Trick formations in the next game

In the Ravens game the Patriots sowed general mayhem with odd formations.

In the Colts game that basically didn't work, with one big exception (and credit the announcers for getting something right by calling out this distinction) -- they ran a straightforward tackle-eligible pass for much more yardage than is common.

What they haven't done yet is go to a goofy formation and then lateral to an ineligible receiver. A long lateral is always dangerous, because of how easily it can go for six the other way. But it could work against a defense that is not covering the ineligible receiver.

Thoughts?

Fencer said:

In the Ravens game the Patriots sowed general mayhem with odd formations.

In the Colts game that basically didn't work, with one big exception (and credit the announcers for getting something right by calling out this distinction) -- they ran a straightforward tackle-eligible pass for much more yardage than is common.

What they haven't done yet is go to a goofy formation and then lateral to an ineligible receiver. A long lateral is always dangerous, because of how easily it can go for six the other way. But it could work against a defense that is not covering the ineligible receiver.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

They tried setting up something like this with the first four man formation. Had hooman in the slot by Lafell, motioned Gronk their way and tried a screen to Lafell that was dropped...

woolster22 said:

They tried setting up something like this with the first four man formation. Had hooman in the slot by Lafell, motioned Gronk their way and tried a screen to Lafell that was dropped...

Click to expand...

Was Gronk eligible on that play? If so, had he run a slant or slant and go, the entire middle of the field was open.

He was. They motioned him over as the second blocker for Lafell. He was originally "under tackle" on the opposite side. Motioned over and Lafell punted a poor screen pass with hooman and Gronk in front.

This is from live memory, maybe someone else can chime in. I'm pretty sure this was the case though...

In any event, the level of playing calling on offense has been extremely impressive this post season from the pats. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a variant of this play again in the Superbowl.

Btw - To your original post: I could see a play where Edelman lines up as ineligible, the ref says "you don't have to cover this guy" (aka the harbaugh rule,) then edelman receives a lateral or backwards pass and throws it or runs uncontested.

Baboon said:

In any event, the level of playing calling on offense has been extremely impressive this post season from the pats. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a variant of this play again in the Superbowl.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking they are hitting the extent of the wrinkles. However, they haven't exploited the various ineligible personnel within said wrinkles.

For example, go back to Vereen ineligible, throw the screen to him in some sort of bunch formation/motion into bunch. The defense accounts for said bunch (especially split WIDE) and the eligible "tackle" on the short side becomes a "hot" read. We have yet to see the ineligible receiver go UP field within the five yard rule, legally able to crack a press dB/LB as a true lineman. This latter option would make me nervous if the laundry decides to fly, especially when it isn't changeable.

You could also run out of a "set" bunch, motioning Edelman back towards scrimmage, with Gronk as the "eligible tackle." There aren't many more viable plays out of this set, but many options depending on the ineligible player. The fact we continued to run this set after being up comfortable tells me the team feels there are many wrinkles to be added. Personally, I feel most of these would be personnel based, rather than the scheme/possibilities. You can argue those are one in the same, as it is far different having Vereen split ineligible instead of hooman like tonight. Make Gronk that ineligible player and you can move him around (as long as he gets set) to pick a strong/weak side, and attack it with the run. Hell, make solder the eligible guy (guy behind be tonight kept telling me Fleming would see a pass, as soon as solder was named eligible I turned around and called it), and play the same game. You'd have to give the defense a second while everyone resets, but unless they were truly ready for it there will be confusion.

With that in mind, Seattle tends to line up and play. Sure they scheme a blitz/zone mix, but they tend to line up and beat you with their defence. The extra scheming may be for moot against this defense. The question is if they run something different, and if McDummy (I say that with love at this point...I haven't seen many Vereen gut calls for a while, which makes me happy) can diagnose the weakness after throwing a dummy play against them early.

I wonder how much Sherman's role as exclusively an RCB plays into the offensive game planning. If Sherman is going to shut down 1/3 of the field, then I assume the Pats will try to exploit this by either (a) placing an inferior player (ie. Devlin, Hooman, Amendola) on Sherman's side, or (b) throwing some eligible/ineligible trickery on Sherman's side of the field in hopes of getting him to misread the offensive intent.