Pats Offensive Groupings, Substitions and Such

[TheoShmeo]

On the very first play of the Colts game, the Pats had Edelman, Gronk and Gordon on the field at the same time. I found myself checking thereafter and as the numbers will bear out, that grouping did not repeat all that many times thereafter.

There could be many reasons. Edelman may have needed to pace himself. Gordon still is likely not at 100% regarding his hammy (and my son who was there said he thought Gordon looked slower than he would have expected) and he may not know all of the offense (despite proclamations to the contrary in PatsLand). And of course the Pats always liberally substitute to keep the defense off balance and keep their diverse group of players fresh and invovled.

Still, a series of thoughts/questions around this topic:

1. Do people think the Pats are substituting more now or over the last few years than they did in the past? Or is this same old, same old?

2. Do people share my view that the more we get of Gronk, Edelman and Gordon on the field, the better? As a defensive coach facing the Pats, I would welcome any of those three being on the sidelines. Like, "good, sit Edelman. Sit him all the time please!" (I know that this question would be more "baked" if everyone was fully healthy.)

3. Do you think that the rhythm of the offense suffers at all with the seemingly constant switching? I'll admit my bias. I think it would be beneficial to line up with Edelman, Gronk, Gordon, one of Dorsett/Hogan and one of Michel/White for a series, with quick or no huddles, and let the D try to handle that extremely talented grouping.

I hope this topic resonates. I thought about sticking the question into an existing thread but was hoping for more feedback than that would typically generate.

I may be way off here. Just a thought or the germ of one that I've had for a while.

 

[DJnVa]

There could be many reasons. Edelman may have needed to pace himself. Gordon still is likely not at 100% regarding his hammy.

I don't think it's a mystery. Gordon still only playing about 25% of snap counts--likely for health and playbook reasons.

Snap counts show it's not Edelman pacing himself, well, at least not all that much---he was on the field for 70% of the offensive plays (48 of 69 plays). Gordon was only on the field for 18, so 26%.

And is there "constant switching"?

Gronk and Hogan played 91% of the snaps, Edelman 70%, White 62%, and Dorsett 61%. Then Michel with 39% and Gordon at 26%.

Edelman's numbers will rise, with Hogan and Dorsett's likely to drop a bit. Based on the fact that Edelman was out for so long and Gordon is still new and maybe limited somewhat, that doesn't really seem like a lot of switching switching's sake.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I don't think it's a mystery. Gordon still only playing about 25% of snap counts--likely for health and playbook reasons.

Snap counts show it's not Edelman pacing himself, well, at least not all that much---he was on the field for 70% of the offensive plays (48 of 69 plays). Gordon was only on the field for 18, so 26%.

And is there "constant switching"?

Gronk and Hogan played 91% of the snaps, Edelman 70%, White 62%, and Dorsett 61%. Then Michel with 39% and Gordon at 26%.

Edelman's numbers will rise, with Hogan and Dorsett's likely to drop a bit. Based on the fact that Edelman was out for so long and Gordon is still new and maybe limited somewhat, that doesn't really seem like a lot of switching switching's sake.

Some teams, and the Pats in the past I believe, seem to leave out offensive personnel groups out for three down sets or even drives at a pace that seems higher to me that NE's. I could be wrong, but it does seem to me that guys are shuttling in and out at a higher rate in NE. Without numbers to back up my point, I recognize that it is not particularly strong. That's really why I pose this as a question (with some bias behind it) more than a confident assertion.

 

[RedOctober3829]

On the very first play of the Colts game, the Pats had Edelman, Gronk and Gordon on the field at the same time. I found myself checking thereafter and as the numbers will bear out, that grouping did not repeat all that many times thereafter.

There could be many reasons. Edelman may have needed to pace himself. Gordon still is likely not at 100% regarding his hammy (and my son who was there said he thought Gordon looked slower than he would have expected) and he may not know all of the offense (despite proclamations to the contrary in PatsLand). And of course the Pats always liberally substitute to keep the defense off balance and keep their diverse group of players fresh and invovled.

Still, a series of thoughts/questions around this topic:

1. Do people think the Pats are substituting more now or over the last few years than they did in the past? Or is this same old, same old?

2. Do people share my view that the more we get of Gronk, Edelman and Gordon on the field, the better? As a defensive coach facing the Pats, I would welcome any of those three being on the sidelines. Like, "good, sit Edelman. Sit him all the time please!" (I know that this question would be more "baked" if everyone was fully healthy.)

3. Do you think that the rhythm of the offense suffers at all with the seemingly constant switching? I'll admit my bias. I think it would be beneficial to line up with Edelman, Gronk, Gordon, one of Dorsett/Hogan and one of Michel/White for a series, with quick or no huddles, and let the D try to handle that extremely talented grouping.

I hope this topic resonates. I thought about sticking the question into an existing thread but was hoping for more feedback than that would typically generate.

I may be way off here. Just a thought or the germ of one that I've had for a while.

1) The position groupings change all the time depending on time/score and opponent. Nothing is any different than in previous years.

