The Offense Is Generally Doing Its Job

[mgteich]

Andy,

You are the master of hyperbole.

HOWEVER, this part of your analysis is indeed true. The offense is NOT demonstably less effective in the second 4 games compared to the second four games. As you say, the difference in yards, and the wins and losses are not due to the lack of Moss.

But then, the fact that Moss is not the "problem" should be obvious to anyone who even gives a cursory look at our defensive stats. To the degree that we are ineffective as a team, it is because our oppenents complete over 70% of their passes and convert a higher percentage of 3rd downs than any team in the last 10 years.
=================

And, yes folks here are doing a lot of whining about a team with the best record in the nfl, one than could be the consensus #1 team (again) in the nfl should we win our next game.

.

The difference in yards from game 1-4 to game 4-8 is 160 yards, which is almost completely attributable to the schedule, including which half of it the Bills were on.
The point difference is special team and defensive scoring, not offensive.
We have lost 2 games, and in those 2 games we turned the ball over 3 times each. In 6 wins, we turned the ball over a TOTAL of 3 times. THAT is the issue, not some made up idea that teams used to defend Moss and ignore the rest of the team and now dont even put a safety deep.

 

[Ring 6]

The 2009 style offensive wasn't working as well in early 2010. That is one of the reasons that Moss was sent packing and the offense was changed.

I dont think we ran the 2009 offense at any point in 2010.

 

[Ring 6]

With a guy like Moss on your team, opponents will double cover him and tend to keep their focus on him which will help other players open up. I don't think it's him being a "deep threat" that makes an offense dangerous, but just being a great receiver will make an offense dangerous and can help make others more productive.

That is a theory, but I think it is not what was happening on the field

 

[Ring 6]

You act as if speed, separation and skill just don't matter in a wide receiver. Just put Edelman or Tate out there and throw to them if they are single covered!

I'm not saying it doesnt matter, I am saying that the perception is way, way overblown.
Moss was not doubled or triple teamed (some people have actually said that happened) on every play, and our outside receivers are not being left one on one with no safety now.
If they were left one on one with no safety help, we would be throwing deep there is no doubt.
Whether we would be effective is a different story but to imply teams dont even bother to cover the deep routes is silly.

The reality is that Moss is considerably faster than our other wideouts, especially when they are injured. It is also true that Moss was able separate better than they do.

Sure, at least before this year any way. But the separation happens pretty much when the ball is in the air on a go pattern.
If it were true that everyone doubled Moss and overplayed the deep ball, and now they are ignoring covering it, you would have seen very few deep passes when he was here, and a lot since he left. That has not happened. BB himself has said Moss did not dictate coverage this season.

You make fun of everyone's lack of knowledge,

I absolutely have not. I have not MADE FUN of anyone or anything. I am saying that this issue greatly distorted.

and continue to give basketball examples as if basketball is relevant. [/quoe]
Well, I did twice. The point being that pass defense in the NFL is largely zone, and is largely primarily concerned with covering the entire field. Suggesting that teams sell out to cover Moss and now ignore deep routes is wrong, and the basketball analogy is an attempt to show the difference.

All I can say is that if coaches wouldn't be coaching if they covered Moss and Edelman in the same way. I suggest that you go back and re-watch the Minny game and see how many times Moss was single-covered, how tight the coverage was, and how many defensive backs had responsibility on each play. Belichick's strategy was to take Moss out of the game.

Everything I can see on the TV tape shows this is totally an inaccurate depiction of that game. When a LB jams Moss and he runs through 2 other zones crossing the field, that is a zone coverage that covers him just as it would whoever else lined up there. There was no noticable attention to Moss that was different than whoever else would have lined up there. I would suppose there were a few situations where the call was based on Moss being a threat, but they were a few plays, no more than any #1 WR.

You can choose to believe that any wideout would have gotten the same coverage. That is YOUR choice.

I'm noit choosing, I am watching what I see.
===========

That being said, Moss wanted to go. Moss no longer fit in TO THE NEW OFFENSE.

Before you said we didnt change the offense from 2009?
IMO, the offense evolved becuase Moss either wasnt producing or wasnt trying to produce. BB did not decide to just forget Moss was a game breaking receiver and try something different. MOSS changed, BB didnt'

And, Moss did not have any animosity for his teammates or the front office. The team decided to take the offense in a different direction. I agree with the new philosophy.

