rookBoston

Anyone else pick up on the fact that BB will situationally choose NOT to return a punt? And when he decides to play it safe he takes Welker out and puts Faulk in.

Faulk's job? Secure the possession and give the ball to Brady and Co.

Against the Jets, the commentators mentioned that Faulk has returned 9 punts this year, and all of them fair catch. That's one of those factoids that struck me as "not a mistake". BB talks about situational football, and he is precisely the kind of guy who would have a specialist to return punts and another specialist to fair catch punts.

Obsessive? Maybe. Brilliant, too.

__________________
"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

BlitzFritz

yeah its smart, i noticed that early on in the season.

its also a way to keep both guys rotating in, so that if someone gets injured, you still have another guy.

and sometimes faulk runs em back, dont forget

__________________

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

"If you counted out the Patriots, you just don't get it." Adam Schein, September 2008

“We are building a big, strong, fast, smart, tough and disciplined football team that. consistently competes for championships.” Guess who.

ShrewBeer

makes perfect sense to put the guy who has the best hands in to catch. pretty nice obscure stat

__________________
"....this is not 'nam, there are rules."

Mack Herron

He did that last year with Troy Brown.

rookBoston

um... no, he hasn't. Not this season, at least. That's my point. Faulk is 9 for 9 on punt returns and he's taken a fair catch EVERY SINGLE TIME. He has not run back the kick, ever, all season. He's the equivalent of the "good hands" team for punt return.

If you're a defending team, if you see KF out there to receive, expect that there will be no run back. If anything, the Pats are trying to block the punt... but definately they wont be looking to return. And it makes sense. Against the Jets, with the bad weather, it's a challenge just to get possession back, cleanly. The priority isn't on getting return yards, it's just to take the ball back.

And if we're looking to return the ball, we'd play Welker, not Faulk. Right? That's the magic. Who has a different return guy depending on whether we're looking to block or return the punt?

__________________
"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

Fencer

You make a persuasive point that Faulk is sent in when BB expects the punt to be fair caught.

But if something funky happens -- e.g., the gunners are blocked really well -- obviously Faulk WOULD run it back in such a situation.

That said -- if they're expecting to fair catch anyway, the Pats are more likely to try to block the kick than they are to set up a return, so the chance of a surprise like that may be pretty low.

rookBoston

There isn't much of a surprise value, in any case. If you play the gunners with a double team, that usually means you're looking to return the ball. If you've got the gunners 1 on 1, that usually means you're trying to block the kick with extra guys in the pass rush. Either way, generally the kicking team understands your intent pre-snap. Having Faulk or Welker out there isn't much of a give-away-- the formation usually gives it away, regardless.

And, actually, the way BB thinks, I think even if Faulk is totally open for a return, he would STILL take the fair catch. Because that's what he was TOLD TO DO. The coaches coach and players play. And Belichick runs a Despotism under Martial Law, not a benevolent Monarchy. Even if the oceans part and the endzone is completely undefended, I think KF still takes the fair catch. That's his role.

It's the same when BB tells the punter to kick the ball out of bounds, or the long snapper to send it through the endzone for the safety. He's playing situational football, and all he values is that the team does what he thinks needs to be done.

Here's the rationale: What is the biggest risk to losing to a team like the Jets? Turnovers. That's the only way we lose. Muffed punt could cost the game. The only reason the game was as close as it was was because of the blocked punt for a TD. Without that, it would have been a 20-3 win.

As a coach, if you make sure the teams are forced to drive up and down the field in their regular D and O, the Pats win the Jets game 99 times out of 100 times. So, when you're returning a punt in the freezing rain against a less talented team, why take chances for a fumble just to get 10 or 20 more yards? Take the fair catch, take possession and give the ball to Brady to drive the field. He can get 15 yards in a single play. Taking a fair catch is just risk mitigation, and playing to win.

__________________
"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

GinoCappelletti

Only problem I see with this theory is that I don't neccescarily think Faulk's hands are all that much better than Welker's, if they are at all.

RayClay

That would lead me to believe it's coincidence.

Faulk's done a fantastic job this year, but it's only been about six games since I stopped worrying about him fumbling.

He always uses two hands up the middle and I commend him.

__________________

RayClay

That would lead me to believe it's coincidence.

Faulk's done a fantastic job this year, but it's only been about six games since I stopped worrying about him fumbling.

He always uses two hands up the middle and I commend him.

Maybe Welker's reckless, though.

__________________