For what it's worth, a few interesting offensive statistics comparing this regular season with last:

• In 2012, the offense ran an amazing 1,191 plays. That's up 109 plays from a very respectable 1,081 last year. 
• Average plays per game were up to 74.4 in 2012 from 67.6 in 2011 (up 6.8 plays per game)
• Those plays were spread over 180 drives (compared with 173 last year).*  This means we ran, on average, 6.6 plays per drive, up from 6.3 last year.  
• We also had more drives per game in 2012, an average of 11.3 per game in 2012 compared with an average of 10.8 last year.  
• Drive length was also slightly longer--an average of 2:45 minutes, up from 2:40 last year
• Not surprisingly, with more drives, more plays, and slightly longer drives, average time of possession was up by 2:09 minutes per game (from 28:47 to 30:56).
• Average time per play was actually down from 26 seconds in 2011 to 25 seconds in 2012--so the extra drive time and overall time of possession came from more plays being run, not from plays that ate more clock. 
• Despite more drives, more plays, and slighlty longer drive times, total yards were almost the same--427.9 in 2012 versus 428.0 in 2011.  
• The only way you can run 109 more plays and end up with the same number of yards is if yards per play was shorter.  In fact, the average play got considerably fewer yards in 2012 than in 2011--6.3 yards per play in 2011 down to 5.7 in 2012. 
• Part of that decline in average yards per play can be attributed to the higher number of run plays in 2012.  In 2012, the 74.4 plays per game were divided into 32.7 running plays and 41.8 passing plays; in 2011, the 67.6 plays per game were divided into 27.4 running plays and 40.3 passing plays.  So the Pats increased running plays by 5.3 per game and passing plays by 1.5 per game. Overall, the run-pass mix changed from 40.5%-59.5% in 2011 to 43.9%-56.1% in 2012. Running plays averaged 4.2 yards per carry in 2012, up from 4.0 in 2011, but of course still produced fewer yards than passing plays, so the increase in running plays would result in a reduction in average yards per play.
• More running plays, however, aren't the most significant reason for the decline in yards per play.  Far more significant is the decline in yards per passing play.  In 2011, the Pats averaged 13.1 yards per completion.  In 2012, that dropped by more than a yard per play to 12.0 yards per completion.  If you account for incompletions and sacks, the Pats yards per passing play in 2012 was 7.0 yards per play while in 2011 it was 7.9 yards per play.  The pass completion percentage was down slightly from 65.7% in 2011 to 62.7%, but the major difference seems to be be fewer yards per completion not a lower completion percentage. (Sacks were also down by 5, but the difference in yards lost to sacks was insignificant, just 9 yards overall.) 

While season averages can obscure almost as much as they reveal, they do provide some interesting information on general trends.  To me, the most surprising are these: 

• Despite running more in 2012, the Pats actually used up less time per play in 2012 than in 2011. The increase in TOP in 2012 was therefore due to the number of plays run more than to the time used up per play. The interesting question is whether this is due mostly to even greater use of the hurry up offense or whether it is really more the impact of the defense getting off the field faster and therefore giving the offense more time to run plays. 
• Despite a significant increase in plays per game, the yards per game was almost exactly the same in 2012 and 2011.  This seems to be the result of yards per completion declining by a full yard in 2012.  An interesting question is whether this was because the passes were generally shorter or because the receivers got fewer yards after the catch.  The stats on NFL.com don't tell (they don't record YAC), but it would be interesting to know.  

 _____

Addendum:

Should have also mentioned scoring:

• In 2011, we scored 57 offensive TDs (18 rushing, 39 passing); In 2012, we scored 59 (25 rushing, 34 passing)--with a few more drives in 2012, the percentage of drives resulting in TDs is the same--33%.
• We had 29 field goals in 2012 and 28 in 2011. (16% of drives resulted in FGs both years.)
• Overall scoring difference on offense is small and can mostly be attributed to the increased number of drives; the bigger difference in scoring was that in 2012 our defense and special teams had 8 TDs, while in 2011 they had just 4.  If the defense was partly responsible for the greater number of offensive drives (by getting the opposing offense off the field faster), then the difference in scoring overall (which amounted to 2.7 points per game more in 2012) may be mostly attributable to better defense!

