Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Turnovers are bad, Wozzy.  But the particular turnover you're talking about didn't result in anything different than a three-and-out and a punt on that series would have produced.  The Giants got the ball at the 8 or 10 yard line if I remember right.  They then mounted a long, clock-eating drive, which ended in a punt. 

    What the Pats needed to do there was score and they didn't do it.  That hurt.  There's no doubt about it.  But the Pats still had the lead.  After the Giants punted, the Pats mounted another drive--this one a long one--but again failed to score.  They still had the lead, however, with under four minutes left.  But the defense gave up a quick score in the fourth quarter, something this defense has been prone to do for years.  

    I've never defended the offense's play in the Super Bowl.  It wasn't great.  But the problem in my opinion was primarily execution, not play calling.  The line failed at crucial times.  The Gronk interception is one of those failures.  The Benny -1 yard run that stalled the next drive was another O-line failure.  Benny was hit behind the line of scrimmage.  The Giants' front four were getting too much penetration and that was hurting both the pass and the run.  Vollmer's back and Mankin's knees, and Gronk's ankle all had an effect on that game.  Line play isn't the easiest things for fans to see and judge -- but it is critically important.  

    Still, the Pats had the lead at the start of the second half, increased it on the first drive of the half, and still had the lead with under four minutes to go.  The offense wasn't scoring after the opening drive of the second half, which wasn't good, but the defense also let the Giants score three times on four drives.  And the only drive they stopped was nearly five minutes long. This is not a good defensive performance. 

    Watching the game, we all knew the offense had to score in the fourth quarter.  The reason, though, was because we were also seeing the defense give up points drive after drive.  We've become accustomed to this.  It happened in the 2010 playoff game when Merriweather gave up a 50-yard-or-so play late in the game.  I happened in 2009 all over the place with the Ravens.  And it happened in the Baltimore game in 2011 when we had to depend on Baltimore's kicker making a mistake because our defense couldn't get a stop outside the redzone.

    Lately, the Pats win or die with their offense, because the defense isn't dependable.  Usually they win, because the offense usually performs great.  When it's performance is just average, though, the team loses.  You can't expect an offense to be great 100% of the time.  Certain defenses are going to give it trouble (in the Pats' case, especially those with good defensive front fours).  Sometimes players won't execute as well as usual. Sometimes they are injured. They're human beings after all.  In those situations, championship teams need a defense that can step up and get stops at key points in the game.  The Pats had that kind of defense in 2001 (help the greatest show on turf to a handful of points) in 2003 and in 2004.  They haven't had that in recent years. Hopefully, they have it this year with the addition of Talib and Dennard and the movement of McCourty to safety, because the offense very well could stall in a playoff game again and if they do, we need the defense to step up.  

    Otherwise, we're just not a well-rounded enough team to really deserve to be a champion.   

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Woozzy fails to understand that 1/3rd the game was DEFENDING those 4 punts.

    !/3rd the game was DEFENDING the 4 scoring drives.

    Which left 1/3rd of the game for the Pats OFFENSE to operate.

    Give or take 1-2 minutes.  There are no more thirds to the game.

    AND that you typically don't score as much with 8 possessions compared to 12.

    Where did those 4 possessions go?  Look no further than the 1/3rd of the game Defending those 4 punts he raves about.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    From ESPNBoston.com:

    When assessing a player’s value, teams can sometimes turn to playing-time statistics. The more valuable the player, the more he plays. 

    With this in mind, the following is a breakdown of playing time for Patriots offensive skill-position players in 2012 (penalties included, no kneel-downs, small margin for error, charted by ESPNBoston.com): 

    Quarterback 
    Tom Brady – 1,224 of 1,240 – 98.7 percent 
    Ryan Mallett – 16 of 1,240 – 1.3 percent 

    Quick hit: Brady doesn’t like to come out of the game. A strong 2013 preseason could increase Mallett’s value. 

    Running back/fullback 
    Stevan Ridley – 555 of 1,240 – 44.8 percent 
    Danny Woodhead – 423 of 1,240 – 34.1 percent 
    Shane Vereen – 158 of 1,240 – 12.7 percent 
    Brandon Bolden – 93 of 1,240 – 7.5 percent 
    Dan Connolly – 9 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 
    Lex Hilliard – 8 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 
    Donald Thomas – 2 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 

    Quick hits: Ridley was the clear-cut No. 1 when compared to last year as BenJarvus Green-Ellis played 34 percent of the snaps and Woodhead played 33 percent. The Patriots are positioned well here for the future, as Jeff Demps is a candidate to join the mix in 2013. Woodhead, who has seamlessly slid into the old Kevin Faulk role, is a free agent who has increased his value with a strong campaign. 

    Wide receiver 
    Wes Welker – 1,085 of 1,240 – 87.5 percent 
    Brandon Lloyd – 1,051 of 1,240 – 84.8 percent 
    Deion Branch – 482 of 1,240 – 38.9 percent 
    Julian Edelman – 299 of 1,240 – 24.1 percent 
    Matthew Slater – 37 of 1,240 – 3.0 percent 
    Donte’ Stallworth – 20 of 1,240 – 1.6 percent 
    Greg Salas – 6 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 
    Kamar Aiken – 3 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 

    Quick hits: Welker was at 89.2 percent last season, the high mark among receivers, and he leads the way again in 2012. He might not be a prototype No. 1 receiver, but the Patriots use him like one. It hasn’t always been smooth, but credit Lloyd for being available and playing a lot of snaps. His presence helped balance things out and provide more of an outside threat. This looks like a position that will require some offseason attention. 

