Struggling Offense

[Deus Irae]

Why is it so important that we use 3 WR, as opposed to two TE, pass catching running back, etc?

I for one don't want Gronk to get less targets so a #3 receiver can get more.

What the hell is wrong with you homers that you can't stop arguing against the obvious?

The Patriots offense has the same problems it's had for years. This shouldn't be news to anyone. This group of receivers is better than last year's, but it isn't as good as Welker/Lloyd/Branch from 2012, and the team at least had Hernandez to alleviate the disappointment of Johnson, in 2011.

Right now, we're hoping that a weaker playoff field, a healthy Gronk and a better defense will be enough to make up the questionable OL and the weakness at WR. It's great to hope that it's good enough, and it might just be, but why should we lie to ourselves about the team?

 

[RDS11]

Where did I say that Welker is the same guy? That's not the issue. The issue mentioned was WR depth. 3 of the 5 Patriots competitors go 3 deep with legitimate WR talent.

You didn't, but you missed the point.

You were saying that ''3 of the 5 AFC competitors have the 3 WR capabilities that the Patriots don't.''
I don't care about the number of WR the Pats or the Broncos can put on the field. Gronk is the best weapon on both teams, and we shouldn't diminish him because he is playing TE.

We are talking about overall depth at the skill positions on offense, and I'm saying the Broncos don't have much, because Welker is not capable of being a #2 WR anymore... I'm not sure he is a decent #3 at this time.

The Broncos are much more reliant on their top 2 WRs than the Pats, I don't know how this is supposed to show they have more depth than we do ?

 

[RayClay]

What the hell is wrong with you homers that you can't stop arguing against the obvious?

The Patriots offense has the same problems it's had for years. This shouldn't be news to anyone. This group of receivers is better than last year's, but it isn't as good as Welker/Lloyd/Branch from 2012, and the team at least had Hernandez to alleviate the disappointment of Johnson, in 2011.

Right now, we're hoping that a weaker playoff field, a healthy Gronk and a better defense will be enough to make up the questionable OL and the weakness at WR. It's great to hope that it's good enough, and it might just be, but why should we lie to ourselves about the team?

So we should find a 3rd wide receiver and give up targets to Gronk, Wright and Vereen and running with a fullback, if that's an option?

Yeah, I'm definitely a homer, what are you? I'm a Patriots fan, not a football fan and certainly not a fantasy football fan. I think our number one receiver is named Gronk, we should be balanced by running and using Vereen, then I don't really see a lot more snaps and targets available that Edelman and LaFell (also a 3rd big red zone target )can't handle.

So many more advantages to using Gronk as a double threat than having some little WR running around keeping a RB, pass catching RB or TE on the bench.

Just the opinion of this proud to be a homer following a team, with the greatest decade plus ever, record in the NFL.

 

[RDS11]

What the hell is wrong with you homers that you can't stop arguing against the obvious?

The Patriots offense has the same problems it's had for years. This shouldn't be news to anyone. This group of receivers is better than last year's, but it isn't as good as Welker/Lloyd/Branch from 2012, and the team at least had Hernandez to alleviate the disappointment of Johnson, in 2011.

Right now, we're hoping that a weaker playoff field, a healthy Gronk and a better defense will be enough to make up the questionable OL and the weakness at WR. It's great to hope that it's good enough, and it might just be, but why should we lie to ourselves about the team?

The Pats won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003 and 2004 with the same level of talent at the TE-WR-RB position. With a healthy Gronk, the 2014 team might have better talent overall than any of these teams.

The 2001 OL wasn't that great. Most of the starters were replaced during the next few years. Brady and Bledsoe were sacked a lot that year (and again in 2002).

We can't expect to have an all-star roster across the board, it's just not possible. The 2001 didn't have much of an offense, and in 2004 we had Troy Brown playing cornerback. You don't think the other AFC teams don't have any issues ? The Broncos OL is not good either, they have been shuffling their players around since the Rams game. And Sanders is lucky to be alive...if we are hoping for an healthy Gronk, The Broncos are hoping Manning's ducks won't kill Sanders soon. The Steelers don't have any RB without Bell, and their defense is terrible against the pass (allowing a QB rating of 98...it's like they have been playing against Brady every single week). These teams are #2 and #3 in our conference. They are not in better shape than we are.

