rookBoston

When CW was running 5-wide patters, it's because the braintrust knew that the opponent didn't have 5 DBs who could cover. Forcing the opponents 5-wide was a way to stack someone like Dedric Ward against a rookie CB from Southwest Wyoming Polytech. Brady knows how to take advantage.

The incredible thing to look forward to in this offense, and I hope McDaniels is thinking in this direction, is how "convertable" this offense is.

We can run power-I formations, with 3 TEs, FB, RB... and either run it, or pass out of it. How many LBs can keep up with Watson or Graham or Thomas? You'd need at least a couple of Ss to run with them in the passing game. But, if the D lines up with too many DBs as a way to protect against the pass, well then... run it at them! Dillon with Mankins, Neal out front blocking those Ss off the ball... talk about mismatches. Dillon can break arm tackles from a solo S any day.

We can run 5-wide, with Branch, Brown, Jackson, Caldwell and Watson... or if any of those disappoint, with Thomas or Childress as the 5th receiver.

We can run a standard front, with Branch, Jackson, Caldwell, Graham and Dillon, and do almost anything we want: run, pass, screen, playaction, inside handoff, direct snap.

For years, BB has been drafting OL and DL on Day One. He finally has his linemen where he needs them, and has splurged on skill position players. This is going to be transformational for our O.

__________________
"We want to build a big, strong, tough, smart, fast, disciplined football team that will consistently compete for a championship."
-- Scott Pioli, from the Patriots scouting manual

DarrylS

I agree, I think that BB is using his genius as a D person to transform this offense, have felt that one on the reasons they have not spent big on another WR is the versatility of Watson. There are more weapons and more O line depth, which adds to our arsenal. I would not want to be d coordinator who has to game plan for this team. I thought last year would be a big breakout year for our O, but the injuries prohibited this, this year I expect a really big offensive year.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PhilD

Hopefully, but we say these things every off-season. The Patriots have usually had the players, I think it's more of a play-calling issue. Charlie Weis was innovative, and had the complete trust of all his coaches. As much as anything, as Josh McDaniels grows in confidence he will expand the types of plays that we run on offence and indeed the variety of situations that we run them in.

Last year we could run 5 wide with Branch, Givens, Brown, Dwight and Watson (maybe Watson is more detable) - I don't really see any upgrade here.

Ditto the standard front. Branch, Jackson and Caldwell seems, if anything, less proven than Branch, Givens and Davis.

I like optimism, but I feel if we do see a transformation in the Patriots offense, it's going to be led by less-restricted, less conservative play-calling. And of course, as soon as injuries set in it's a whole new ball game.

This season, I'm most excited about Ben Watson. He's been loved as a target by Brady in minicamp, and his passion was on show right to the end last season. He should be electrifying this year, injuries permitting.

One thing's guaranteed. Brady is the centre of the offense, and will remain so There's no transformation in this element

PatsChick87

Good point on Watson. Have thought the same this off season. Can't wait till the games begin!

__________________
Enjoying this Championship era!!

Pats726

I do agree..I do think this offense will be a BIT more flexible..Last year, it was hardly that..more than not, a lot because of injuries. Hard to really be flexible when a solid RB is not there. THAT really changes the offensive scheme.. Now, there are options running wise from a larger back bulling Dillon, to a slashing and quick Maroney to a 3rd down back like Faulk. With less injuries on the OL, it will mean a Graham may NOT have to stay in and block as much.
MORE patterns..different combos. With receivers there has been a real flexibility with Branch, BJ, Dwight and Givens...but there will be that smae amount htis year..with more good TE hands. I could see Vrabel brought in for a 5 TE offense...how would that be defnded against?? I really think the N-back will make an appearance..and all these new wrinkles will make it a bit harder for the opposing D to cope with.

dryheat44

Good thread.

Creating Matchups is what it's all about, hence the thinking of trading Graham is ridiculous. Given 100% health come September, Belichick is going to have a base package of 5 linemen, Brady, Dillon, with Branch Split out, Caldwell/Jackson at flanker, Watson in a close slot, and Graham playing tight.

Watson or Dillon can even motion to a wing or H-back.

This lineup is going to tax the defense MORE than the 5-wide Charlie liked to run. Obviously the CBs are going to be on the WRs, the FS is going to have to take Watson 1-on-1, the outside lineman opposite Graham is going to have to get his hands on him and slow him down for either the strong safety or inside linebacker to pick up. Another linebacker is going to have to keep an eye on Dillon before committing anywhere. So we have single coverages on the outside, linebackers busy inside, safeties occupied. Dillon available for blitz pickup or as an available receiver in the flats.

If the O-line can get Brady 2-3.5 seconds of protection, this offense is going to roll up a lot of points. Best part is that with the versality of the parts, it will be very easy to go no-huddle and not limit the offense to a particular formation.

I'm actually salivating right now.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

mgteich

There cannot be a power-I until we have a fullback who can actually block. Lining up in the backfield is not sufficient.

smg93

Seymour?

mgteich

Yes, we have fullbacks in goal-line situations. I prefer Hochstein, since I think risky to use Seymour.

But that makes the point, we don't have a real fullback.

CrazyDave

Mills?

And i agree completely with this thread.
Having all these guys on the field at once will be a nightmare for opposing D's.