Belichick on pass patterns - New England Patriots Forums

Snapper · 10-19-2006, 06:05 PM

Apologies ahead of time if/when this turns into a big NEM affair.

This is from today's Belichick press conference. I thought it help shed some light on the possible issues that come up on outside patterns vs. inside ones. No mention of Champ Bailey ;-)

Quote:

Q: Is it fair to say that when you have a passing game develop that the tougher throw is maybe the one close to the sideline and down the field, that those are the last ones to come along?

BB: Not necessarily. I know what you're saying in a way, but on the other hand that kind of clears it up. Those are the ones that sometimes may be the longer throws, so the ball is in the air longer, but there's also the least amount of coverage out there, so you don't have those decisions that you have on some of the inside routes. Does the receiver keep going? Does he settle down? Does he go in front of him or behind the coverage that is there? Is the quarterback going to try to stick it in there? Is he going to have to wait for him to clear? Stuff like that. There's a lot of decisions the more people you have in there. Whereas, again, on the perimeter it's usually pretty cut and dry. I mean if there's two guys out there, you're usually not throwing it. You're coming back inside. If there's only one guy out there, then you're just running the route off of that one player. In some respects it's easier.

Q: What are some of the challenges that are presented when you are throwing toward the sideline and down the field that just aren't there when you're throwing inside?

BB: Well the challenges are, like you said, it's a longer throw. To throw a 15-yard pass on the sideline, you need a really good throw. You need good timing. You need a good route. It's a longer play than throwing a 15-yard route inside. The ball is not in the air as long and you can drill it in there. You have to throw it a lot further. You take a lot more risk by throwing the ball, whatever it is, 50 or 60 yards out there for 15-yard gain as opposed to maybe 20 yards over the middle for 15-yard gain. It's just a little harder to execute. But again, all I'm saying is there's only one guy out there. You're just running the route off that one guy.

Q: There is more of a chance of a flat-out miss, right?

BB: Right. Definitely. It's a longer throw and the timing has to be good because the ball is in the air and if it's under thrown or it's back inside or it hangs a little bit, they could be going the other way with it. You could run into the same problems inside too if the quarterback and the receiver are not in tune with each other. You could have trouble there too.

From that I get that each pattern has its own issues. The throw across the middle could be easier because it's a shorter throw, but there's also more traffic to consider, and the communication with the receiver. The throw to the outside, in one sense, could be easier in that the quarterback only have to account for that one defender (he's not going to make the throw if two are over there). Belichick makes arguments for both sides.

Given the arguments Belichick makes about the perils of going inside, I can understand why we would see more outside throws. The parts I bolded above all fall on the communication between Brady and his receivers. If they're not on the same page yet about where to go (leading the WR vs. waiting for the settle, under vs. over the coverage, QB sticking it in vs. waiting for the WR to clear), passing inside could be much more dangerous right now. Whereas passing to the outside, while a more difficult pass to throw, allows Brady the security of playing off just one defender. So it's Brady putting more stock in his own ability to make the tougher throw instead of trusting the receiver to go the right spot inside.

From the same press conference, talking about Stanley Morgan and the Pats of the late 70s:

Quote:

New England was a big play action team back then. Historically play action routes are going to be a lot deeper than the shorter drop back routes. By the time you run the play fake and try to separate the defense and give those guys a chance to run those in-cuts and post patterns and over routes and stuff like that, that if you hit them you're going to gain a lot more yards on those shorter, quick-drop timing type of throws, which there's a lot of them in the west coast offense, which a lot of teams are running.

I don't know if this sheds any light on how the Pats are currently using play-action. It seems to say the shorter the routes, the less likely there'll be play action. Maybe this is because the QB needs to keep his eyes on the field for the shorter routes (just my speculation; any insight is welcomed). But I think it would also indicate that they're less likely to do play-action on the patterns you're looking for, NEM.

Sound plausible?

CheerforTom · 10-19-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

You could run into the same problems inside too if the quarterback and the receiver are not in tune with each other. You could have trouble there too.