 

[pork3]

This O-line sucks.
It consists of players that have either regressed, were always JAGs, or don't even belong on an active NFL roster.
But such is the case when you hedge your bets, for the most part, on UDFA's and upper-draft picks.

What's disturbing is how poorly Solder has been playing this year. Is this a product of the poor play at left guard, or that Mankins masked Solder's weak play.

-Jamman

 

[Deus Irae]

You didn't, but you missed the point.

You were saying that ''3 of the 5 AFC competitors have the 3 WR capabilities that the Patriots don't.''
I don't care about the number of WR the Pats or the Broncos can put on the field. Gronk is the best weapon on both teams, and we shouldn't diminish him because he is playing TE.

We are talking about overall depth at the skill positions on offense, and I'm saying the Broncos don't have much, because Welker is not capable of being a #2 WR anymore... I'm not sure he is a decent #3 at this time.

The Broncos are much more reliant on their top 2 WRs than the Pats, I don't know how this is supposed to show they have more depth than we do ?

I didn't miss the point. You clearly have.

 

[Deus Irae]

So we should find a 3rd wide receiver and give up targets to Gronk, Wright and Vereen and running with a fullback, if that's an option?

Sure, why not? What kind of clueless individual would think that it's a bad idea to have a quality third wide receiver?


Oh, yeah, Patriots honks who choose to ignore the obvious fact that Belichick agrees that there's a need at the position.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

What the hell is wrong with you homers that you can't stop arguing against the obvious?

The Patriots offense has the same problems it's had for years. This shouldn't be news to anyone. This group of receivers is better than last year's, but it isn't as good as Welker/Lloyd/Branch from 2012, and the team at least had Hernandez to alleviate the disappointment of Johnson, in 2011.

Right now, we're hoping that a weaker playoff field, a healthy Gronk and a better defense will be enough to make up the questionable OL and the weakness at WR. It's great to hope that it's good enough, and it might just be, but why should we lie to ourselves about the team?

The team has one top tier weaknesses and one second tier weakness. Fortunately no team this year is without a tangible weak spot or two. The OL is that top tier weakness (or at minimum a clear uncertainty as to how effectively they will play). The second tier weakness is the pass rush.
The receiving targets group is not a weakness. They may not be top level potent but they have sufficient capability to score a lot of points.

I am not hoping for a weak field. I prefer it but don't believe it is a critical need (unlike some other years). If the OL plays like the OL from week 6 thru week 13, we are good to go! Obviously we'll see what we see starting a week from Saturday but I'm saying it in ink yhat the Patriots take the AFC if our OL plays at a satisfactorily level, and this receiving targets group is more than capable of doing their part to get there.

 

[Deus Irae]

The team has one top tier weaknesses and one second tier weakness. Fortunately no team this year is without a tangible weak spot or two. The OL is that top tier weakness (or at minimum a clear uncertainty as to how effectively they will play). The second tier weakness is the pass rush.
The receiving targets group is not a weakness. They may not be top level potent but they have sufficient capability to score a lot of points.

I am not hoping for a weak field. I prefer it but don't believe it is a critical need (unlike some other years). If the OL plays like the OL from week 6 thru week 13, we are good to go! Obviously we'll see what we see starting a week from Saturday but I'm saying it in ink yhat the Patriots take the AFC if our OL plays at a satisfactorily level, and this receiving targets group is more than capable of doing their part to get there.

The Patriots offense struggles against teams that can shut down the outside receivers and pressure the QB. We've seen that for years. There's actually good news on that front this playoff season because, outside of Denver, the AFC teams in the field aren't particularly adept at doing that. But claiming that this receiving group is not a weakness is simply not acknowledging the reality of this team. We've seen it for years, and we know it's a problem.

I've been putting this team in the Super Bowl since day 1 (see the expectations thread). As long as Manning is the recent Manning, I don't see that changing. That doesn't mean that I need to be blind to the potential pitfalls.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The Patriots offense struggles against teams that can shut down the outside receivers and pressure the QB. We've seen that for years. There's actually good news on that front this playoff season because, outside of Denver, the AFC teams in the field aren't particularly adept at doing that. But claiming that this receiving group is not a weakness is simply not acknowledging the reality of this team. We've seen it for years, and we know it's a problem.

