Are The Patriots Aiming Towards A More Balanced Offense For 2012?

[chevss454]

Most think that a "vertical threat" WR alone will solve the Pats' offensive playoff problems. I'm not convinced. Maybe what we should be discussing is that the rushing attack in 2011 was anemic (the fewest yards rushing since 2005), and that there was a significant drop off in the use of the receivers in the passing game (only 363 receiving yardsby the RBs, compared with 609 yards in 2010, 608 yards in 2009, 737 yards in 2008 and 583 in 2007). As MaineMan has pointed out, the TOP has dropped drastically the past 2 years, putting more pressure on the defense. Maybe what we need isn't JUST a vertical threat per se but also more balance on offense by utilizing the RBs both as receiving threats and ball carriers more often.

For several years the Pats have been a 1 dimensional offense. With TB at the helm it's somewhat understandable but...it is time for the O to evolve further into (1) a more physical offense, and less of a spread/"finesse" team, (2) more run-pass balance, including the ability to pound opposing defenses and wear them down and chew up the clock, and (3) more seamless integration of the running and passing aspects of the offense. My ideal has been an offense that could seamlessly morph between power run and spreading the ball out without changing personnel, allowing Brady to read the defensive personnel and alignment and make the appropriate adjustments.

The move to rebuild the offense around Gronk and Hernandez is a great start. The Pats have done a good job of moving away from a spread offense towards one that flows through the TEs. This PFF article does a nice job of summarizing all of the ways that Ahern creates mismatches.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...w-nfl-athlete/

The combination of Gronk and Hernandez has been synergistic - they are more effective together than either one is individually, because it is so hard for opposing defenses to deal with both.

The Pats with O'Brien did NOT do as good a job of integrating the RBs into the passing game. The drafting of Ridley and Vereen seemed to me a step in the right direction. I really liked the Shane Vereen pick in in particular, because Vereen is a multi-dimensional weapon at RB comparable to Aaron Hernandez at TE. He can be moved around the field and can line up at WR, both in the slot and out wide. But the Pats really didn't use Vereen (injured) or Ridley much, and Danny Woodhead's role seemed to regress from 2010. That's one reason I 'm not unhappy to see BJGE go - nice back, but he had no role in the passing game, and when he was in the lineup he was predictably going to run the ball most of the time. I was very disappointed in how the Pats used the RBs in 2011, and I'm hoping that we'll see a lot more from them under Josh McDaniels.

The Saints May Be On To Something
The ideal that I've had in mind for this O is something much more like the New Orleans Saints offense in 2009 and 2011. Not only "too many weapons to cover", but also much more balanced between run and pass and much more reliant on RBs in the passing game than the Pats have been since 2007.

The Saints have a potent aerial attack, and they use the running backs and the running game much more than the Pats do. The 2009 Saints averaged 131.6 YPG rushing despite Pierre Thomas being their leading rusher with 793 yards. The RBs added an additional 767 yards receiving, with Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush the main threats. The RBs accounted for 43% of the Saints 6596 total offensive yards.

The 2010 Saints had a drastic decrease from the 2009 team in rushing (2106 yards to 1519 yards), receiving by the RBs (731 yards to 667 yards) and scoring (31.9 PPG to 23.9 PPG). Their response: (1) re-sign FA Pierre Thomas, (2) sign FA Darren Sproles, and (3) trade up to #28 in the 2011 draft to select Mark Ingram. So I'd say that improving the RB corps was considered a priority in 2011. The results: 2127 yards rushing, 1231 yards receiving by RBs, and 34.2 PPG. So far the Pats' response to their anemic RB corps performance in 2010 has been to let BJGE go and sign Spencer Larsen and Tony Fiammetta. I'm hoping for a little bit more.

The Saints took things even further in 2011, both with the RB corps and with greater use of the TE. The key additions were Jimmy Graham and Darren Sproles. They rushed for over 132 YPG in despite having no rusher with over 603 yards rushing. And Darren Sproles and Pierre Thomas (who I badly wanted in 2010 when the Saints offered to trade him even up for Darius Butler, and the Pats turned them down) combined for 1135 yards receiving. Add in Mark Ingram's paltry 46 yards receiving and that's 1181 yards, or over 21% of the total passing yardage, and once again 43% of the Saints record setting 7632 total yards on offense. 43% both years, and almost identical rushing totals. That's damn consistent. The Saints averaged 31.9 PPG in 2009 and 34.2 PPG in 2011. Interestingly, in 2010 the Saints rushed for only 94.9 YPG and their RBs accounted for only 35% of their total offensive production, with their total yards and PPG dropping significantly (23.9 PPG).

The combination of Darren Sproles (1313 yards from scrimmage), Pierre Thomas (987 yards from scrimmage) and Jimmy Graham (1310 yards from scrimmage) accounted for 47% of the Saints total yardage in 2011. The ability to catch the ball out of the backfield combined with Graham's ability to stretch the field and make yards after the catch significantly opened up the offense for Drew Brees. Their 4 main WRs added another 2893 yards receiving, so there was very good balance between the WRs and the TEs/RBs. That made the Saints' offense hard to stop.

In contrast, the 2011 Pats' RBs totaled 463 yards receiving (less than 9% of passing yardage) and 2035 total yards (28% of total offensive yards). Gronk and Hernandez combined for more total yards than the entire RB corps. That's down from 2009 and 2010 in terms of both receiving yards by RBs and percentage of total offensive production (39% in 2009, 43% in 2010). In 2008 the RBs accounted for 20% of the passing yardage and just under 50% of the total offensive production. So there has been a consistent move away from utilizing RBs as an integral part of the offense since 2008. Even the 2007 spread offense team got 36% of it's offensive production from the RBs.

