Statistically Speaking: A Look at the Decade's Offense (Pt. 2)
Note: I've decided to bring up some articles from the archive, just because of their relevance. - Richard Hill
A continuation of the initial article. There was a size-limit and I broke it. (Part 2 after the jump)
Total Passing Yards (minus yards lost by sacks)
|
Stat N |
||
|
Year |
Passing Yards |
Rank |
|
2000 |
3181 |
9 |
|
2001 |
3089 |
10 |
|
2002 |
3577 |
4 |
|
2003 |
3432 |
7 |
|
2004 |
3588 |
6 |
|
2005 |
4120 |
3 |
|
2006 |
3400 |
8 |
|
2007 |
4731 |
1 |
|
2008 |
3569 |
5 |
|
2009 |
4436 |
2 |
Our top 5 passing yardage seasons have resulted in 0 championships. We won a Super Bowl with our worst passing yardage season of the decade. 2 out of the top 5 seasons ended in a missed playoffs and another 2 out of 5 resulted in early exits. Our 3rd best passing season (early exit against Denver) was accompanied by our 8th worst rushing attack. Our 4th best passing in 2002 (missed playoffs to tie breaker) was with our 9th worst rushing attack. Recently, our rushing and passing has been fairly even, rank-wise.
Rushing Yards
|
Stat O |
||
|
Year |
Rushing Yards |
Rank |
|
2000 |
1390 |
10 |
|
2001 |
1793 |
6 |
|
2002 |
1508 |
9 |
|
2003 |
1607 |
7 |
|
2004 |
2134 |
2 |
|
2005 |
1512 |
8 |
|
2006 |
1969 |
3 |
|
2007 |
1849 |
5 |
|
2008 |
2278 |
1 |
|
2009 |
1921 |
4 |
In reality, our "Running Back by Committee" is a tandem of RBs with Kevin Faulk playing 3rd down and a back-up RB in case of emergency. We've had this committee ever since 2006 when we drafted Laurence Maroney. Prior, Faulk was the 2nd RB in the tandem. As shown, with the exception of 2004 when Corey Dillon was the lone back and had a monster year, our running game has done better yard wise. However, I think we have too similar backs in our tandem. Morris, Freddy and LoMo are all too similar as backs in order for our running game to be a serious threat. Around the league, more teams are having tandems (NYJ, DAL, SD, etc). What's the difference? They have a smasher (Thomas Jones, LT, etc) and a dasher (Leon Washington/Shonne Greene, Darren Sproles, etc). We don't have that back. We need a back that is different from Maroney (or whoever we choose as our back) in order to have an efficient and dangerous running game.
Average Yards/Offensive Pass
|
Stat R |
||
|
Year |
Average Yards/Pass Offense |
Rank |
|
2000 |
6.1 |
10 |
|
2001 |
6.9 |
6 |
|
2002 |
6.2 |
9 |
|
2003 |
6.8 |
7 |
|
2004 |
7.7 |
2 |
|
2005 |
7.7 |
2 |
|
2006 |
6.8 |
7 |
|
2007 |
8.3 |
1 |
|
2008 |
7.1 |
5 |
|
2009 |
7.7 |
2 |
Does utilizing Welker hurt our passing offense? Not according to the numbers. However, despite an increase in average yard/pass, our offense may be hurting. Yes, we threw for identical yards/pass as our 2004 Super Bowl year. However, prior to that, when we had a stronger running game (I will say that even though we gained fewer yards, i believe our running game was stronger. It was more trustworthy), we threw for under 7 yards a pass. Why? Recently, and it's been obvious to us as viewers, Brady zoned in on Moss and Welker. They're both good for 7+ yards every time they catch it. However, defenses realize this and covered them so they couldn't catch them. This caused Brady to throw it away. Earlier in the decade, Brady would throw the ball to the open man, regardless of who it was. We need Brady to start doing that again as Moss gets another year older, Welker may not be in top shape, Tate and Edelman develop and whoever else we bring in steps up.
