Starting this thread as a place to discuss/debate the Patriots' passing game this season. Discuss schemes, concepts, routes, etc. also plan to use the All 22 for some post game breakdowns as well.
Giddy up.
Giddy up.
Snaps | Overall | Pass | Run | Penalty | Dropbacks | Runs | Attempts | Comp | Comp % | Yards | Yards/Att | TD | INT | SK | Drops | NFL Rtg | |
Brady | 95 | 0.4 | 2 | -1.8 | 0.2 | 55 | 1 | 52 | 29 | 55.8 | 288 | 5.5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 76.4 |
Pass EPA | Run EPA | Sack EPA | Pen EPA | Total EPA | Action Plays | QB Par | QB Paa | Total QBR | |
Brady | 7.4 | -0.7 | -1.6 | 0.6 | 5.6 | 62 | 6.9 | 1.8 | 59.4 |
Snaps | Overall | Pass | Run | Blocking | Pass Block | Penalty | TA | Rec | % Caught | Yards | Yards/Rec | YAC | YAC/Rec | Lg | TD | DP | |
Amendola | 60 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 0 | -0.1 | n/a | 0.2 | 14 | 10 | 71.4 | 104 | 10.4 | 32 | 3.2 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
Edelman | 84 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0 | -0.6 | n/a | 0.2 | 9 | 7 | 77.8 | 79 | 11.3 | 43 | 6.1 | 35 | 2 | 2 |
Thompkins | 91 | -2.3 | -1.9 | 0 | -0.6 | n/a | 0.2 | 13 | 4 | 30.8 | 42 | 10.5 | 4 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
Vereen | 57 | 3.9 | 1 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 10 | 7 | 70 | 58 | 8.3 | 40 | 5.7 | 19 | 0 | 2 |
Sudfeld | 20 | -1.1 | -1.3 | n/a | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hooman | 81 | -1.7 | -0.7 | n/a | -1.4 | 0 | 0.4 | 2 | 1 | 50 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Stitch01 said:Thanks for the writeup, interesting read.
Did you look at Thompkins at all, and did you see positives? Im as novice as they come with breaking down film, but I watched last night for awhile with a focus on Thompkins and it looked even uglier than those numbers. Looked like he left tons of yards on the field on that short pass in the first quarter, missed blocks, didnt run good routes etc.
Snaps | Overall | Pass | Run | Penalty | Dropbacks | Attempts | Completion | Comp % | Yards | Yards/Att | TD | INT | Sacks | NFL Rtg | |
Brady | 66 | -0.1 | -0.3 | 0 | 0.2 | 40 | 39 | 19 | 48.7 | 185 | 4.7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 71 |
Snaps | Overall | Pass | Run | Blocking | Penalty | Targets | Receptions | % Caught | Yards | Yards/Rec | YAC | YAC/Rec | Long | TD | DP | |
Edelman | 66 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.3 | -0.6 | 0.2 | 18 | 13 | 72.2 | 78 | 6 | 51 | 3.9 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
Thompkins | 55 | -0.8 | -0.8 | 0 | -0.1 | 0.1 | 7 | 2 | 28.6 | 47 | 23.5 | 13 | 6.5 | 38 | 0 | 1 |
Dobson | 34 | -2.3 | -2.4 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 10 | 3 | 30 | 56 | 18.7 | 36 | 12 | 39 | 1 | 3 |
Target | D/D | Motion | Motion/T | Coverage | Route | Completion |
1 | 1st and 10 | Y | In/Out | Cover 1 | 5 yard in | Yes |
2 | 2nd and 7 | N | N/A | Cover 1 | 5 yard out | Yes |
3 | 1st and 10 | Y | Out | Cover 3 | Stop/Go | No |
4 | 3rd and 7 | N | N/A | Man | Bubble | Yes |
5 | 1st and G | N | N/A | Man | Slant | No |
6 | 1st and 10 | N | N/A | Cover 2 | 5 yard out | No |
7 | 1st and 10 | N | N/A | Cover 2 | Slant | No |
8 | 1st and 10 | N | N/A | Cover 1 | 5 yard out | Yes |
9 | 2nd and 9 | N | N/A | Cover 2 | 5 yard out | Yes |
10 | 2nd and 9 | N | N/A | Cover 1 | Slant | Yes |
11 | 3rd and 9 | Y | In/Out | Man | Slant | Yes |
12 | 1st and 10 | N | N/A | Cover 1 | 5 yard out | Yes |
13 | 2nd and 9 | N | N/A | Cover 2 | 10 Yard Out | Yes |
14 | 2nd and 11 | Y | In/Out | Cover 1 | 5 yard in | Yes |
15 | 2nd and 5 | N | N/A | Cover 1 | Bubble | Yes |
16 | 3rd and 5 | Y | In | Cover 3 | 5 Yard In | Yes |
It's possible the Jets did alter their coverage on Edelman, but it showed up more on plays where the Pats didn't target him. That's a lot more work to track, but might be worth keeping an eye on while / if you look at the Dobson / Thompkins plays.mascho said:Okay. Another thing I wanted to look at were all the targets to Edelman. Given the uncertainty over the rest of the receiving corps, and what we saw from Dobson and Thompkins as the game progressed, I went into my review of the tape with two ideas in mind: One, the Patriots must have done things with Edelman pre-snap, specifically a lot of motion, to get him in favorable match ups, and two, the Jets must have changed their coverage as the game progressed, specifically at least giving him double coverage or a ton of safety help.
