Shotgun used more than half the snaps in 2007-2008

[maverick4]

You can't compare those 2 situations. First, the running plays would have to be able to produce the same average yards par play than a passing play which is not the case. Simple math : even if you average 5 yards per carry, which is great, almost all NFL team, if not all of them, are averaging more than that on pass plays. Therefore, the chances of limiting an offense to less than 10 yards on 3 consecutive plays is greater if the offense run 3 straight run plays rather than 3 passing plays.

But this is the reason why I don't like using the efficiency metric as the end-all to determining which formation or plays are better. In shot gun we overwhelmingly pass 5:1 over runs. Under center we have a more balanced run / pass ratio, maybe even more rushes. This is why shot gun has higher average yards per play for us. It's a flawed metric because of the very imbalance in avg yards per play, comparing passes vs runs, that you wrote about.

 

[Rob0729]

Thirty-one pages of posts to bash/defend a guy who is no longer with the team. This is the dozenth thread like this on this board this offseason.

Seriously are we going to argue McDaniels all year. After every game is maverick going to start another thread based on that games results comparing small things that may be different this year to under McDaniels?

We really need to put this to rest all ready. Thank God training camp is only a week away.

 

[RDS11]

But this is the reason why I don't like using the efficiency metric as the end-all to determining which formation or plays are better. In shot gun we overwhelmingly pass 5:1 over runs. Under center we have a more balanced run / pass ratio, maybe even more rushes. This is why shot gun has higher average yards per play for us. It's a flawed metric because of the very imbalance in avg yards per play, comparing passes vs runs, that you wrote about.

???
Efficiency metric IS the end-all to determine which offense is better. There is no way anyone can argue otherwise. Heck, even the first incarnation of Joe Gibbs used to say that the other team knew what the Redskins were going to do, but he was going to call the same plays anyways. If it works for you, why change it ? Now I'm not saying that the Pats should run shotgun plays all the time, because I would guess that if they did so, the offense efficiency would drop. But the current balance produced the 2nd best offense of all time...how can anyone argue against that ?!?

May I remind you that in order to win a game you have to score more points than the other team ? Why would you want to do that with an offense that plan on calling plays that will reduce their yards per play efficiency ?

And again, having a good running game is way overrated. If you look at the CHFF data, you'll see that great passing teams are doing a lot better than great running teams.

 

[Ring 6]

This is silly.

During and after 2007, all teams knew just how potent Moss and Welker were, and yet we still went in shot gun over 50% of the time, overwhelmingly passing compared to running from that formation.

That isn't taking what the defense gives you, it's stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again, because you keep daring the other team to stop it. I would argue that this type of mentality/style works better if you're a run-focused or run-dominant team, who passes when the defense over-leverages against the run, rather than the inverse.

How is 50% stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again? At the maximum we threw the ball 57% of the time. That was taking what the defense was incapable of stopping.
In fact if your guess is right and we throw 80% of the time from the gun, and we take 50% of the snaps from the gun, you just conclude that on 40% of our plays we pass from the gun and that constitutes stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again, because you keep daring the other team to stop it.
FOOLISH.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not debating the purpose of shot gun, I'm talking about what actually happens, especially for the Pats. The purpose of 3-TE formations are usually to win short yardage runs, but that doesn't always work either, especially if you use it way too much and the other team scouts you. You could repeat the 'purpose' of any formation till you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it always true in reality, especially if you use the same thing over and over with an obvious key to the opposing defense on whether it's a run or pass.

This is the whole point. We pass more than run at over a 5:1 ratio when we are in shot gun. An opposing defense has a way better pass rush knowing they can just rush the QB and sprint up field. You're also in denial that an opposing team's improved pass rush could be linked to all the hits Brady takes while throwing.

The prupose of 3 TEs is to have better blockers on the field. That DOES always work. The dawback of 3 TE is that it can cause the defense to ignore the pass, put bigger defenders in and focus on stopping the run play.
Again, since most teams utilize the 3 TE set in short yardage, the collective football intelligence in the NFL has concluded that it is a bigger advantage than disadvantage.