I'd like to see an offense that produced about 7000 yards of total yardage and 32+ PPG, which is distributed about 35-40% productivity from the RBs, 30-35% from the WRs, and 30% from the TEs. That would work out to about 2500-3000 yards from the RBs, 2100 yards from the TEs, and 2100-2500 yards from the WRs. As much as the Pats could have used a vertical threat to stretch the field, they could have used more of a running threat to prevent teams from throwing extra DBs at a limited number of receiving options.

Can all of this be accomplished with RBBC? Sure it can. Woodhead, Vereen and Ridley were all severely under-utilized in 2011, and Vereen was injured. Does it require a franchise RB? Certainly not. I would have liked to have added a Pierre Thomas, Mike Tolbert or Michael Bush - all big, physical backs with excellent receiving and blocking skills. But the Pats have repeatedly passed up opportunities to add those kind of players. There needs to be a much bigger commitment to the running game, and to integrating RBs into the passing attack.

I'm somewhat pleased with the Tony Fiammetta and Spencer Larsen signings - perhaps that indicates a greater commitment to running the ball. Josh McDaniels spent his first draft pick as coach of the Broncos on a RB (Knowshon Moreno). The Pats' best rushing season since the SB years came in McDaniel's last year as OC, 2008. So hopefully utilizing the RBs will be a bigger focus than it was under Bill O'Brien who became to dependent on the pass.

I could easily see a RB like Matt Forte (if the Bears decide to move on) or Doug Martin (from the draft) really having a huge impact on the Pats offense and moving away from the WRs to an offense built around TEs and RBs. Both guys are tough, physical runners who can pound the ball inside or break it out, and make big plays. Both are strong and are adept in pass protection. And both have superb receiving skills. I think either guy could easily average 1500 combined yards rushing/receiving per season without wearing him out (Forte has averaged 1552 combined yards over his first 4 seasons, and Martin had over 1500 combined yards from scrimmage his last 2 seasons at Boise St.), leaving another 1000+ for Vereen, Ridley and Woodhead. The production from the TE group would be about what it was in 2011. The WR production would decrease slightly.

One reason I would consider trading for Matt Forte or drafting a back like Doug Martin at the end of the first round or top of the second is that it WOULD signal a commitment to the running game as a major part of the offense. While Martin would be a much cheaper option than Forte, I think that RBs in general are under-priced compared to WRs. Forte will probably get something slightly less than Arian Foster got from Houston ($43.5M/5 years). $8M/year is quite reasonable to pay for a player who averages 1500 combined yards (about 21% of total offensive yardage). Wes Welker has averaged about 1300 combined yards/year over the past 5 years. Randy Moss averaged about 1300 combined yards/year from 2007-2009.

Points Vs Premier Defenses Has Been A Problem
The Pats' offense has been very adept at piling up yardage and points over the past few years, but it has been too easily stopped by premier defenses. In 2009 there was essentially Moss and Welker and nothing else, and although the offense put up over 400 YPG it was all too easily stopped. In 2010 the offense was reworked through the TEs, but the lack of a deep threat and lack of run-pass balance allowed defenses to flood the middle of the field. The Pats have addressed better receiver balance this offseason, but they really need to commit to the run and integrate the running and passing attacks in order to have an offense which can't be stopped by opposing teams. The Saints were eliminated not because their offense was stopped, but because they had no defense - their offense put up 32 points and 472 total yards against one of the best defenses in the NFL in their loss to the 49ers. If NO had anything resembling a defense, they would have been the SB champions last year. In contrast, the Pats' offense averaged 20 PPG and less than 340 YPG in the playoffs against the Ravens and Giants. The Pats last 7 playoff games (going back to 2007) they have scored 30 points or more against only Jacksonville in 2007 (31) and Denver in 2011 (45). That included 28 vs. San Diego (2007), 14 vs. the Giants (2007), 14 vs. the Ravens (2009), 21 vs. the Jets (2010), 23 vs. the Ravens (2011) and 17 vs. the Giants (2011). Not a very good record of offensive production against playoff defenses. I think that is a direct result of the lack of diversity of offense, and that's why I'm so focused on hoping the RBs becomes a bigger part of the offense.

I'd like McDaniels to integrate the RBs more as core pieces of the offense. If that takes signing a big name back to a big contract, I'm ok with it. If it takes drafting a RB high, I'm ok with that, too. It wasn't my original plan since I would have liked Tolbert in FA.

The Defense Benefits, too
This is my top priority for the offense, and I think it would help the defense tremendously in terms of TOP and keeping the defense off the field. The Pats were 27th in the NFL in terms of TOP in 2011, and 20th in 2010. In contrast, the 2007 team finished 2nd in the NFL in TOP, the 2008 and 2009 teams 3rd, the 2006 and 2004 teams 6th, and the 2003 team 8th. The "explosive" New Orleans offense which uses the RBs so much more as an integral component finished 3rd in TOP in 2011 despite their weak defense.

I think that the combination of a power "Flex Back" like Forte or Doug Martin along with a guy like Vereen would be the RB equivalent of having Gronk and Hernandez on the team - the effect would be synergistic. I'd love to see an offense which had Forte/Martin/Ridley, Vereen/Woodhead, Gronkowski and Hernandez all on the field at the same time, along with only 1 WR (Welker or Brandon Lloyd). The Pats could power run the ball or pass using any of those 5 guys as weapons, and they could move players around at will to create confusion and mismatches. Imagine those guys in the backfield and Hernandez moves to FB to block for Martin while Vereen moves out to WR. Or Hernandez is split out wide and one of the RBs moves into the slot position. A creative offensive mind could create dizzying options with that kind of personnel that would have defensive coordinators tearing their hair out.