Average Yards/Offensive Rush
|
Stat S |
||
|
Year |
Average/Rush Offense |
Rank |
|
2000 |
3.3 |
10 |
|
2001 |
3.8 |
6 |
|
2002 |
3.8 |
6 |
|
2003 |
3.4 |
8 |
|
2004 |
4.1 |
2 |
|
2005 |
3.4 |
8 |
|
2006 |
3.9 |
5 |
|
2007 |
4.1 |
2 |
|
2008 |
4.4 |
1 |
|
2009 |
4.1 |
2 |
What's this?! We've been averaging our top 3 rushing games the past 3 years?! And I'm trying to say that our running game was stronger earlier in the decade? I still believe that. As Brady was growing, he wasn't as much of a threat as he is now. Opposing teams tried to make Brady make plays to beat them, much like how we tried to get Flacco to beat us. They planned to stop the run, much like how they plan to stop the pass now. If we throw Corey Dillon in our running game now, we might have another Super Bowl Ring. I believe that the increase in yards/rush have a lot to do with the emergence of Brady and not to do with a super strong, but just passable, running game. Why? Because that's my opinion.
Average Offensive Yardage per Play
|
Stat V |
||
|
Year |
Avg Off Yardage/Play |
Rank |
|
2000 |
4.4 |
10 |
|
2001 |
4.9 |
7 |
|
2002 |
4.9 |
7 |
|
2003 |
4.8 |
9 |
|
2004 |
5.5 |
3 |
|
2005 |
5.5 |
3 |
|
2006 |
5.1 |
6 |
|
2007 |
6.2 |
1 |
|
2008 |
5.3 |
5 |
|
2009 |
5.9 |
2 |
Our yards gained/play has greatly increased this decade as the league has evolved into a quarterback league. I believe that our offense, during the course of the 2007 season, evolved into a "Home Run Team", meaning we banked on getting a couple of huge plays during the game in order to score. That strategy failed us this season, but I feel like we continued to try it. Three consecutive plays of 4 yards will get a first down. Our coaches seem to forget that (*cough* throwing on 3rd and 2 *cough*). I suggest reeling back our offense a little and start playing stronger football and less finesse football. Welker is strong football. Edelman is strong football. Watson is strong football. Corey Dillon was strong football. Maroney is finesse football (although he showed some flashes of power this year, followed by a couple fumbles). Moss is finesse football. Aiken is finesse football. We used to set up our finesse football by establishing our power game. Lately they've switched roles. That won't create success. We need to play stronger football.
What does all of this mean? It means what you want it to mean. I gathered these stats to try and spot any trends that we have created. We've been gaining more yards. Our offense has been performing. I still recommend strengthening our running game, but our offense isn't the problem. Trading Brady and Moss won't fix anything. Our offense has been getting better.
Here is a table of how the offensive teams average out according to these offensive statistics:
|
Offense |
|||
|
Year |
Rank |
Season Rank |
Wins |
|
2007 |
1.79 |
1 |
16 |
|
2009 |
2.57 |
2 |
10 |
|
2008 |
2.79 |
3 |
11 |
|
2004 |
3.57 |
4 |
14 |
|
2006 |
4.5 |
5 |
12 |
|
2005 |
5.07 |
6 |
10 |
|
2002 |
5.5 |
7 |
9 |
|
2003 |
5.57 |
8 |
14 |
|
2001 |
6.79 |
9 |
11 |
|
2000 |
7.14 |
10 |
5 |
We've continued to progress throughout the decade. Two Super Bowl years have come in the bottom 3 offenses of the decade (is that a good or bad thing?). Looking at wins each season, it's also good to notice that the success of our offense doesn't hold a strong relationship with our wins. I will conclude under the belief that our issue is with the defense.
Next week: A look at our defense over the decade.
Feel free to throw in any ideas for other offensive stats to be looked at, as well as any defensive stats you would like looked at.
13 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great analysis
and some important points about how, despite perceptions, our offense really has been very good consistently and especially the last three years. More depth and a smoothing out of the playcalling might better align perception with reality. But it’s also interesting to see that there’s not really a correlation between offensive numbers and wins. And the implications of that finding make me very interested to see what your research will turn up about our defensive performance over the decade where I expect we will see a decline.
Great work here.
I think the reason for the lack of correlation is that there are some plays that are critical.
I understand the concept of 60 minutes of football and all of that, but when you are 4th and 2 and going for it. That becomes the critical play of the game. Win that play, and win the game. You can’t replay the other 58 minutes again. There are no Mulligans. You have to dig in and win that play.