____

* All stats are from NFL.com (or are simple calculations made from stats available on NFL.com) except for the drive count, which is from Football Outsiders. Football Outsiders excludes end-of-half kneel down drives from the drive count. 

Nice job!

The question is, do the metrics result in a happy ending?

In response to krismk's comment:

Well, by regular season, we're 12-4 this year and were 13-3 last year.  We'll see what happens in the post season. 

Thanks for your good work and interesting indeed.

Wondering  about the impact (2011 as opposed to 12) ie; O'B vs McD has any bearing? Gronk and Hern missing much time? Lot to think about dealing with details such as those.

Thanks again ...;-))

 

In response to krismk's comment:

When you pay the masseuse in kilos of gold they may?

The offense was identically efficient by DSR. 

Nice turn. This team is incredibly consistent on offense the last three seasons.

The TOP, though, is probably more related to the defense which was actually improved. 

People who don't look at efficiencies won't pick it up, but NE was ranked 21st in PPD last season, and they are 12th this season. 

They were 30th(!) in DSR last season, and were 15th this season. 

Although the ppg allowed were very, very similar, this year's defense did it in many, many more drives, and were much better getting off the field on third down. 

That alone probably accounts for the extra drives and increase TOP. 

Your findings are totally correct. 

Brady sucks. imagine what this offense could do with [insert name] QB'ing it.

In response to zbellino's comment:

haha .. if the word "masseuse' is a neutral word in English, then that will depend ....;-) and in that case your choice of words "may" covers it beautifully.

As always ZB refines and defines ....

In response to palookaski's comment:

Good questions.  It's possible the absence of Hern and Gronk are one reason the average yards per passing play is down.  Those guys are good YAC guys.  

As far as changes to playcalling and gameplanning, there clearly has been more emphasis on the run this year.  I'm not sure that's purely a Bill O'Brien-Josh MacDaniels thing, though.  I think the drafting of Ridley and Vereen showed the coaches (O'Brien and Belichick) felt the run needed to be improved after 2010 (a season in which O'Brien did try to emphasize the run).  I think in 2011, the coaches felt they weren't there yet with two rookies, and so devised an offense that took advantage of the strengths in the short passing game.  In the offseason last year, there was a stated desire to become more effective in the run.  Josh probably had something to do with that, but I think O'Brien and Belichick would have done the same as well.  

Regardless, the offense in 2012 is highly productive--but pretty much equally productive as in 2011.  Even the offensive statistics suggest that the biggest change in the team has been in defense.  The slight increase in scoring is in large part due to a doubling of defensive TDs.  It also probably has to do with the increase in drives and TOP, which probably has to do with both the offense and defense being slightly more efficient. The offense has slightly extended its drives while the defense has decreased the yards given up per game by about 38. 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

good number crunching ... Except you left out first downs....

2011 .  369 first downs total(non penalty).

  .  .  .  89 of 194  3rd down conversion. 45.9%

 

2012.    407 first downs (non penalty).

 . . .  . 110 of 226 3rd down conversions  48.7%.

 

These numbers are telling since the use of a running game makes 3 rd does easier to convert.  Clearly this years offense is much better, even without gronk and Hernandez for long stretches.  not even close.

Also , stop making excuses for O'Brien...  He was terrible.  Backs weren't ready ?  Ridley was excellent, and the other guys bjge woodhead etc. were quite capable.

In response to coolade2's comment:

You need to justify this. 

Your statement has no backing whatsoever. A use of running game makes getting third downs easier? Simply saying that doesn't make it true. 

One doesn't logically follow the other. Sorry. I could just as easily say three step drops make getting third downs easier. 

Clearly, the offense, given its efficiencies are almost *spot on* performs the same as O'Briens. 

It's very, very easy to see ... more help from the defense (vastly improved in *real* numbers at gettting off the field on thrid down) + faster playcalling/play running = more posessions. 

