Belichick's unexpected Bronco's gameplan

RIpats88 said:

I think we just need to be the more physical team...which we have been as of late. when you look at this years broncos they kind of remind me of the old pass-first patriots.

but what was our undoing in the playoffs? teams who were able to be more physical with us like the ravens,giants, jets who disrupted our record offenses.

I think the Patriots are the more physical team than the broncos. we need to hit them hard on both offense/Defense

but, I also wouldnt be surprised if the pats come out first play with FB out there. then all of a sudden brady passes it for a nice gain.

Click to expand...

First play, fake stretch run play to Blount, Brady pass for 8-13 yards to Danny Amendola.

AndyJohnson said:

The key on offense is scoring points.
I also disagree with playing back on defense. Denver is a small ball offense. We have to take away the short stuff and dare them to go deep. Letting them throw underneath is guaranteed doom, you have to challenge receivers and force them to make plays down the field.

Click to expand...

Interesting strategy but not sure I agree. The last game was played with quite a bit 2 deep and 6 in the box which made Manning choose so many running plays and I don't recall many run blitzes. So it was a pretty conservative game plan. I actually think we'll see something similar but the expectation of better execution from the front 6.

Keep Brady under center, run and play action all day.

Regards,
Chris


Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

PP2 said:

So your go to man is Cris Carter.. all of a sudden he knows something that not even Dungy does? That's a joke.

Contrast this with the revelation from Dallas Clark that Manning, in Indy, used Omaha as the signal to flip the hot call away from the side he perceived the blitz to be coming from.

It occurs to me that he could still be using that but use it in a context where players were led to believe that it was precursor to the snap keyword, which it clearly wasn't.



Your problem is with the writer who brought up that idea, not me. It was an interesting thought to me but doesn't mean that I buy it, because I think it adds a layer of unnecessary complexity. As much terminology as an offense typically has, it's generally a good idea to group or simplify, so as to reduce the chance of someone messing up on assignment or calls.

So in this regard, using omaha to mean one thing during one snap, and then something else during another snap is, for me, unrealistic because it adds more complexity than is necessary.

Something else was the live designator, not "omaha."

Click to expand...

I was just coming to tell you about the interview that Dallas Clark gave where he claimed it was to switch the hot read and RB pass protection to the other, opposite side when Manning saw a blitz coming, but I see you already covered that once I hit the "quote" button.

I would also imagine that there are times when it is used as a dummy call, but I assume that you've already pointed that out.

Interestingly enough, Antonito Cromartie claimed that the NYJ knew what snap count to go on "96% of the time," (don't know where he pulled that number out of) due to the coaches film study and what was in the back of their weekly gameplanning book.

supafly said:

I was just coming to tell you about the interview that Dallas Clark gave where he claimed it was to switch the hot read and RB pass protection to the other, opposite side when Manning saw a blitz coming, but I see you already covered that once I hit the "quote" button.

I would also imagine that there are times when it is used as a dummy call, but I assume that you've already pointed that out.

Interestingly enough, Antonito Cromartie claimed that the NYJ knew what snap count to go on "96% of the time," (don't know where he pulled that number out of) due to the coaches film study and what was in the back of their weekly gameplanning book.

Click to expand...

One of the things I most admire about BB is how he finds simple solutions to complex problems.

How do you treat Manning and his hysterical antics when calling audibles?

I would have the linemen simply ignore his antics and just key on the ball. That probably will lead to a losing battle by a fraction of a second, but Manning will nearly always get the ball out of his hands before you get to him anyway, so might as well concede that to him.

The LB's and DB's which are far less likely to be called for neutral zone infractions, would have the flexibility to determine cadence and act upon it. I would have the backers in constant motion to give him a hard time when he has to dictate protection.

Probably the biggest weapon to defeat Manning is staying disciplined and avoid betraying intent, so whatever disguise I would use, I would avoid certain things like rolling up an extra man pre-snap (unless I did it just to aggravate him).

PP2 said:

One of the things I most admire about BB is how he finds simple solutions to complex problems.

How do you treat Manning and his hysterical antics when calling audibles?

I would have the linemen simply ignore his antics and just key on the ball. That probably will lead to a losing battle by a fraction of a second, but Manning will nearly always get the ball out of his hands before you get to him anyway, so might as well concede that to him.

The LB's and DB's which are far less likely to be called for neutral zone infractions, would have the flexibility to determine cadence and act upon it. I would have the backers in constant motion to give him a hard time when he has to dictate protection.

Probably the biggest weapon to defeat Manning is staying disciplined and avoid betraying intent, so whatever disguise I would use, I would avoid certain things like rolling up an extra man pre-snap (unless I did it just to aggravate him).

Click to expand...

