Product of the System (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pasquino]

Thought about this after Jabar Gaffney had a big day on Sunday against the Jets, catching 8 passes for 104 yards. That's the same Gaffney that was let go by the Texans and then brought in by the Eagles before this season, then released before opening day. Gaffney was signed as a free agent by the Pats in October, after 31 other teams left him unsigned for a month.

Which "system" is more about the system than the player? We talk almost every year about "RB Denver", as in you can stick nearly anyone back behind that line and he will get 1,000 yards. Is this also true about "WR New England"?

Looking forward to the discussion.

 

[AB in DC]

Are we talking fantasy terms, or NFL terms?

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think this is an excellent question. I voted New England, but it was very close. I think what put me over the edge to vote New England is that I think Denver has had some talent at the position - while certainly the system is the main reason for the success Denver has had there, they've also had players that were talented. I think we saw this year that the system doesn't work with EVERYONE.

In Denver, it's largely about the offensive line and the scheme. In New England, I think it's mostly about Tom Brady. I don't think you could plug in most quarterbacks and have the "system" work. The New England passing game system basically just needs smart route runners who are quick; even a moderately talented WR can get open for a second and create a small window - and more often than not, Brady will a) make the read quickly enough, and b) deliver the ball at the right place.

So assuming that Brady's ability is part of the "system", then I'd say it's the Patriots that have the more impressive system. Caldwell and Gaffney are literally WR's off the NFL scrap heap - I think it's incredible that Brady has had a functioning offense this season.

Again, it's really close in my mind because the Denver running system has also been really impressive, but I think that this season probably put it over the top considering the success Brady has had with sub-par talent and the relatively down year Denver had with the players they've had.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Great post by JWW, and I completely agree.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Are we talking fantasy terms, or NFL terms?

NFL.

 

[Volleydog]

Went with Denver. At first, I thought it would be close. On second thought, it really wasn't.

New England passing game. Yes, they take retreads & nobody's and end up with one of them having 8 for 104. And yes, it IS because of the system they run. However, I think it's a system that, for the most part, you could take to many other teams and run just as successfully, provided they have an accurate QB. It is not as complicated as the West Coast, for example, so guys like Gaffney don't have to make algorithmic reads of the secondary every time they want to run a 5 yard pattern. In NE, it's square in, square out, slant, etc. They have minor sight adjustments depending upon defensive alignment, but for the most part, it is straightforward. The catch here is that you have to have that QB to make it work. It's not so much the system by itself, as the basic route trees they use COMBINED with the accuracty.

On top of this, they have the constant threat of the running game to make sure defenses can't load up on coverage or tee off on the QB. Also, look at the games they've lost. All you hear is people talking about how Brady lost his receivers & can't do it all by himself. Yes, they have games where a Nobody blows up, but this is not as well oiled a machine as the Denver running game.

Denver running game. This is all system, regardless of who is blocking, running, or playing QB. This has been productive with all different sizes and styles of RB. It's worked even when the QB play was so poor the defense wasn't even paying attention to the receivers. It's worked with completely different groups of linemen, and it keeps working when someone gets hurt. They've had good backs (Terrell Davis, Clinton Portis), solid workmanlike backs (Mike Andersen, Reuben Droughns), and garbage that didn't work anywhere else (Quentin Griffin, Olandis Gary).

When you can change out 100% of the parts and still get the same result, you have the winning system. Think New England's passing game would be the same with Vinny? Bledsoe? Cassel?

 

[pats3in4]

I picked NE. Brady is the straw that stirs the WR drink. Look at the Pats' WRs who left:

1. Branch - Good for Seattle, but not earning the stud #1 WR money he's earning (and he wanted Wayne $). Also, is he worth the #1 pick Seattle gave up for him (in addition to the big contract)?

2. Patten - Took big $, then disappeared in Washington (although injuries haven't helped).

3. Givens - Took big $, then got hurt in Tennessee (so I wouldn't grade this one out just yet).

There was a game in 2003 in Houston where the Pats were hurting at WR. Brady throws TDs to Bethel Johnson and JJ Stokes (!). The following week in Indy, Branch is back but still not 100%. Brady throws a TD to Dedric Ward (!). Brady continually makes the most out of what he has.

Denver does a good job of this with it's running game, but Clinton Portis and Reuben Droughns have moved on and still done very well. The Pats WRs are not on par with the Denver RBs.