I have agreed at eery turn that if I go into the gun, the defense is more likely to ignore the run and rush the passer. How is that denial? Ive accepted that as FACT. What you seem to not get is that it is half of the effect, and the effect of getting the QB further from harms way overcomes it.

You continue to use a phony incomplete stat as factual basis for your argument (ie how can the shot gun be good if Brady gets hit the most) when basically everyone in this discussion has agreed that you do not have information that makes that a factual assumption.

I am perfect willing to accept that an offensive strategy that has Brady as one of the least sacked QBs ion the NFL, and gets him hit once every 22.3 minutes of game time while throwing the football, THEREBY resuliting in the highest scoring offense in NFL history is a good thing, even of other QBs only get hit while throwing once every 24 minutes of game time.

By the way, you conveniently ignored my post that debunked the stats by including sacks.

 

[Ring 6]

The point is that it works spectacular in the regular season, but just like other explosive offenses before it, doesn't work so great in the playoffs.

It's like the running back example I gave a few pages back. If every time a team lined up in I-formation they ran 5:1 over pass, and they used this formation over 50% of their plays, the defense would stack the box and key in on the run. Let's say your RB and his inside blockers were so great that it didn't matter, the D couldn't really stop it, except for the fact that because the defense knew what was coming, the RB took vicious hits and had to break 3-4 tackles every time in order to get his yards. Let's also say this RB has had two injuries his last three years, including a major one right before this season. See anything concerning or anything you'd want to change or think about?

You cant really be this obtuse.
If a team did what you suggest, when it stopped working they would alter their plan.
You are now suggesting by comparison that the goal of the Patriot offense is to run pass plays from the shotgun, regardless of whether they will work or not.
Why do we run so many plays from the shotgun?

Because out of all the plays we can run, the talent we have compared to the way a team will defend us, that is the method that is most likely to succeed.
Thats it, end of story.

You are arguing that from your living room you are concluding that there is a different style of offense that would be more successful against the way a team would defend it than what the Patriots have chosen to do. Chosen to do with the result of the highest scoring offense ever when Brady was healthy and the most efficient in the 2nd half with Matt Cassel at QB.
I would say that if you can make judgments from your living room without ever working out any of our players, or watching film on the opponent, with zero first hand knowledge of how they defend different alignements, where their strengths and weaknesses lie, then we should just send you straight to the Hall of Fame because you exceed Walsh, Lombardi, Belichick, et al in football acumen and genius.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is silly.

During and after 2007, all teams knew just how potent Moss and Welker were, and yet we still went in shot gun over 50% of the time, overwhelmingly passing compared to running from that formation.

That isn't taking what the defense gives you, it's stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again, because you keep daring the other team to stop it. I would argue that this type of mentality/style works better if you're a run-focused or run-dominant team, who passes when the defense over-leverages against the run, rather than the inverse.

Well if it's working (and it was to the tune of a record setting passing game), how can you say it's not taking what the defense gives you? What in your mind would the success rate have to be in order for you to feel that the Patriots "took what the defense gave"?

You lost me on that. (I know; it's not the first thing in this thread that you've lost me on...)

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

You cant really be this obtuse.

 

[maverick4]

How is 50% stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again? At the maximum we threw the ball 57% of the time.

Do the math. It means that when we are in shot gun, the defense plays pass all the way and their pass rush gets better.

 

[Deus Irae]

You cant really be this obtuse.

They say you can be anything you want if you just set your mind to it....

 

[maverick4]

Well if it's working (and it was to the tune of a record setting passing game), how can you say it's not taking what the defense gives you?

See, I'm not saying it's not successful. The offense definitely is. I'm arguing a more subtle point, which is that despite its success, that it's flawed and not championship conducive.