    Tight end 
    Rob Gronkowski – 743 of 1,240 – 59.9 percent 
    Aaron Hernandez – 575 of 1,240 – 46.4 percent 
    Daniel Fells – 293 of 1,240 – 23.6 percent 
    Michael Hoomanawanui – 283 of 1,240 – 22.8 percent 
    Visanthe Shiancoe – 51 of 1,240 – 4.1 percent 
    Marcus Cannon – 15 of 1,240 – 1.2 percent 
    Nick McDonald – 9 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 
    Kellen Winslow – 4 of 1,240 – less than 1 percent 

    Quick hits: The idea was to build the offense around young tight ends Gronkowski and Hernandez, but they were only on the field together for four of the 16 regular-season games because of injuries. The Patriots stocked up with depth, but the attack naturally slips a bit without Gronkowski and/or Hernandez. Their ability to play a full 16-game season will be a storyline to monitor in 2013.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Interesting reading for those who think Bill Belichick is hands-off when it comes to the offense:

     

    FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- Patriots coach Bill Belichick offered a glimpse into his role as head coach of the Patriots during Wednesday's press conference, talking at length about how he divides his time and how play-calling is handled among his assistants. 

    "I know titles are a big important thing externally, but whether you’re President of the United States or graduate assistant, whatever your job is, you do it and then there are people that you work with that do that job," Belichick said when asked if offensive coordinator Bill O'Brien had assumed more of the offensive play-calling duties since being officially elevated to the title of offensive coordinator this season. 

    "Call [O'Brien] whatever you want to call him, it doesn’t matter. Whoever is calling plays, if the head coach is involved with the play-calling or the organization of the play-calling, then I’m going to talk to the person that calls the plays. If I’m not, then he calls them and you know, there’s no input from the head coach, that’s alright, too. I’m not saying it has to be one way or the other, but however you’re structured to set it up, that’s how it's set up. But the way it’s structured here is, I’ll take responsibility for all the plays that are called. I have the final say on it. If I don’t want to run the play, then I can call it off – that’s my right as a head coach. Any of the bad ones, you can blame me for because ultimately I could change them if I wanted to." 

    The coaching chatter spawned from Belichick being asked if he becomes more involved with a specific position when there's numerous new faces added to that group. 

    "What I try to do as a head coach, and it’s one of the advantages, honestly, of being a head coach, is that you can go where you want to go," said Belichick. "If you want to work with this group, you can work with this group; if you want to work with that group, you can work with that group. So that’s kind of nice. But no, the assistant coaches do the coaching, but if there’s anything that I want to try to convey to a particular player or to a particular group, then it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s new guys, old guys, whoever they are. I have no problem going into that meeting room, calling him into my office, talking to [him], sitting down with him and trying to tell them, ‘Look, this is what I think is important this week or this is what I think you need to do better or this is what we’re looking for from you or this is something that’s going to change and here’s what’s going to happen.’ 

    "I try to do that on, I would say weekly but really it’s more of a daily basis. It could be with young players, it could be with veteran players, it could be with anybody. It’s wherever I feel like I want to put that emphasis. It’s not always in the same groups; it’s not always with the same people." 

    Asked if a hands-on role permeates over to gameday, Belichick offered a glimpse into how play-calling works for New England. 

    "During a game, I talk to all the play callers, to [special teams coach] Scott [O’Brien] to [offensive coordinator] Billy [O’Brien] to [safeties coach] Matt [Patricia]," said Belichick. "First of all, we go into the game with a plan of how we want to try to start things -- believe it or not. I know everybody doesn’t think that’s the way it is, but we actually talk about, ‘This is how we want to start the game and these are the calls that we would make in this situation, second-and-long, third-and-short, third-and-medium, red area, goal line,’ and then, after the game starts to unfold, then you kind of say ‘OK, well we want to sort of stay with the way we mapped this out, or they’re doing this and these don’t look as good, these look better or maybe we have to make an adjustment and say, ‘Well we can run these plays but if this happens we have to do something else,’ that type of thing. We talk about that over the course of the game." 

    One question Belichick didn't have an answer for: How many times per game he uses his ultimate authority to overrule a coordinator's call. Pressed on the issue, he quipped: "I don’t know. I’ll log them for you over the next couple of weeks and we’ll see how that goes." 

    [/QUOTE]


    Is this from 2009?    sounds like it.  Bb gives himself wiggle room on every question.  You can interpret it how you want.  Given the circumstances of that year, these comments make sense. 

    Bb was coddling obie along in his first year as play caller.  This year is the " forgotten" year of Brady's comeback, which ended with welkers injury and obies inability to adjust in any meaningful way, resulting in blowout to Baltimore.

    Belichick was being pressed on this issue because he has this habit (flaw) of dismissing the importance of in- game playcalling , something Weis excelled at ,meanwhile bbs inexperienced replacements HAVE ALL STRUGGLED IN BIG GAMES.  BB took weis for granted and this team has suffered for it since.

    Now 8 years later we finally have an experienced OC that has a chance to execute an authentic NFL caliber game plan ALONG WITH in game adjustments... We shall see if it plays out with a title...

    It would be interesting to have bb address these questions during weis' years.  maybe a shorter answer like...  " Charlie handles that stuff according to our game plan..." 

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Turnovers are bad, Wozzy.  But the particular turnover you're talking about didn't result in anything different than a three-and-out and a punt on that series would have produced.  The Giants got the ball at the 8 or 10 yard line if I remember right.  They then mounted a long, clock-eating drive, which ended in a punt. 

    What the Pats needed to do there was score and they didn't do it.  That hurt.  There's no doubt about it.  But the Pats still had the lead.  After the Giants punted, the Pats mounted another drive--this one a long one--but again failed to score.  They still had the lead, however, with under four minutes left.  But the defense gave up a quick score in the fourth quarter, something this defense has been prone to do for years.  

    I've never defended the offense's play in the Super Bowl.  It wasn't great.  But the problem in my opinion was primarily execution, not play calling.  The line failed at crucial times.  The Gronk interception is one of those failures.  The Benny -1 yard run that stalled the next drive was another O-line failure.  Benny was hit behind the line of scrimmage.  The Giants' front four were getting too much penetration and that was hurting both the pass and the run.  Vollmer's back and Mankin's knees, and Gronk's ankle all had an effect on that game.  Line play isn't the easiest things for fans to see and judge -- but it is critically important.  

