Patriots and no huddle offense

[eagle eye]

This is a question really. I'm not so sure about this stuff to be fair.

I have always thought that good teams use the hurry up when a defence seems to be getting the better of them. I just feel that when you have top playmakers in your side that its the way to go against an organised defense.

We have those playmakers in Brady, Moss, Welker and Faulk.

I just thought last night that we could have went no huddle and been far more successful.

As I said at the start, I'm not well up on the no huddle/hurry up stuff. Perhaps some of you could explain the pros and cons of it? When its useful and when its not, I do understand its useful with time running low in the 2nd and 4th quarters.

 

[SVN]

This is a question really. I'm not so sure about this stuff to be fair.

I have always thought that good teams use the hurry up when a defence seems to be getting the better of them. I just feel that when you have top playmakers in your side that its the way to go against an organised defense.

We have those playmakers in Brady, Moss, Welker and Faulk.

I just thought last night that we could have went no huddle and been far more successful.

As I said at the start, I'm not well up on the no huddle/hurry up stuff. Perhaps some of you could explain the pros and cons of it? When its useful and when its not, I do understand its useful with time running low in the 2nd and 4th quarters.

i actuallythink the "slowing the game down" approach was working with 2 TE sets. They became greedy with the passing game which exposed our oline.After that it was all catchup mode. if we had been patient with the running game a little longer, they would been forced to defend it and the big plays wouldve come.

 

[TomBrady12]

remember these days
(something I put together)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nz8RxGNvWc

 

[The Dynasty]

This is a question really. I'm not so sure about this stuff to be fair.

I have always thought that good teams use the hurry up when a defence seems to be getting the better of them. I just feel that when you have top playmakers in your side that its the way to go against an organised defense.

We have those playmakers in Brady, Moss, Welker and Faulk.

I just thought last night that we could have went no huddle and been far more successful.

As I said at the start, I'm not well up on the no huddle/hurry up stuff. Perhaps some of you could explain the pros and cons of it? When its useful and when its not, I do understand its useful with time running low in the 2nd and 4th quarters.

I think that we should start going no huddle against some teams because your right, we do have the guys that can do it. Brady is at his best in the last 2 minutes of each half usually when we go no huddle. We should try it and see how it works out.

Last night this wouldnt have worked, I dont think we wanted to get in a shootout with the Saints. Last night the game plan was to have long sustained drives and limit the Saints possesstions. The first drive was the perfect example of this, but that was the only good drive that illustrated this all night. Once you get down by 14, you have to try and score and score fairly quickly

 

[sg14]

Yea, I was hoping for a ball control offense to wear out their defense, to basically play the Colts game in reverse, hopefully score at will in the 4th qtr.

They started off pretty good, but then got behind. I think alot of people here miss the old times with a power back, and play action passes. It seems this shotgun approach is too limiting in the play options,and time consumption. Gruden said Brady had a lot of room to run if he chose, so there was part of the field not being defended.

All in all, all I can truely say is WOW, don't think I have ever seen a offensive performance like that. Hats off to the Saints.

i actuallythink the "slowing the game down" approach was working with 2 TE sets. They became greedy with the passing game which exposed our oline.After that it was all catchup mode. if we had been patient with the running game a little longer, they would been forced to defend it and the big plays wouldve come.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Yea, I was hoping for a ball control offense to wear out their defense, to basically play the Colts game in reverse, hopefully score at will in the 4th qtr.

They started off pretty good, but then got behind. I think alot of people here miss the old times with a power back, and play action passes. It seems this shotgun approach is too limiting in the play options,and time consumption. Gruden said Brady had a lot of room to run if he chose, so there was part of the field not being defended.

All in all, all I can truely say is WOW, don't think I have ever seen a offensive performance like that. Hats off to the Saints.

The sound was spotty where I watched the game. Did he really say that, because that's what I suspected based on the 3-man rush.

Last year a lot of teams tried 3-man rushes vs. Cassel, daring him to read the coverages. Around mid-year (especially the home Jets game), the Pats got smart and started sending Faulk on a route up the middle to the LB in coverage, then he'd peel off to the sideline taking the LB with him. Cassel would sprint upfield in the vacated spot, usually for a 1st down. I'd love to see the Pats run such plays for Brady.

Regards,
Chris