Darth Vader: Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

[midgar8784]

Originally Posted by chevss454

Most think that a "vertical threat" WR alone will solve the Pats' offensive playoff problems. I'm not convinced. Maybe what we should be discussing is that the rushing attack in 2011 was anemic (the fewest yards rushing since 2005), and that there was a significant drop off in the use of the receivers in the passing game (only 363 receiving yardsby the RBs, compared with 609 yards in 2010, 608 yards in 2009, 737 yards in 2008 and 583 in 2007). As MaineMan has pointed out, the TOP has dropped drastically the past 2 years, putting more pressure on the defense. Maybe what we need isn't JUST a vertical threat per se but also more balance on offense by utilizing the RBs both as receiving threats and ball carriers more often.

For several years the Pats have been a 1 dimensional offense. With TB at the helm it's somewhat understandable but...it is time for the O to evolve further into (1) a more physical offense, and less of a spread/"finesse" team, (2) more run-pass balance, including the ability to pound opposing defenses and wear them down and chew up the clock, and (3) more seamless integration of the running and passing aspects of the offense. My ideal has been an offense that could seamlessly morph between power run and spreading the ball out without changing personnel, allowing Brady to read the defensive personnel and alignment and make the appropriate adjustments.

The move to rebuild the offense around Gronk and Hernandez is a great start. The Pats have done a good job of moving away from a spread offense towards one that flows through the TEs. This PFF article does a nice job of summarizing all of the ways that Ahern creates mismatches.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...w-nfl-athlete/

The combination of Gronk and Hernandez has been synergistic - they are more effective together than either one is individually, because it is so hard for opposing defenses to deal with both.

The Pats with O'Brien did NOT do as good a job of integrating the RBs into the passing game. The drafting of Ridley and Vereen seemed to me a step in the right direction. I really liked the Shane Vereen pick in in particular, because Vereen is a multi-dimensional weapon at RB comparable to Aaron Hernandez at TE. He can be moved around the field and can line up at WR, both in the slot and out wide. But the Pats really didn't use Vereen (injured) or Ridley much, and Danny Woodhead's role seemed to regress from 2010. That's one reason I 'm not unhappy to see BJGE go - nice back, but he had no role in the passing game, and when he was in the lineup he was predictably going to run the ball most of the time. I was very disappointed in how the Pats used the RBs in 2011, and I'm hoping that we'll see a lot more from them under Josh McDaniels.

The Saints May Be On To Something
The ideal that I've had in mind for this O is something much more like the New Orleans Saints offense in 2009 and 2011. Not only "too many weapons to cover", but also much more balanced between run and pass and much more reliant on RBs in the passing game than the Pats have been since 2007.

The Saints have a potent aerial attack, and they use the running backs and the running game much more than the Pats do. The 2009 Saints averaged 131.6 YPG rushing despite Pierre Thomas being their leading rusher with 793 yards. The RBs added an additional 767 yards receiving, with Pierre Thomas and Reggie Bush the main threats. The RBs accounted for 43% of the Saints 6596 total offensive yards.

The 2010 Saints had a drastic decrease from the 2009 team in rushing (2106 yards to 1519 yards), receiving by the RBs (731 yards to 667 yards) and scoring (31.9 PPG to 23.9 PPG). Their response: (1) re-sign FA Pierre Thomas, (2) sign FA Darren Sproles, and (3) trade up to #28 in the 2011 draft to select Mark Ingram. So I'd say that improving the RB corps was considered a priority in 2011. The results: 2127 yards rushing, 1231 yards receiving by RBs, and 34.2 PPG. So far the Pats' response to their anemic RB corps performance in 2010 has been to let BJGE go and sign Spencer Larsen and Tony Fiammetta. I'm hoping for a little bit more.

The Saints took things even further in 2011, both with the RB corps and with greater use of the TE. The key additions were Jimmy Graham and Darren Sproles. They rushed for over 132 YPG in despite having no rusher with over 603 yards rushing. And Darren Sproles and Pierre Thomas (who I badly wanted in 2010 when the Saints offered to trade him even up for Darius Butler, and the Pats turned them down) combined for 1135 yards receiving. Add in Mark Ingram's paltry 46 yards receiving and that's 1181 yards, or over 21% of the total passing yardage, and once again 43% of the Saints record setting 7632 total yards on offense. 43% both years, and almost identical rushing totals. That's damn consistent. The Saints averaged 31.9 PPG in 2009 and 34.2 PPG in 2011. Interestingly, in 2010 the Saints rushed for only 94.9 YPG and their RBs accounted for only 35% of their total offensive production, with their total yards and PPG dropping significantly (23.9 PPG).

The combination of Darren Sproles (1313 yards from scrimmage), Pierre Thomas (987 yards from scrimmage) and Jimmy Graham (1310 yards from scrimmage) accounted for 47% of the Saints total yardage in 2011. The ability to catch the ball out of the backfield combined with Graham's ability to stretch the field and make yards after the catch significantly opened up the offense for Drew Brees. Their 4 main WRs added another 2893 yards receiving, so there was very good balance between the WRs and the TEs/RBs. That made the Saints' offense hard to stop.

In contrast, the 2011 Pats' RBs totaled 463 yards receiving (less than 9% of passing yardage) and 2035 total yards (28% of total offensive yards). Gronk and Hernandez combined for more total yards than the entire RB corps. That's down from 2009 and 2010 in terms of both receiving yards by RBs and percentage of total offensive production (39% in 2009, 43% in 2010). In 2008 the RBs accounted for 20% of the passing yardage and just under 50% of the total offensive production. So there has been a consistent move away from utilizing RBs as an integral part of the offense since 2008. Even the 2007 spread offense team got 36% of it's offensive production from the RBs.

