JoeShmoe

Sorry if this has been posted already but I found this a good honest appraisal

Maximizing Matt: Shotgun triggered Cassel's second-half surge - Sporting News- nbcsports.msnbc.com

This is the sort of thing I imagine the front offices will be studying .. many offenses don't run the shotgun and need a QB under center

nashvillepatsfan

That was a good read. Thanks for posting that.

I guess my first question would be, what was the percentage that Brady was under shotgun in 07? The reason I ask is this. The author of this article was saying that under center, Cassel was often rushed, and couldnt make a good read, and throw. Could we partly blame the O-Line for that? Yet, he says that with the extra time afforded him in the shotgun, he was much more relaxed, and made better decisions, and throws. Brady, in 07, seemed to have plenty of time to make those deep throws from under center, or shotgun. So i guess im just curious about the o-lines play when examining Cassel.

My other thought would be, Why would teams base their entire decision on just the 08 season. Can Cassel not improve? He seemed to improve in all aspects of his game as the season went on. I would think, with continued GOOD coaching, that Cassel could continue to improve. The author seemed to be warning teams that they better be in the shotgun all the time, or else. I think as a first year starter, he will continue to improve.

patsfaninpittsburgh

It's hard to imagine an NFL offense in 2009 would not use the shotgun. Also, I wonder how many of these offenses don't use it because they don't have the QB.

It's also interesting to note the amount of running plays that are being developed out of shotgun.

ctpatsfan77

Yeah, it's not entirely clear how different things would have been if Neal had not needed to go on PUP.

The Patriots used the shotgun for the majority of their snaps in 2007. I don't know the exact percentage, but it was probably about 60%.

IIRC, one team actually used the shotgun more than New England . . . Kansas City.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

xmarkd400x

It's funny the difference a formation can make.

In high school we used (a verision of?) the Wing-T (one fullback, 2WR, 2 RBs set just behind and outside the tackles).

One game, we were getting pretty much owned. The other team had done their scouting and knew everything we were going to run before we ran it. What our coach did was, instead of our RBs set one step back and one step outside of our tackles, they moved up to the TE position. The WRs took a step back off the LOS. Confused the crap out of the other team. We lost, but that's not the moral of the story. I was amazed that such a simple shift in formation could confuse the other team. Our entire offense was still the same, just four players changed where they lined up by about 2 feet.

JSn

Dude, I think you needed to win to drive home the moral of that story.
Tell it again!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

JoeShmoe

I think it may be more pertinent at a team need. Take Minnesota. With Peterson they are a team with a bigger ground than aerial threat. In that instance playing under center in Singleback, I formations etc you have a valid play action threat. In that case would a QB not so proficient under center be less of an asset?

BradyBranch39

Which happens to be their QB's specialty.
NFL Video Galleries

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

JoeSixPat

I took issue with that when I read it last week, and I think GMs will see right through the fallacy of some of his remarks.

For example, he talks about early in the season, noting a breakdown of the third game against San Fran.... and that Cassel seemed rushed and not comfortable.

Um - yeah... it was his third game after not starting since High School with an offensive line that wasn't doing a good job protecting him, as any GM will see from watching the tape. No doubt both the QB and OL share some blame here but is that going to be a surprise to a GM? Of course not.

Will a GM be surprised that given the play of the OL we made adjustments to give him extra time and a better view of the field from the shotgun (a position not all QBs handle as well as cassel did)?

Of course not - if our coaches didn't make an adjustment in that situation I'd be shocked.

It's pretty well understood that the Matt Cassel of the first half of the season is not the Matt Cassel that GMs are considering trading for. Anyone who watched the games is going to know that Cassel made tremendous strides in his confidence, game managment and ability to see the field.

This writer does very little to acknowledge that, and just seems overly focused on his use of the shotgun position.

I expect that a great many GMs would happily run the shotgun 100% of the time if it meant they'd go 11-5.

skinnydog

I'm not sure I buy a lot of that analysis.

He starts off saying

Then

So which is it? The pats knew all the strengths and weaknesses or it was not until the Jets game they learned he was better out ofthe shot gun.

The fact is the Pats go to the shotgun a lot.