 

[massraider]

Denver, for one reason:

There are a million other examples of WR's that looked better than they were, because they were in a great situation. And many of them have had better seasons than any of these Pat WR's that are being referred to. Alvin Haper, Peerless Price, Brandon Stokely, WR3 for the Rams, on and on.

Also, the New England WR's that we're talking about have had good games, not great seasons, like Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, etc. have had.

Denver RB has produced MVP-like, monster seasons.

 

[Workhorse]

Denver, for one reason:There are a million other examples of WR's that looked better than they were, because they were in a great situation. And many of them have had better seasons than any of these Pat WR's that are being referred to. Alvin Haper, Peerless Price, Brandon Stokely, WR3 for the Rams, on and on.Also, the New England WR's that we're talking about have had good games, not great seasons, like Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, etc. have had.Denver RB has produced MVP-like, monster seasons.

I guess we need to clarify the debate then, because it seems like there might different interpretations of the question:(1) Which system produces individual player success based more on the system than the talent of the player?(2) Which system produces team success based more on the system than the talent of the players as a group?In case (1), I'd say Denver. In case (2), I'd say New England.

 

[massraider]

Denver, for one reason:There are a million other examples of WR's that looked better than they were, because they were in a great situation. And many of them have had better seasons than any of these Pat WR's that are being referred to. Alvin Haper, Peerless Price, Brandon Stokely, WR3 for the Rams, on and on.Also, the New England WR's that we're talking about have had good games, not great seasons, like Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, etc. have had.Denver RB has produced MVP-like, monster seasons.

I guess we need to clarify the debate then, because it seems like there might different interpretations of the question:(1) Which system produces individual player success based more on the system than the talent of the player?(2) Which system produces team success based more on the system than the talent of the players as a group?In case (1), I'd say Denver. In case (2), I'd say New England.

Where did he say anything about team success? Like I said, there are examples every year of WR's that produce good numbers playing in a good offense. And many of those players have put up significantly better numbers than Patten, Givens, Branch, etc. But there is no system that has produced RB numbers like Denver has for the last decade.

 

[Workhorse]

Denver, for one reason:There are a million other examples of WR's that looked better than they were, because they were in a great situation. And many of them have had better seasons than any of these Pat WR's that are being referred to. Alvin Haper, Peerless Price, Brandon Stokely, WR3 for the Rams, on and on.Also, the New England WR's that we're talking about have had good games, not great seasons, like Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, etc. have had.Denver RB has produced MVP-like, monster seasons.

I guess we need to clarify the debate then, because it seems like there might different interpretations of the question:(1) Which system produces individual player success based more on the system than the talent of the player?(2) Which system produces team success based more on the system than the talent of the players as a group?In case (1), I'd say Denver. In case (2), I'd say New England.

Where did he say anything about team success? Like I said, there are examples every year of WR's that produce good numbers playing in a good offense. And many of those players have put up significantly better numbers than Patten, Givens, Branch, etc. But there is no system that has produced RB numbers like Denver has for the last decade.

I think it's somewhat implied when he specified NFL not fantasy success.

 

[aposulli]

Clearly the WRs in New England are mostly a product of the QB and- to some extent- the Coach and play calling.

In Denver, the RBs are a product of 1) the zone-blocking scheme, 2) the coach's ability to teach the scheme, and 3) the O Linemen

"system" to me is defined not by surrounding players, so I would say Denver.

 

[jonessed]

It's Denver and I don't think it's close. The Patriots success stems from spreading the ball around. No one receiver really has to be all that great. They maximize talent. Denver turns mediocre RBs like Mike Bell or Mike Anderson into monsters. They take the player beyond their level of talent.

 

[PatsWillWin]

It's Denver and I don't think it's close. The Patriots success stems from spreading the ball around. No one receiver really has to be all that great. They maximize talent. Denver turns mediocre RBs like Mike Bell or Mike Anderson into monsters. They take the player beyond their level of talent.

...except for this year.Obviously doesn't degrade what Denver has done in recent history, but I just think it's striking because the Denver system had basically a failure this season while the New England "System" had probably it's most impressive campaign yet given the players they had at WR this season.Again - my entire opinion on this includes defining the "System" for New England as including having Tom Brady at QB.

 

[BGP]

The Patriots are usually too busy drafting OL, DL, and TE to worry about the WR corps. That's because controlling the line of scrimmage is more important.

 

[GregR_2]

It's Denver and I don't think it's close. The Patriots success stems from spreading the ball around. No one receiver really has to be all that great. They maximize talent. Denver turns mediocre RBs like Mike Bell or Mike Anderson into monsters. They take the player beyond their level of talent.