I'd like to see an offense that produced about 7000 yards of total yardage and 32+ PPG, which is distributed about 35-40% productivity from the RBs, 30-35% from the WRs, and 30% from the TEs. That would work out to about 2500-3000 yards from the RBs, 2100 yards from the TEs, and 2100-2500 yards from the WRs. As much as the Pats could have used a vertical threat to stretch the field, they could have used more of a running threat to prevent teams from throwing extra DBs at a limited number of receiving options.

Can all of this be accomplished with RBBC? Sure it can. Woodhead, Vereen and Ridley were all severely under-utilized in 2011, and Vereen was injured. Does it require a franchise RB? Certainly not. I would have liked to have added a Pierre Thomas, Mike Tolbert or Michael Bush - all big, physical backs with excellent receiving and blocking skills. But the Pats have repeatedly passed up opportunities to add those kind of players. There needs to be a much bigger commitment to the running game, and to integrating RBs into the passing attack.

I'm somewhat pleased with the Tony Fiammetta and Spencer Larsen signings - perhaps that indicates a greater commitment to running the ball. Josh McDaniels spent his first draft pick as coach of the Broncos on a RB (Knowshon Moreno). The Pats' best rushing season since the SB years came in McDaniel's last year as OC, 2008. So hopefully utilizing the RBs will be a bigger focus than it was under Bill O'Brien who became to dependent on the pass.

I could easily see a RB like Matt Forte (if the Bears decide to move on) or Doug Martin (from the draft) really having a huge impact on the Pats offense and moving away from the WRs to an offense built around TEs and RBs. Both guys are tough, physical runners who can pound the ball inside or break it out, and make big plays. Both are strong and are adept in pass protection. And both have superb receiving skills. I think either guy could easily average 1500 combined yards rushing/receiving per season without wearing him out (Forte has averaged 1552 combined yards over his first 4 seasons, and Martin had over 1500 combined yards from scrimmage his last 2 seasons at Boise St.), leaving another 1000+ for Vereen, Ridley and Woodhead. The production from the TE group would be about what it was in 2011. The WR production would decrease slightly.

One reason I would consider trading for Matt Forte or drafting a back like Doug Martin at the end of the first round or top of the second is that it WOULD signal a commitment to the running game as a major part of the offense. While Martin would be a much cheaper option than Forte, I think that RBs in general are under-priced compared to WRs. Forte will probably get something slightly less than Arian Foster got from Houston ($43.5M/5 years). $8M/year is quite reasonable to pay for a player who averages 1500 combined yards (about 21% of total offensive yardage). Wes Welker has averaged about 1300 combined yards/year over the past 5 years. Randy Moss averaged about 1300 combined yards/year from 2007-2009.

Points Vs Premier Defenses Has Been A Problem
The Pats' offense has been very adept at piling up yardage and points over the past few years, but it has been too easily stopped by premier defenses. In 2009 there was essentially Moss and Welker and nothing else, and although the offense put up over 400 YPG it was all too easily stopped. In 2010 the offense was reworked through the TEs, but the lack of a deep threat and lack of run-pass balance allowed defenses to flood the middle of the field. The Pats have addressed better receiver balance this offseason, but they really need to commit to the run and integrate the running and passing attacks in order to have an offense which can't be stopped by opposing teams. The Saints were eliminated not because their offense was stopped, but because they had no defense - their offense put up 32 points and 472 total yards against one of the best defenses in the NFL in their loss to the 49ers. If NO had anything resembling a defense, they would have been the SB champions last year. In contrast, the Pats' offense averaged 20 PPG and less than 340 YPG in the playoffs against the Ravens and Giants. The Pats last 7 playoff games (going back to 2007) they have scored 30 points or more against only Jacksonville in 2007 (31) and Denver in 2011 (45). That included 28 vs. San Diego (2007), 14 vs. the Giants (2007), 14 vs. the Ravens (2009), 21 vs. the Jets (2010), 23 vs. the Ravens (2011) and 17 vs. the Giants (2011). Not a very good record of offensive production against playoff defenses. I think that is a direct result of the lack of diversity of offense, and that's why I'm so focused on hoping the RBs becomes a bigger part of the offense.

I'd like McDaniels to integrate the RBs more as core pieces of the offense. If that takes signing a big name back to a big contract, I'm ok with it. If it takes drafting a RB high, I'm ok with that, too. It wasn't my original plan since I would have liked Tolbert in FA.

The Defense Benefits, too
This is my top priority for the offense, and I think it would help the defense tremendously in terms of TOP and keeping the defense off the field. The Pats were 27th in the NFL in terms of TOP in 2011, and 20th in 2010. In contrast, the 2007 team finished 2nd in the NFL in TOP, the 2008 and 2009 teams 3rd, the 2006 and 2004 teams 6th, and the 2003 team 8th. The "explosive" New Orleans offense which uses the RBs so much more as an integral component finished 3rd in TOP in 2011 despite their weak defense.

I think that the combination of a power "Flex Back" like Forte or Doug Martin along with a guy like Vereen would be the RB equivalent of having Gronk and Hernandez on the team - the effect would be synergistic. I'd love to see an offense which had Forte/Martin/Ridley, Vereen/Woodhead, Gronkowski and Hernandez all on the field at the same time, along with only 1 WR (Welker or Brandon Lloyd). The Pats could power run the ball or pass using any of those 5 guys as weapons, and they could move players around at will to create confusion and mismatches. Imagine those guys in the backfield and Hernandez moves to FB to block for Martin while Vereen moves out to WR. Or Hernandez is split out wide and one of the RBs moves into the slot position. A creative offensive mind could create dizzying options with that kind of personnel that would have defensive coordinators tearing their hair out.