Also, look at the routes he ran. Only two were over 8 yards, the double move he put on Cromartie early that should have been a TD (we'll get to that) and that 10 yard out, which really was another double move. Everything else was underneath. Given that, you would think the Jets would change things up. Didn't happen.
Now, I indicated that the Jets didn't make a lot of changes to their scheme as the game progressed to try and stop Edelman, which is true. But they did make some subtle changes which I'll point out.
Now, later in the game the Jets do try something a little different on Edelman, with no success. This is in the 4th quarter. Jets have a Cover 2 look but walk an OLB out over Edelman before the snap, and cheat the weak side safety over Edelman and down towards the LOS. (Look at the difference in alignments for the safeties). Basically they roll a Cover 2 into Cover 1 at the snap of the ball. The FS bails out, and the OLB covers Edelman with the SS helping. Edelman runs a stutter/out double move, and the Patriots make the completion. See below.
bakahump said:Mascho,
I am in no way questioning your breakdown of the play....however...how do any deep plays get completed based on this practice?
A "go route" takes time to develop because ("Thompkins had a defender with him but with his speed ran by him.") it takes to run by them. So how can an offense rule out a "deep receiver route" on the first 1 or 2 seconds of a read?
Wouldnt a progression be based on the routes being run?
IE
<Snap>
1. Look at the slot WR1 immediately on his release from the Left Slot. <Covered or open? Covered!> (WR1 next move is to juke left and turn back across the middle)
2. Look at TE after a chip he is slanting to the sideline off the right side <Covered!> (TE next move is to run a seam route)
3. Look at WR 2 (right side) running a deep post. (Open!)
...
Obviously you wouldnt look at the WR2 running a deep post route first ..."think well he's covered" 5 yards off the LOS and progress from there.
Rather wouldnt you progress TO the routes that take the longest time to develop?
QB then has to choose if he wants to take a shorter time to develop route (say the slot guy....assuming he is open) or wait and progress to a "later route" on the assumption that the longer time to develop route becomes open.
If your deep post inst open You can then always back down in your progression to ...
4. Slot WR1 Now should be crossing at about the Right Hash mark <covered or open?>
5. TE should now 5-10 yards further down the seam (Open!)
Am I mistaken in this belief?
To echo, KFP awesome stuff in this thread, Mascho.mascho said:Going back to this play in question, from the time the ball is snapped to when Brady comes off the deep route and looks to Sudfeld, 3.53 seconds elapse. When he throws to Sudfeld, 4.19 seconds have elapsed post-snap. Between his playfake and his drop, he has taken an eight yard drop.
Say he looks at Sudfeld and then comes back to Thompkins, by that time over 4.3 seconds will have elapsed. Two things come into play. First, that's a long time when it comes to pass protection in the NFL. Second, given that 4.3 seconds have elapsed, and you have receivers running away from you, Thompkins is likely 35-40 yards downfield (from the line of scrimmage) at that point. Brady's taken an 8 yard drop. So he's got 40+ yards between him and his target already, meaning a throw at that point will have to travel about 60 on the fly to be completed. Can it be done? Sure. Has it been done? Yep. But it is a much, much lower percentage throw at that point, and one that is likely to be under thrown (think the throw to Gronk in the Super Bowl that was picked).
