The New England Patriots have brought offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels back into the fold and he has been trying to incorporate the fullback position into the offense for the entire off-season. The Patriots have tried Spencer Larsen, Tony Fiammetta, Eric Kettani, James Develin, and now Lex Hilliard. They've historically utilized linemen, like Dan Connolly, Donald Thomas, and Ryan Wendell, at fullback, and even defenders like Dane Fletcher. Last year, they tried one of the better fullbacks of the past decade, Lousaka Polite. The Patriots have been churning through players at the position and it leads to the question: Why the heck do the Patriots, a pass-first team, want a fullback so badly?
Let's look at the numbers.
Last season, the league played 2,926 plays with 2 or fewer yards to go for a first down. The Patriots had 144 of them. According to the league average, teams converted 48.7% of those plays into first downs. The Patriots were ahead of the curve with a 51.4% conversion rate. While the general run:pass ratio was the same as the league (NE: 64.6/35.4; NFL: 62.3/37.7), Brady was able to complete 68.8% of his passes, ahead of the league average of 57.7% (while somehow finding a way to finish behind Kevin Kolb and Rex Grossman). So any ineffectiveness by Brady and his league leading (minimum 25 attempts) 124.7 QBR on -and-short downs isn't the issue.
Looking at running backs, we might be able to glean a better reason. BenJarvus Green-Ellis finished 9th in the league in and-short yardage, and tied for 4th for and-short touchdowns. However, of all players with 100+ yards over the season, BJGE posted the lowest average per carry. To put in a baseline, Stevan Ridley averaged nearly two yards more per carry on and-short downs than BJGE. And to throw another wrench into the issue, if Ridley was so good (on par with Ray Rice and Steven Jackson), why do the Patriots need a fullback -now-?
My guess is that the Patriots aren't specifically thinking of and-short yards. I think they're looking at goal line packages. Let's look at those numbers.
The Patriots took snaps five yards away from pay-dirt 77 times over the course of the season, tallying 6.25% of the league total of 1,231 (good for 1/16th of the total). That's the good news. Brady was more mortal, notching a seemingly abysmal 46.9% completion rate, compared to the league average of 45.8%. While Brady led the league in pass attempts with 32, many other elite quarterbacks were much more efficient (Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan). Still, when Brady is no longer as much of an advantage, it's possible the Patriots should look to other venues to better cash in on the field position.
For all of the Patriots opportunities, they only scored a touchdown 37.6% of the time- good for an astonishingly average 17th best ranking. While there was a faint correlation between wins and goal line rate, the point stands that the Patriots need to improve their goal line efficiency.
And all of this leads to the Patriots goal line running package. In 2011, the Patriots scored a rushing touchdown on 36.4% of carries (with Brady scoring 25% of the team's touchdowns). The league average was 37.6%. It takes the Patriots down to the goal line to find their mediocrity, but it's there to take the shine off of the offense.
Looking at the two seasons of data prior to 2011, it's even more clear that the Patriots goal line package is in the need for a spit shine. Between the 2009 and 2010 seasons, the Brady posted an astronomical 75.9% completion rate, which makes his 46.9% rate of last season look downright shocking. Additionally, the Patriots touchdown rate on rushing plays was 45.3%, a decrease of nearly 9%. Let those number sink in and realize that the terrifying efficient Patriots offense sputtered on goal line plays to an absurd degree last season that they were numerically better off with Laurence Maroney on the goal line- and then remember that they can get even better.
So where does the fullback come in and why do the Patriots want one so badly? The Patriots snap per down breakdown shows that the Patriots were scoring more on 2nd down and settling more for field goals in 2011. The Patriots kicked 10 field goals in 2011, while they chipped in 5 total field goals in 2009 and 2010 combined. If the Patriots' goal line running game was at their old level in 2011, the Patriots would have scored 4 more touchdowns over the course of the entire season (including playoffs).
Looking forward, it will be interesting to see how the fullback affects the Patriots goal line sets. While Lex Hilliard's blocking is slightly below average according to Pro Football Focus, perhaps he will provide an upgrade over the old running packages. Regardless, it's clear that the Patriots have a need and a will to improve their goal line running game and they're making the correct moves to fix the issue- and fixing the issue will hopefully help keep Brady from diving into the trenches.
Let's look at the numbers.
Last season, the league played 2,926 plays with 2 or fewer yards to go for a first down. The Patriots had 144 of them. According to the league average, teams converted 48.7% of those plays into first downs. The Patriots were ahead of the curve with a 51.4% conversion rate. While the general run:pass ratio was the same as the league (NE: 64.6/35.4; NFL: 62.3/37.7), Brady was able to complete 68.8% of his passes, ahead of the league average of 57.7% (while somehow finding a way to finish behind Kevin Kolb and Rex Grossman). So any ineffectiveness by Brady and his league leading (minimum 25 attempts) 124.7 QBR on -and-short downs isn't the issue.
Looking at running backs, we might be able to glean a better reason. BenJarvus Green-Ellis finished 9th in the league in and-short yardage, and tied for 4th for and-short touchdowns. However, of all players with 100+ yards over the season, BJGE posted the lowest average per carry. To put in a baseline, Stevan Ridley averaged nearly two yards more per carry on and-short downs than BJGE. And to throw another wrench into the issue, if Ridley was so good (on par with Ray Rice and Steven Jackson), why do the Patriots need a fullback -now-?
My guess is that the Patriots aren't specifically thinking of and-short yards. I think they're looking at goal line packages. Let's look at those numbers.