    Still, the Pats had the lead at the start of the second half, increased it on the first drive of the half, and still had the lead with under four minutes to go.  The offense wasn't scoring after the opening drive of the second half, which wasn't good, but the defense also let the Giants score three times on four drives.  And the only drive they stopped was nearly five minutes long. This is not a good defensive performance. 

    Watching the game, we all knew the offense had to score in the fourth quarter.  The reason, though, was because we were also seeing the defense give up points drive after drive.  We've become accustomed to this.  It happened in the 2010 playoff game when Merriweather gave up a 50-yard-or-so play late in the game.  I happened in 2009 all over the place with the Ravens.  And it happened in the Baltimore game in 2011 when we had to depend on Baltimore's kicker making a mistake because our defense couldn't get a stop outside the redzone.

    Lately, the Pats win or die with their offense, because the defense isn't dependable.  Usually they win, because the offense usually performs great.  When it's performance is just average, though, the team loses.  You can't expect an offense to be great 100% of the time.  Certain defenses are going to give it trouble (in the Pats' case, especially those with good defensive front fours).  Sometimes players won't execute as well as usual. Sometimes they are injured. They're human beings after all.  In those situations, championship teams need a defense that can step up and get stops at key points in the game.  The Pats had that kind of defense in 2001 (help the greatest show on turf to a handful of points) in 2003 and in 2004.  They haven't had that in recent years. Hopefully, they have it this year with the addition of Talib and Dennard and the movement of McCourty to safety, because the offense very well could stall in a playoff game again and if they do, we need the defense to step up.  

    Otherwise, we're just not a well-rounded enough team to really deserve to be a champion.   

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
     
    This lengthy post is mostly stating the obvious but I highlighted a few comments to differ with.  Firstly the entire post is basically defending the offense so trying to deny that is silly.

    A turnover is about a hundred times worse than a punt when it happens on FIRST DOWN.  Wow, do I have to explain this?  Start with putting your defense back on the field, then momentum shift,  then the "check ... checkmate" aspect of foiling a homerun attempt by immature OC." 

    Execution vs. playcalling.  If you want to say this (and show your obie bias ) then why don't you just run the same play over and over.  Then execution would be perfect right? . NEWS FLASH...  playcalling matters. Stop defending horrible offensive coaches who were outsmarted.

    It's a complementary game ... Saying defense isn't dependable is a generalized negative statement.  If defense pitches a shutout you still need to score to win.  Obie led offense failed in the SB.

    Last comment is another generalized negative statement.  please name all the well rounded teams that have won the Superbowl.  Start with JINTS, 9-7 reg season, 25th ranked D, 29th pass D, 9th ranked O.  It's about winning a game.  Pats were better in every ranking except coaching.   O'Brien choked.

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
     
    This lengthy post is mostly stating the obvious but I highlighted a few comments to differ with.  Firstly the entire post is basically defending the offense so trying to deny that is silly.

    No it isn't.  It's saying that the offense needed to execute better, but so did the defense.  That's not a defense of the offense, it's merely a statement that the offense wasn't solely responsible for losing the game and that the defense deserves blame too. I also disagree that the whole problem was play calling.  Fans always complain about play calling.  It's easy to do.  When a play doesn't work, you blame the call not the execution.  Usually, though, plays fail because the other team executes its assignments better than your team.  Play calling is vastly overrated by the average fan. Not that it's irrelevant, but it's not the be all and end all some think.   

    A turnover is about a hundred times worse than a punt when it happens on FIRST DOWN.  Wow, do I have to explain this?  Start with putting your defense back on the field, then momentum shift,  then the "check ... checkmate" aspect of foiling a homerun attempt by immature OC." 

    If Brady had thrown the ball away and they failed to pick up a first down on the next two plays and had to punt, the result would have been pretty much the same.  You would have had two more offensive plays with maybe another minute off the clock, then a punt which may very well have given the ball back to the Giants with better field position than the interception gave them.   

    Execution vs. playcalling.  If you want to say this (and show your obie bias ) then why don't you just run the same play over and over.  Then execution would be perfect right? . NEWS FLASH...  playcalling matters. Stop defending horrible offensive coaches who were outsmarted.

    If you want to deny that execution was an issue (when it's clear if you watch the O line play) and show your anti-O'Brien bias, fine.  Statistically, O'Brien was very good. Belichick also promoted him after 2010 and kept him in the role throughout 2011. Your opinion is just that, your opinion.  It's not based on any statistics for sure.  Do you really think Belichick didn't approve (and probably play a large role in developing) the game plan for the Super Bowl?  Do you really think that Belichick would have stood silent the whole game if he felt O'Brien was messing up the play calls?  Do you really think Belichick didn't know exactly what play they were going to call to start the Super Bowl (like some assume)?  

    It's a complementary game ... Saying defense isn't dependable is a generalized negative statement.  If defense pitches a shutout you still need to score to win.  Obie led offense failed in the SB.

    The defense also has to play well.  It's not a generalized statement.  It's based on the fact that the defense allowed the Giants to score on 3 of 4 drives in the second half. That's very specific.  And also very damming. 

    Last comment is another generalized negative statement.  please name all the well rounded teams that have won the Superbowl.  Start with JINTS, 9-7 reg season, 25th ranked D, 29th pass D, 9th ranked O.  It's about winning a game.  Pats were better in every ranking except coaching.   O'Brien choked.

    Giants played better on both sides of the ball.  Offense and defense.  That's the reality.    Pats defense has been a problem for years.  Offense isn't 100% perfect--but it hasn't been the primary problem.  The fact is, the Pats rarely win games where they don't score 28 or 30 points.  Why is that?  Because the defense rarely holds a team to much less than 30.  Remember, the NFL average is in the low 20s, so when you need to regularly score 30 to win, your defense is giving up more than an average amount of points. 