I don't know how we would know any of that, or what relevance it has to this discssion.

But I think it ludicrous to make believe that any old receiver can command the same coverages as Moss. Perhaps we should bring Aiken back to run those routes as he did last year!

What exactly do you think Moss 'commanded'? BB himself said Moss was not dictating coverages. Mostly teams played zone coverage against us. Do you think that now they leave corners one on one? Do you think they made up special Moss defenses?
Pehaps that is the quesiton.
What is it that you think defenses did then and do now. I mean specifically. Not just 'they paid attention to Moss' or he 'commanded coverages' because those are the misconceptions. I want you to explain those concepts, not give rhetoric. What coverages did the Patriots face with Moss that they don't face now and vice versa.

 

[crowell33]

NFL.com currently ranks the NE Patriots Offense as #20 in the NFL.

 

[eagle eye]

Anyone explain to me why both Wes Welker and Aaron Hernandez production has been worse the last four weeks than the first four weeks?

If its not the Moss trade then what is it?

 

[Ring 6]

Anyone explain to me why both Wes Welker and Aaron Hernandez production has been worse the last four weeks than the first four weeks?

If its not the Moss trade then what is it?

There are many potential reasons. Its a 4 game sample vs a 4 game sample.
But here are some other factors:
Hernanandez? His catches in games 1-4 were 6,6,5,1 in the last 4 they were 5,5,4,2. That is an insignificant difference of 2 catches.
Woodhead has caught 15 in the last 4 games vs 1 (and 6 for Faulk) in games 1-4, which is exactly the dropoff in Welkers catches.
Its obvious watching games that Woodhead is catching passes in Welker situations.
Branch has caught almost twice as many passes as Moss did.
We played different teams in week 1-4 and week 5-8.
3 of the last 4 games were against defenses ranked 3,5 and 9 in the NFL.
M atchups.
Game situations.
Pass protection.

Your argument comes down to over a 4 game sample, Hernandez caught 2 fewer passes, Welker 8 fewer, Woodhead 7 more (compared to he and Faulk) and Branch 7 more than Moss, and this is some kind of proof that the offense is suffering because Moss isnt here. Not sound.

 

[emoney_33]

Andy, what the heck are you talking about? You are now arguing that defenses don't change and they are all the same and cover the entire field. Are you friggin kidding me?

Just because you WANT the issue to be overblown doesn't mean it is. As has already been asked, did you even watch the Minnesota game? Bill Belichick, the defensive genius, felt that Moss was enough of a THREAT that he had to keep a safety very deep virtually all game. Yet you insist that defenses play Moss the same way they play Tate.

The fact of the matter is you simply CANNOT cover the entire field on any play, otherwise you wouldn't need different strategies, schemes and plays.

The offense is NOT demonstably less effective in the second 4 games compared to the second four games. As you say, the difference in yards, and the wins and losses are not due to the lack of Moss.

The offense is 100% demonstrably less effective in the second 4 games than the first 4 games. As a matter of fact the only thing that hasn't take a large dip is INT%, which of course is a very good thing. The only debate is what the cause of the drop in effectiveness. Opposing defenses, lack of deep threat, reasonless increase in rookie mistakes, luck etc...

 

[emoney_33]

Your argument comes down to over a 4 game sample, Hernandez caught 2 fewer passes, Welker 8 fewer, Woodhead 7 more (compared to he and Faulk) and Branch 7 more than Moss, and this is some kind of proof that the offense is suffering because Moss isnt here. Not sound.

Total catches lol. The opportunities have risen as well, the success % has dropped, every single offensive measurement except INT% has taken a serious hit in the 2nd 4 games. You keep turning a blind eye and acting as if nothing has changed. This sounds like 2006 all over again where there were NO problems with the WRs :/

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, what the heck are you talking about? You are now arguing that defenses don't change and they are all the same and cover the entire field. Are you friggin kidding me?

Just because you WANT the issue to be overblown doesn't mean it is. As has already been asked, did you even watch the Minnesota game? Bill Belichick, the defensive genius, felt that Moss was enough of a THREAT that he had to keep a safety very deep virtually all game. Yet you insist that defenses play Moss the same way they play Tate.

