MoLewisrocks

NEM would be second guessing the OC if we had 5 healthy WR up to speed on the playbook and were 3-0 and had Norm Chow running Charlie's offense. He has never understood that we run a sophisticated sight adjusted offense (conceived by a defensive coaching genius) and Brady calls the play that is sent in only if the look he is getting from the defense is one they anticipated. If it isn't he adjusts the play to the look he is reading at the LOS subject to his on field player package. That is the offensive system Charlie built around Brady's ability to read defenses skill set when he had 2-3 WR available at all times (from Branch, Givens, Brown, Patten) who could operate within it. It was designed to work brilliantly - and it often has - when the players running it consistently execute.

NEM advocates running his immaginary system where you basically ignore the defense and execute his game plan under the mindless assumption that any WR corps we field is the most talented to ever take the field and would have simply beat whatever defense they were facing like a dead horse because of course within his system all players always execute to perfection. He also has the benefit of customizing his specific playcalling within the NEM game plan due to his immense powers of foresight in hindsight. And when periodically confronted with critical analysis of why his always successful immaginary coulda, woulda, shoulda playcalling would not have worked in specific reality based scenarios, like most wannabe armchair OC's he just blows a gasket and throws his unimmaginative critics under the bus.

Unfortunately because we all want to win and it's human nature to point the finger when we don't NEM finds new converts to his intriguing system every season. He is finding even more than the usual number of converts this season because the team many of them were busy second guessing just a month ago tanked. And incredibly that too happened not because of injury and poor performance or inept roster construction, but because their comatose coach was such a poor strategist.

Amnorix

You're agreeing with NEM on a matter relating to offensive play calling? In that category, NEM has all the credibility of Saddam Hussein on human rights issues...

Seriously, I don't even know how NEM has the, ahem, testicular fortitude, to make any posts at all on offensive play calling issues. In all my years on multiple bulletin boards across many topics, no one I know of has less credibility on one particular thing than NEM on the subject of offensive coordinators and offensive play calling.

Keegs

hahahahahaahahahah

__________________

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

Kdo5

Keegs, what is wrong with your brain?

There was nothing wrong with the flea flicker, I'm pretty sure Brown was decently open, Brady just over threw him a little. There was nothing wrong with it, just a pass too far.

AJain

Absolutely right. When your offense is stagnant and not fooling anybody, why not take a shot? It is better than going off tackle for no gain, throwing directly to Lynch (note to Tom: we never actually signed him so he does NOT play for our team), or letting Brady hang Falk out to dry in the flat so some Bronco LB can pancake him.

By the way, the Steelers won a superbowl by pulling atleat one trick play (half back option, WR end around for a deep pass, reverses, and flickers) per game during their stretch run.

Brownfan80

Hey I was doing nothing of the sort.

I was pointing out that we haven't really known who is calling plays since Charlie Weiss left. None of us know how it works right now. My point from that is simply that all this bashing of McDaniels is silly. Because we have no idea whose call is being made at any given time.

If you call that my speculation, so be it.

I just view it as fact: We've never been told what McDaniels role means, be it last year as the QB coach or this season as the new OC. So any bashing of him comes entirely from speculation based on the fact that HE called the play. Which in reality he may not have. We don't know.

Brownfan80

Great summary of the NEM machine.

It's funnyhow he came out patting his own back about the hurry-up after our TD drive, but said not a peep about his other favorite drum that was a disaster in it's repeated employment in the same game: Playaction.

NEM throws so much against the wall that on any given week SOMETHING sticks, so he's always got fodder to self gratify. It's silly and sad that he refuses to acknowledge anything about situational football, which is actually what the esteemed future HOF headcoach Bill Belichick always preaches on.

Kdo5

I dont think it was a great call because I doubt that the Broncos would have respected the running game at that point but the play wasnt the problem, if Brady threw the ball a little shorter Brown would have caught it and all of a sudden it would be a great play call to some people.

Michigan Dave

I think it's a good call in that situation if you're the Pats for 2 reasons:

1. You are clearly attempting to run the ball at that stage of the game. No doubt about it. We were trying, but unsuccessfully. Teams still believe you have to run the ball well to win the game. Denver was swarming us, and they were well aware of the success they were having with the run. By running that play, you hope that they will overcommit to the run, and get caught deep, which they almost did.

2. The risk/reward is relatively low compared to other "trick" plays. What are the risks? The RB is stuffed at the line, and nothing happens. The RB makes a bad pitch, and the QB has to eat a couple yards. The ball is horribly underthrown, and picked off. That's about it. As long as your RB is smart and doesn't mispitch, you're taking a shot with little risk. The DB should be a step behind, biting on the run.

At that point, if it works, we capture momentum, and the outcome may be different. While I don't like to rely on trick plays to win games as a rule of thumb, if you can successfully pull them off when you need to, there's nothing wrong with that. Just because it failed, doesn't mean it's a bad call.

__________________

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

MoLewisrocks

I love how they are always overthrown or underthrown as opposed to overrun or underrun...

And if he threw it a little shorter perhaps at least the DB could have snagged it...

It's somehow suddenly chic to blame the HOF QB because it would just be TOO DAMN EASY to blame his all pro WR corps or lack thereof.

When Brady's pass was almost snagged by John Lynch it was probably because the safety was where Tom WR was supposed to be. The paniced look on Reche's face kind of indicated that when he looked around and realized where he was and where the guy who jumped his route was, but then that's the way he always looks apparently. At least this week he had the presence of mind to become a DB and salvage an incompletion. Which is what good WR's do when their QB makes a timing throw into coverage the WR did not beat rather than giving up on what some will then say was a wide open receiver (albeit in the wrong spot) and throwing it away again. And the week before when Brady threw to the outside a split second before Bingo adjusted as he too realized that was the only place that throw would be safe.... Of course in Troy's defense he's got a lot on his mind too playing dual roles again as the #1 and the #3.

Felger actually touched on a lot of this pretty well this week. I believe his example involved the hypothetical if a receiver is supposed to cut in at the 11 on a timing route and he cuts in at the 14 the ball will likely appear to be underthrown. Ditto in the reverse when it will appear to have sailed. If you get open on a timing route because you cut it off prematurely or extended it beyond where it was intended then getting open doesn't gain you much. Just makes your QB look like he's got throwing issues when in fact he's got WR issues.