I've been putting this team in the Super Bowl since day 1 (see the expectations thread). As long as Manning is the recent Manning, I don't see that changing. That doesn't mean that I need to be blind to the potential pitfalls.

This year IMHO pressuring the QB is the key phrase, it isn't a lack of capable targets. However, if the OL plays satisfactory, the opponent effectively covers the outside receivers, and the Patriots passing offense struggles to move the ball, I'll be the first to come here and admit I was wrong.
However, this year I see big things in the passing game against any D provided the OL repeatedly gives TB time.

 

[varjao]

"It's not how you start, it's how you finish", that was the players talking after that disaster in Kansas City.

Well, they didn't finish great but, in the last few years getting hot in the playoffs is what made a difference, let's hope it's our time.

 

[supafly]

The Patriots offense struggles against teams that can shut down the outside receivers and pressure the QB.

Hearing Rex Ryan rub it in (although I don't believe that was the intent at all) about how his teams have been able to keep the games close as the last 4/5 have been decided by 3 pts or less, was humbling.

He stated that he and his coaches felt that they could take advantage of the Patriots outside receivers (or lack thereof), which allowed his scheme to apply pressure by blitzing, while also switching things up by dropping 8 into coverage, and funneling things towards the middle.

When you consider the horrible talent level of this year's 2014 NYJ team at the position of CB, it really makes you hope that this cannot be replicated by other postseason squads, which will all have much better talent in the secondary. This team still has an obvious weakness at the outside receiver position, and this has got to be the last year that we see this. Luckily, the defense has improved greatly, and may be enough to allow them to overcome this weakness. We shall see (fingers crossed).

 

[PATS16N0]

The Pats won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003 and 2004 with the same level of talent at the TE-WR-RB position. With a healthy Gronk, the 2014 team might have better talent overall than any of these teams.

The 2001 OL wasn't that great. Most of the starters were replaced during the next few years. Brady and Bledsoe were sacked a lot that year (and again in 2002).

We can't expect to have an all-star roster across the board, it's just not possible. The 2001 didn't have much of an offense, and in 2004 we had Troy Brown playing cornerback. You don't think the other AFC teams don't have any issues ? The Broncos OL is not good either, they have been shuffling their players around since the Rams game. And Sanders is lucky to be alive...if we are hoping for an healthy Gronk, The Broncos are hoping Manning's ducks won't kill Sanders soon. The Steelers don't have any RB without Bell, and their defense is terrible against the pass (allowing a QB rating of 98...it's like they have been playing against Brady every single week). These teams are #2 and #3 in our conference. They are not in better shape than we are.

Man... such a good post to follow up RayClay's. You just raised my level of optimism a little bit.

Denver doesn't have any answer for Brady-to-Gronk and never has. They have 0 wins against us when we are near fully staffed (Gronk on the field) and all of those wins were either decisive or downright humiliating. Brady owns Del Rio and, Peyton always looks lost here, their newly vaunted run game is overrated, and their weapons are soft and quit the moment they see their leader sulking on the sideline.

I really can't even see the Steelers as too legitimate a challenge unless their defense starts to suddenly way over achieve.

Unless we lay an egg or our offensive line reverts back to week #4, it's hard to see the Patriots not making it to Arizona this year.

I just hope if we get there, and Seattle is waiting for us, we take them more seriously than we did the last time.

Our one point loss to the Seahawks, in their own stadium, back in 2011 (which still pisses me off), we lost via our arrogance at the end of the first half. The points to win that game were right there and we decided to get cute, or greedy, and left them on the field. Everybody in my living room was calling for a FG and instead we went into the locker room with an intentional grounding call.

I'm also not sure I have a lot of confidence against running quarterbacks. The only one I can really remember shutting down was Tebow in the Divisional Round. Cam (IIRC) had a good game against us, Geno always looks good against us, Kaepernick (sp) beat us, etc etc.

Obviously our secondary was trash-tier in 2011 but the thought of losing to Richard Sherman and hearing another "You mad bro?" is cringe worthy.

 

[RayClay]

Sure, why not? What kind of clueless individual would think that it's a bad idea to have a quality third wide receiver?


Oh, yeah, Patriots honks who choose to ignore the obvious fact that Belichick agrees that there's a need at the position.