Good call on this...I would like to see it too. Thing is, does it kind of call into question the two running backs they drafted to see them go out and get a big name running back? Also....you are right, it would keep the defense off the field, but I think another way to keep the defense off the field is for the defense to actually get themselves off the field....like maybe stop a few 3rd downs. I would like to see the running backs more involved in the passing game...right now, its basically not at all. All I can say about the saints, is they must have had the ball a lot on offense, because they threw more than any team in football by quite a bit even with your rushing stats. It is odd though that the Pats have really only had a top running game twice in the past 10 years....in 2004 and in 2008, is this by design or from players that they have?

[HSanders]

Great stuff chevss! I would love it if they did what you suggested. It's not about having balance to have balance, it's about being able to beat a team in a lot of different ways...like the 04 offense could. That's why it is still my favorite offense (minus the TE part of that equation)

[Oswlek]

When the Pats selected Snuffy and Rids last year, as well as two road grading OL and showing Mankins the money, everything looked like more emphasis was being directed towards the running game. Things definitely didn't work out as I thought they would.

That said, I wouldn't entirely discount circumstance as being a contributor. Benny dealt with toe issues for half the season, the team never felt 100% confident in Ridley's ball security, Snuffy had problems with both hammies. On top of that, NE rarely had a 3rd TE on the roster, and even though they trotted out some 3OT sets, most of the time two of them were rookies. They were on their 4th center at one point.

I also recall AWTE specifically mentioning how the Jets used NE's reliance on RBs in the passing game against them in the playoff game. That almost certainly impacted NE's use in 2011.

All that said, I do agree that a more reliable running game is needed.

MaineMan has pointed out, the TOP has dropped drastically the past 2 years, putting more pressure on the defense

The 2010 rushing offense was pretty successful, so I'd say the defense was putting the pressure on themselves. 2011 was another story.

So far the Pats' response to their anemic RB corps performance in 2010 has been to let BJGE go and sign Spencer Larsen and Tony Fiammetta

I think there is a difference between RB corps performance and RB corps. Who did they add in 2010 to jump fromk 4.1 ypc in 09 to 4.3? Woodhead? I'd say Alge Crumpler was probably the biggest addition to the running game, so I'm not sure I'd discount the addition of better lead blockers and another TE.

Barring the team feeling like Snuffy was a complete misfire, I sincerely doubt they invest heavily in the RB position. Even looking at your NO example, Sproles at less than $4mm a year is the biggest nut they've laid down. NE's own 2010 success was by the hand of two UDFAs.

Edit: I don't like using 2008 as a baseline for offensive breakdowns since there was a pretty important missing piece that escapes me right now.

[chevss454]

Originally Posted by Oswlek

When the Pats selected Snuffy and Rids last year, as well as two road grading OL and showing Mankins the money, everything looked like more emphasis was being directed towards the running game. Things definitely didn't work out as I thought they would.

That said, I wouldn't entirely discount circumstance as being a contributor. Benny dealt with toe issues for half the season, the team never felt 100% confident in Ridley's ball security, Snuffy had problems with both hammies. On top of that, NE rarely had a 3rd TE on the roster, and even though they trotted out some 3OT sets, most of the time two of them were rookies. They were on their 4th center at one point.

I also recall AWTE specifically mentioning how the Jets used NE's reliance on RBs in the passing game against them in the playoff game. That almost certainly impacted NE's use in 2011.

All that said, I do agree that a more reliable running game is needed.



The 2010 rushing offense was pretty successful, so I'd say the defense was putting the pressure on themselves. 2011 was another story.



I think there is a difference between RB corps performance and RB corps. Who did they add in 2010 to jump fromk 4.1 ypc in 09 to 4.3? Woodhead? I'd say Alge Crumpler was probably the biggest addition to the running game, so I'm not sure I'd discount the addition of better lead blockers and another TE.

Barring the team feeling like Snuffy was a complete misfire, I sincerely doubt they invest heavily in the RB position. Even looking at your NO example, Sproles at less than $4mm a year is the biggest nut they've laid down. NE's own 2010 success was by the hand of two UDFAs.

Edit: I don't like using 2008 as a baseline for offensive breakdowns since there was a pretty important missing piece that escapes me right now.

I don't expect a big RB investment in reality. I think Ridley, Woody, a healthy Vereen + a FB can do the job. I do think BB will add a RB by veteran addition or through the draft.

The point is for the RBs to be used as receivers and as ball carriers to make the Pats more difficult to defend by flooding the field with weapons. You're right about BJGE being hurt, the C position being in flux (although Connolly played well enough) Vereen's issues (missed TC/injuries) and Crumpler's blocking contributing to the anemic RB production last year. I don't consider a 0.2 increase in yardage as very significant, btw. What I would like to see is for Josh McD to see the potential and scheme to make the RBs a bigger part of the game.

As an aside, I wonder if the traditional WR position (Ocho) is near as impt as the RBs and TEs in moving the chains in our evolving scheme.

[midgar8784]

Originally Posted by chevss454

I don't expect a big RB investment in reality. I think Ridley, Woody, a healthy Vereen + a FB can do the job. I do think BB will add a RB by veteran addition or through the draft.

The point is for the RBs to be used as receivers and as ball carriers to make the Pats more difficult to defend by flooding the field with weapons. You're right about BJGE being hurt, the C position being in flux (although Connolly played well enough) Vereen's issues (missed TC/injuries) and Crumpler's blocking contributing to the anemic RB production last year. I don't consider a 0.2 increase in yardage as very significant, btw. What I would like to see is for Josh McD to see the potential and scheme to make the RBs a bigger part of the game.