It's like looking at the NY Yankees, with a lineup full of home run hitters and big hitters. They score tons of runs, they have a great winning record, but you know that come playoff time they're not going to win a ring. Their style historically does not win championships. Any Red Sox fan knows this, the Sox failed for 86 years trying to win a championship by focusing on sexy offensive bats and home runs.

 

[maverick4]

you just conclude that on 40% of our plays we pass from the gun and that constitutes stubbornly doing the same thing over and over again...
FOOLISH.

What is foolish on your part is your continued, hilarious denial that since we pass/run at over a 5:1 ratio when we are in shot gun, that it doesn't improve the opposing pass rush whatsoever, and isn't a huge key for the opposing defense. That is what I mean by doing the same thing over and over again - when we are in shot gun (which we are often), it's a huge giveaway to the defense to ignore the run and makes their pass rush better.

 

[efin98]

They say you can be anything you want if you just set your mind to it....

But you have to have some imagination in the first place...living in a fantasy world doesn't count.

 

[Deus Irae]

The_song-that-doesnt-end

 

[Rob0729]

I have officially added maverick to the ignore list. McDaniels is gone. I am done talking about him. It is time to move on.

I can only imagine if the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year and the Pats don't score a single offensive point in the Super Bowl (say the Pats win 7-3 with an INT returned for a TD) how he is going to crow how he was right that McDaniels was the problem. I am over it.

Seriously maverick, time to move on or get some help. Training camp starts next week. It is officially time to start to look ahead and stop dwelling on your hate of McDaniels.

 

[maverick4]

I have officially added maverick to the ignore list. McDaniels is gone. I am done talking about him. It is time to move on.

Hopefully it will be as true as the last time you claimed to have done this, in order to prevent your blood from boiling anymore anytime the offense is criticized. Looks like your word is as good as mud.

The fact you twisted this thread into making it about McDaniels, shows you still don't get it and have tunnel vision whenever anyone has a discussion about offense. You guys have all been on my ignore list for a long time, it's fun to look at them in a bunch since they all whine/cry about the same thing.

 

[glm]

Hopefully it will be as true as the last time you claimed to have done this, in order to prevent your blood from boiling anymore anytime the offense is criticized. Looks like your word is as good as mud.

The fact you twisted this thread into making it about McDaniels, shows you still don't get it and have tunnel vision whenever anyone has a discussion about offense. You guys have all been on my ignore list for a long time, it's fun to look at them in a bunch since they all whine/cry about the same thing.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Hopefully it will be as true as the last time you claimed to have done this, in order to prevent your blood from boiling anymore anytime the offense is criticized. Looks like your word is as good as mud.

The fact you twisted this thread into making it about McDaniels, shows you still don't get it and have tunnel vision whenever anyone has a discussion about offense. You guys have all been on my ignore list for a long time, it's fun to look at them in a bunch since they all whine/cry about the same thing.

I guess the irony of you responding to all the guys you have had on your ignore list for a long time escapes you.... You're beginning to sound ever more like someone who also believed there was a conspiracy organized to thwart his attempts to enlighten this board.

You continue to make an ass of yourself in these threads all the while proclaiming you are the lone voice of reason based on your ability to dismiss reams of evidence to the contrary because it doesn't agree with your underlying premise. That was a hallmark of NEM's time here as well. You throw out the old insanity adage, oblivious to it's actual correlation to what you choose to do. He did that almost daily towards the end.

You claim the way the roster has been constructed this season somehow proves you are not alone, BB has obviously seen the light. He upgraded the OL and RB positions ergo he intends to run more and move away from this doomed experiment in running the spread offense and relying on the shotgun. He upgraded the OL depth because his offense as a whole has suffered any time Neal is missing, and Neal is missing at some point almost every season, and he is not signed beyond this season. Not to mention he has a couple of other OLinemen who may be UFA after this season depending on how the labor negotiations unfold. He hasn't had two health backs to rotate on a consistent basis in a two back system almost since the day in 2006 he determined this was a trend he wanted to persue after watching Corey Dillon follow his dominant 2004 season with his 2005 preview of the beginning of the end of a feature RB. Last season he went to camp with 3 potential rotational RB only to find himself with only 1 consistently able to answer the bell. He's gonna try 3 again in hopes two can remain healthy for the first time in 3 years...only one of the names has changed.