I would like to have an all all pro team. However, there is a salary cap. If we're going to spend for a starting level WR, that means we're going to cut down on 2 TE and sets with running backs so we can run a lot of three and more receiver sets.

If we don't run a lot of 3 WR sets, the 3rd starting receiver is not going to develop a rapport with Brady and be as effective when we do. You always want more receivers on offense, I seldom read anything else. Belichick has tried to develop a 2 TE system for years and probably will continue to as long as Gronk is healthy.

Outside of the non game against Buffalo, we have the highest scoring team in both divisions and scoring, with big red zone targets, is what counts, not WR statistics.

 

[RobertWeathers]

big thread, I didn't read everything and you guys are bashing the op, but trolling or not, the concerns are legit. I have a hard time seeing this offense putting 27 points in the scoreboard, that's why I think the Colts are not that piece of cake that some think. Because Luck will deliver at least 2 TDS, then **** happens in a game, you have a fumble, a quarter of bad football and then you have to comeback to the game, last year Tom put up a lot of extraordinary comebacks, this year though,

If, if, if, if...

if I recall correctly we only had a comeback against San Diego, and that was an awful game, San Diego is awful.

SD was a borderline playoff team that came off a great road win vs BAL- who is in the playoffs. People around here refuse to acknowledge that the Chargers played pretty much their best game of the year vs the Pats- and lost.

This team although is better than last year, is a team built to lead up front and hold on the edge. If we have to comeback 17 points in the second half we are done.

Varjao- You are making a claim that this 2014 Patriots team are a bunch of front-runners who are incapable of shutting down teams and scoring 17 points in the 2nd 1/2 of games. That's a pretty ridiculous statement IMO.

 

[livinginthe past]

Sure, the offense hasn't looked great the last few weeks - that is undeniable.

But looking at the whole season for some context we have some very encouraging stats going forward into the playoffs - and they are stats that I find meaningful in a post-season environment.

Took some of these stats from the Reiss blog (analysis is mine):

Please remind yourself that we've had a tough schedule this year - including that murderers row mid-season.


Points per game
Final ranking: Fourth (29.25)
Last season: Third (27.75)

Im sure offense is up all over the league - but to have the 4th highest scoring offense is no mean feat when you consider that we have a shambolic O-line and no real receivers outside of an injury prone TE

Points allowed per game
Final ranking: Eighth (19.56)
Last season: 10th (21.12)

We've faced some heavy hitting offences this year - so to reduce our PPG by an average of 1.5 points is pretty special.

Third-down offense
Final ranking: Sixth (98 of 221, 44.3 percent)
Last season: 16th (83 of 221, 37.6 percent)

One of the over-looked stats - I feel that 3rd down production (on both offence and defence) can be a much more reliable indicator of postseason performance than simply points scored/conceded. We;ve definitely had issues in recent playoff games consistently moving the ball on key 3rd downs - and also limiting T.O.P for opponents. This is a huge step up this year - from strictly average into the very, very good category is very encouraging.

Third-down defense
Final ranking: 16th (84 of 209, 40.2 percent)
Last season: 26th (98 of 232, 42.2 percent)

3rd down D - the bane of Patriots fans for the best part of a decade - the inability of the defence to get off the field in a timely fashion has often exagerated the pressure on the offense to produce when it finally does get the ball. 26th in the league might be good enough - to play bend-don't-break against average offences - against the better units we see in the playoffs, who don't turn the ball over regularly, it means we don't see the ball for long periods of time. While still not great - the improvement in this area gives me hope that we can concede FG's and not TD's when teams do get into the RZ.

Red zone offense (based on TD percentage)
Final ranking: Ninth (39 of 67)
Last season: 15th (36 of 65)

From average to good - I would have expected this number to be better, to be honest. We have some decent RZ targets with Gronk/Lafell/Wright but the end of year swoon has lessened our efficiency. Must improve on these numbers on the playoffs - and a large part of the will be properly committing to the run and also executing better run blocking. Constant shotgun in the RZ limits things greatly.