    [/QUOTE]


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
     
    .....  The fact is, the Pats rarely win games where they don't score 28 or 30 points.  Why is that?  Because the defense rarely holds a team to much less than 30.  Remember, the NFL average is in the low 20s, so when you need to regularly score 30 to win, your defense is giving up more than an average amount of points. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Really??  With that last paragraph prolate, you have said the Pats' D give up on average MORE than 28 - 30 points per game!!  In only two games this season, have the Pats lost a game when scoring 28+ points, againt the Ravens and 49ers.  Come on...get your facts right!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
     
    .....  The fact is, the Pats rarely win games where they don't score 28 or 30 points.  Why is that?  Because the defense rarely holds a team to much less than 30.  Remember, the NFL average is in the low 20s, so when you need to regularly score 30 to win, your defense is giving up more than an average amount of points. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Really??  With that last paragraph prolate, you have said the Pats' D give up on average MORE than 28 - 30 points per game!!  In only two games this season, have the Pats lost a game when scoring 28+ points, againt the Ravens and 49ers.  Come on...get your facts right!

    [/QUOTE]

    That's fair . . . they are better than I suggested there, but in 2011 they were frequently giving up 24, 28, even 30 points--all above average points given up.   Compare that to 2004 when they were regularly giving up points in the single digits or teens.  That's a championship defense.  Not one that regularly lets other teams score 20-30 points.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Watching the game, we all knew the offense had to score in the fourth quarter.  The reason, though, was because we were also seeing the defense give up points drive after drive.  We've become accustomed to this.  It happened in the 2010 playoff game when Merriweather gave up a 50-yard-or-so play late in the game.  I happened in 2009 all over the place with the Ravens.  And it happened in the Baltimore game in 2011 when we had to depend on Baltimore's kicker making a mistake because our defense couldn't get a stop outside the redzone.

    Lately, the Pats win or die with their offense, because the defense isn't dependable.  Usually they win, because the offense usually performs great.  When it's performance is just average, though, the team loses.  You can't expect an offense to be great 100% of the time.  Certain defenses are going to give it trouble (in the Pats' case, especially those with good defensive front fours).  Sometimes players won't execute as well as usual. Sometimes they are injured. They're human beings after all.  In those situations, championship teams need a defense that can step up and get stops at key points in the game.  The Pats had that kind of defense in 2001 (help the greatest show on turf to a handful of points) in 2003 and in 2004.  They haven't had that in recent years. Hopefully, they have it this year with the addition of Talib and Dennard and the movement of McCourty to safety, because the offense very well could stall in a playoff game again and if they do, we need the defense to step up.  

    Otherwise, we're just not a well-rounded enough team to really deserve to be a champion.   

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I think that last line, really, is what a lot of people don't want to deal with. The NFC is superior to the AFC now. It's easier to come out of the field here. 

    But NE just doesn't have a good distribution of talent. They almost have too much on offense ... there really aren't enough reps to get two all-star TEs, a very good RB, a top notch 3rd down back, and an all world slot WR the ball. 

    But, in recent years, they have gaping holes on defense. They are either hemorraghing points, or getting dominated slowly with ball control they just can't stop more games than they are not. 

    A team is like an old engine with one cylinder that constantly misfires. 

    It's tough to be beat complete teams when you aren't getting contributions from everyone every now and again. 

    Really, the defense just needs to pick up one game for NE in the postseason.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

     

     

     

    quote)

    if Brady had thrown the ball away and they failed to pick up a first down on the next two plays and had to punt, the result would have been pretty much the same. You would have had two more offensive plays with maybe another minute off the clock, then a punt which may very well have given the ball back to the Giants with better field position than the interception gave them (quote)

     

    Proroid... Playing the if game with this situation just looks comical.   you're iffing twice, both of which are unlikely. Then concluding a punt follows 2 more bad plays. so youre over stretching to excuse this horrible play call. 

    the comments about belichicks involvement in the play calling are discussed in my response to your other post.

     (quote)

    also disagree that the whole problem was play calling. Fans always complain about play calling. It's easy to do. When a play doesn't work, you blame the call not the execution. Usually, though, plays fail because the other team executes its assignments better than your team 

     .   (quote)

     

    Your statement on execution makes my point.  If 25th ranked defense can out " execute" your  3rd ranked offense... Hmmm.... Do you think they might know what's coming...? 

     in other words ,  the only difference AT ALL between a successful play and an unsuccessful one IS THE PLAYCALLING.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

     

     

    (quote)

     

    Statistically, O'Brien was very good. Belichick also promoted him after 2010 and kept him in the role throughout 2011. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. It's not based on any statistics for sure

    (quote)

    It's an opinion based on results and the lack thereof...  O'Brien could have been the most inexperienced OC in the league who, since he had Brady cracking the whip over the troops, was able to look good and fool you, a few media members and a college that he knew what he was doing.

    Fact is he didn't at least not to standards of a championship team, and it has been proven by these obvious amateurish mistakes that lost this team games , including Superbowl.  You want stats? 0-1 in SB when favored by 7 points...   no points ( not even a fg attempt) in 4th qtr of said SB.  Getting shut down due to predictability by 25 th ranked defense in league.  This is and should be a clearcut indictment of his lack if playcalling talent.

    End of games are where OCs earn their money... Or lose...obrien was in over his head and lost.  no surprise he's staying at college job where expectations are low.  Perfect job for him.  I'll give him credit for that.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
     
    .....  The fact is, the Pats rarely win games where they don't score 28 or 30 points.  Why is that?  Because the defense rarely holds a team to much less than 30.  Remember, the NFL average is in the low 20s, so when you need to regularly score 30 to win, your defense is giving up more than an average amount of points. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Really??  With that last paragraph prolate, you have said the Pats' D give up on average MORE than 28 - 30 points per game!!  In only two games this season, have the Pats lost a game when scoring 28+ points, againt the Ravens and 49ers.  Come on...get your facts right!

    [/QUOTE]

    The conversation is germaine to the 2011 defense. The 2012 defense, after the final 8 games, was much better than the 2011 defense. 

    The offenses were nearly identical. 

    But defense allowed less points per game despite seeing more total possessions by the opponent. 

    That is more 3 and outs, more turnovers forced etc. More stands.

