Monday, December 10, 2007

Monday morning record chase update

There are several offensive records that Tom Brady and the New England Patriots have good-to-excellent chances of breaking. Here's where things stand through 13 games:



Tom Brady and New England Patriots Record Chase
Record:Current:Held by:So far:Need:Need to average:

Something shocking would have to happen not to break

Points (team)5561998 Minnesota Vikings5035418

TDs (team)70Miami Dolphins (1984)6562

TD passes (QB)49Peyton Manning (2004)4551.67

Likely to be broken

Rating121.1Peyton Manning (2004)123.54

Possible, but not currently on pace

PPG (team)38.838.6911939.67

I didn't think so, but now looks possible

Yards passing5084Dan Marino (1984)4095990330

Unlikely

Comp %70.55Ken Anderson (1982)70.12

Labels: , , ,

|

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

"Analysis" of the Patriots offense

I don't know Rich Cimini. I don't know whether he's bright or dumb, quick or slow. I don't know whether he's serious or sarcastic.

I just know that this is one of the stupidest pieces of "analysis" that I've ever seen.

One of the worst-kept inside jokes around the NFL is Tom Brady’s weekly appearance on the Patriots’ injury report. For what seems like forever, he has appeared on the report with a mysterious shoulder ailment, which has caused many eyes to roll.

The way things are going this season for the Patriots, they might have to tweak the ‘ol injury report. Don’t be surprised if you check your local newspaper’s agate page one day soon and see something like this:

QB Tom Brady, right-arm fatigue, probable.

Brady is throwing like a one-armed bandit, leading one of the most prolific passing attacks in NFL history. The Patriots are 6-0, and Brady already has attempted 204 passes, including an NFL-best 21 touchdown passes. In Sunday’s 48-27 victory over the previously undefeated Cowboys, Tom Terrific became the first quarterback in history to throw at least three scores in each of his first six games.

OK? The Patriots have thrown the ball a lot. That's true. So far, so good.

But let's stop, for just a second, and look at that scary number there. "Brady has already attempted 204 passes." The clear implication is that that is a huge number. And it is currently 3rd in the NFL. However, the Patriots, unlike a dozen other teams, haven't had their bye week yet. If you look at attempts per game, Tom Brady is ... 8th.

Doesn't sound too extreme, does it?
He’s scary good, but it raises a question: Can the Patriots continue to blow away the competition with such a one-dimensional offense?

Gosh, is the offense one-dimensional? He hasn't offered a single piece of evidence that that's the case. But he must be right, of course, because that's the entire point of his article. I'm sure that if I check, the evidence will be overwhelming.

Checking...

Checking...

Uh, there's a slight problem here. Through 6 games, the Patriots have thrown the ball 204 times.

They've run it 202 times.

They've thrown the ball on 50.25% of their offensive plays. Number of NFL teams throwing it more often? 23 of 32. Number of teams with a more balanced pass/run attack than the Patriots? One (1).

That's it. Essentially, the offense that Rich Cimini (apparently) assumes is "one-dimensional" is one of the two most balanced offenses in the league.
History says no. Sooner or later, it has to bite them, right? Every football tenet indicates that a team requires some semblance of balance to win a championship. I mean, you can expect to do the same thing over and over, and get away with it.

And I'm sure that he's got the evidence to support that, too, right?

Because a team could never win a Super Bowl if they pass the ball 53% of the time, like the 2003 Patriots.
Or 54.1% of the time, like the 1996 Packers.
Or 55.2% of the time, like the 1999 Rams.
Or 55.9% of the time, like the 2006 Colts.

People who have actually looked at the issue, a group that clearly doesn't include Rich Cimini, have discovered that great passing teams have historically done better than great running teams.
Remember Air Coryell? In 1980 and 1981, Dan Fouts passed for 4,715 and 4,802 yards, respectively, but those high-flying Chargers teams never made the Super Bowl.

Remember Dan Marino’s heyday? He was a passing machine for the Dolphins in the mid-1980s, throwing for 48 touchdowns in 1984, but what did it get him? He got rich, even got a street named after him in Miami, but he has as many Super Bowl rings as me.