The fact of the matter is you simply CANNOT cover the entire field on any play, otherwise you wouldn't need different strategies, schemes and plays.

I cant help you if your Moss glasses prevent you from having any reading comprehension.
I really have no interest in responding to a summary of my opinion that doesn't even resemble what I am saying.
We will never agree on this, because you have a forgone conclusion that you have no interest in determining whether it is correct or not. You indicated your feelings and allegiance when Moss was traded.
Please find someone elses posts to twist into what you would like them to say.
I am not going to respond to your opinion any more, because you don't really want to discuss it. Your method of restating someone elses opinion into something different than what it is, in order to allow you to say how wrong it is, is juvenile and not worth my time.

 

[emoney_33]

I cant help you if your Moss glasses prevent you from having any reading comprehension.

Ad Hominem attacks don't help your case.

I really have no interest in responding to a summary of my opinion that doesn't even resemble what I am saying.
We will never agree on this, because you have a forgone conclusion that you have no interest in determining whether it is correct or not.

Ad Hominem attacks rather than the actual facts that I've used in every argument I've had. Very poor form Andy.

You indicated your feelings and allegiance when Moss was traded.
Please find someone elses posts to twist into what you would like them to say.

More ad hominem, and back tracking. I didn't twist anything you said. You are the one that said the defense covers the entire field. You are the one that said indicated defenses do play Moss and Tate differently.

I am not going to respond to your opinion any more, because you don't really want to discuss it. Your method of restating someone elses opinion into something different than what it is, in order to allow you to say how wrong it is, is juvenile and not worth my time.

More ad hominem, on a roll! I've used nothing but facts and have always been willing to listen to all sides. I freely admit the possibility that the dip in production might be due more to increased defensive talent in the last 4 games vs. lacking a deep threat. I've summarized your points very fairly, and you have quotes all over the last 2 page to back up my summary. If you want to change your mind or change your argument or admit to a mistake or misspeak that's fine, but don't act like I'm twisting your words.

I am the one who posted the disparity in numbers between the first 4 games and last 4 games before ESPN Boston did. I don't sit here and make irrational arguments to defend ANYONE, not even the team.

 

[mgteich]

COVERAGES AGAINST MOSS
Some teams chose to take Moss out of the game. It is a choice teams make. Their game plan needs to greatly focus on one or two threats. Consider the Minny-pats game. Listen to mediots and watch the screen and replays. Listen to the comments by Moss before and after the game. Belichick was NOT going to be burned by Moss deep. We could have chosen to focus more on Harvin. We didn't.

Obviously other teams didn't double and triple team Moss on every play.

EFFECTIVENESS OF MOSS
Belichick did start the season with 2009 plus improved TE's. It was reasonable to at least try to improve over last year without an overhaul of the offense. It might have worked better with an improvement at RB.

HOWEVER, I do believe that Belichick wanted to wean Brady from looking to Moss and Welker on every play. After all, Welker was not and is not anywhere near 100%. Moss was just not effective enough for Belichick during the first four weeks.

THE NEW OFFENSE
Belichick chose to count on Branch and Tate instead of Moss. The dink and dunk was now the new offense. Can the replacement of one player make all the difference (Branch in for Moss)? Yes, it can, if Belichick chooses to change the offense.

REASONS FOR THE CHANGE IN PRODUCTION
Here I am with you. The reasons have more to do with schedule and with the injuries to the wideouts tan with the loss of the ineffective Moss. The offense was fine (and will be fine) with a healthy Branch.

BOTTOM LINE FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR
We do indeed need Tate to step up some, and we need a healthy Branch. Welker will be effective, but nowhere near what we have had for the past three years.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROMM THAT FEW SPEAK OF
The dink and dunk offense works best with an effective running game. Belichick has chosen to rely heavily on Taylor for this season's success. We need Taylor to be healthy.

Personally, I think that the lack of running back addition (in a non-cap year) will be considered Belichick's worst mistake of the offseason. I can understand Belichick not ahving faith in maroney and wanting to dump him. What I cannot understand is not acquiring another back to add to Green-Ellis and the ancient ones.