    The 2011 defense, was quite bad, and frequently allowed teams to score. Their DSR and TDs per drive were both in the bottom 3. 

    It's no surprise that their DSR and PPD, TDPD, were terrible in the Superbowl too. It was their average performance. They allowed the other team to score and control the clock at will. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Your statement on execution makes my point.  If 25th ranked defense can out " execute" your  3rd ranked offense... Hmmm.... Do you think they might know what's coming...? 

     in other words ,  the only difference AT ALL between a successful play and an unsuccessful one IS THE PLAYCALLING.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is a load of tripe. Either you just want to be 'right' and you are saying something you know to be untrue/straight hyperbole or you really don' understand football. 

    #1 .... A 25th ranked defense and a 3rd ranked offense are "averages". Just because one is better doesn't mean they out-execute the other on every single play. In fact, they won't.

    #2 .... the Patriots offense outexecuted the Giants defense in that game. They scored on about 40% of their usable possessions, score TDs on 25% of them. Only had one 3 and out. Statistically, that is outexecuting the defense. Given  a full number of possessions (avg game has 12 usable possesssions per team, and one unusable posession) NE would have scored 26 points -- which is a very good score. The Giants offense outexucted the Patriots defense so well, however, that NE would have had to have played nearly perfect on offense to beat them. They only had 8 drives to work with Assume there is no safety, and that NE kicked one more FG. Perhaps on the drive where they were intercepted. That would have amounted to a perfect performance -- even at 20 points scored ... 20 points over 8 drives is *elite*. 17 points over 8 drives is merely very good. 

    #3 .... the Giants defense was *far* from 25th ranked. They basically played through missing half their front seven early in the season. When they Giants front seven is healthy (and you know this) as they were come the poast-season, they are top three in the NFL. 

    #4 The *only* thing that matters is not execution, but it is 90% of football -- the rest is composed of strategy (game planning and adjustments), tactics, and luck. The vast majority of plays occurr in situations where the defense knows what the offense is going to do. The Giants were completely predictable that game... how many absurd 3rd and longs did they convert? How many third/second and shorts did they convert with runs? They scored a TD on a drive late in the game where everyone knew they were going to be passing, they were in a spread formation themselves, and what did they do? They passed the ball effortlessly on a woeful NE secondary. At will .... NE knew what was coming. 

    Coughlin isn't a genius who just called the right plays ... NE's defense, play for player, just didn't have the talent to stop them.

    ---------------------------------------------

    @Prolate ... your look at possessions scored is correct. 

    People see a 20-17 score and assume a defensive struggle, but it was not. Neither defense was very good. Both offenses were efficient. The Giants were extremely efficient. In fact the efficiencies were almost identical to the offensive efficiencies winner to winner/loser to loser in the Steelers/Packers Superbowl that many considered a "shootout" with a score of 31 to 25.

    Because the average number of possessions is not evenly distributed you can NEVER look at a game score and compare it to points-per-game statistics. It is terrible, terrible statistics. You need to look at points per possession

    If NE's defense had even been average in that game they would have allowed just 15 points over the 8 drives NY had. Even an average performance would have resulted in a tie, given the same offensive output/execution. The median NFL defense last season allowed 1.86 PPD, that was Seattle. The median NFL defense in PPG was Chicago, with 22.1 points per game. 

    15 Points per game, you might say, is top five in the NFL? But PPG measures all the drives/games/scores over the whole season. That includes games where you get 15 drives because the offenses are turning the ball over so quickly via scoring fast or quick posessions, and games where the offenses are taking their time, running clock, etc and the teams only get 7 or 8 possesions, and the average game where both teams get 12 possesions that are usable. In this instance, with this amount of possesions 15 points would have been average. If there had been an average compliment of possesions in a game, the ppg median team, Seattle, would have yeilded 22 points ... or roughly what the median PPG performer yeilded.

    If NE's defense had performed at a top ten ranking similar to the offense in PPD, they would have allowed only 13 points over those 8 drives. 

    The first would have amounted to simply allowing a FG instead of a TD on one of the Giants scoring drives, the latter would have amounted to just not allowing on of the Giants TD drives at all, perhaps with an endzone INT or FF/R if you want to preserve the same time/drive numbers.

    If they actually performed great ... one three and out instead of one scoring drive would have likely ended up in a 4-10 point swing by virtue of the fact that NE would have had one more usable drive as well. 

    2 forced 3 and outs would have likely garnered NE *two* more drives, which would have likely resulted in a winning score. 

    Words can't even express exactly how poorly the defense performed over the course of that game ........ they essentially did nothing right and were beaten almost every time they took the field. They had, after all, a ZERO drive success rating. That is just unheard of. Not one single drive by the Giants would have been considered a statistical success. Not one three and out (not even one 6 and out) and the Giants scored on 50% of their possessions. 

     

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    #4 The *only* thing that matters is not execution, but it is 90% of football -- the rest is composed of strategy (game planning and adjustments), tactics, and luck. The vast majority of plays occurr in situations where the defense knows what the offense is going to do. The Giants were completely predictable that game... how many absurd 3rd and longs did they convert? How many third/second and shorts did they convert with runs? They scored a TD on a drive late in the game where everyone knew they were going to be passing, they were in a spread formation themselves, and what did they do? They passed the ball effortlessly on a woeful NE secondary. At will .... NE knew what was coming. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Z, listening to fans' criticisms of the Pats' offense (not just last year but also this year too), I think #4 is a point that needs to be stressed over and over, because I don't think fans get it. Simply put, "unpredictability" in play calling is overrated. 