...except for this year.Obviously doesn't degrade what Denver has done in recent history, but I just think it's striking because the Denver system had basically a failure this season while the New England "System" had probably it's most impressive campaign yet given the players they had at WR this season.

Again - my entire opinion on this includes defining the "System" for New England as including having Tom Brady at QB.

Which is why I would disagree with you. I can't see any interpretation of system requiring a single player be on the team. System means the scheme you run and your ability to get players to work effectively in that scheme. Denver has a system, smaller faster linemen running a zone blocking scheme with RBs only making a single cut so they are running downhill when they hit the hole. That's a system. Counting on your QB's ability to drop back and make great reads, be elusive against the pass rush, and deliver the ball more accurately than most to under-par WRs is also a system. The names of the players in those spots is not part of the system.

I agreed with most of your earlier post about the reasons for the Pats success. I just think the definition of system you're using is way off, and don't think this poll should even be close. You can't rely on just going out and finding a Tom Brady to plug into what the Pats are doing. Denver regularly can find guys to plug in to their system.

Edit to add: I mean, it's even in the poll question, that it's about system and not personnel. So requiring personnel doesn't seem to make sense in this poll.

 

[Slum Lord]

Thought about this after Jabar Gaffney had a big day on Sunday against the Jets, catching 8 passes for 104 yards. That's the same Gaffney that was let go by the Texans and then brought in by the Eagles before this season, then released before opening day. Gaffney was signed as a free agent by the Pats in October, after 31 other teams left him unsigned for a month.Which "system" is more about the system than the player? We talk almost every year about "RB Denver", as in you can stick nearly anyone back behind that line and he will get 1,000 yards. Is this also true about "WR New England"? Looking forward to the discussion.

If Brady is not the QB, then Gaffney isnt doing anything. I dont think its the system as much as its the quarterback. We arent giving Brady the credit he deserves. You can change any position of the Denver cog and its gonna run. You take out Brady, and that thing breaks down.

 

[Skino]

Being a Denver fan, I'm kind of coy about admitting it, but the Denver running game is more about the system than the New England passing game.

Several posters have nailed it on the head, that Tom Brady drives their "system". Outside of that, they are very very similar. They can't take "any" player of near NFL talent level and make it work, but rather any of a certain type of player. I'll focus on the Denver running game to make my point as it is more familiar to me.

The three main components of the Denver running "system" are: athletic linemen, a "one-cut" runner, and a quarterback with above average mobility. Intelligence is important to all three, but more from a capabilty standpoint as the training is in place to mold each player into their roll. They draft players and sign free agents with these qualities in mind, that's why it seems they can put "anybody" in there when it is really any of that type of player. Quentin Griffin didn't work in this system because he's a dancing, scatback type. Every one of the runners that have hit 1000 yards (even Olandis Gary and Rueben Droughns) fit this mold. All of the lineman that have been in this system for any significant length of time have fit this mold (except George Foster who is still struggling to keep in the starting lineup and even he was labeled as having quick feet). Elway, Griese, Beuerlein and Cutler all have enough mobility to execute the required bootlegs and play action roll outs that keep backside defenders honest. Now, yes, the quarterback needs to be able to play more than just that type of game for the team to succeed, but as far as the running game is concerned, the threat of the rollout play is all that is required. All of these are "pieces" that many players in the pro game and coming out of college can be.

You can argue the same thing with New England, but I think Tom Brady is a very rare QB. Not many would fill the QB position with the right kind of poise, accuracy, defense reading, and leadership ability that New England's system requires. But if you could, they would be interchangable in terms of New England's passing game.

I got interrupted for 15 minutes in the middle of this post, so I hope it flows alright

 

[jonessed]

It's Denver and I don't think it's close. The Patriots success stems from spreading the ball around. No one receiver really has to be all that great. They maximize talent. Denver turns mediocre RBs like Mike Bell or Mike Anderson into monsters. They take the player beyond their level of talent.

...except for this year.Obviously doesn't degrade what Denver has done in recent history, but I just think it's striking because the Denver system had basically a failure this season while the New England "System" had probably it's most impressive campaign yet given the players they had at WR this season.Again - my entire opinion on this includes defining the "System" for New England as including having Tom Brady at QB.

Both Mike Bell and Tatum Bell put up good numbers. I agree that this year is different than their past years, but it's not like Reche Caldwell has been lights out. He's been mediocre at best. Hell, Brady always had Branch to throw to. He is a good receiver even outside the Patriots system.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Well, I guess I viewed the question a little differently than most. I viewed the question as Tom Brady being a component of the system; that is, if everything is in place in the New England offense, the O-line, the coaching staff, and Tom Brady, you can put a lot of players in the WR position and get production out of them.