I'm not saying it doesnt matter, I am saying that the perception is way, way overblown.
Moss was not doubled or triple teamed (some people have actually said that happened) on every play, and our outside receivers are not being left one on one with no safety now.
If they were left one on one with no safety help, we would be throwing deep there is no doubt.
Whether we would be effective is a different story but to imply teams dont even bother to cover the deep routes is silly.



Sure, at least before this year any way. But the separation happens pretty much when the ball is in the air on a go pattern.
If it were true that everyone doubled Moss and overplayed the deep ball, and now they are ignoring covering it, you would have seen very few deep passes when he was here, and a lot since he left. That has not happened. BB himself has said Moss did not dictate coverage this season.


I absolutely have not. I have not MADE FUN of anyone or anything. I am saying that this issue greatly distorted.

and continue to give basketball examples as if basketball is relevant. [/quoe]
Well, I did twice. The point being that pass defense in the NFL is largely zone, and is largely primarily concerned with covering the entire field. Suggesting that teams sell out to cover Moss and now ignore deep routes is wrong, and the basketball analogy is an attempt to show the difference.


Everything I can see on the TV tape shows this is totally an inaccurate depiction of that game. When a LB jams Moss and he runs through 2 other zones crossing the field, that is a zone coverage that covers him just as it would whoever else lined up there. There was no noticable attention to Moss that was different than whoever else would have lined up there. I would suppose there were a few situations where the call was based on Moss being a threat, but they were a few plays, no more than any #1 WR.



I'm noit choosing, I am watching what I see.
===========


Before you said we didnt change the offense from 2009?
IMO, the offense evolved becuase Moss either wasnt producing or wasnt trying to produce. BB did not decide to just forget Moss was a game breaking receiver and try something different. MOSS changed, BB didnt'


I don't know how we would know any of that, or what relevance it has to this discssion.



What exactly do you think Moss 'commanded'? BB himself said Moss was not dictating coverages. Mostly teams played zone coverage against us. Do you think that now they leave corners one on one? Do you think they made up special Moss defenses?
Pehaps that is the quesiton.
What is it that you think defenses did then and do now. I mean specifically. Not just 'they paid attention to Moss' or he 'commanded coverages' because those are the misconceptions. I want you to explain those concepts, not give rhetoric. What coverages did the Patriots face with Moss that they don't face now and vice versa.

 

[emoney_33]

HOWEVER, I do believe that Belichick wanted to wean Brady from looking to Moss and Welker on every play. After all, Welker was not and is not anywhere near 100%. Moss was just not effective enough for Belichick during the first four weeks.

THE NEW OFFENSE
Belichick chose to count on Branch and Tate instead of Moss. The dink and dunk was now the new offense. Can the replacement of one player make all the difference (Branch in for Moss)? Yes, it can, if Belichick chooses to change the offense.

I agree with most except the above. I don't believe that there was EVER a problem with Brady looking for Moss or Welker on every play. If Brady had a -problem- looking for Moss or Welker, his completion % would have gone down, but it continued to be the best of his career. The Jets game is probably the game that most think of "forcing" it to Moss, but really NO ONE was getting open.

I also don't think there was a distinct change in offense with the Moss trade. I think the offense was changing from game 1. They started the year playing more 2 TE sets and the change in offense included Moss. The Bills game was a decent example of what I believe the Patriots wanted to do. Rather than take riskier throws to Moss, wait for him to inevitably break free and get scores, all the while exposing all other parts of the field. Moss' TDs were going to be up there, but his receptions/yards were going down. For whatever reason, Moss for 2010 became less valuable than a 3rd round pick in BB's eyes. I'm also sure that BB felt and still does feel that the offense can succeed reasonably well sans Moss, and definitely good enough to win if the defense keeps growing.

BTW, They would have tried to sign him back if he cleared waivers.

Now your point about the RB is a good one, we really are going to need Taylor this year.

 

[IllegalContact]

this kind of transition is not necessary in the middle of the season.......having the RB's and WR's you plan on going through the season with in training camp is a key to success......this is the 2nd season in a rown where major moves were made after training camp. in both situations it was a net minus in terms of the overall talent on the roster. Tactically, it doesn't work

No, this is a coaching "effect", not a Moss effect.

The coaches decided NOT to change the offense in the offseason or before Moss left. They decided to run the 2009 offense with Moss, Welker, Tate, Hernandez and Edelman (with Price in the wings). We also had Holt, but saw no problems when he was njured, since Tate was looking good.