I don't think the key is getting to Manning I think it is making him go away from his first read. When he drops and throws it immediately it is almost always a completion, it is when he has to start looking around and then move his feet that he struggles. The focus should be on disrupting routes and timing and making him look to his 2nd and third options. Beyond that they know he is going to get his completions and they need to focus completely on limiting YAC. Most of Manning's damage comes off of yards after the catch, he's exceptionally precise and leads his receivers really well and the Patriots defenders need to wrap them up and bring them down as soon as they catch it. If they can disrupt routes, get him to go to his alternate options and tackle really well then they will have done their jobs defensively, at that point it will be up to the offense to do the rest.

AndyJohnson said:

The key on offense is scoring points.
I also disagree with playing back on defense. Denver is a small ball offense. We have to take away the short stuff and dare them to go deep. Letting them throw underneath is guaranteed doom, you have to challenge receivers and force them to make plays down the field.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Jam the receivers at the line, make sure Welker gets hit every play on his way out. Disrupt their routes and timing and dare them to beat Talib one on one.

Ivan said:

I don't think the key is getting to Manning I think it is making him go away from his first read. When he drops and throws it immediately it is almost always a completion, it is when he has to start looking around and then move his feet that he struggles. The focus should be on disrupting routes and timing and making him look to his 2nd and third options. Beyond that they know he is going to get his completions and they need to focus completely on limiting YAC. Most of Manning's damage comes off of yards after the catch, he's exceptionally precise and leads his receivers really well and the Patriots defenders need to wrap them up and bring them down as soon as they catch it. If they can disrupt routes, get him to go to his alternate options and tackle really well then they will have done their jobs defensively, at that point it will be up to the offense to do the rest.

Click to expand...

All the more reason to concede the LOS to Manning, isn't it?

PP2 said:

All the more reason to concede the LOS to Manning, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I don't think you ever concede the LOS but I wouldn't waste resources blitzing him and leaving the coverage shorthanded. basically i think coverage and disruption is what matters, actually sacking him doesn't. However while I wouldn't put a premium on sacking him i do think you still need to pressure him and get him off his spot, because once he starts moving his feet he is much less accurate. Brady is a much better QB when moving around in the pocket. The Patriots front 4 need to win their battles and slow down the run game and make Manning move, but they don't need to give them help up front and i would only use blitzes to shake things up occasionally and make him uncomfortable.

I would love to think that Belichick has been waiting for this game with something special in mind for it but after 14 meetings i am not so sure what there is left for him to come up with to throw Manning off his game. I kind of think this one is really going to come back down to the simplest factors, such as fundamentals and winning the time of possession and turnover battles. Nothing fancy, just make the plays and win the fistfight.

Ivan said:

I don't think you ever concede the LOS but I wouldn't waste resources blitzing him and leaving the coverage shorthanded. basically i think coverage and disruption is what matters, actually sacking him doesn't. However while I wouldn't put a premium on sacking him i do think you still need to pressure him and get him off his spot, because once he starts moving his feet he is much less accurate. Brady is a much better QB when moving around in the pocket. The Patriots front 4 need to win their battles and slow down the run game and make Manning move, but they don't need to give them help up front and i would only use blitzes to shake things up occasionally and make him uncomfortable.

I would love to think that Belichick has been waiting for this game with something special in mind for it but after 14 meetings i am not so sure what there is left for him to come up with to throw Manning off his game. I kind of think this one is really going to come back down to the simplest factors, such as fundamentals and winning the time of possession and turnover battles. Nothing fancy, just make the plays and win the fistfight.

Click to expand...

What I meant by conceding the LOS to Manning is that by choosing to key on the ball than by trying to anticipate the snap by interpreting Manning's audibles, one would choose to yield that fraction of a second advantage that would allow one to win leverage in a big on big battle. But as you say, that's not so important as taking away Manning's first read.

With that in mind, I wonder if we go to a 3-4 front, since we would presumably concede the LOS.

I agree that at this point, its hard to play tricks on a QB that has seen everything, and it's probably a good idea to just stick to fundamental football.

But thankfully, BB's mind never stops intriguing. op2:

PP2 said:

What I meant by conceding the LOS to Manning is that by choosing to key on the ball than by trying to anticipate the snap by interpreting Manning's audibles, one would choose to yield that fraction of a second advantage that would allow one to win leverage in a big on big battle. But as you say, that's not so important as taking away Manning's first read.

With that in mind, I wonder if we go to a 3-4 front, since we would presumably concede the LOS.

I agree that at this point, its hard to play tricks on a QB that has seen everything, and it's probably a good idea to just stick to fundamental football.

But thankfully, BB's mind never stops intriguing. op2:

Click to expand...

I'm sure he will beat it into them that they need to wait for the snap, i doubt we will see the kind of offsides we saw from SD. As for the 3-4 they just don't have the linebackers to run at this point. They are well stocked on the DL but have basically run out of LB's, especially considering the report that Beauharnois may be a roster move.

