Idle thoughts...pregame

[gomezcat]

Great stuff, Ken, as always. I agree with the idea of trying to establish the run. I think it's the way to go against smaller, faster teams. No doubt BB and co. will prove me wrong with 400 yards through the air and a huge win.

 

[patfanken]

personally, I'm rather torn. When I was writing the run strategy, by the time I was finished I was sure that that was the right way to go. I started writing the passing strategy, merely as a counterpoint to the run strategy that I favored. HOWEVER, as the positives for the passing strategy occurred to me, I started to waver. By the end, as I said, I was dazed and confused. I really could see a passing strategy working.

What I am afraid of is the possibility that we try to do both at the detriment of both. I believe the offense has to get into a rhythm and by going back and forth to each strategy might keep us from finding that rhythm. If we intend to run the ball then we have to run the ball even if periodically it sputters. That means lining up with the QB under C and running it on 3rd and 3. If we intend to pass it as our major strategy, then we should run the ball only as a distraction, and just do it. That means running shot guns on 3rd and short and on the GL.

Both ideas make sense, and it sounds good to say, "well let's to a little of both". But I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[mayoclinic]

personally, I'm rather torn. When I was writing the run strategy, by the time I was finished I was sure that that was the right way to go. I started writing the passing strategy, merely as a counterpoint to the run strategy that I favored. HOWEVER, as the positives for the passing strategy occurred to me, I started to waver. By the end, as I said, I was dazed and confused. I really could see a passing strategy working.

What I am afraid of is the possibility that we try to do both at the detriment of both. I believe the offense has to get into a rhythm and by going back and forth to each strategy might keep us from finding that rhythm. If we intend to run the ball then we have to run the ball even if periodically it sputters. That means lining up with the QB under C and running it on 3rd and 3. If we intend to pass it as our major strategy, then we should run the ball only as a distraction, and just do it. That means running shot guns on 3rd and short and on the GL.

Both ideas make sense, and it sounds good to say, "well let's to a little of both". But I don't think that's a good idea.

I want to see us establish the run, draw Bethea and Bullitt up into the box, and open up play action in a big way. I also wouldn't mind seeing a little Pistol thrown in with Stanbeck in the backfield next to Brady. Force Indy to play the run, pound the ball and Freeney and Mathis and keep them off balance. Then Brady can pick apart the secondary.

I'd much rather see Brady go 22/30 with 270 yards passing and 3 TDs and 400+ yards of total offense then see Brady go 32/50 with 320 yards passing and 3 TDs and 400+ yards of total offense.

 

[Patspsycho]

I want to see us establish the run

If we do that, how do we defeat their backside pursuit which is very good? I don't see how that happens without going back to the I formation.

 

[Peachhead]

We're doomed! <j/k>

 

[shmessy]

Work the ribs in the early rounds then finish 'em off with the head shots.

 

[mayoclinic]

Work the ribs in the early rounds then finish 'em off with the head shots.

I love it. It's possible we even play rope-a-dope in the first half before giving them the knockout punch in the second, though I'd rather see a nice method drubbing the way you describe.

 

[Patspsycho]

I love it. It's possible we even play rope-a-dope in the first half before giving them the knockout punch in the second, though I'd rather see a nice method drubbing the way you describe.

No need to go rope-a-dope with the depth we have.

 

[Urgent]

.....

j. I would also consider either using a no huddle or a fast pace in running this offense. I know part of this strategy has to do with keeping Manning off the field, but I think a fast pace favors the strategy more by further wearing down of the D, especially the front 7.

In the meantime, I'll look forward to your thoughts as always.

A note on the No-Huddle offense - it doesn't require a fast pace, or a Run'N'Gun approach, or a two-minute drill approach at all. In fact, if you watch the Indy No-Huddle, you see them take time off the clock all the time. Manning takes the team to the line, and then uses another 12-15 seconds of squawking and flapping to move players and call the play. If you are calling run plays out of the No-Huddle, you can really chew up a lot of time, if that's your desire.

Another note on playing a defense like Indy's - screens, draws are tough against a smaller, faster, man-to-man defense. New England has been less successful using screens and draws against Indy in the past. Whether from a big set or a No Huddle offense, those are generally less effective.

Also note that New England has thrown out of the heavy formation, even with Moss the only receiver. If the heavy formation includes Maroney, Watson, and Moss, you have the flexibility to throw, or even flex out to a three-wide at the line.