Bill's choice of OC for the last 4 years got tapped for a HC job. He is being replaced, though not yet in name, by a guy with no experience at the pro level beyond as an assistant under that former OC. One reason Bill can and would do that is because the scheme and personnel will remain essentially the same, although a name will change here or there. If it in fact does, I'm sure you will be back to claiming he has once again given autonomy to the next generation of incompetent OC. Which would strongly suggest BB is a virtual moron.

We're done attempting to be a run first, smashmouth offense in the presence of Brady, Moss and Welker. Bill determined a while ago that reliance on that aspect of the game came with it's own set of issues. Your RB gets ground up and you're dead in the water. And RB grind up at a greater rate than QB's are injured to the point of being unable or unavailable to function. Brady was lost in week 1 last season and the team still managed to win 11 games behind a career backup who only had 1 healthy starting RB for much of the season. That was the system and the scheme you continue to disparage at work. One that even allowed a QB who hadn't started a game since HS to grow over the course of one season into a $63M franchise QB... This season with his HOF mentor back there is virtually no way they alter let alone abandon a scheme that showcases his skillset.

As Tom Curran observed recently, Brady and this offense will be the least of Bill's concerns this season. Rather it will be retooling this defense into one that can more consistently be counted on to stop everyone else's - particularly on 3rd down and in the red zone.

Too bad that guy who set up that exclusive board for NEM wouldn't offer it to you now that he is history there, too. But then, that would be the definition of insanity, wouldn't it.

 

[Rob0729]

maverick, since I saw your response in the last two posts, I will give you an explanation.

First, I have never put anyone including you on my ignore list until now. You are the first. Congrats.

Second, I never twisted anything. Whether you attack McDaniels directly or take useless stats and/or stats out of context to bash the offensive system during the 2005-2008 season, your agenda is transparent. If you are complaining about the "overuse" shotgun formation, who do you think is responsible for it? Sorry, just because you think you are being clever by attacking McDaniels indirectly by attacking his gameplans and strategies without mentioning him by name, it doesn't mean when people call you out they are twisting the conversation.

Third, the breaking point for me was not only this thread which was a retread of the last endless thread that Ian recently closed, but you attempted to bait people on the CHFF end of the dynasty thread where you said the Pats would win several more Super Bowls now that they don't have McDaniels to hold them back.

Fourth, your obsession with McDaniels is bizarre, annoying, and just sad. You have surpassed NEM in your ridiculousness on the subject. At one point in time, it was midly entertaining to get you to argue in circles and make outlandish arguments to explain how every time the Pats lose it was McDaniels' fault. But that point ended.

Fifth, it is exactly a week away from the kick off of training camp. I want to look forward. I am tired of discussing McDaniels and his strategies over and over again. For better or worse, he is Broncos' fans' concern now, not ours. Bill O'Brien is the Pats unofficial Offensive Coordinator. He may be better or worse than McDaniels and only time will tell. I am more concerned about what he is going to do with the offense rather than consistentlty rehashing the McDaniels years.

It is time to move on. You have not brought anything new to the table on this subject for a long while. Yes, we know you hated that McDaniels used the shotgun so much. Yes, we know you feel McDaniels lacked situational awareness. Yes, we know you think McDaniels is another Mike Martz or Norv Turner (which would be a compliment to other OCs, but not to you). Yes, we know you think McDaniels got Brady hit too much. Yes, we know that you feel this was a vertical offense eventhough the numbers do not really support that argument. Can we all move on with our lives now and look forward to the 2009 season rather than just rehashing the same old arguments over and over.

Have a nice life.

Note to any moderator: Please! Oh, Please! Lock this thread and put it out of its misery.

 

[Patjew]

Rob, you are the man.

You too, Mo.