Hate to give them credit, but EEI got it from ESPN, they were talking about it on NFL Live yesterday afternoon
.
Brady/Manning XVII
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
.
Got to say that's likely misleading. How many other teams do it to start the game or when they're ahead?
Obviously most teams pass over 80% of the time when they are behind because they have to move the ball, catchup, and not milk the clock. Nevertheless, does it matter that much when the numbers are .857 versus .042?
It matters in that the Patriots are the only team confident enough to game plan throwing almost exclusively, because Brady.
I'd argue that quite a few teams would benefit from passing more frequently, and through that lens these numbers are incredibly misleading: the other teams didn't lose because they passed so much, they were forced to pass so much because they were already losing (likely very early, and/or by a significant margin).
If we look at those numbers as an indication of the patriots being better than everyone else, the huge gap in win percentages looks much more significant than it really is, but this does show that the Patriots are more willing to air it out from the start of the game all the way to the end, capable of success when they choose to do so, and far less likely to be blown out in general than the rest of the league.
The Boston Globe (I believe) publicized this stat earlier in the season after one of such win. I think we talked about it in Celebrating What Is. So fuck ESPN.Hate to give them credit, but EEI got it from ESPN, they were talking about it on NFL Live yesterday afternoon
.
Last edited:
And because Belichick and McDaniels. Still plenty of coaches that feel you need balance. That they need to run even if it isn't working.
Helps a lot when you have Brady but I think most coaches even with Brady would be much closer to balance.
I don't know if it's solely a confidence in Brady thing, though obviously having Brady helps. I think part of it is that many other coaches / OCs have a deep-seated belief in concepts like "you have to run to set up the pass" or "you need a balanced offense", so they feel there's a need to mix up the run/pass ratios, even when the opponents are terrible are defending the pass. By contrast, Belichick never does something just for the sake of following conventional wisdom, and has explicitly said that he keeps doing what works until it doesn't:
You still need balance, in the sense that you can execute a diverse assortment of passing plays with different types of personnel on the field. Being able to create and exploit mismatches is crucial to that kind of approach. The Patriots came out crazy pass-heavy in 2002 and sucked at it.
It also helps that the Patriots have designed their playbook and have the personnel to effectively make the run game obsolete. The screen passes and quick routes take the place of the running game, so even late in the game, up 2 scores when it makes sense to run, the Patriots can still throw and eat the clock. Other teams aren't as equipped to do that as the Patriots are.
I think that's true, but I would guess if you look at first halves alone, the stats would look pretty similar. Most coaches feel they have to establish the run game in their first few drives. If Belichick and McDaniels feel the opposing team is weak against the passes in the Patriots' playbook, they will attack with the pass mercilessly, as they did in the KC game and the first Jets game.
Another Belichick quote that I think encapsulates his philosophy (he's talking about defense against Denver here but I think it applies to the offense as well):
http://www.patriots.com/news/2016/01/18/presser-points-bill-belichick-patriots-all-denver
The fact that the Pats have been a game plan team for as long as I can remember and no other team really adapts that philosophy is puzzling. The days of doing what you do well are over. You have to do what the other team doesn't defend well, and keep doing it till you break them. For us that happens to play in with our best weapons, all except for Brady were acquired for that very purpose.
Interestingly, I would imagine that is the plan for this game - to throw, a lot. Spread the Broncos out, make quick throws, take advantage of their not-so-deep secondary.
So if you're the Broncos, why not play a dime, even on 1st down? Dare them to make 80-year-old Steven Jackson beat you.
So if you're the Broncos, why not play a dime, even on 1st down? Dare them to make 80-year-old Steven Jackson beat you.
Play zone and Brady and Edelman will eat you alive, play man and you now are relying on your 3rd, 4th and 5th corner to cover Martin, Amendola, or Gronk, with the added bonus of having a corner try to block Gronk if he lines up next to the tackle.
It may not be a bad approach, and I'm not sure how to stop this offense when they are clicking but going dime may create matchup problems in both the passing game and running game for the Defense.
