Complexity Of Schemes Limits Personnel - New England Patriots Forums

***mgteich*** · 10-11-2009, 09:28 AM

DEFENSE
The patriots have schemes so complicated that it often takes a year or more to learn the schemes. Many never learn them. Defesive free agents must be carefully chosen, and even then solid veterans are likely to have long learning curves. Players from the past like Banta-Cain and Seau end up being more valuable that more talented players like Burgess.

This nothing new. I recall McGinist, Bruschi and Law going to coaches because the defenses were too complicated.

Yes, I understand such complexity covers weakness. But then, some of these weaknesses might go away if schemes were less complicated.

The first Oakland game for Seymour will be remembered for a long time, primarily because of the lesson of what a defense can do focusing more on players doing their jobs that on complexity and fooling the opponents.

OFFENSE
The patriots emphasize route running and recognition of defenses. I agree with this approach. Many agree with this approach.

Some other teams like the idea of passing to receivers when they get open, sort of Unitas style.

That being said, I am not sure why we can't find receivers who run routes and recognize defenses AND catch the ball. Indy seems to work well with seemingly scrub receivers and tight ends. The patriot offense seems to need a year to have a receiver be effective unless they are probowler. Given that we have one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game and at least an adequate offensive line, it is not at all clear why this is the case.

Satchboogie3 · 10-11-2009, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

DEFENSE
The patriots have schemes so complicated that it often takes a year or more to learn the schemes. Many never learn them. Defesive free agents must be carefully chosen, and even then solid veterans are likely to have long learning curves. Players from the past like Banta-Cain and Seau end up being more valuable that more talented players like Burgess.

This nothing new. I recall McGinist, Bruschi and Law going to coaches because the defenses were too complicated.

Yes, I understand such complexity covers weakness. But then, some of these weaknesses might go away if schemes were less complicated.

The first Oakland game for Seymour will be remembered for a long time, primarily because of the lesson of what a defense can do focusing more on players doing their jobs that on complexity and fooling the opponents.

OFFENSE
The patriots emphasize route running and recognition of defenses. I agree with this approach. Many agree with this approach.

Some other teams like the idea of passing to receivers when they get open, sort of Unitas style.

That being said, I am not sure why we can't find receivers who run routes and recognize defenses AND catch the ball. Indy seems to work well with seemingly scrub receivers and tight ends. The patriot offense seems to need a year to have a receiver be effective unless they are probowler. Given that we have one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game and at least an adequate offensive line, it is not at all clear why this is the case.

You didn't just say Indy works well with scrub receivers and TE, did you?

Exactly what is "scrub" about Wayne, Harrison, Clark, Gonzalez, Addai/Rhodes? Pierre Garcon is looking like a real great addition as well.

***mgteich*** · 10-11-2009, 09:45 AM

That is the point isn't it?

Before the season, would you have taken Garcon instead of Galloway or Lewis or even Edelman? Of course not. What about their backup TE?

I'm not talking about their stars and 1st rounders, anymore than I am discussing Moss, Welker and Watson.

I am talking about bringing players like Garcon and having them fit in, at the same time we bring in Lewis and Galloway and have nothing to show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satchboogie3

You didn't just say Indy works well with scrub receivers and TE, did you?

Exactly what is "scrub" about Wayne, Harrison, Clark, Gonzalez, Addai/Rhodes? Pierre Garcon is looking like a real great addition as well.

Jimke · 10-11-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

DEFENSE
The patriots have schemes so complicated that it often takes a year or more to learn the schemes. Many never learn them. Defesive free agents must be carefully chosen, and even then solid veterans are likely to have long learning curves. Players from the past like Banta-Cain and Seau end up being more valuable that more talented players like Burgess.

This nothing new. I recall McGinist, Bruschi and Law going to coaches because the defenses were too complicated.

Yes, I understand such complexity covers weakness. But then, some of these weaknesses might go away if schemes were less complicated.

The first Oakland game for Seymour will be remembered for a long time, primarily because of the lesson of what a defense can do focusing more on players doing their jobs that on complexity and fooling the opponents.

OFFENSE
The patriots emphasize route running and recognition of defenses. I agree with this approach. Many agree with this approach.

Some other teams like the idea of passing to receivers when they get open, sort of Unitas style.