The FO brought in Crumpler, Grankowski AND Hernandez. One would have thought that a chancge in philosophy was in the wind. The change did not come until the offense sputtered some.

So, now we have an offense in transition. That is good news. We have good reason to believe that our offense (and our defense) will be much better for the last quarter of the year.

 

[Ring 6]

Ad Hominem attacks don't help your case.



Ad Hominem attacks rather than the actual facts that I've used in every argument I've had. Very poor form Andy.



More ad hominem, and back tracking. I didn't twist anything you said. You are the one that said the defense covers the entire field. You are the one that said indicated defenses do play Moss and Tate differently.



More ad hominem, on a roll! I've used nothing but facts and have always been willing to listen to all sides. I freely admit the possibility that the dip in production might be due more to increased defensive talent in the last 4 games vs. lacking a deep threat. I've summarized your points very fairly, and you have quotes all over the last 2 page to back up my summary. If you want to change your mind or change your argument or admit to a mistake or misspeak that's fine, but don't act like I'm twisting your words.

I am the one who posted the disparity in numbers between the first 4 games and last 4 games before ESPN Boston did. I don't sit here and make irrational arguments to defend ANYONE, not even the team.

Well its too bad yuo dont really understand the meaning of your new favorite word, but we are simply miles and miles apart on this. I have yet to see a single fact out of you, yet you claim yuo are using facts while you give your uninformed opinion.
Its this exact method of trying to impress people by ignoring what anyone has to say and trying to win an argument that makes this board unreadable at times.
I will just substitute "No, I AM RIGHT" for any responses from you and save the time and trouble.
Go ahead and call my opinion that I have no interest in your stubborn opinion ad hominem if that works for you.
I will allow you to have the last word here, so take your time and load up really good and tell me how you know it all.

 

[Bring Back Antowain!]

Over the span of the season those stats are good. But look at the last four weeks, the passing game has been struggling tremendously with Brady completing less than 60% of his passes.

 

[emoney_33]

Well its too bad yuo dont really understand the meaning of your new favorite word, but we are simply miles and miles apart on this. I have yet to see a single fact out of you, yet you claim yuo are using facts while you give your uninformed opinion.

If you haven't seen any facts from me that's because you've refused to read them. Every objective offensive measurement has gone down since the Moss trade, that's a fact. And that's what I've offered.

Its this exact method of trying to impress people by ignoring what anyone has to say and trying to win an argument that makes this board unreadable at times.
I will just substitute "No, I AM RIGHT" for any responses from you and save the time and trouble.
Go ahead and call my opinion that I have no interest in your stubborn opinion ad hominem if that works for you.
I will allow you to have the last word here, so take your time and load up really good and tell me how you know it all.

Oh please, I am far from that type of poster and have called out many posters who post only to win arguments. I concede points all the time and I actually READ people's posts/points rather than intending to argue. Your last post had 0 to do with any point in the discussion. Now please let this really be the last word unless you are going to get back on topic.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Hmm...

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive Upon further review, is it possible the Moss-less offense isn’t so bad? … and links!

 

[emoney_33]

Hmm...

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive Upon further review, is it possible the Moss-less offense isn’t so bad? … and links!

There is no "Hmm", this type of flawed analysis was first given by Felger. I have already shown that the offense has gotten a LOT more chances to score (thanks to better defensive play). They've succeeded at a far worse clip but the increase in opportunities thanks to the defense has given them enough to make up for the totals. Maybe it's entirely due to better opposing defenses, but the PPG (which is really 21.25 because you have to exclude non-regulation scoring) is misleading at best.

 

[mgteich]

Opposing teams are completing passes at a 70% clip and are converting 3rd down more than against any other team in 10 years. We are 32nd in both categories. Putting 8 in the boxd all game and still giving up ove 200 yards rushing speaks for itself.

Salute the defense!

There is no "Hmm", this type of flawed analysis was first given by Felger. I have already shown that the offense has gotten a LOT more chances to score (thanks to better defensive play). They've succeeded at a far worse clip but the increase in opportunities thanks to the defense has given them enough to make up for the totals. Maybe it's entirely due to better opposing defenses, but the PPG (which is really 21.25 because you have to exclude non-regulation scoring) is misleading at best.