As an aside, I wonder if the traditional WR position (Ocho) is near as impt as the RBs and TEs in moving the chains in our evolving scheme.

I could be wrong, but I always saw the Patriots changing what they do by the players they had....if they were light on the receiver side, they turned more to TE's and RB's, if they were light on the RB's they turned more to the passing game to wideouts, and so on...2003, our running game was not the best, so I saw more of a passing game that acted as a run game to close out games....screens, things like that...in 2007 receivers were the big dogs of the offense so we saw a huge leap in that direction....so I would assume if our receivers like Ocho were more capable, then they would get as much attention, but seeing is how there is a drop off from what our TE's can do to what our current wideouts can do, at least last year, that is how the offense focused.

[chevss454]

Originally Posted by midgar8784

I could be wrong, but I always saw the Patriots changing what they do by the players they had....if they were light on the receiver side, they turned more to TE's and RB's, if they were light on the RB's they turned more to the passing game to wideouts, and so on...2003, our running game was not the best, so I saw more of a passing game that acted as a run game to close out games....screens, things like that...in 2007 receivers were the big dogs of the offense so we saw a huge leap in that direction....so I would assume if our receivers like Ocho were more capable, then they would get as much attention, but seeing is how there is a drop off from what our TE's can do to what our current wideouts can do, at least last year, that is how the offense focused.

To me, the question becomes "is BB changing the players on purpose toward a more centrally focused scheme or is he simply responding to the players at hand?" Personally, I think it's the former according to a longer range plan BB has in mind.

[midgar8784]

Originally Posted by chevss454

To me, the question becomes "is BB changing the players on purpose toward a more centrally focused scheme or is he simply responding to the players at hand?" Personally, I think it's the former according to a longer range plan BB has in mind.

You are probably right, that is the way he is focusing, but I think when it was not working last year he reverted to players at hand, sort of like he did on the defense, when what he started with was not working early on with the defense. With the FB flood that has come in, it does look like he is trying to get some balance, I am just not sure he thought what we had last year in the run game was the answer. They did not put up much of a fight for BJGE. I would love defenses to have to fear the run game, I have not seen that in awhile, they basically gameplan to sit pass against us, and I am not sure we had the players to take advantage of it.

[Oswlek]

They did not put up much of a fight for BJGE

Not putting up a fight for Benny in no way demonstrates a lack of desire to upgrade the running game.

[midgar8784]

Originally Posted by Oswlek

Not putting up a fight for Benny in no way demonstrates a lack of desire to upgrade the running game.

Thats not what I said....I said, that he was not in the cards for the plan to upgrade the running game.

[MaineMan]

Originally Posted by Oswlek

When the Pats selected Snuffy and Rids last year, as well as two road grading OL and showing Mankins the money, everything looked like more emphasis was being directed towards the running game. Things definitely didn't work out as I thought they would.

That said, I wouldn't entirely discount circumstance as being a contributor. Benny dealt with toe issues for half the season, the team never felt 100% confident in Ridley's ball security, Snuffy had problems with both hammies. On top of that, NE rarely had a 3rd TE on the roster, and even though they trotted out some 3OT sets, most of the time two of them were rookies. They were on their 4th center at one point.

This.

For all the heat that Koppen has taken for being a turnstile in passpro, his run-blocking was very good. Connolly wasn't as good at first, but was getting better until he got dinged up. Given that BGE's best game is running up the middle, having a good run-blocking center is crucial to his success. Between the injuries at center, the replacement off-season replacement of Neal (also a very good run-blocker) with Waters (average and declining), and BGE's own injury, I find it hard to blame O'Brien for not doing "more" with the run game. I thought he did the best he could with what he had in ball-carriers (with limited versatility or limited experience) and blockers.

I also recall AWTE specifically mentioning how the Jets used NE's reliance on RBs in the passing game against them in the playoff game. That almost certainly impacted NE's use in 2011.

All that said, I do agree that a more reliable running game is needed.



The 2010 rushing offense was pretty successful, so I'd say the defense was putting the pressure on themselves. 2011 was another story.



I think there is a difference between RB corps performance and RB corps. Who did they add in 2010 to jump fromk 4.1 ypc in 09 to 4.3? Woodhead? I'd say Alge Crumpler was probably the biggest addition to the running game, so I'm not sure I'd discount the addition of better lead blockers and another TE.

Excellent point about Crumpler. Plus, the two blocking TEs that BB picked up on draft weekend were both "stolen" on their way to the PS after camp.

Barring the team feeling like Snuffy was a complete misfire, I sincerely doubt they invest heavily in the RB position. Even looking at your NO example, Sproles at less than $4mm a year is the biggest nut they've laid down. NE's own 2010 success was by the hand of two UDFAs.

WRT the Matt Forte idea, Ben Tate could probably be had much cheaper from the Texans, if the Pats wanted to go that route.

Edit: I don't like using 2008 as a baseline for offensive breakdowns since there was a pretty important missing piece that escapes me right now.

Yeah. I have no clue why the Pats ran the ball so (relatively) heavily that season.

[MaineMan]

Originally Posted by chevss454

I don't expect a big RB investment in reality. I think Ridley, Woody, a healthy Vereen + a FB can do the job. I do think BB will add a RB by veteran addition or through the draft.

The point is for the RBs to be used as receivers and as ball carriers to make the Pats more difficult to defend by flooding the field with weapons. You're right about BJGE being hurt, the C position being in flux (although Connolly played well enough) Vereen's issues (missed TC/injuries) and Crumpler's blocking contributing to the anemic RB production last year. I don't consider a 0.2 increase in yardage as very significant, btw. What I would like to see is for Josh McD to see the potential and scheme to make the RBs a bigger part of the game.

