in the shotgun is to reduce the pass rush by making his read quicker, and putting him farther from the rushers.

I think it is PAINFULLY clear that Bill Belichick and the Patriots coaching staff believe that those positive outweigh the negatives enough to make the shotgun essentially the base offense.

We do rush the ball from shot gun, yes.
As unoriginal figured out, it looks like we run from shot gun once every SIX times we pass out of shot gun.

It's possible, as you said, that shot gun may reduce the pass rush. It is also possible, that a defense's pass rush improves when they know an offense has an extremely high chance of not running. However, there is no data to prove this about shot gun, either your point or mine.

I fail to see how it's clear BB believes the positives outweigh the negatives, when all he's done this off-season is add talent at RB, TE, and O-line. Adding an almost-retired 3rd receiver isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for more, or as much, shot gun.

 

[maverick4]

I consider this a related thread, about whether the explosive passing style, or reliance on a star receiver in a pass-first team, wins championships or not:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-super-bowl-doesnt-require-star-receiver.html

 

[Deus Irae]

 

[maverick4]

Douche breaks the record for most zero content posts on the board. It's fun to occasionally unclick the 'ignore' on his posts just to see how much time he wastes adding no value.

 

[maverick4]

You are trying to argue that our offensive philosophy puts Tom Brady in danger.
Your argument is that since you found a statistic that says he was hit the most while throwing he must be in the most danger.
Everyone else is pointing out that your conclusion is based on incomplete information, and most dispute that he was hit more often than normal.
Your response to that is that he was hit the most while throwing.

If you understand what you just wrote, then why do you consider it valid to repeatedly state that shot gun provides more protection for OUR QB, when you equally (or even more so) don't have enough stats to back up that assertion? In fact, the QB hit rate and shot gun stat seem to go against your repeated claim. Your theory isn't categorically true, yet you keep repeating it. Sounds like the pot-kettle to me.

 

[DaBruinz]

If you understand what you just wrote, then why do you consider it valid to repeatedly state that shot gun provides more protection for OUR QB, when you equally (or even more so) don't have enough stats to back up that assertion? In fact, the QB hit rate and shot gun stat seem to go against your repeated claim. Your theory isn't categorically true, yet you keep repeating it. Sounds like the pot-kettle to me.

This is your problem. You keep insisting that the stats favor you and they don't. In fact, for you to say they do is a complete lie on your part because you can't give the appropriate breakdowns for you to make the assumptions you are.

Nothing about Andy's rebuttle to you sounded like the pot calling the kettle black. On the contrary. Most of the people who have provided rebuttals have pointed out that the theories you are trying to shove down everyone's throats are the ones that are unsupported. And the fact that you continue to do so only supports what people like Andy, Deus Irae, and Myself have been saying. That there isn't enough information for you to be making the assumptions that you have.

You've not provided the relevant information that you need to make your assumptions. You haven't provided the breakdown of the hits taken in 2006 to the hits taken in 2007. You've not provided the number of hits taken while Brady was lined up in the shotgun for those two years either. Nor have you provided the number of passing plays to running plays that they have run out of the shotgun for those 2 years. That is all information that YOU need to provide to support your theories. And, no, we don't need to provide it to take a counter-stance to you.

Now, it would also seem that you need a reminder about the shotgun formation. The whole basis of that formation is to give the QB more time to evaluate the defense, put him farther away from the line of scrimmage, allow the pocket to be more definitive and give the receivers time to get open after the ball is snapped. Those items, in and of themselves, support the idea that the shotgun is used to provide the QB more protection. Especially when you talk about adding 2 additional blockers in the form of TEs and RBs/FBs.

There is clearly a much more facts that support the theory that the shotgun formation is used to protect the QB better than there is to say that it puts the QB in more danger.

 

[TruthSeeker]

For some reason there seems to be a lot of assumption by people on both sides of the debate that the Pats absolutely will do this or won't do that. I don't recall Belichick and his staff having that kind of bull-headed "we're going to do it this way, end of discussion' approach to things like a specific offensive formation since taking over in 2000.

Great comment. Indeed, BB is know for his willingness to game plan for each specific opponent not only on defense but also on offense.