A single 4th down conversion is statistically insignificant over the course of the season; perhaps even within the game. It still becomes a critical play. Now that the fourth down failed, a defensive stop becomes critical. You can’t replay the 4th down. So every defensive down is critical. Why? There is less time on the clock. There is a deadline to meet. Football is played less conservatively when you’re behind.
If you want to argue that point, consider this. How many times has a kicker set a career record for a Field Goal in the 1st and 3rd quarters, versus the 2nd and 4th? They are willing to take the longshot. Statistics assume all attempts are even, not weighted by game situation. Actually statistics assume nothing.
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jan 18, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed.
Without a doubt these numbers don’t account for importance of plays (going for it on 4th down in the 1st, vs in the 4th quarter). However, I still believe they hold some importance as to whether or not we should be discussing scrapping our offensive players (and I believe the verdict is no).
The defensive statistics are actually extremely revealing. Hint: It doesn’t look good defensievely. (play on words!)
Offensive Coordinator > Guard > Tackle > DE > OLB > RB > WR > CB
by Richard Hill on Jan 18, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that statistics can help
My point is that they are just numbers, and they make no assumptions.
For instance you could have a player that doesn’t contribute in his position on a regular basis, but is thrown in only in critical situations. For instance, Tight-End Mike Vrable. His production is a statistical outlier from the Tight-End group, because he is not doing all the things they are asked to do. He does just one part of the job – albeit very well (perfectly, in fact). The numbers don’t discern the difference, people do.
There was one coach who weighted the information by how critical he thought the situation was (essentually, how much pressure is there on you to do your job). A first down conversion in the fourth quarter when you are up by 42 points is pretty low stress compared to a first down conversion in the fourth quarter when you are down by 4 and the team needs a touchdown to win. All situations aren’t created equal, and that coach (hopefully I can remember who) weighted performance essentually by how critical the performance was. I thought that approach was interesting.
Of course NFL stats are going to have that info, and we aren’t hiring teams of people to compile data.
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jan 18, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Nice research. Rec'd
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jan 18, 2010 12:30 PM EST reply actions
If this does anything,
it really shows there’s truth to the saying that “defence wins championships”. While I’m don’t exactly advocate that NE should move away from a high-flying O, it’s always useful to point out that Indy has had a pretty good O for all of the decade, and only 1 ring to account for it. The year it won a ring, it had a pretty good D, too…
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Really appreciate you putting this together Hill
It took me a bit to look it over and see what it means, although your conclusion is pretty close to mine:
I suggest reeling back our offense a little and start playing stronger football and less finesse football.Just to be clear, though, I believe Randy Moss can still be used with a “strong football” philosophy in mind. Having Moss as the only solution to a big play isn’t the answer, but it can be an answer.
What also surprised me was in how – stats and rank wise – the 2009 Patriots’ offense wasn’t far from their glory years, and in fact in some areas were near the top of the league. It brings up that dreaded word, “potential,” with that other season-killer word, “inconsistency.”
Keep the faith!
Agreed.
We utilized Moss on a lot of crosses and slants and he was rarely stopped. I think if we used him more that way, it would open up the field if he went deep and he’d produce more.
Offensive Coordinator > Guard > Tackle > DE > OLB > RB > WR > CB
by Richard Hill on Jan 19, 2010 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
I agree as well
The shoulder fake to the inside on those long routes works best when the defense thinks you might actually go inside. Use him in the other roles, and the bomb will happen. Force the long play, and they’ll take it away.
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jan 19, 2010 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
Wait. What?
There’s an inside of Randy Moss routes? I’ve looked at Bill O’Brien’s notes three times, and never seen a mention of one. Not even the page saying “Second half plan: abandon the run like it has leprosy”.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Jan 20, 2010 4:09 AM EST up reply actions
McDaniels ripped those pages out and took them with him to Denver.
My life has been a trivial pursuit. Trivia: where three roads meet.
The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.
by SlotMachinePlayer on Jan 20, 2010 9:05 AM EST up reply actions
No wonder Revis always looks so happy
He only has half as many directions to cover.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Jan 20, 2010 6:50 PM EST up reply actions

by 



