    This is not to say that being unpredictable is unimportant.  It is one way plays can work--if you disguise what you're doing or deceive the defense by showing one thing and doing another it can be highly effective.  But teams don't win by trying to utlize disguise and deception on every single play.  Many plays are designed to take advantage of match-ups--to force a weaker player to defend a better player, to get a slower LB on a faster wide receiver, to force a corner to cover two guys at once, etc.  The defense may be aware what the offense is doing, but they're still at a disadvantage because they are forced into unfavourable match-ups by the play design. The Pats offense the past two years has used this strategy a ton . . . it's what they do, whether it's putting Gronk up against smaller players or against slower players, putting Welker against less agile players, or using the hurry-up to force the defense to play with the wrong players on the field.  In addition to winning with match-up advantages, good teams employ a third strategy--which is simply beating the other team by taking advantage of the talent they have on offense and out-executing the defense.  If you have big, powerful run-blocking linemen and a good running back, you can line-up showing everyone in the world that you're going to pound the ball down the middle of the field and dare the defense to try to stop you.  If instead of powerful guys, you have fast, agile guys then you can use plays that take advantage of speed instead of power.  

    So deception is one strategy, but it's only one: match-ups and playing to one's strengths are also strategies that work and are often more important.

    Fans seem to hate the shotgun offense and spread formations that telegraph passes.  Sure, teams pass about 80% of the time when they're in shotgun.  Despite offensive coordinators working on developing a running game from the shotgun, it's still primarily a passing formation and everyone on defense knows that.  But teams use it all the time.  Fans seem to hate it, but professional OCs continue to use it.  Why?  Because it creates lots of match-up problems and (for teams like the Pats) allows them to play to their strengths.  Sure the defense knows what the Pats are going to do.  But the important question is whether the defense can stop them.  Usually, they can't. 

    The last thing I'll say about unpredictability is that a lot of fans think its a polarity--either run or pass.  Really, unpredictability is more complex than that.  You can show run, but are you running left, running right, running up the middle, using traps and different blocking schemes?  All of these things keep defenses guessing and are part of "unpredictability" even if a run is fairly certain.  Same in the passing game . . . what route combinations are you using?  Are you challenging deep, the perimeter, or short? Which receivers are going to be challenging which parts of the field and which defenders?  You can show pass, but still have the defense guessing where and how you are going to attack them.  

    The reason football is way more interesting (at least in my mind) than any other of the big team sports is because the strategy is so complex. When I hear things like "we shouldn't use the shotgun" or "empty backfield is dumb because the RB is wasted" or "we can't ever throw more than 40 times" or "we need to run at least 25 times a game" I just wonder if fans really appreciate what they're watching and just how good the coaches we have are. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Your post on "execution" never defines what the term means to you.  for example you can blame every play that doesn't work on execution right? It's a general term that deflects focus from playcalling and onto the players.  Agree that players should be committed to execution aka doing their job but that's not enough to make every play work.

    Like proroid , you are quick to say "giants out executed pats offense" but you don't  mention any example where play call specifically was at fault.  In other words, execution works great providing you're not out coached and your OC outclassed.

    Pats scored 32 ppg , then in playoffs were held down by ravens and gints.  You can kneel before jints D with your mouth open . That's your opinion.  What O'Brien wasn't capable of was learning the tendencies if this 25th ranked defense and exploit them.  That's coaching not execution.  predictability screws execution .

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    "

    This is not to say that being unpredictable is unimportant. It is one way plays can work--if you disguise what you're doing or deceive the defense by showing one thing and doing another it can be highly effective. But teams don't win by trying to utlize disguise and deception on every single play. Many plays are designed to take advantage of match-ups--to force a weaker player to defend a better player, to get a slower LB on a faster wide receiver, to force a corner to cover two guys at once, etc. The defense may be aware what the offense is doing, but they're still at a disadvantage because they are forced into unfavourable match-ups by the play design"

     

    So yeah... We could have used a few more of those brilliant obie play "designs".

    How about this ... See if you can point to a single new play that was put in for the SB.  You won't find one... He wasn't  bright enough.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Spend some time watching the O line play in that game and then come back and talk about play calling versus execution.  When the Giants defensive front four beats our offensive front five over and over, the problem is execution.  The Giants D line was getting too much penetration with just four guys.  Too much pressure on the QB, too many hits on the running back in the backfield or right at the LOS.  

    The definition of execution is simple.  When you have one guy to block and he gets by you, then you've failed to execute. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "

    This is not to say that being unpredictable is unimportant. It is one way plays can work--if you disguise what you're doing or deceive the defense by showing one thing and doing another it can be highly effective. But teams don't win by trying to utlize disguise and deception on every single play. Many plays are designed to take advantage of match-ups--to force a weaker player to defend a better player, to get a slower LB on a faster wide receiver, to force a corner to cover two guys at once, etc. The defense may be aware what the offense is doing, but they're still at a disadvantage because they are forced into unfavourable match-ups by the play design"

     

    So yeah... We could have used a few more of those brilliant obie play "designs".

    How about this ... See if you can point to a single new play that was put in for the SB.  You won't find one... He wasn't  bright enough.

    [/QUOTE]

    Please . . .you're grasping at straws here.  What did you want to see, the statue of liberty play?

    Watch the second touchdown drive, the one that started with the pass to Ocho and then a play action pass to BJGE.  The play calling on that drive is great.  There were good calls on many other drives too. There was a nifty reverse to Welker early in the game, they ran a screen to BJGE, they even used I formation once or twice. They did plenty of different things.  I'm not sure if the plays were new or not (I don't have the Pats' playbook memorized), but there were plenty of nifty plays called.  

    The big problem was that they had so few drives they didn't get a chance to do a lot. Where drives failed, most of the time it was because of a breakdown at the LOS.  Watch the game. You'll see.  

    Or maybe don't bother because you clearly have your mind made up that everything is O'Brien's fault.  If that's what you want to believe, go ahead. It's a free country.   I'm really not concerned about what you want to believe . . . I just don't want others to be misled by simplistic statements about Bill O'Brien's alleged incompetence backed up by nothing concrete.  

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
     
    .....  The fact is, the Pats rarely win games where they don't score 28 or 30 points.  Why is that?  Because the defense rarely holds a team to much less than 30.  Remember, the NFL average is in the low 20s, so when you need to regularly score 30 to win, your defense is giving up more than an average amount of points. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Really??  With that last paragraph prolate, you have said the Pats' D give up on average MORE than 28 - 30 points per game!!  In only two games this season, have the Pats lost a game when scoring 28+ points, againt the Ravens and 49ers.  Come on...get your facts right!