The first alone, going from 30th to 17th in DSR on defense *should* yeild you an extra handful or so possessions over the course of a season. That's the extra points, yards, plays, etc. The efficiencies of this offense and last years are basically identical.

The increase in 3rd down percentage probably has to do with the fact that Ridley carries at 4.1 YPC on first down, and BJGE (last season) was at 3.4 YPC on first down. But even then it's a nominal increase. 

In response to zbellino's comment:

It could be rephrased, like 3rd down conversion increase is related to better play calling overall but also the use of a running game (90% of which happens on 1st and 2nd down) providing shorter 3rd downs to convert.  this is logical to me and it is shown in the numbers.

I think you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from the raw number of first downs or from the third-down conversion percentage.  While it's good to have more first downs and a higher third-down percentage, ideally you avoid third downs altogether (getting firsts on first or second down is generally better than needing three downs to get a first down).  The increase in number of first downs is also to be expected, I think, with shorter yards per play.  If your plays get fewer yards, then you need more plays to cover the same distance and that generally means you also need more first downs as well. I think these statistics point to a slight increase in offensive efficiency, but not a huge change.

I disagree about O'Brien.  I think he was much more effective than fans give him credit for.   In fact, statistically the offense last year (and in 2010) was very similar to this year's.  The data really doesn't suggest anything more than a marginal improvement in offensive efficiency.  Honestly, I think a lot of that improvement has to do with an improvement in players (talent and experience) rather than a change in offensive philosophy, game planning, or play calling.  This is not to say the emphasis on the run doesn't help (I think it does), but that emphasis has been in enabled by an improvement in talent and, especially, experience among the backs.  O'Brien wasn't biased against the run--he used it heavily in 2010.  I think he just looked at the talent he had in 2011 and decided he was better off designing the offense around the passing game and using the hurry-up as a key weapon.  I think he did a remarkable job producing such a productive offense given the lack of depth and diversity in high-quality, experienced players.   

I agree that Ridley did run well much of last season, but the coaches clearly didn't have confidence in him in the postseason for whatever reason (fumbling, missed blocks, inadequate grasp of the playbook, injury--who knows?). I trust the coaches on that . . . and I doubt the decision not to use Ridley in the Super Bowl was all O'Brien's.  I'm sure Belichick approved that decision as well. 

At the time, I wondered why they used Gronk in the Super Bowl given his ineffectiveness because of the injury.  Having seen the difference between the offense with Gronk in and with Gronk out this year, I am starting to understand why the coaches made the decision to try to use him in the Super Bowl.  He has a huge impact on the offense, and without him, I think they felt they didn't have enough to beat the Giants.  I've grown to trust the coaches decisions on personnel -- I think they really do know what they are doing and second guessing Belichick and his staff is usually a mistake.

 

Turnover differential increased by 8 turnovers from +17 to +25.  Most of that was due to increased turnovers created by the defense. 

• The offense and special teams turned over the ball 16 times in 2011 (5 fumbles lost and 12 interceptions); the offense and special teams turned over the ball 15 times in 2011 (7 fumbles lost and 9 interceptions).
• The defense created 34 turnovers in 2011 (11 fumbles and 23 interceptions).  It created 41 in 2012 (21 fumbles and 20 interceptions).

 

In response to coolade2's comment:

If you're waiting for this crew to admit that a running game has contributed to a more efficient offense you'll die of old age before that happens.  Ironically O'Brien's best offense (2010) came about because he rode Law Firm, achieving his highest total number of carries as a Patriot, this was Brady's most efficient season under Obie but the running game will get no props for that because Obie sat Law Firm for the 1st half of the shellacking the Jets handed us at home in the first and only playoff game.

For those saying a run game doesn't make third downs easier, consider a third and short is considerably easier to achieve than a third and long, especially when you bring the dual threat to run or pass.  Running makes third downs more manageable because a balanced offense is a more dangerous offense.  This isn't even an argument.

Yes, there's nothing different about this years offense except that it is better in every way...