It helps that Wade Phillips is dogmatic in his approach. There is no way he has the discipline to throw a heavy dose of dime looks at the Pats, daring them to run.
Yeah, that dropback pass win% stat might be the best illustration of that I've seen. If Belichick decides passing a lot is a good game plan, that's what they do, until it doesn't work, and they adjust. That number proves that literally no other coach has ever had the thought that mostly passing will win them the game. And on the other hand, if Belichick decides running a lot is a good game plan (like against the Colts, over multiple games), that's what they do, until they're forced to adjust.
He doesn't have a "system" that he forces his players to fit into. It's amazing that it's that simple, and that really nobody else does this.
I agree that Phillips is mostly dogmatic but he did change up for Pitt game. The Broncos have played man all year and played mostly zone against Pitt.
The Patriots have been a pass-heavy team during this period, and they've also been a very good team.
The Denver Broncos are 2-0 in Super Bowls where they rush at least 55% of the time, and 0-5 when they don't.
The Denver Broncos are 2-0 in Super Bowls where they rush at least 55% of the time, and 0-5 when they don't.
My only question about the pass heavy approach is the Run and Shoot. They tried something similar. Tried to pass at all times. Now of course they ditched tight ends, the rules were different, it was obviously not game planned by opponent, and the best proponent lost that crazy comeback game to the Bills.
Was that just implemented poorly or the wrong era to try it?
Was that just implemented poorly or the wrong era to try it?
The Pit-Den and KC-NE games were eerily similar in some ways. In both cases the road team piled up more yards and still lost, primarily because the home team won the turnover battle 1-0 at a key point to win by a touchdown, with a bend-but-don't-break defense forcing the opponent to settle for FGs. The flow of the game was obviously different, as the Pats never trailed, and the distribution of offense/defense was flipped (Denver's defense held a better offense to fewer points, while the Pats offense scored more against a better defense), but it seems to set up a pretty good match for this weekend (Denver is 5th in weighted DVOA, Pats 7th, with the Den home field advantage hopefully offset by the Pats increased health not fully accounted for in DVOA yet).
Utilizing a 4-WR set, the Run and Shoot as the old Oilers ran it lacked a short/intermediate attack, which made it susceptible to short drives timewise. What the Patriots do, in spirit at least, is actually a variant of the Run and Shoot. The Run and Shoot was predicated on receivers reading the defense and adjusting their routes. The Patriot passing game has long been along those same lines, where each receiver might go to the line with 2-3 possible routes and they decide which one to run based on the coverage they see. It relies a lot on Brady and the receivers being in sync with one another as far as reading things properly.
I know this sounds extremely simplistic, but Tom Brady is likely the difference. I don't think there are more than a handful of QBs a coach, even Belichick, would be comfortable giving the ball to 50+ times against a top tier defense. And Brady tops that list considering his patience, play making ability and the way he limits turnovers.
Doug Kyed @DougKyed 18s18 seconds ago
Matthew Slater didn't participate in today's walk-through with a shin injury.
Matthew Slater didn't participate in today's walk-through with a shin injury.
Ron Borges goes "Full Cafardo" over stats in football:
Statistics, I’ve long felt, are like hostages. You can make them say whatever you want.
We are reminded of this today as we’re being inundated with numbers. Coincidentally, all those numbers seem to conclude to those offering them up that the Denver Broncos are wasting their time showing up at Sports Authority Field at Mile High on Sunday.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/ron_borges/2016/01/borges_players_not_stat_geeks_will_decide_afc_title
Statistics, I’ve long felt, are like hostages. You can make them say whatever you want.
We are reminded of this today as we’re being inundated with numbers. Coincidentally, all those numbers seem to conclude to those offering them up that the Denver Broncos are wasting their time showing up at Sports Authority Field at Mile High on Sunday.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/ron_borges/2016/01/borges_players_not_stat_geeks_will_decide_afc_title
Technically the words are someone else's hostages, he just makes it seem like they are his.
Brady article on ESPN. Good read.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14615476/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-big-reveal
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14615476/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-big-reveal
I was just coming to post this. It's surprisingly great.