Ivan said:

I'm sure he will beat it into them that they need to wait for the snap, i doubt we will see the kind of offsides we saw from SD. As for the 3-4 they just don't have the linebackers to run at this point. They are well stocked on the DL but have basically run out of LB's, especially considering the report that Beauharnois may be a roster move.

Click to expand...

The 4th linebacker would be in fact a DB- e.g., we'll play a nickel 3-4.

Here's why I think we'll take that approach:

Patriots, Broncos excel at running pick plays, which are mostly legal | The MMQB with Peter King

PP2 said:

The 4th linebacker would be in fact a DB- e.g., we'll play a nickel 3-4.

Here's why I think we'll take that approach:

Patriots, Broncos excel at running pick plays, which are mostly legal | The MMQB with Peter King

Click to expand...

Which really isn't a 3-4 defense. Its a nickel and you have 6 players lined up around the line of scrimmage assuming the 3rd WR is split and the TE is on the line. That leaves the line of scrimmage with 6 on 6 which invites Manning to call a run assuming the safeties are off. This is what we played last game and what I expect again this time around. Denver's key is to create a crease by initially doubling a DT before getting to the next level LB. Its been so successful for them and in my mind, the key thing we need to do a solid job on.

PP2 said:

The 4th linebacker would be in fact a DB- e.g., we'll play a nickel 3-4.

Here's why I think we'll take that approach:

Patriots, Broncos excel at running pick plays, which are mostly legal | The MMQB with Peter King

Click to expand...

That's not a 3-4 it's a big nickel.

SacPete1 said:

Interesting strategy but not sure I agree. The last game was played with quite a bit 2 deep and 6 in the box which made Manning choose so many running plays and I don't recall many run blitzes. So it was a pretty conservative game plan. I actually think we'll see something similar but the expectation of better execution from the front 6.

Click to expand...

We majorly challenged the short routes and dared Manning to throw deep in the first game, in addition to playing 6 in the box and daring them to run.

PP2 said:

The 4th linebacker would be in fact a DB- e.g., we'll play a nickel 3-4.

Here's why I think we'll take that approach:

Patriots, Broncos excel at running pick plays, which are mostly legal | The MMQB with Peter King

Click to expand...

Im not sure why pick plays would lead to a 34. I expect a 4 man front nickel to be out base D. However, like we did vs the Colts, I would expect one DE to flex out and get a jam on the TE or slot receiver.

For all the talk about the pass rush, Manning makes most of his throws short before an unblocked rusher could even get there. Making him hold the ball longer is the key to success.

PP2 said:

What I meant by conceding the LOS to Manning is that by choosing to key on the ball than by trying to anticipate the snap by interpreting Manning's audibles, one would choose to yield that fraction of a second advantage that would allow one to win leverage in a big on big battle. But as you say, that's not so important as taking away Manning's first read.

With that in mind, I wonder if we go to a 3-4 front, since we would presumably concede the LOS.

I agree that at this point, its hard to play tricks on a QB that has seen everything, and it's probably a good idea to just stick to fundamental football.

But thankfully, BB's mind never stops intriguing. op2:

Click to expand...

You ALWAYS play the snap. Any player trying to anticipate the snap is not doing what he is coached to do. That is not conceeding the los, otherwise every defense concedes the los.

AndyJohnson said:

We majorly challenged the short routes and dared Manning to throw deep in the first game, in addition to playing 6 in the box and daring them to run.

Click to expand...

I agree we challenged short routes and played 6 in the box which "dared" them to run but we played mostly 2 deep which wouldn't dare anyone to throw deep. Playing 2 deep with a nickel is exactly why they ran the ball so much. Maybe I'm not understanding your use of the word dare.

Defensively take away the run and the short routes.

But most of all ... I think Belichick is going to challenge the weak link in the armor that is C Manny Ramirez. Tight man coverage on the side with a bull rush up the middle forcing Manning to move we have the players to do it.

Watching Denver games and I see many teams trying to get at Manning from the ends ... Denver's line is very excellent at protecting him against that method and also Moreno is at his best running between the tackles ... 2 birds with one stone. San Diego did neither and gave up too many 3rd down conversions late in the game.

SacPete1 said:

Which really isn't a 3-4 defense. Its a nickel and you have 6 players lined up around the line of scrimmage assuming the 3rd WR is split and the TE is on the line. That leaves the line of scrimmage with 6 on 6 which invites Manning to call a run assuming the safeties are off. This is what we played last game and what I expect again this time around. Denver's key is to create a crease by initially doubling a DT before getting to the next level LB. Its been so successful for them and in my mind, the key thing we need to do a solid job on.

Click to expand...

Right, it's not really a 3-4, only technically. I am just envisioning if we'll go with 3 linemen in 3 point, since Siliga has morphed into a much better player now than he was in the first game. This would put us in a better position to deal with the picks they love to set.