This was another thing I took from that which I thought was pretty huge: BB himself basically backing up the ideas of 'the receivers and Brady just aren't fully on the same page yet and will hopefully get there soon', as opposed to Brady being injured or the wideouts sucking.

HAMMERMILL · 10-19-2006, 07:15 PM

Brady is used to having"small recievers" that had to be in the right spot(timinig pattern)A weis offense.
Now the Pats have large WR 's That can potentially take the ball away.
That coulpled with a 2 prong running game(unlike brady has ever seen here)
Should lead to a strong running game,with long passes from the wr's once Brady get's comfortable with them.

PatsSteve1 · 10-19-2006, 07:48 PM

[QUOTE=NEM]That was a good read and very informative.

And, I dont disagree with the philosophy behind what he said.

That being said, I still find that Brady seems much more comfortable with the inside routes than he does with the outside routes. His performance, thus far, tends to prove that out.

However, now tieh the receiving corps, hopefully at full strength, this might allow a change in the offensive passing play calling to allow more inside routes, along with play action and deep post patterns.

* What BB had top say is really just common sense. It's werll known that fro a few years now Brady tells whoever the OC has been and BB what routes he likes and dislikes. Which ones he thinks will work better and wehich ones he thinks won't. The idea that if 3+ recievers are going out and thier all running outside routes is suspect to say the least. You'd make it too easy for the opponents D.

Fencer · 10-19-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

And, I dont disagree with the philosophy behind what he said.

Whew.

I'd hate for BB's football philosophy to flunk the NEM-agreement test.

njpatsfan · 10-19-2006, 09:41 PM

It's nice to know that even in NEM-land, a diagonal line is longer than a straight line.

R

BJ_McWild · 10-19-2006, 10:17 PM

wow that was great. thanks for posting.

I love our coach!!!

Brownfan80 · 10-20-2006, 08:08 AM

Hey, look, I was at least pretty close to right about the middle vs outside passes (risk angle from my big-too-long theory in the CBS thread/Timing issue is BS thread):

"There's also the least amount of coverage out there, so you don't have those decisions that you have on some of the inside routes. [snip] On the perimeter it's usually pretty cut and dry. I mean if there's two guys out there, you're usually not throwing it. You're coming back inside. If there's only one guy out there, then you're just running the route off of that one player. In some respects it's easier."

It's nice to know that at least SOME of what I'm seeing/thinking is also what the Coach is seeing/thinking.

Urgent · 10-20-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HAMMERMILL

Brady is used to having"small recievers" that had to be in the right spot(timinig pattern)A weis offense.

I thought about this -- the Weis offense and the use of small receivers who dart open. The corollary is the failure of the bigger receivers the Pats tried under Weiss.

Important to note is the success Weis has had with big receivers at ND. His top guys are pretty big. He's not featuring a small receiver - his starters are 6-2 and 6-5.

So Weis himself has been able to adapt his offense to big receivers.

patfanken · 10-20-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urgent

I thought about this -- the Weis offense and the use of small receivers who dart open. The corollary is the failure of the bigger receivers the Pats tried under Weiss.

Important to note is the success Weis has had with big receivers at ND. His top guys are pretty big. He's not featuring a small receiver - his starters are 6-2 and 6-5.

So Weis himself has been able to adapt his offense to big receivers.

Very nice point, Urgent, let me ellaborate on it a bit. I have been saying all along that different receivers have different skill sets and patterns that a Branch type WR will run well are different from the ones a Gabriel type WR will run. Remember in all the old videos, the when Drew and Tom would discuss which routes they were more comfortable with. Its the same with receivers. I am sure that the Pats coaches are getting the feel (along with Brady), which routes their WRs run best and then encorporate them into their game plans. We will eventually see the results of this work in progress by the time the REAL SEASON gets going in January.

That being said, the other thing in BB's comments is about how play action passes (PAP) are usually deeper. I brings out a complaint that I DO have with the game plans, is the lack of PAP by the Pats this season. Given the sucess of the running game, it would seem a natural to run 8-10 a game, but I don't think we've run more than 2-3/g thus far??? Will someone ask NEM whay that is.