As an aside, I wonder if the traditional WR position (Ocho) is near as impt as the RBs and TEs in moving the chains in our evolving scheme.

Well, Josh will have advantages that O'Brien did not. At least hypothetically, Josh will have two much more versatile RBs than O'Brien did - and a full off-season with them (that's assuming that Vereen is healthy and that Ridley's ball-carrying issues can be fixed. Josh should also have at least an additional two versatile blockers in Fells and one of the FBs.

I think that's where BB was headed with things last season, but...
- he lost the two rookie blocking TEs to unfortunate roster circumstances that led to them being exposed to waivers after camp
- he lost the FB on the PS (Kettani) to a Naval Reserve committment
- he lost Vereen to a series of hammy issues
- Ridley perhaps couldn't be used as much as they would have liked due to ongoing ball security issues

[Oswlek]

Originally Posted by MaineMan

This.

For all the heat that Koppen has taken for being a turnstile in passpro, his run-blocking was very good. Connolly wasn't as good at first, but was getting better until he got dinged up. Given that BGE's best game is running up the middle, having a good run-blocking center is crucial to his success. Between the injuries at center, the replacement off-season replacement of Neal (also a very good run-blocker) with Waters (average and declining), and BGE's own injury, I find it hard to blame O'Brien for not doing "more" with the run game. I thought he did the best he could with what he had in ball-carriers (with limited versatility or limited experience) and blockers.

Excellent point about Crumpler. Plus, the two blocking TEs that BB picked up on draft weekend were both "stolen" on their way to the PS after camp.

WRT the Matt Forte idea, Ben Tate could probably be had much cheaper from the Texans, if the Pats wanted to go that route.

Yeah. I have no clue why the Pats ran the ball so (relatively) heavily that season.

Totally. I think I actually laughed out loud a few times watching NE run tosses to Benny over and over again in the first half of the year.

[chevss454]

Originally Posted by chevss454

To me, the question becomes "is BB changing the players on purpose toward a more centrally focused scheme or is he simply responding to the players at hand?" Personally, I think it's the former according to a longer range plan BB has in mind.

Originally Posted by MaineMan

Well, Josh will have advantages that O'Brien did not. At least hypothetically, Josh will have two much more versatile RBs than O'Brien did - and a full off-season with them (that's assuming that Vereen is healthy and that Ridley's ball-carrying issues can be fixed. Josh should also have at least an additional two versatile blockers in Fells and one of the FBs.

I think that's where BB was headed with things last season, but...
- he lost the two rookie blocking TEs to unfortunate roster circumstances that led to them being exposed to waivers after camp
- he lost the FB on the PS (Kettani) to a Naval Reserve committment
- he lost Vereen to a series of hammy issues
- Ridley perhaps couldn't be used as much as they would have liked due to ongoing ball security issues

So it appears, going from your responses, that BB has had a plan all along to move toward a more balanced offense but circumstances that have been well laid out above prevented the full execution of his plan.

Let's take a look a BB's strategy and the results.

2006:

The 2006 season was notable for a lack of effective WRs, with Deion Branch holding out and David Givens gone as a FA. TB had Reche Caldwell, Doug Gabriel and Jabar Gaffney. Not surprisingly, the offense used the RBs and TEs a lot. The offense averaged 25.7 PPG and the pass/rush ratio was almost even (527 pass attempts, 499 rushes, or 51:49). The pass/rush TD ratio was 55%/45% (25/20). The Pats rushed 499 times for 1969 yards, for 3.9 YPC average and 20 rushing TDs. Of the pass attempts, just over half went to the WRs (272/527 = 52%). The other 49% was divided fairly equally between the RBs (113/527 = 21%) and TEs (141/527 = 27%). The completion % of passes targeted at RBs was quite high (89/113 = 79%, compared with an overall completion rate of 62%), with an average YPC to RBs of 8.5 (755 yards receiving on 89 receptions). The rushing attack plus the RBs used in the passing game accounted for 70% of all offensive plays (712/1026), 49% of total yards from scrimmage (2724/5559) and 53% of all TDs (24/45).

The 2006 offense was very balanced, but the lack of receivers clearly dictated some of that balance. Brady's 61.8% completion rate and 6.8 YPA average were lows - and that included the RBs having an almost 80% completion rate. The completion rate to WRs and TEs was 57% in both cases. That offense was good enough to get the Pats to within 1 minute of their 4th SB appearance. A couple of key receptions would have been decisive.

2007:

The FO clearly decided that more help was needed in the WR category going into 2007, and they loaded up with a vengeance: Kelly Washington and Donte Stallworth in FA, Wes Welker signed to an offer as an RFA and then acquired in trade, and finally a draft day trade for Randy Moss. Again, a change in personnel to some extent dictate the offense, which moved to a vertical spread attack. The rushing attack was not abandoned, but clearly assumed a subsidiary role. The offense averaged a record 36.8 PPG and the pass/rush ratio shifted slightly in favor of the passing game (586 pass attempts, 451 rushes, or 56:44). The pass/rush TD ratio was heavily skewed at 50/17 (75% pass/25% rush). The Pats rushed 451 times for 1849 yards, for a 4.1 YPC average and 17 rushing TDs. Of the pass attempts, pver 73% went to the WRs (430/586). Only 4 WRs caught passes, and Moss and Welker accounted for 52% of all pass targets by themselves. The TE target % dropped dramatically to 10.2% (including 3 receptions by Mike Vrabel as an eligible TE). The RBs were targeted 15% of the time, with a 74% completion rate and 6.8 YPA (well under the 8.3 average for all passing attempts). The rushing attack plus the RBs used in the passing game accounted for 52% of all offensive plays (537/1037), 36% of total yards from scrimmage (2432/6708) and 27% of all TDs (18/67) - all significant reductions from 2006.