I well remember that game against the Vikings (who boasted the best run defense in the NFL) a few years back. The Patriots threw and threw and threw. On their few attempted runs, they were stuffed. The Patriots easily won the game showing the rest of the NFL how to defeat the Vikings which was the beginning of the end of the Vikings playoff hopes.

The Patriots will do what they think works best. It's hard to argue against their success in 2007 (16-0, NFL record for scoring points which is typically the primary aim of the offense) but some here sure are trying.

 

[maverick4]

It's hard to argue against their success in 2007

You're right.

It's like trying to convince recent bandwagon Yankees fans that the emphasis on home runs and big hitters doesn't have a great history of winning world series, even though the Yankees have had good records the past few years.

 

[Ring 6]

If you understand what you just wrote, then why do you consider it valid to repeatedly state that shot gun provides more protection for OUR QB, when you equally (or even more so) don't have enough stats to back up that assertion? In fact, the QB hit rate and shot gun stat seem to go against your repeated claim. Your theory isn't categorically true, yet you keep repeating it. Sounds like the pot-kettle to me.

Why would I need stats to prove that the shotgun provides better protection when that is the entire purpose of using it?
Professional offensive football minds use the shotgun formation to reduce pressure on the QB. That tells me I don't need to put a stat burden to the discussion, because I trust the collective knowledge of the people who are making that decision.

Would you argue that defenses should use the WideTackle6 in the NFL and say you can't be wrong unless there are stats to disprove it?

 

[Ring 6]

We do rush the ball from shot gun, yes.
As unoriginal figured out, it looks like we run from shot gun once every SIX times we pass out of shot gun.

It's possible, as you said, that shot gun may reduce the pass rush. It is also possible, that a defense's pass rush improves when they know an offense has an extremely high chance of not running. However, there is no data to prove this about shot gun, either your point or mine.

I fail to see how it's clear BB believes the positives outweigh the negatives, when all he's done this off-season is add talent at RB, TE, and O-line. Adding an almost-retired 3rd receiver isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for more, or as much, shot gun.

BB clearly believes the positives outweigh the negatives because he has run an offense that is over 50% shotgun.
We had TEs, a lot of them, when we ran all those shot gun plays, and RBs too. I don't know how OL indicates anything, you need one to run any offense.
So, essentially, we add a RB and subtracted a RB (Jordan)
We added 2 TEs. We added 2 WRs in FA and drafted another in the early middle rounds.
How is an EQUAL distribution of additions eveidence of a change of philosophy?

Wouldn't the burden of culling intention from personell moves be a strong shift away from previous personell? Why owuld you need a RINGING ENDORSEMENT to show no change in philopsophy?
This is like all of your other points, it just makes no sense. You drone on and on about personell moves and they contribute zero to your argument.

 

[unoriginal]

As unoriginal figured out, it looks like we run from shot gun once every SIX times we pass out of shot gun.

Well, let's not misrepresent what I said:

Yes, it is a bit of a tell. As you noted, Cassel passed 433 times from the shotgun, and elsewhere Football Outsiders noted we ran 67 draws from the shotgun. I'm not sure if draws are all we ran out of the shotgun; I suspect they aren't. But even figuring conservatively that's around a 5:1 pass-run ratio.

67 to 433 is the number of draws to passes. A draw is a specific type of inside running play where the offensive line uses their pass-blocking technique to push defensive linemen outside as they rush upfield. You can run other types of running plays from a shotgun formation, anything from zone read to a wham counter to a QB dive, and the Pats probably do these things with some frequency. We just don't know what the frequency is.

So we'd at least have to estimate the ratio is 5:1 or 4:1, which is still high.

 

[Ring 6]

You're right.

It's like trying to convince recent bandwagon Yankees fans that the emphasis on home runs and big hitters doesn't have a great history of winning world series, even though the Yankees have had good records the past few years.

I have a question.

Is it your position that offenses that are pass oriented dont win simply because they are pass oriented? I've never heard that argument before, the argument is typically that pass oriented teams dont win because they HAVE TO pass a lot to cover up other deficiencies.
Are you saying that a team that doesnt need to run a wide open offense (ie the 07 Pats) are a worse team because they choose to?