Cabin Mirror said:Brady was asked about that particular play (KT and JE being wide open, but he threw to Sudfeld). His response was basically that the play was NOT designed for the deep ball, that JE and KT were essentially decoys and TB never even looked for them assuming they would be covered based on his pre-snap read. He also added that he wished he had looked for them as both WRs let him know that they were "set free" in their patterns.
Here is a link to the audio, you can skip to 6:28 or so:
http://audio.weei.com/a/81193419/tom-brady-i-don-t-make-any-personnel-decisions.htm
amarshal2 said:
Makes a lot of sense. Also somewhat discredits the notion that Brady looked deep as his first read on that play.
Mascho has forgotten more about football than I know, but I'm very skeptical that Brady's 1st read is usually the deep read. Not these Patriots. The intermediate route game has been so crucial to Brady over the years. You can see it in his body language how often he has chosen his receiver pre-snap based on defensive look/game situation and goes to him when the coverage looks as he expects. The same is true for his deep passes, they're just more infrequent. He's been such a smart situational QB over the years -- it just doesn't add up that he's wasting his time going to his low percentage reads first on every play before looking to Welker/Gronk/Hernandez in the slot/running an out/running up the seam.
That last sentence made me sad.
Somewhat off-topic, but I mostly disagree with you here. Who are the "game managers" who've won Super Bowls? The guys I think of - Schaub, Alex Smith, Dalton - have all seemed to get exposed in the playoffs / against good teams eventually. But we've seen guys like Eli and Brees, who throw relatively high number of interceptions, get on hot streaks and win playoff games / Super Bowls.Reverend said:
Did you miss the their three Super Bowl champion seasons?
I really think the evolution of Brady into a superstar/HoFer/possibleGOAT has made people forget that he made his bones and his reputation on making great reads on short and intermediate passing, keeping the chains moving and managing the game. When Brady won his first ring, being called a "game manager" as he was so often referred to as was considered a back-handed compliment at best for a QB. Now it's the sine qua non of the position.
To be clear, I was responding to Rev's notion that "When Brady won his first ring, being called a 'game manager' as he was so often referred to as was considered a back-handed compliment at best for a QB. Now it's the sine qua non of the position." Since Dilfer and Rypien were both before Brady and Johnson just a year after his first SB, I don't think they're evidence that now being a game manager is "the sine qua non of the position."Dogman2 said:Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson are three guys I think of. All three had tremendous D's, similar to the Pats in their 3 wins.
Super Nomario said:To be clear, I was responding to Rev's notion that "When Brady won his first ring, being called a 'game manager' as he was so often referred to as was considered a back-handed compliment at best for a QB. Now it's the sine qua non of the position." Since Dilfer and Rypien were both before Brady and Johnson just a year after his first SB, I don't think they're evidence that now being a game manager is "the sine qua non of the position."
And seriously Rev, using French terms in the football forum? How pretentious can you get. Take it to the French subforum.
(yeah, I know it's Latin)
Super Nomario said:Somewhat off-topic, but I mostly disagree with you here. Who are the "game managers" who've won Super Bowls? The guys I think of - Schaub, Alex Smith, Dalton - have all seemed to get exposed in the playoffs / against good teams eventually. But we've seen guys like Eli and Brees, who throw relatively high number of interceptions, get on hot streaks and win playoff games / Super Bowls.
And I think those early Pats teams threw deep more than people remember. Unfortunately, no way to test statistically.
OK, but you wrote that being a "game manager" was "the sine qua non" of the position, which Wikipedia tells me "refers to an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient." I don't really see how Flacco or Eli or Roethlisberger or Rodgers or Brees match up with what I think of as a "game manager," which means we're working from a different definition of "game manager," or at least a different definition of "sine qua non."Reverend said:Brady was widely referred to as a "game manager" for a few years back then. So in answer to your "who" question, I respond "Brady."
Obviously Brady's not an "athletic freak" in the way, say, Calvin Johnson is, but I think he's much closer to the former - a scheme-transcendent talent - than a product of the system. All the offenses have been based on Erhardt-Perkins concepts, but Brady's responsibilities have fluctuated quite a bit depending on the quality and style of his backs, receivers, tight ends, and offensive line.Reverend said:I see it a bit like the decline of the term "system quarterback" as not being as useful as people used to think. That is to say, as football analysis has gotten more sophisticated (*hat tip* to you, by the way) people have come to realize that while some players are just absolute athletic freaks and can thrive anywhere, much of football is about finding guys who fit the system and adjusting systems to what you have. And that's not a knock--it's just what smart management does; linear concepts of quality simply don't apply.