Again, BB's changes in personnel to a certain extent permitted - if not dictated - the direction in which the offense was taken. The 2007 offense was clearly much less balanced than 2006, but much more explosive, shattering previous records. The WRs received most of the focus of the offense, an increase mostly taken from the TEs but also from the RBs to a lesser extent. The rushing attack and use of RBs as receivers was not abandoned, but it clearly assumed a lesser role as the offense went vertical, which shattering early results. But the rest of the league started to catch up to the spread offense in the second half of the season, and the offense was far from overpowering in the playoffs and SB, where it was held to 14 points. Few fans seemed interested in balance in the face of the offensive blitzkrieg despite the final results.

2008:

It's not clear if the 2008 offense would have differed dramatically from 2007 had it not been for a key personnel change: the season injuring ACL tear suffered by Tom Brady in the opener against Kansas City. That resulted in the untested Matt Cassel being inserted at QB, and the offense was adjusted to a considerable extent to favor and protect him. This was done by reverting back to a more balanced approach emphasizing the rushing attack, and keeping risks to a minimum. The offense averaged 25.6 PPG and the pass/rush ratio shifted back to near equality (534 pass attempts, 513 rushes, or 51:49). The pass/rush TD ratio also equalized at 21:21. The Pats used a RBBC committee approach to rush 513 times for 2278 yards (4.4 YPC average) and 21 TDs. The passing offense was not as vertical as 2007, but not as conservative as 2006 - WRs accounted for 66% of all targets, with TEs remaining constant at 10% and RBs picking up the difference, increasing their receiving involvement to over 20%. The rushing attack plus the RBs used in the passing game accounted for 57% of all offensive plays (599/1047), 50% of total yards from scrimmage (3031/6068) and 57% of all TDs (24/42).

The 2008 offense was clearly more balanced and conservative than 2008 but much less explosive. However, 25.6 PPG average is misleading, because it included Brady's injury and the transition to a new, inexperienced QB. The offense was damped down considerably the first half of the season, averaging only 21 PPG. But the team averaged over 30 PPG the last 8 games of the season (and almost 33 PPG if you exclude the season-ending 13-0 ice-bowl win over Buffalo; the team scored 47 or more points in 3 of those 7 games, including a blowout over SB-bound Arizona), as Matt Cassel matured and the offense began to open up more. The offense rushed for over 142 YPG over that 8 game span, with over 122 yards rushing in every game. It would have been interesting to see how the 2008 offense would have performed in the playoffs, but the Pats were nosed out despite an 11-5 record and a 6-2 finish. Personally, I think they may well have made a run similar to those made by the 2005 Steelers, 2006 Colts, 2007 and 2011 Giants, and 2010 Packers, all of whom peaked late to squeak into the playoffs and won it all. People think of the 2008 offense as conservative, but that was mostly in the first half of the season as Matt Cassel got his sea legs. The offense down the stretch was nearly as explosive as 2007, and much, much more balanced.

2009:

The return of Tom Brady brought great hopes for 2009. Unfortunately, the loss of UFA WR Jabar Gaffney left the Pats without a viable 3rd receiver, and the lack of production from the TEs and the rushing attack resulted in a predictable offense that, while explosive at times (especially a 59-0 blowout of Tennessee week 6), could all too easily be shut down. This resulted in a series of losses involving second half meltdowns as opposing defenses made adjustments and shut down the Pats' spread offense which needed at least 1 more effective WR and a true north/south RB. This was the beginning of the end for LoMo.

The 2009 offense averaged a record 27.6 PPG(and a mere 24.5 PPG if you exclude the Tennessee blowout). The pass:run balance again became skewed in favor of the passing game (592 pass attempts vs 466 rushes, or back to the 56:44 ratio of 2007). The pass/rush TD ratio also shifted towards the passing game at 28:19 (60:40). The Pats rushed 466 times for 1921 yards (4.1 YPC average) and 19 TDs. The lack of a viable 3rd WR limited the WR percentage of the passing attack to 62%, but Moss and Welker accounted for 50% by themselves, and 17 of the 28 TDs. TEs involved remained constant at 10% and RBs involvement decreased slightly to 18%, with an average of only 6 YPA. The rushing attack plus the RBs used in the passing game decreased slightly to 54% of all offensive plays (571/1058), 39% of total yards from scrimmage (2529/6461) and 43% of all TDs (20/47).

The 2009 O produced some impressive efforts, but it was my least favorite offense of the past 5 years. It was all Moss and Welker, and that was all too easily countered by good defenses. The inability of the offense to score in the second half was a constant plague.

2010 and 2011 to come later, but it's apparent, to me anyway, that 2009 clearly showed the need for more offensive diversity.

Darth Vader: Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

[chevss454]

I asked a few media scout types to read the OP.

Samuel Monson ‏ @SamMonson @animedpet Finally got around to reading - very good points all around. Like the NO comparison to the offense

Monson writes for ProFootballFocus

Mike Dussault ‏ @PatsPropaganda @animedpet wow, good stuff man, I agree with you on re-dedicating to the run, & ur pts on TOP are really interesting/very telling.

Mike Dussault ‏ @PatsPropaganda @animedpet i'd love to link to the post if you're cool with it. It's a good perspective that a case hasn't been made for.

Steve Palazzolo ‏ @Draft_Hub @animedpet Wow, that's impressive. The concept of a more balanced attack and comparisons to NO are spot on.

I thought these were encouraging comments and would be of interest to someone.

Darth Vader: Search your feelings, you know it to be true!