I've found ESPN.com to be a very interesting as of late. They seem to be criticizing the NFL more and now with this article (front and center going into the AFCCG) they even seem to be coming out and admitting Deflategate was a bunch of garbage and that people need to appreciate TB12 for what he's done and who he is as a person. I found this part particularly interesting. It's not buried deep in the story; it's only a few paragraphs in:
Methinks ESPN and the NFL had some kind of falling out over the last several months or ESPN is at least aware of how badly they covered DG and are now trying to make peace with it. My hunch is they know they were used by the NFL during DG to push a certain agenda and they're angrily starting to wipe the egg off their face.
ESPN just recently dropped out of the Thursday Night Football bidding. Perhaps they don't feel they have anything to lose now, or perhaps they're trying to make a point that they can shape perception and the NFL should consider that relationship when they play hardball with ESPN.
Everyone always talks about how the media needs the NFL and therefore bow down to them to keep them happy. If we're lucky ESPN might decide to challenge their perceived status as the NFL's bitch.
Mark Daniels @MarkDanielsPJ 19s20 seconds ago
Perfect practice attendance for the Patriots today. Slater returned. Collins, Gronk, Edelman, Jones and Hightower all here.
Perfect practice attendance for the Patriots today. Slater returned. Collins, Gronk, Edelman, Jones and Hightower all here.
Gee, does this mean The WWL will no longer lead off "Sports Center" with a meaningless NFL story in the middle of baseball season in July? That always pissed me off because you knew it was the lead not because it was newsworthy but because ESPN was kissing some NFL butt.
ESPN is cutting costs, which includes paying outrageous fees to the NFL.
But it is interesting that their NFL coverage has been a lot more balanced in the past few months, especially that Brady column from yesterday. That was amazing piece of journalism without hyperbole or fluff. It was one of the most real columns I've read on ESPN in years.
Maybe ESPN has realized how bad they have looked to the world with their biased coverage and focus on hot takez. Because I personally know scores of people who think ESPN is a total joke and these are the same people who watched 6 episodes of Sportscenter every day in the 90's. ESPN has been a joke, a terrible network with terrible analysis, for years.
But it is interesting that their NFL coverage has been a lot more balanced in the past few months, especially that Brady column from yesterday. That was amazing piece of journalism without hyperbole or fluff. It was one of the most real columns I've read on ESPN in years.
Maybe ESPN has realized how bad they have looked to the world with their biased coverage and focus on hot takez. Because I personally know scores of people who think ESPN is a total joke and these are the same people who watched 6 episodes of Sportscenter every day in the 90's. ESPN has been a joke, a terrible network with terrible analysis, for years.
Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 38s39 seconds ago
Broncos EVP/GM John Elway said on ESPN's NFL Insiders that CB Chris Harris and his shoulder injury will be "game-time decision" for Sunday.
Broncos EVP/GM John Elway said on ESPN's NFL Insiders that CB Chris Harris and his shoulder injury will be "game-time decision" for Sunday.
Boy, you'd think with his availability hanging by a thread like this they'd give him some time off in practice, maybe limit his participation a bit. #bsinjuryreportgate
Will Leitch from Sports on Earth on the Brady/Manning matchup:
"The question remains as pressing as it always has: Who's better? The two men are so different, with their careers so intertwined, with changing circumstances and changing stakes (and even at one point, changing teams), that the answer itself has changed, with the momentum of each quarterback ebbing and flowing over two decades. Five years ago, it would have seemed obvious that the answer was Manning. Now, to many, it's the opposite."
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/162468916/tom-brady-and-peyton-manning-face-off-again
"The question remains as pressing as it always has: Who's better? The two men are so different, with their careers so intertwined, with changing circumstances and changing stakes (and even at one point, changing teams), that the answer itself has changed, with the momentum of each quarterback ebbing and flowing over two decades. Five years ago, it would have seemed obvious that the answer was Manning. Now, to many, it's the opposite."
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/162468916/tom-brady-and-peyton-manning-face-off-again
Not really. Five years ago, Brady had 3 rings and the all-time single season TD record and Manning was about to miss an entire year.