Yes, it certainly is nice to boast about a great offense, isn't it?   But, what has been the "thorn in the side" of the Pats these last few years, these stats did not translate too well into the post season.  WHY?   Do we have to say they are playing "better" defenses?  Not necessarily so as in many cases they are playing the same teams they may have played in the regular season on which they did put up 30 points or so.  So why, for some reason, does the Pats offense vary from their successful formulas of the regular season come playoff time? I am certain folks like Rusty, TP, Babe and others have their theories. All in all, though, better to have such an offense on the field and not rely on the defense to win it, right?

My belief is that the Pats postseason success on offense depends heavily on the match-up between our O line and TEs and the opponents' D-line and LBs.  If the opponent can get lots of pressure on Brady while still stopping the run, we're in trouble.  That's really the only way to stop the Pats offense . . . win the battle at the LOS. 

Beyond that, the key to success in the postseason is having the D step up and not give up big plays late in the game.  That's been the Pats achilles heel.  When the offense struggles, the defense has not recently been strong enough to win the game on their own.  In 2001-2004 the D brought as much to the table as the O.  Recently, it has been all on the shoulders of the O. 

Two keys for the postseason:  good O-line play and good D, especially against the pass. 

Play calling, amount of runs, amount of shotgun, number of passes, etc. . . . those things are not that signficant to the outcome. Execution by the O line and the defense are the real keys.

The way to beat a team that is evenly matched with you is to protect the ball, convert first downs, control the time of possession and make your field goals.  

The Giant's beat us because they controlled the clock (ran) and won the turnover battle.  

Our offense had the only turnovers (2) in the last Super Bowl, granted if our defense could have gotten some turnovers that would have helped, but the ineptitude of our offense turning it over to start the 4th quarter then doing nothing the remaining 3 possessions in the 4th quarter is what lost it for them.  

Our offense had the ball with a minute to go and did nothing, just like they did in the previous 4 possessions.  You can't lay the burden on the defense to stop them again and again, endurance has limits.

 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

hey pro, i posted this last night under "season in a nutshell".

very revealing

In response to wozzy's comment:

The Giants controlled the clock in large part because our defense couldn't stop them.  You'll never acknowledge this, which is fine, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

both and in my opinion

but the egregious error was in off coord game/playcalling. horribly mismanged

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

[/QUOTE]

The Giants controlled the clock in large part because our defense couldn't stop them.  You'll never acknowledge this, which is fine, but that doesn't make it any less true. 

[/QUOTE]

The reality is our defense forced them to punt 4 times, including after the disastrous interception to start the 4th quarter, that was one more punt than the Pats had.  

The difference is that our offense turned the ball over twice and was not able to do anything offensively.  

I don't expect the impossible from a defense that was considered the weaker of the two units, the defense was on the field all day, players only dont get tired on Madden after you turn the "fatigue" option off.

The onus was on the offense to control the clock in the 4th, they failed miserably. 

On offense, I'm not sure it was playcalling as much as execution.  The O line wasn't great in either run blocking or pass blocking.  You can quibble with some of the play calls, but I think execution was more significant. 

On the safety, Brady maybe could have tried to throw the ball out of bounds . . . but that play broke down because Vollmer didn't hold his block.  (Four Giants rushers defeated seven Pats blockers!)  On the Brady/Gronk interception, the line again didn't hold.  Brady shouldn't have forced the deep pass to an injured Gronk, but really the problem started with the line breaking down. Even Benny deserves a pass on a number of his short runs which were caused more by poor blocking than by poor running.  I've rewatched the coaches film of that game a number of times and the more I've watched, the more I've come to question the blocking rather than the play calling or anything else. 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

"On offense, I'm not sure it was playcalling as much as execution."
it was awful. 

one memerable case in point, we needed 2 tds (or 2 scores i forgeta) i believe and spent almost all the clock on short plays and long drive. (and still needed to make a stop and score afterwards in way too little time left). assumed wrongly we would score a td and failed at the last minute and had to settle for a  fg