 

[Patspsycho]

A note on the No-Huddle offense - it doesn't require a fast pace, or a Run'N'Gun approach, or a two-minute drill approach at all. In fact, if you watch the Indy No-Huddle, you see them take time off the clock all the time. Manning takes the team to the line, and then uses another 12-15 seconds of squawking and flapping to move players and call the play. If you are calling run plays out of the No-Huddle, you can really chew up a lot of time, if that's your desire.

Another note on playing a defense like Indy's - screens, draws are tough against a smaller, faster, man-to-man defense. New England has been less successful using screens and draws against Indy in the past. Whether from a big set or a No Huddle offense, those are generally less effective.

Also note that New England has thrown out of the heavy formation, even with Moss the only receiver. If the heavy formation includes Maroney, Watson, and Moss, you have the flexibility to throw, or even flex out to a three-wide at the line.

1) Doesn't matter.. even during those 15 sec burnoff, the play is still being formed, and the defense has even less time to adjust to the modifications.

2) I don't like the heavy formation. I actually like the empty sets, and I think that's actually more effective because of the high rate of short completions you get from that.

 

[patfanken]

A note on the No-Huddle offense - it doesn't require a fast pace, or a Run'N'Gun approach, or a two-minute drill approach at all. In fact, if you watch the Indy No-Huddle, you see them take time off the clock all the time. Manning takes the team to the line, and then uses another 12-15 seconds of squawking and flapping to move players and call the play. If you are calling run plays out of the No-Huddle, you can really chew up a lot of time, if that's your desire.

Normally I'd agree with you, but in the Houston game, the Colts came out with a true hurry up no huddle, and given the fact the Pats can afford to be very flexible with their personnel packages, I would think that a hurry up no huddle would be an effective deterrent for the Colts

Another note on playing a defense like Indy's - screens, draws are tough against a smaller, faster, man-to-man defense. New England has been less successful using screens and draws against Indy in the past. Whether from a big set or a No Huddle offense, those are generally less effective.

You are right about the Pats history with Colts and their screen passes. For that reason, I'd cut out the long developing double screens instead use the quick screens, just enough to slow down the rush.

Also note that New England has thrown out of the heavy formation, even with Moss the only receiver. If the heavy formation includes Maroney, Watson, and Moss, you have the flexibility to throw, or even flex out to a three-wide at the line.

I'm not a big advocate of the "heavy" formation with 3 TEs and a OLman in the back field. I agree with you that 2 TEs and a FB should be enough, plus the pass option is more effective if you have skilled offensive personnel in the game. However with Morris out, we lose what would have been our most experienced FB, so I have to wonder if that is a reasonable option now.....and if Connolly starts at C, who will be the OL-FB

 

[patfanken]

I also wouldn't mind seeing a little Pistol thrown in with Stanbeck in the backfield next to Brady.

I don't want to see any freakin "pistol", "wildcat" or pure single wing while Tom Brady has a Moss/Welker to throw to. It is a complete waste of resources. Plus having Brady next to him negates ANY power run advantage you might get....unless you are proposing that Brady be the lead blocker...or run option???????

I'd much rather see Brady go 22/30 with 270 yards passing and 3 TDs and 400+ yards of total offense then see Brady go 32/50 with 320 yards passing and 3 TDs and 400+ yards of total offense.

On this we agree completely

 

[Patspsycho]

I'm not a big advocate of the "heavy" formation with 3 TEs and a OLman in the back field. I agree with you that 2 TEs and a FB should be enough, plus the pass option is more effective if you have skilled offensive personnel in the game. However with Morris out, we lose what would have been our most experienced FB, so I have to wonder if that is a reasonable option now.....and if Connolly starts at C, who will be the OL-FB

BJGE will be FB, but knowing that we only have 2 true RB, I wonder if we would keep one RB off the field.

I hate the heavy sets we run- I think it limits us.

 

[Metaphors]

- I'm a little concerned with the Boston sports "sympathy" effect. The Celts just lost 2 straight weak performances. This is muted a little since the Sox aren't involved and BC won.

- While I would generally poo-poo any discussion of the Pats using the single wing (the "Minuteman"?), I will admit that it could be effective inside the 10. Stanbeck in the shotgun with Edelman coming across the formation...lots of options for easy flip passes to Watson/Baker wide open in the end zone.

- Since I doubt Maroney will be returning kicks, whoever ends up taking kicks becomes a key factor in this game. Brady and the Pats power formation can QB sneak one yard whenever they want against the Colts, so getting the offense out near midfield effectively makes it 3 downs to get 9 yards.