Super Nomario said:OK, but you wrote that being a "game manager" was "the sine qua non" of the position, which Wikipedia tells me "refers to an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient." I don't really see how Flacco or Eli or Roethlisberger or Rodgers or Brees match up with what I think of as a "game manager," which means we're working from a different definition of "game manager," or at least a different definition of "sine qua non."
Reverend said:
Did you miss the their three Super Bowl champion seasons?
I really think the evolution of Brady into a superstar/HoFer/possibleGOAT has made people forget that he made his bones and his reputation on making great reads on short and intermediate passing, keeping the chains moving and managing the game. When Brady won his first ring, being called a "game manager" as he was so often referred to as was considered a back-handed compliment at best for a QB. Now it's the sine qua non of the position.
amarshal2 said:
Makes a lot of sense. Also somewhat discredits the notion that Brady looked deep as his first read on that play.
Mascho has forgotten more about football than I know, but I'm very skeptical that Brady's 1st read is usually the deep read. Not these Patriots. The intermediate route game has been so crucial to Brady over the years. You can see it in his body language how often he has chosen his receiver pre-snap based on defensive look/game situation and goes to him when the coverage looks as he expects. The same is true for his deep passes, they're just more infrequent. He's been such a smart situational QB over the years -- it just doesn't add up that he's wasting his time going to his low percentage reads first on every play before looking to Welker/Gronk/Hernandez in the slot/running an out/running up the seam.
That last sentence made me sad.
I don't think you can use vis-à-vis reflexively like that.Reverend said:
Yeah, that may well have been too strong. I think there has been a huge shift in emphasis towards protecting the football vis-à-vis (you like that, punk?) and less celebration of the gun slinger approach.
Damn, you got me--I wrote it too different ways; I meant to say vis-a-vis gunslinger.Super Nomario said:I don't think you can use vis-à-vis reflexively like that.
You may be right that there's less praise for the gunslinger, though I think 80+% of that if Favre retiring. What's interesting to me is that we've seen guys like Eli and Flacco - more gunslinger types, I would say - win Super Bowls in recent years with crazy low-turnover playoff runs. It makes sense: statistically, it's easier for a gunslinger to have a lucky three-game run of not throwing picks (since INTs are fairly rare events anyway) than it is for a game manager to have a three-game run of making plays.
mascho said:Before moving on to a review of Week 3...
Jer said:
I just wanted to thank you for this outstanding analysis. I hope you don't get discouraged that it's not provoking pages and pages of discussions. I look forward to reading your analysis every week and find it very informative. I just don't have anything productive to add to the conversation.
Please keep it up!
mascho said:
I talked at the outset how this play is designed to attack different coverages easily. Consider this play against Cover 3. Against this formation, Cover 3 would have the CB to the Z's side of the formation covering short flat. The SS would cover deep outside to the strong side of the formation, the FS would cover deep middle, and the weak-side CB would cover deep outside to the weak side. Trying to throw this route to the strong side of the formation would be futile. The FS would swallow up that post route from the TE, the SS would hang on that comeback route by the Z, and the strong-side corner sits on that checkdown. Nothing would be open.
So you read that route weak-side, from the X's comeback route to your FB on the out.
The reason is that the weakside CB has no help over the top, so he has to respect the possibility that the X isn't running a comeback, but a go route. So he's playing deep leverage on X. If the X has any ability, he should be able to sell the go route and create separation driving back to the sideline. If your X doesn't have any ability to create separationhe's named mascho and the whole "sophomore year slash experiment is failingyou have your FB running away from the LBs and hopefully winning that matchup.
Tony C said:Is it also not being too fair to Brady to say he was on to a different read and so not his fault?
I mean..cripes, 2 guys were wide open in the same general direction he threw it...just 10-15 yards further downfield. Brady had all day and he threw to Sudfield before his break. It seems to me a fair expectation that HoF QB like Brady will have enough field awareness to take his time and at a minimum give his rookie TE a beat more to make his break and perhaps not be so fixed on him that he misses 2 guys open for TDs -- it's not like they were on the other side of the field.