If you don't count Brady as part of the system, then I agree it's Denver by a mile (pun intended...lame). Obviously if you have the current New England offense and put in 90% of NFL quarterbacks to replace Brady, then you'll have a lot of trouble getting any kind of production out of your passing game. I viewed Brady as part of the system just as the offensive lineman that play in Denver are part of the system as well - you need a certain kind of lineman to play in that scheme, and while that doesn't mean that the offensive line is as good at blocking as Brady is a quarterback, I don't think you can just insert any old O-line in Denver and have everything work.

However, to people saying that it's Denver because Denver produces monster seasons and huge numbers, while I think that's a good point that I didn't consider before, you also have to remember that the Patriots aren't built to do that - they don't focus on anyone enough to give them huge numbers, that is, in essence, part of the "system" that we're talking about in the first place. So just because Reche Caldwell isn't in the top 10 in the NFL in receptions and yards doesn't mean that the system isn't working.

Also, I would submit to you that in general, RB's are more interchangable than WR's. You can get decent production out of your running game with a good O-line and a subpar RB - I think it's more difficult to get good production out of sub-par WR's unless, again, you have a QB like Tom Brady.

 

[Skino]

Well, I guess I viewed the question a little differently than most. I viewed the question as Tom Brady being a component of the system; that is, if everything is in place in the New England offense, the O-line, the coaching staff, and Tom Brady, you can put a lot of players in the WR position and get production out of them.If you don't count Brady as part of the system, then I agree it's Denver by a mile (pun intended...lame). Obviously if you have the current New England offense and put in 90% of NFL quarterbacks to replace Brady, then you'll have a lot of trouble getting any kind of production out of your passing game. I viewed Brady as part of the system just as the offensive lineman that play in Denver are part of the system as well - you need a certain kind of lineman to play in that scheme, and while that doesn't mean that the offensive line is as good at blocking as Brady is a quarterback, I don't think you can just insert any old O-line in Denver and have everything work.However, to people saying that it's Denver because Denver produces monster seasons and huge numbers, while I think that's a good point that I didn't consider before, you also have to remember that the Patriots aren't built to do that - they don't focus on anyone enough to give them huge numbers, that is, in essence, part of the "system" that we're talking about in the first place. So just because Reche Caldwell isn't in the top 10 in the NFL in receptions and yards doesn't mean that the system isn't working.Also, I would submit to you that in general, RB's are more interchangable than WR's. You can get decent production out of your running game with a good O-line and a subpar RB - I think it's more difficult to get good production out of sub-par WR's unless, again, you have a QB like Tom Brady.

I think you make some good points, but in my interpretation of the question and the situations, a "system" is independant of the actual players, it only requires the type of player, as per my previous post. I think the Denver linemen are part of the system and they are just as interchangable as the RB, it's all about the type of lineman. The QB situation in New England is the same, if you can get a QB with the same qualities Brady has (since the system was really designed around him) then the success would still be there, but good luck with that one. As far as intepretation of success of the system, I feel it's a total result of the numbers that facet of the offense produces as well as how much the team can "hang it's hat" on it. This year, Denver's running game suffered a bit and I think the playcalling has been a cause. The runners averaged respectable YPC, just not as many yards and Shanahan really seemed to force the passing game this year. Almost as if he was trying to prove that Jake Plummer could be a pocket passer and when he proved otherwise, Cutler was his man. Then I think he was trying to prove that Cutler could be the guy and that he made the right decision. I don't have the numbers and I could be wrong, but what I mentioned above combined with the fact that they fell behind early more this year than last tells me that they probably had significantly less carries this year. Although no New England receiver is up on the top of the league, I think it was very successful in the fact that they threw for so many yards. Denver's running game last year, Mike Anderson didn't have many more yards than Tatum Bell did this year. However, Tatum Bell last year, as RB2, had 900+ yards where M. Bell this year had 600+ only I think. That is why this year wasn't quite as dominant as last year, the production faltered a bit.

 

[Gr00vus]

Also, the New England WR's that we're talking about have had good games, not great seasons, like Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, etc. have had.Denver RB has produced MVP-like, monster seasons.

That about sums it up for me. Also, as mentioned, having Tom Brady at QB is not a system. If you could show me that there'd be no drop off in receiver production if you took Brady out and plugged in Vinnie, I'd change my mind.