- If there ever was a game for Mayo to get his first "impact" stat (sack, int), this is it. He has the speed to middle blitz and also to move laterally to disrupt slants and skinny posts. I expect the ball to be in his area and hopefully he can come up with a big play or two.

- The coin flip looms large in this game. I really believe the Pats want that opening drive in the 2nd half. So....

- The Pats 1st drive of the 2nd half will be huge. Pass rushers like Freeney and Mathis have limited effective snaps in their legs. They get a recharge at halftime, so making them defend a nice, extended drive right away will take a toll. Conversely, a quick 3-and-out and expect a stronger rush in Brady's face in the deciding 4th quarter drives.

 

[patfanken]

- While I would generally poo-poo any discussion of the Pats using the single wing (the "Minuteman"?), I will admit that it could be effective inside the 10. Stanbeck in the shotgun with Edelman coming across the formation...lots of options for easy flip passes to Watson/Baker wide open in the end zone.

Agreed, it would look great on paper, but do you really think its a better option than Tom Brady with his hands on the ball ready to pull the trigger, over a failed QB/WR (NOT RUNNER) pulling the trigger

- Since I doubt Maroney will be returning kicks, whoever ends up taking kicks becomes a key factor in this game. Brady and the Pats power formation can QB sneak one yard whenever they want against the Colts, so getting the offense out near midfield effectively makes it 3 downs to get 9 yards.

KO's could be a duo of Butler and Edelman perhaps

- If there ever was a game for Mayo to get his first "impact" stat (sack, int), this is it. He has the speed to middle blitz and also to move laterally to disrupt slants and skinny posts. I expect the ball to be in his area and hopefully he can come up with a big play or two.

Turnovers are rare for BOTH teams, so any TO in this game is going to be hard to overcome.

- The coin flip looms large in this game. I really believe the Pats want that opening drive in the 2nd half. So....

- The Pats 1st drive of the 2nd half will be huge. Pass rushers like Freeney and Mathis have limited effective snaps in their legs. They get a recharge at halftime, so making them defend a nice, extended drive right away will take a toll. Conversely, a quick 3-and-out and expect a stronger rush in Brady's face in the deciding 4th quarter drives.

I ALWAYS want the 2nd half KO. That is what killed us in 06. The Colts had a long hard drive to end the first half, and opened with another long drive to start the 2nd. That essentially fried the undermanned Pats D for the rest of the game.

Having the ball first is problematic to begin with. Everyone is all keyed up for the first few plays. No one knows what new wrinkles the other team will throw at you. This isn't a game where one offense comes out in something completely different to start the game. No, its the DEFENSE where new stuff would be more successful in an opening drive. This is all ESPECIALLY true when you playing an away game. The crowd will be at its loudest to start the game.

One way or the other, I REALLY want the Colts to open the game with the ball.

 

[Metaphors]

Agreed, it would look great on paper, but do you really think its a better option than Tom Brady with his hands on the ball ready to pull the trigger, over a failed QB/WR (NOT RUNNER) pulling the trigger

Not saying that Stanback/Edelman is a better option at QB over Brady any more than I would say that Brown is a better QB than Henne. The point is that if the Colts are engaged with defending the run wide, it is likely that a TE could sneak open in the end zone for a "shotput" pass for an easy TD.

When the Pats get inside the 10, the field compresses (especially against a fast defense) to the point where Brady has some trouble finding open areas that don't risk a killer turnover. Stanback is big enough to be a viable runner and quick enough to get outside with Edelman also able to challenge the corner. Lots of options if run correctly...but I would never take Brady out anywhere but inside the 10.

That being said, I would rather just see the Pats line up and just push the Colts back into the end zone.

 

[Patspsycho]

I ALWAYS want the 2nd half KO. That is what killed us in 06. The Colts had a long hard drive to end the first half, and opened with another long drive to start the 2nd. That essentially fried the undermanned Pats D for the rest of the game.

Having the ball first is problematic to begin with. Everyone is all keyed up for the first few plays. No one knows what new wrinkles the other team will throw at you. This isn't a game where one offense comes out in something completely different to start the game. No, its the DEFENSE where new stuff would be more successful in an opening drive. This is all ESPECIALLY true when you playing an away game. The crowd will be at its loudest to start the game.

One way or the other, I REALLY want the Colts to open the game with the ball.

This is a good point.

 

[WhiZa]

How about who are the refs going to favor? Usually it's the Colts as the Pats always had the upper hand, but this year the Colts have the better record.

 

[Patspsycho]

How about who are the refs going to favor? Usually it's the Colts as the Pats always had the upper hand, but this year the Colts have the better record.

The refs we have tonight are home refs.