    [/QUOTE]

    The conversation is germaine to the 2011 defense. The 2012 defense, after the final 8 games, was much better than the 2011 defense. 

    The offenses were nearly identical. 

    But defense allowed less points per game despite seeing more total possessions by the opponent. 

    That is more 3 and outs, more turnovers forced etc. More stands.

    The 2011 defense, was quite bad, and frequently allowed teams to score. Their DSR and TDs per drive were both in the bottom 3. 

    It's no surprise that their DSR and PPD, TDPD, were terrible in the Superbowl too. It was their average performance. They allowed the other team to score and control the clock at will. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This past season, surprisingly, the Pats failed to be leading relatively late in a game only 2 times, if I recall correctly, the Cardinals and 49ers games.  Of the 4 losses, in three games the Pats took a lead or tied the game at some point in the 4th quarter.  We all have those horrible memories of the 2+ score leads blown in the 4th quarters against the Ravens and Seahawks.  If the D had been playing as well in those games as they are now, those games may have been wins. Against AZ, well Ghost blew that one, didn't he? The 49ers game, a sort of abherration in that the 49ers got all sorts of good bounces in their favor in that game. I will finish with this, and Rusty will love it, I do not want to see the Pats offense go into the funk it has a tendancy to do during games where it just doesn't click and you wonder why.  The Pats have a chance to drive nails into the coffin of the opponent with some strong play from the offense and it doesn't happen while the defense actually slows down the opponent to give the offense such an opportunity.  Go figure!!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    This past season, surprisingly, the Pats failed to be leading relatively late in a game only 2 times, if I recall correctly, the Cardinals and 49ers games.  Of the 4 losses, in three games the Pats took a lead or tied the game at some point in the 4th quarter.  We all have those horrible memories of the 2+ score leads blown in the 4th quarters against the Ravens and Seahawks.  If the D had been playing as well in those games as they are now, those games may have been wins. Against AZ, well Ghost blew that one, didn't he? The 49ers game, a sort of abherration in that the 49ers got all sorts of good bounces in their favor in that game. I will finish with this, and Rusty will love it, I do not want to see the Pats offense go into the funk it has a tendancy to do during games where it just doesn't click and you wonder why.  The Pats have a chance to drive nails into the coffin of the opponent with some strong play from the offense and it doesn't happen while the defense actually slows down the opponent to give the offense such an opportunity.  Go figure!!


    The offense reached their points per drive quota and had to shut it down.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    "Watch the game. You'll see. "

     

    Watched 2nd half yesterday.  Every mistake obviously is magnified because of result... but the 2 biggest ones were play calls. The safety and 4th qtr pick.  Another fault of obie that gets glossed over is his disregard for Brady as a player.  He uses and abuses the QB with no sense of how the game can punish the position relating to the sequence of plays....

    So dropping Brady into the end zone on 1st play was ascinine.  Do you think jints don't know this tendency?  Do you think Brady doesn't know they know?  How does this obreinstein move play out...?  From the snap Brady is uncomfortable, the play is designed to go deep but gints are sitting on that...  Brady again is forced into trying to execute stupid play call except with this added conundrum... QB performance is depleted by perceived pressure... AN EXPERIENCED OC doesn't put a QB in that position on the FIRST PLAY OF THE fn SB... ! 

     This is so obvious I had to use a few caps... hope you got it... Just blame the coaches once...  See if you can do it.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    #4 The *only* thing that matters is not execution, but it is 90% of football -- the rest is composed of strategy (game planning and adjustments), tactics, and luck. The vast majority of plays occurr in situations where the defense knows what the offense is going to do. The Giants were completely predictable that game... how many absurd 3rd and longs did they convert? How many third/second and shorts did they convert with runs? They scored a TD on a drive late in the game where everyone knew they were going to be passing, they were in a spread formation themselves, and what did they do? They passed the ball effortlessly on a woeful NE secondary. At will .... NE knew what was coming. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Z, listening to fans' criticisms of the Pats' offense (not just last year but also this year too), I think #4 is a point that needs to be stressed over and over, because I don't think fans get it. Simply put, "unpredictability" in play calling is overrated. 

    This is not to say that being unpredictable is unimportant.  It is one way plays can work--if you disguise what you're doing or deceive the defense by showing one thing and doing another it can be highly effective.  But teams don't win by trying to utlize disguise and deception on every single play.  Many plays are designed to take advantage of match-ups--to force a weaker player to defend a better player, to get a slower LB on a faster wide receiver, to force a corner to cover two guys at once, etc.  The defense may be aware what the offense is doing, but they're still at a disadvantage because they are forced into unfavourable match-ups by the play design. The Pats offense the past two years has used this strategy a ton . . . it's what they do, whether it's putting Gronk up against smaller players or against slower players, putting Welker against less agile players, or using the hurry-up to force the defense to play with the wrong players on the field.  In addition to winning with match-up advantages, good teams employ a third strategy--which is simply beating the other team by taking advantage of the talent they have on offense and out-executing the defense.  If you have big, powerful run-blocking linemen and a good running back, you can line-up showing everyone in the world that you're going to pound the ball down the middle of the field and dare the defense to try to stop you.  If instead of powerful guys, you have fast, agile guys then you can use plays that take advantage of speed instead of power.  

    So deception is one strategy, but it's only one: match-ups and playing to one's strengths are also strategies that work and are often more important.

    Fans seem to hate the shotgun offense and spread formations that telegraph passes.  Sure, teams pass about 80% of the time when they're in shotgun.  Despite offensive coordinators working on developing a running game from the shotgun, it's still primarily a passing formation and everyone on defense knows that.  But teams use it all the time.  Fans seem to hate it, but professional OCs continue to use it.  Why?  Because it creates lots of match-up problems and (for teams like the Pats) allows them to play to their strengths.  Sure the defense knows what the Pats are going to do.  But the important question is whether the defense can stop them.  Usually, they can't. 