The Patriots took snaps five yards away from pay-dirt 77 times over the course of the season, tallying 6.25% of the league total of 1,231 (good for 1/16th of the total). That's the good news. Brady was more mortal, notching a seemingly abysmal 46.9% completion rate, compared to the league average of 45.8%. While Brady led the league in pass attempts with 32, many other elite quarterbacks were much more efficient (Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan). Still, when Brady is no longer as much of an advantage, it's possible the Patriots should look to other venues to better cash in on the field position.
For all of the Patriots opportunities, they only scored a touchdown 37.6% of the time- good for an astonishingly average 17th best ranking. While there was a faint correlation between wins and goal line rate, the point stands that the Patriots need to improve their goal line efficiency.
And all of this leads to the Patriots goal line running package. In 2011, the Patriots scored a rushing touchdown on 36.4% of carries (with Brady scoring 25% of the team's touchdowns). The league average was 37.6%. It takes the Patriots down to the goal line to find their mediocrity, but it's there to take the shine off of the offense.
Looking at the two seasons of data prior to 2011, it's even more clear that the Patriots goal line package is in the need for a spit shine. Between the 2009 and 2010 seasons, the Brady posted an astronomical 75.9% completion rate, which makes his 46.9% rate of last season look downright shocking. Additionally, the Patriots touchdown rate on rushing plays was 45.3%, a decrease of nearly 9%. Let those number sink in and realize that the terrifying efficient Patriots offense sputtered on goal line plays to an absurd degree last season that they were numerically better off with Laurence Maroney on the goal line- and then remember that they can get even better.
So where does the fullback come in and why do the Patriots want one so badly? The Patriots snap per down breakdown shows that the Patriots were scoring more on 2nd down and settling more for field goals in 2011. The Patriots kicked 10 field goals in 2011, while they chipped in 5 total field goals in 2009 and 2010 combined. If the Patriots' goal line running game was at their old level in 2011, the Patriots would have scored 4 more touchdowns over the course of the entire season (including playoffs).
Looking forward, it will be interesting to see how the fullback affects the Patriots goal line sets. While Lex Hilliard's blocking is slightly below average according to Pro Football Focus, perhaps he will provide an upgrade over the old running packages. Regardless, it's clear that the Patriots have a need and a will to improve their goal line running game and they're making the correct moves to fix the issue- and fixing the issue will hopefully help keep Brady from diving into the trenches.
We could have solved this problem by acquiring Peyton Hillis!!
ReplyDeleteI think your article presented compelling numbers regarding the Pat's deficiencies on the goal line but I don't agree that the lack of a true fullback was the reason. Lack of a consistent goal line run game was clearly evident and shows up in your numbers. I do not agree that the fullback played much of a part in that however. IMO, it was a combination of several factors on the OL which led to the poor performance. The inexperience of Solder & Cannon had a huge impact as both frequently blew assignments or were simply beaten. Connolly was inconsistent as well from the center spot which was critical. I also felt that the consistent lack of vertical push from interior combo blocks affected goal line running more than any other factor. The Pats wanted to be an Inside Zone goal line team and the lack of movement on interior down linemen doomed these plays more than any other reason. The lack of a true blocking FB is almost meaningless in comparison.
ReplyDeleteWatch the goal line sequence late in the Oakland game for examples. The Pats called four straight runs from the +3 and in and were stopped on downs. The first play was an Inside Zone that failed when Connolly blocked the wrong way leaving Mankins on his own and taking away any chance Bennie had to get in.
The second play was another IZ which was blocked correctly by assignment but if you watch it, you will see that both a Connolly/Mankins combo on the 2i Tech and a Waters/Solder combo on the 3 Tech fail to gain any vertical push whatsoever dooming the play.
They try the FB lead play next. They influence the Raiders' 7 Tech by outside releasing the TE which allows Fletcher at FB to kick him out without issue. Unfortunately, Solder was confused and blocked down on the invisible defender (no one was there) rather than block the LB aligned over him as he should have. It was not an ideal blocking scheme but would have been better than down blocking and drilling Waters. Of course, this may not be on Solder as a poor line call or no call may have caused the issue. He may have been expecting Mankins to pull but he didn't. If that was the case though, Solder would have been better off staying on track to the back-side backer. The Pats would have been better off using a different back-side blocking scheme against the Raider's alignment but as it was the play was a mess. About the only person who got it right was the fullback.
On fourth down the Pats went Outside Zone. Solder got manhandled by the 7 Tech who then knocked Waters off path destroying the play.
The same things occurred against the Bill's the previous week as their DL blew up the Pats OL with ease not giving the FB lead game any chance at all at success inside the five.
I would have to watch every +5 and in play to really go into detail but just looking at a few early season games tells me the issue was not the fullback. Would a great FB be nice? Sure. Other issues take priority though. Hopefully, the supposed emphasis on the run game pays off down low with better execution from the OL.
AWTE
Hi Will,
DeleteSome very great points and I very much agree with the core of your argument. I would find a player to improve the Patriots offensive line over a fullback any day of the week and twice on Sunday because a lineman helps every single offensive snap and their value is just so much greater.
That said, it's very unlikely that they can find a lineman who can be an immediate improvement over Ryan Wendell at center or Dan Connolly at right guard (to kick Connolly back inside). That would be the ideal offensive improvement, but maybe they were thinking Brian Waters would return the whole off-season so they weren't focusing on the line- a Solder-Mankins-Connolly-Waters-Vollmer line is an extremely solid foundation.
On the other hand, a legitimate fullback can be (and was) found extremely easily this off-season because fullbacks are extraordinarily undervalued. Still, for Belichick and Josh McD, a fullback can provide special teams play and can help with pass blocking (which was abhorrent in the backfield), as well as short yard runs and goal line packages.
So yes, I would definitely take a more cohesive offensive line over a fullback, but I think the fullback improvement is taking advantage of a market inefficiency as the Patriots try to add value from an under-appreciated position.