2) Gordon will see more snaps the more familiar he is with the playbook. It won't be near the amount of players that have been here since training camp or over multiple years. Dorsett came over right before the season and his snaps did not increase all that much throughout the year. I think Gordon will play more than Dorsett did last year, but it won't be upwards of 70-80% of the plays either. Again, depends on opponent and time/score.

3) Receivers and backs come in and out all the time. The rhythm can be slowed down by a number of factors not just substitutions. In the Patriots offense, receivers have to know every position so parts are interchangeable..

 

[DJnVa]

Gordon played 63 snaps last night. Dorsett played 3.

 

[EdRalphRomero]

Gordon played 63 snaps last night. Dorsett played 3.

Do you have a good source for player/positional snap counts? ESPN used to put this up a couple of days after every game (and I loved their format. Very easy to read) but they don't seem to do it any more. Thanks!

 

[DJnVa]

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201810140nwe.htm#all_vis_snap_counts


Various Pats writers tweet it out too.

Gronk 77/78
Edelman 71/78
Gordon 63/78
Hogan 47/78 (and he looked better now that he's back to being a complementary guy)
Michel 37/78
White 33/78
Develin 33/78
Patterson 6/78
Dorsett 3/78

 

[ilol@u]

Silly question:
The question that I have is for WR's, is there really any benefit in getting substituted in/out for a play? By the time the WRs jog to the sideline, wait 40 seconds for the next play to process, and then jog back out -- is there really any "rest" that a WR gets? I never understood why you don't just keep your best WR's out there for 100% of the snaps. This will force the defense to at least account for that player.
What is the point is substituting Chris Hogan/Dorsett in a better WR like Josh Gordon. If the WR needs a rest, call a run play or a play where the WR isn't in the progession priority.

 

[accidentalsuccess]

I don't know if getting plays off is really the story given the Pats reputation for physical preparation. That said, jogging to the sideline and taking a few plays off is a little different than running routes. Then sprinting back to the huddle. Or blocking. Or running a route and then blocking 20-30 yards downfield and sprinting back to the huddle.

 

[Super Nomario]

Do you have a good source for player/positional snap counts? ESPN used to put this up a couple of days after every game (and I loved their format. Very easy to read) but they don't seem to do it any more. Thanks!

Pro Football Reference has it in their box scores: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201810140nwe.htm

Occasionally with oddities (they have Darren Andrews, the NFI WR, as the starting center last night instead of David Andrews).

 

[EdRalphRomero]

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201810140nwe.htm#all_vis_snap_counts


Various Pats writers tweet it out too.

Gronk 77/78
Edelman 71/78
Gordon 63/78
Hogan 47/78 (and he looked better now that he's back to being a complementary guy)
Michel 37/78
White 33/78
Develin 33/78
Patterson 6/78
Dorsett 3/78

Thanks. What I miss about the ESPN version was that they did it by position. So it would show

WR
Edelman 71/78
Gordon 63/78
Hogan 47/48
Patterson 6/78
Dorsett 3/78

The info is all there, but it is a lot less user friendly (at least for me)

 

[DJnVa]

Click on the headers and it groups them. Click on POS and it does what you're looking for.

 

[EdRalphRomero]

Click on the headers and it groups them. Click on POS and it does what you're looking for.

HEY! Thank you! That is awesome!

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Silly question:
The question that I have is for WR's, is there really any benefit in getting substituted in/out for a play? By the time the WRs jog to the sideline, wait 40 seconds for the next play to process, and then jog back out -- is there really any "rest" that a WR gets? I never understood why you don't just keep your best WR's out there for 100% of the snaps. This will force the defense to at least account for that player.
What is the point is substituting Chris Hogan/Dorsett in a better WR like Josh Gordon. If the WR needs a rest, call a run play or a play where the WR isn't in the progession priority.

Two reasons.

First, while Gordon is arguably our second best WR, there are almost certainly some routes and route combinations for which the coaching staff likes Dorsett, Hogan, or Patterson better. So for certain plays Gordon just isn't necessarily the "better" WR. Second, mixing up the receiving personnel arguably keeps the DBs on their toes and prevents them from getting too comfortable and locked in on any one matchup. If you're facing the same receiver every play, you get a feel for his route running style, his technique for defeating jams, etc. Its arguably harder if you're seeing a series of different guys, with different sizes, quickness levels, and route running tendencies.

 

[scottyno]

Reference is definitely the best for snap counts, can easily find breakdowns for each game or game to game for individual players. Note that snap counts may slightly vary depending on the site or writer as some don't count plays with accepted penalties and some don't count kneel downs.

 

[McBride11]

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201810140nwe.htm#all_vis_snap_counts


Various Pats writers tweet it out too.

Gronk 77/78
Edelman 71/78
Gordon 63/78
Hogan 47/78 (and he looked better now that he's back to being a complementary guy)
Michel 37/78
White 33/78
Develin 33/78
Patterson 6/78
Dorsett 3/78

As I was playing around during the NLCS I was just thinking Dorsett was never on the field. Which after his great game 2 weeks ago was kind of a shock. Patterson is clearly getting the gimmick snaps.
Probably a good sign for Gordon that he is on the field so much and being targeted so much. Stinks for Dorsett who seemed to be making real strides.