Which is three fewer than Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. Tell them some more, Rich, what they need to do.
Yes, the old 49ers, from the Bill Walsh and Joe Montana vintage, were a pass-first team. But they had a fellow by the name of Roger Craig in the backfield to keep defenses somewhat honest.

How did they do that, Rich? By running the ball about 50% of the time?
You can’t be a one-trick pony in the NFL.

That sounds good, but I'm not at all convinced that it's true.

Even if it were, however, I wouldn't appear to have any relevance to this very balanced New England attack.
Yes, Brady is having one of those amazing years — he’s on a 4,700-yard, 56-touchdown pace — but it’ll come crashing down eventually. And by that, I don’t mean a prolonged losing streak. But they won’t go undefeated, write that down.

Wow. There's a narrow limb to climb out on...
Obviously, coach Bill Belichick doesn’t want to play this way.

Given that he's the one running the team, and they're playing the way they are, I don't know where, exactly, that "obviously" comes from. Maybe Rich Cimini is as ignorant about Bill Belichick as he is about what the New England Patriots are doing.
If he had his druthers, he’d love to run it 40 times a game and ram it down the opponents’ throat (like early in the season when running backs Sammy Morris and Laurence Maroney were 100% healthy). But what makes him such a good coach is his ability to adapt to his personnel.

With Morris and Maroney banged up, the strength of the Patriots rests on Brady (duh!) and the rebuilt receiving corps. So he’s going to let ‘er rip, especially if the matchups dictate an emphasis on the passing attack. And that certainly was the case against the Cowboys.

So if the running backs were healthy, Belichick would prefer to run an ineffective offence rather than an effective one? I don't think so.
Facing a thin and banged up secondary, the Patriots used spread formations throughout the game, creating favorable matchups all day. The Cowboys simply didn’t have enough defensive backs to cover the Patriots’ posse of receivers.

You want to double Randy Moss (six catches for 59 yards and a TD)?

Fine, no problem. They’ll throw to Dante Stallworth (seven catches for 136 yards and a TD).

You want to double Stallworth? Go right ahead. They’ll throw to the slot receiver, Wes Welker (11 catches for 124 yards and two TDs).

If Brady gets bored with those choices, he can throw to tight end Kyle Brady (one TD catch) just for kicks.

Brady finished with a career-high five touchdown passes, as the Patriots rolled to their highest point total since a 50-point outburst against the Colts in 1984.

“I’m not saying we’re unstoppable,” Moss said. “We just work hard at what we do.”

So now you’re thinking, “Why can’t they just keeping doing it?”

Yup - you got me there. I am. However, since I understand what they're doing, I'm not thinking, as you suppose, "why can't they just keep throwing the ball most of the time regardless of what the defense does?" but, rather, "why can't they continue to be effective by using their great offensive talent against the opposition's defensive weaknesses?" I suspect that they can. I think that the 16-game numbers won't end up being as gaudy as the 6 game numbers, and someone will probably hold them under 34 at some point, but this is a team without a significant offensive weakness.
Maybe they can, but it’s a dangerous way to play. In spread formations, you’re living with only five pass protectors (the offensive line), leaving the quarterback vulnerable to blitzers. On Sunday, it happened once to Brady, resulting in a strip/sack that was returned for a touchdown.

And how often do they actually do that? Far less than Cimini thinks. Most of the times they keep in plenty of blockers, and the receivers are so good that they get open anyway. Brady's been sacked 6 times this year.
A pass-heavy attack also doesn’t use much clock, putting a heavier burden on your defense. That happened to the Bills teams of the early 1990s, when Jim Kelly racked up big numbers with their “K Gun” no-huddle attack. Problem was, they scored so quickly that the defense never had much time to catch its breath on the sideline.

This really is a gem. There are two teams in the NFL who are holding the ball more than 35 minutes per game, which is more than 10 minutes longer than the opposition. One of them is the Pittsburgh Steelers. Any guesses as to the second?