Red zone defense (based on TD percentage)
Final ranking: Tied-6th (22 of 46)
Last season: 16th (28 of 50)

Tied in with our much improved 3rd down efficiency on defence this stat really gives me hope that we can limit points scored by opponents when they finally do make it inside the 20. I could really do without seeing another defensive performance like the ones against Aaron Rodgers and Geno Smith - way too passive - and waiting for mistakes in prime-time is not the way to go.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Patriots offense has the same problems it's had for years. This shouldn't be news to anyone. This group of receivers is better than last year's, but it isn't as good as Welker/Lloyd/Branch from 2012, and the team at least had Hernandez to alleviate the disappointment of Johnson, in 2011.

I agree that the 2012 offense is better than the 2014 one, but not sure that the WRs are better.

My take:

Welker > Edelman
Lloyd < LaFell
Branch < Amendola

Right now, we're hoping that a weaker playoff field, a healthy Gronk and a better defense will be enough to make up the questionable OL and the weakness at WR. It's great to hope that it's good enough, and it might just be, but why should we lie to ourselves about the team?

Yep- as you say the major difference this year is that Gronk is healthy for the playoffs as opposed to 2012- which helps the WRs.

But the common issue remains- the O line.

 

[Huckleberry1]

What the hell is wrong with you homers that you can't stop arguing against the obvious?

The Patriots offense has the same problems it's had for years

Scoring more points than the rest of the league year in and year out is a problem?

A better question is what the hell is the matter with you chicken littles? You devote almost all of your time, in your case actually all of it, to ripping on the most successful franchise in the league and are seemingly incapable of recognizing or enjoying their successes.

According to you the sad pathetic state of the Patriots can be traced directly to Belichick's sorry performance as GM and you even n provided examples of his most glaring failures, like Jamie Collins.

They were so bad they were the best team in the AFC. Jesus Belichick sucks.

You the man.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Pats won the Super Bowl in 2001, 2003 and 2004 with the same level of talent at the TE-WR-RB position.

With Dillon, the 2004 team was a more offensively talented team than 01 and 03.

With a healthy Gronk, the 2014 team might have better talent overall than any of these teams.

Very debatable. With a power running game, 2004 offense was much more diverse and with today's passing rules, my contention is that Branch, Patten and Givens would see a 15% increase in production.

The 2001 OL wasn't that great. Most of the starters were replaced during the next few years. Brady and Bledsoe were sacked a lot that year (and again in 2002).

We can't expect to have an all-star roster across the board, it's just not possible. The 2001 didn't have much of an offense, and in 2004 we had Troy Brown playing cornerback.

But the front 7 was dominant and you still had Asante, Randall Gay playing CB and Wilson and Harrison covering up for them.

You don't think the other AFC teams don't have any issues ? The Broncos OL is not good either, they have been shuffling their players around since the Rams game. And Sanders is lucky to be alive...if we are hoping for an healthy Gronk, The Broncos are hoping Manning's ducks won't kill Sanders soon. The Steelers don't have any RB without Bell, and their defense is terrible against the pass (allowing a QB rating of 98...it's like they have been playing against Brady every single week). These teams are #2 and #3 in our conference. They are not in better shape than we are.

Agreed. Everyone has problems. IMO it all comes down to the O-line for TB.

 

[Oswlek]

big thread, I didn't read everything and you guys are bashing the op, but trolling or not, the concerns are legit. I have a hard time seeing this offense putting 27 points in the scoreboard, that's why I think the Colts are not that piece of cake that some think. Because Luck will deliver at least 2 TDS, then **** happens in a game, you have a fumble, a quarter of bad football and then you have to comeback to the game, last year Tom put up a lot of extraordinary comebacks, this year though, if I recall correctly we only had a comeback against San Diego, and that was an awful game, San Diego is awful.

This team although is better than last year, is a team built to lead up front and hold on the edge. If we have to comeback 17 points in the second half we are done.

Two years ago NE put 52 offensive points up on Indy. Last year in the playoffs they scored 36 offensive points with only Edelman at receiver. Just a few weeks ago they scored 42 on them in their house.

Now they are going to struggled to hit 27?

I'm as curious as the next guy as to how much NE's offensive lull will seep into the playoffs, but this thread has veered into nonsense-ville. There is a meaningful difference between labeling Gronk a TE and a WR? Somehow Pitt being able to trot Bryant on the field instead of Miller makes them more dangerous than NE with Gronk? Welker is a meaningful contributor again? Only scoring three TDs on Indy?