That being said, I am not sure why we can't find receivers who run routes and recognize defenses AND catch the ball. Indy seems to work well with seemingly scrub receivers and tight ends. The patriot offense seems to need a year to have a receiver be effective unless they are probowler. Given that we have one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game and at least an adequate offensive line, it is not at all clear why this is the case.

If the Patriot's offensive system is so difficult to learn, did they

make a big mistake not re-signing Gaffney?

***convertedpatsfan*** · 10-11-2009, 10:02 AM

A lot of it has to do with the way the game is coached. Football coaches aren't really interested in making players think, so much as they are drilled to memorize and follow orders. That's why so few QBs actually make calls at the line anymore. They just execute what comes in from the sidelines.

So most WRs are told to run this route. It doesn't matter what they recognize out there. They just do what they're told. And they've done this for years and years, so they aren't really thinking about the game the way we need them to. The Pats and Colts have much more complicated systems, but I think that's why some younger guys do better than some of the vets. They learn quicker, and they're not conditioned to do things one way only.

Moss is a different story. He's a Hall of Famer and used to the improvisation (remember the Randy ratio, where they'd just throw it at him a bunch of times and let him figure out how to get it).

That's why a guy like Gonzalez can come in and be trained by Manning, and this year Collie/Garcon are also stepping up.

Of course that doesn't explain the failures of Bethel Johnson/Chad Jackson/others.

Patspsycho · 10-11-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimke

If the Patriot's offensive system is so difficult to learn, did they

make a big mistake not re-signing Gaffney?

Gaff bolted for more money in Denver.. and to paraphrase some folks on here who are quoting John Denver.. that's a "Rocky Mountain HIIIIIIIIIIGH!"

***MoLewisrocks*** · 10-11-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

DEFENSE
The patriots have schemes so complicated that it often takes a year or more to learn the schemes. Many never learn them. Defesive free agents must be carefully chosen, and even then solid veterans are likely to have long learning curves. Players from the past like Banta-Cain and Seau end up being more valuable that more talented players like Burgess.

This nothing new. I recall McGinist, Bruschi and Law going to coaches because the defenses were too complicated.

Yes, I understand such complexity covers weakness. But then, some of these weaknesses might go away if schemes were less complicated.

The first Oakland game for Seymour will be remembered for a long time, primarily because of the lesson of what a defense can do focusing more on players doing their jobs that on complexity and fooling the opponents.

OFFENSE
The patriots emphasize route running and recognition of defenses. I agree with this approach. Many agree with this approach.

Some other teams like the idea of passing to receivers when they get open, sort of Unitas style.

That being said, I am not sure why we can't find receivers who run routes and recognize defenses AND catch the ball. Indy seems to work well with seemingly scrub receivers and tight ends. The patriot offense seems to need a year to have a receiver be effective unless they are probowler. Given that we have one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game and at least an adequate offensive line, it is not at all clear why this is the case.

The remaining Seymour games in Oakland should then be remembered for what happens once the adreneline rush fades.

It's taken Manning some time to retrain his weapons and they've had some growing pains along the way and may yet experience some more. Their approach to roster building is mostly dictated by cap and cash constraints. They've managed to coach their team up to 1 superbowl appearance and win in Manning's 11 years. I'll suffer through Bill's approach, thanks.

Jimke · 10-11-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

DEFENSE
The patriots have schemes so complicated that it often takes a year or more to learn the schemes. Many never learn them. Defesive free agents must be carefully chosen, and even then solid veterans are likely to have long learning curves. Players from the past like Banta-Cain and Seau end up being more valuable that more talented players like Burgess.

This nothing new. I recall McGinist, Bruschi and Law going to coaches because the defenses were too complicated.

Yes, I understand such complexity covers weakness. But then, some of these weaknesses might go away if schemes were less complicated.

The first Oakland game for Seymour will be remembered for a long time, primarily because of the lesson of what a defense can do focusing more on players doing their jobs that on complexity and fooling the opponents.

OFFENSE
The patriots emphasize route running and recognition of defenses. I agree with this approach. Many agree with this approach.

Some other teams like the idea of passing to receivers when they get open, sort of Unitas style.

That being said, I am not sure why we can't find receivers who run routes and recognize defenses AND catch the ball. Indy seems to work well with seemingly scrub receivers and tight ends. The patriot offense seems to need a year to have a receiver be effective unless they are probowler. Given that we have one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game and at least an adequate offensive line, it is not at all clear why this is the case.

Where the losses of Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis are being felt

may be in breaking down these complex systems for the players.