Right. The New England Patriots.
Naturally, Belichick knows this. Heck, he was the guy who came up with the brilliant game plan for the Giants in Super Bowl XXV, essentially daring the Bills to run the ball. Before the game, he told his players that they’d win if Thurman Thomas rushed for more than 100 yards. They thought he was off his rocker, but he was dead on. He knew his plan would take the Bills out of their quick-strike element.

No doubt, Belichick will try to return to a balanced offense in New England.

That'll be quite a trick, returning to a place that you never left...
Much of that will depend on the health of his M&M Boys, Maroney and Morris. They’re going to need a running game in three weeks, when they face the Colts in what could be a battle of undefeated juggernauts. If they get into a shootout with Peyton Manning & Co., especially in the sterile confines of the RCA Dome, the Patriots will lose.

They lost in the AFCCG in a shootout to the Colts last year in the RCA Dome, so I guess that there's some historical precedence for this prediction. But it was a four-point game, and the Patriots have upgraded their defense, and significantly upgraded their receiving corps, so I'm far less certain that this statement is true, either.
Unless there’s another defensive whiz like Belichick out there, plotting ways to stop Brady & Co., the Patriots could win the Super Bowl with a run-and-shoot mentality. If they do, they’d be bucking decades of football doctrine.

Anyone who would confuse this Patriot offense, or offensive mentality, with a "run-and-shoot" mentality really needs to have his pundit card revoked...

Labels: , , , ,

|

NFL week 6 wrapup

NFL week 5 wrapup

  • The Patriots jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead in Dallas, and Tom Brady didn't look right. He overthrew receivers, but the primary thing was body language and facial expressions - he just didn't look right to me. He looked out-of-sorts, out of rhythm, like he didn't want to be there.

    Apparently I was mis-reading.

    When the Cowboys took the first 2nd half lead against the Patriots this season, it was almost as if it woke them up. They outscored Dallas 27-3 over the course of the last 20 minutes of the game.


  • New England’s last four plays against the Bills, week 3, too much time to run it all off the clock by taking a knee - Sammy Morris into the line, Sammy Morris into the line, Sammy Morris into the line, Heath Evans into the line. All from inside Buffalo’s 13 yard line. No passes, no field goal, ball goes over on downs. No one whining about running up the score.

    New England’s last four plays against the Cowboys, week 6, too much time to run it all off the clock by taking a knee - Kyle Eckel into the line, Kyle Eckel into the line, Kyle Eckel into the line, Kyle Eckel into the line. All from inside Dallas’ 10 yard line. No passes, no field goal. Dallas doesn’t stop them. Cowboy fans whining about running up the score.

    Wade made it necessary by using that last timeout. Otherwise the Patriots could have just taken a knee. Since they couldn't run out the clock, they had to run plays. They handed the ball off, up the middle, to a 5th string running back out of the Naval Academy. I hardly think that qualifies as "running up the score." Had Brady thrown a 6th on that drive, the whiners would have a point. Under the circumstances, I think New England behaved appropriately.

    I think that you don’t take a knee only to have your defense still have to come out and take the field. If the Cowboys thought it was still a competitive situation that warranted using that last timeout, why should the Patriots stop running plays?


  • The Patriots are 6-0. The rest of the AFC East is 2-15. Both of the wins are inside the division, so they are 0-11 against the rest of the NFL.


  • And it is time for all three of those teams to start looking at/for quarterbacks. Pennington can't throw the ball, and it should be pretty clear by now that if J.P. Losman's the answer, you're asking the wrong question. Even if Trent Green were ever to play again, which I think, based on absolutely no information, is a bad idea, he's certainly not more than a caretaker for a bad team right now. Those franchises should all be playing for 2008, if not 2009, now.
  • +

  • The Patriots schedule won't always look as weak as it did for the past couple of weeks. San Diego and Cleveland are both going to be above .500 in a couple of weeks.


  • Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and I've got to really reach, this week - I'm finally in mid-season form):

    NY Giants at Atlanta - "If there's a team more likely to play a bad game as a favorite than this version of the Giants, I don't know who it would be. But they won't. Not this week, anyway..."

    New England at Dallas - "Dallas has played no one. New England has played no one. They've got identical 5-0 records and similar point differentials. So why are the Patriots decent favorites on the road? And why do I think that the spread is low? Can't give you a good answer on that, other than to say, I think that the Patriots are the better team, and not just by a little."


  • Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and betting the opposite [and this evidence continues to pile up]):

    Carolina at Arizona - "The Cardinals are actually developing into a real football team, and this week, they'll go 2 games over .500 for the first time since they won 4 of their first 6 in 2002."

    Cincinnati at Kansas City- "The Bengals can't stop an NFL offense. Fortunately for them, this week they aren't facing one. A team in turmoil, fighting amongst themselves, down on the coach, finds solace in the welcoming arms of the Chiefs."


  • For the week:
    Winners: 7-6
    ATS: 4-7-2


  • For the Season:
    Winners: 56-33
    ATS: 43-39-7

Labels: , , ,

|

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

NFL - week 4 wrapup


  • If the Midas touch turns anything to gold, what, exactly, does the "Norv Turner" touch do?


  • I'm never, ever going to be a Brett Favre fan. That said, I have to grudgingly acknowledge that he's playing much better than I thought he could at this point, and that he makes that team competitive.


  • I picked Atlanta the first couple of weeks, playing the contrarian, assuming that the team would rally 'round the flag, as it were. They failed, miserably. They played the kind of game this weekend that I expected from them earlier. Of course, part of this, I think, is the Houston Texans having to deal with success for the first time. I've seen this, I've been a part of this - a team that's used to losing starts to win, and doesn't really know how to deal with it, how to keep the mental edge, and how to play a game that they should win, as opposed to one in which they're the underdog. There's a different mindset required.


  • I'll confess to being very surprised by the Pittsburgh-Arizona result. I had been convinced that the Steelers were better than they are.


  • I was less surprised by the Bills-Jets game. Yes, the Bills were both bad and beaten. But the Jets are not a team that can be counted on. And frankly, while I think it was a bad hit and deserved even more of a fine than the $12,500 he got, Vince Wilfork may have done the Bills a favor by hastening the end of the J.P. Losman era.


  • Tom Brady to Randy Moss looks unfair. But it's tough to tell what the Patriots are until they play a good team. Their four opponents have a combined record of 4-12, and the only wins in that group that looked at all like good wins (San Diego over Chicago, Cincinnati over Baltimore) look significantly less impressive today. It's tough to know how many "good" teams there are in the NFL at this point, and who they might be. It's pretty obvious that the Patriots haven't played any of them yet.





  • Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say:

    Philadelphia at NY Giants - "I think that line may be an overreaction to last week's Eagle romp, which reinforced perceptions (that may or may not have been justified) before the season that Philly was strong."

    Baltimore at Cleveland - "I am not at all convinced that Baltimore's defense is the fearsome entity that it used to be, and I don't think much of their offense at all. In Cleveland, this probably ends up being a fairly close game. I started writing this thinking that I was picking Baltimore. I've changed my mind. Cleveland not only covers, they win."

    St. Louis at Dallas - "...you can't have much of an offensive shootout when one of the parties is unarmed...I don't see how St. Louis scores enough not to lose by two touchdowns."



  • Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and betting the opposite):

    NY Jets at Buffalo - "Frankly, this line looks like a mistake. The only victory for the Bills this week will be a Gaussian one. If they choose to claim it. On the field, the Jets win easily."

    Oakland at Miami - "The Dolphins have got about four winnable games on their schedule. This is one of them. They take advantage of it..."

    Kansas City at San Diego - "San Diego's not as good as people think they are. But Kansas City is as bad as people think they are. The Chargers are bullies, and they'll beat up on an inferior team this week."


  • For the week:
    Winners: 8-6
    ATS: 8-6


  • For the Season:
    Winners: 38-24
    ATS: 33-25-4

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|