    The last thing I'll say about unpredictability is that a lot of fans think its a polarity--either run or pass.  Really, unpredictability is more complex than that.  You can show run, but are you running left, running right, running up the middle, using traps and different blocking schemes?  All of these things keep defenses guessing and are part of "unpredictability" even if a run is fairly certain.  Same in the passing game . . . what route combinations are you using?  Are you challenging deep, the perimeter, or short? Which receivers are going to be challenging which parts of the field and which defenders?  You can show pass, but still have the defense guessing where and how you are going to attack them.  

    The reason football is way more interesting (at least in my mind) than any other of the big team sports is because the strategy is so complex. When I hear things like "we shouldn't use the shotgun" or "empty backfield is dumb because the RB is wasted" or "we can't ever throw more than 40 times" or "we need to run at least 25 times a game" I just wonder if fans really appreciate what they're watching and just how good the coaches we have are. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Four things, first, there are statistical models of unpredictability in playcalling. The first thing that jumps out is that being predictable is the best way of being unpredictable. You don't want to get suckered into lining up ... run on first down, run on second, pass on third. The *most* unpredictable offense is the one that pases five times in a row, or runs four times in a row. Simply going one for one is not unpredictable, it's just an alternating pattern that is in fact very predictable. 

    Second, predictablity is always hampered, and people don't talk about this enough (except me), by context. Plays in a playbook are segmented by down-distance-quarter-time. Playbooks are situational. By the end of the season, almost everyone knows what you are going to run (basically) in any given down or distance, and furthermore common sense dictates the ratios in those situations. Success on first down, passing or running, allows you more options. a 2nd and 4 playcall is wide open, but a 3rd and 9 after a couple stuffed runs is not. Or a astuffed run and incomplete pass, is not. 

    Third, formations in New England (and the NFL in general, though less in some offenses) are used to "tip the hand of the defense" and not necessarily vice versa. Three or four posters here are irate that NE motions their RB out. When they do this ... it's already a pass, it was a pass when it was called, it will still be a pass. But they do it because it lets the passer know immediately if he is expecting man coverage or zone coverage on the interior. And they use other formations likewise, for instance motioning Hernandez in and out of the backfield as a blocker, etc. 

    As far as retaining the player, it doesn't immediately declare which side of the field he will be on, so there is that advantage. But in many situations, they need the information about whether the defense is in zone or where they are in zone to set up how the WRs and TEs are going to run their routes, or even which routes they will be running. All of that changes at the line of scrimmage. 

    Lastly, people in general don't know how to critique execution. Period. You never hear about it because no one even knows where to start. For instance, people constantly criticized BB's soft defenses, saying the players are too far off the ball, a lot of the time it's the CBs job to judge how deep his drop should be based on down and distance and perceived pattern. Likewise, running routes, how deep etc, choosing the zone to run through, lunging at defenders, geting your pads turned around. Etc. Etc. Moreover, the kind of strategic adjustments that surface as tactical adjustments ... for instance, using the slot WR and TE to force Aldon Smith to declare whether he was blitzing against SF. The offense didn't even start moving until they started spreading it out and doing this. Just lining it up and banging at SF got them nothing but an epic amount of fumbles by their running backs. Or in the SB ... the overly discussed Welker pattern ... it's always a discussion of threethings here:

    a.) if they had run the Giants would not have been expecting it. False, the Giants were not prepared for that pattern. The sheer amount of room around Wes indicates that. 

    b.) Welker should have executed by not dropping it. Partially true, it as probably catchable, though it would have been a plus catch ... it was statistically labelled a drop. 

    c.) Brady overthrew it. Partially true if we accept the miscommunication. 

    In reality, it was mental execution. The safety was in single deep, and he was motioning toward Hern's side of the field at the snap, probably expecting Wes to cut his route short, or in, or run a pick. Either Brady was hoping for Wes to head up field where he would have been able to catch it in stride, or Wes was expecting to "sit" in the large soft spot. My guess is just that ... Brady wanted a deeper route in stride. He yelled at Wes afterward. And in fact, if Welker had waitd to slow down by a few more yards .... it would have been 6 points, because Brady threw the ball, as he should have, away from the safety to daylight. 

    And at any rate ... the play was anything but "predicted" but if it were "predictable" it would have been based on the fact that it was immediately preceeded by a -1 yard run by BJGE.

    That drive went:

    pass, pass, pass, run, run, run, pass, pass, run (for -1 ... essentially a sack of the RB) pass, pass.

    It immediately puts them into a portion of the playbook with calls meant to make up for losing yardage on first down... so immediately the prospect of running is reduced by virtue of the fact that 2nd and more than ten yards has less run plays to choose from than 2nd and 6/7/8/9 or below or however NE breaks down those sitations depending on where they draw the line. 

    Poor execution on the BJGE run, poor execution on the pass to Welker. Neither play was "sniffed out" or predictable. They just needed to block better, read the safety better, etc, etc. 

    That is an example of execution. And again, the first play of the game, as you have discussed in depth. On that play, with max protect, Tuck simply owns Vollmer, Connolly, and Mankins (the latter two shouldn't be expecting him from all the way on the other side, btw). If Vollmer sticks his block, Brady has time for his checkdown. It's likely a 4 yard completion unless there is a nice RAC. 

    Vollmer a.) lunges at his defender, which is when you commit your center of balance to one side or the other in pass blocking. It's bad execution. b.) allows himself to get stood up by Tucks punch, really a result of being out of position in the lunge. c.) is then shed by a rip move that allows Tuck to run across the double block. 

    If Vollmer enters his block with a lower center of gravity, and squats into it, getting low in his stance, *his* punch will be enough to redirect Tuck, and he can change directions and seal off Tuck's avenue. 

    That doesn't even address the route running. Which was subpar on that play. Gronk, for starters, should have cut it outside likely ... it's the first place Brady looks, and he isn't there. 

    It's just execution. It wasn't predictable ... a run would have been predictable because that is the exact play, exact formation they started the first Giants' game with. They ran a play action pass instead. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share