LaFell eligible to come off PUP now (EDIT: BB says he is likely to start practicing this week)

[PatsFan2]

PUPies have three weeks to start practicing and then three weeks to be activated from there. So NE can defer a decision on them for another six weeks.

So that starting with this week??

 

[Kontradiction]

The Patriots absolutely run the Erhardt-Perkins offense:

2015 New England Patriots Statistics & Players | Pro-Football-Reference.com

So do the Bears, Steelers, Jets, Chargers, Texans and Panthers.

Offensive philosophy (American football) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some have different focuses (Carolina has a read-option element for example), but the core offense is essentially the same.

Not only Wikipedia...

What Makes The Patriots Offense So Difficult For Wide Receivers?

It's a difficult offense to learn, but it's not enough to simply study the offense. One of the defining characteristics of the Erhardt-Perkins offense — the system the Patriots run — is that receivers and quarterbacks must see the defense through the same set of eyes. The receivers run their routes using sight adjustments, in which they are responding to what the defense is doing.

-From September 2014

Why the Patriots offense is so dominant - The Boston Globe

It’s never easy putting labels on Belichick’s schemes — he uses elements from several different offensive and defensive philosophies — but if anything, the Patriots run the Erhardt-Perkins offense, named after former Patriots assistant coaches Ron Erhardt and Ray Perkins

-From September 2013

Grantland: Speaking the Patriots' language - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN

In a heavy-on-the-X's-and-O's piece now posted on Grantland.com, Chris Brown of SmartFootball.com explains how the Patriots run their offense. Specifically, he writes of how the Erhardt-Perkins system of play-calling has driven the success of the Patriots' offense even as personnel and schemes have changed. Here's an excerpt:
New England’s offense is a member of the NFL’s third offensive family, the Erhardt-Perkins system. The offense was named after the two men, Ron Erhardt and Ray Perkins, who developed it while working for the Patriots under head coach Chuck Fairbanks in the 1970s. According to Perkins, it was assembled in the same way most such systems are developed. “I don’t look at it as us inventing it,” he explained. “I look at it as a bunch of coaches sitting in rooms late at night organizing and getting things together to help players be successful.”
The backbone of the Erhardt-Perkins system is that plays — pass plays in particular — are not organized by a route tree or by calling a single receiver’s route, but by what coaches refer to as “concepts.” Each play has a name, and that name conjures up an image for both the quarterback and the other players on offense. And, most importantly, the concept can be called from almost any formation or set. Who does what changes, but the theory and tactics driving the play do not. “In essence, you’re running the same play,” said Perkins. “You’re just giving them some window-dressing to make it look different."

-From January 2013

And here's the kicker... McCoy has a good amount of past experience with the Erhardt-Perkins:

A Sneak Peek at the New Chargers Offense

So, DB, you really don't have to take my word for you it if you don't want to. But that's what the Pats run and I have the info to back me up. There's nothing wrong with being wrong but, if you're going to be condescending about it, expect to get your face rubbed in it by your opponent when that happens. Night night.

 

[Oswlek]

So that starting with this week??

Yes. The Colt game was week zero.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You need to be careful what you're talking about. NE is not running the Earhardt-Perkins offense (which was actually pretty conservative). They are using the Earhardt-Perkins terminology and its play-calling/naming concepts.

From the Chris Brown piece at Grantland:

With the help of his assistants, Belichick’s primary innovation was to go from an Erhardt-Perkins offense to an Erhardt-Perkins system, built on its method of organizing and naming plays. The offense itself would be philosophically neutral. This is how, using the terminology and framework of what was once thought to be the league’s least progressive offensive system, Brady and Belichick built one of the most consistently dynamic and explosive offenses in NFL history.

 

[Kontradiction]

You need to be careful what you're talking about. NE is not running the Earhardt-Perkins offense (which was actually pretty conservative). They are using the Earhardt-Perkins terminology and its play-calling/naming concepts.

From the Chris Brown piece at Grantland:

As I said, it's a modified version of it, but it's still the Erhardt-Perkins at it's core. And it's not just the play calling and naming concepts of the offense either. From what I've read, the personnel packages and route trees a very much built off of it.

 

[Galeb]

As I said, it's a modified version of it, but it's still the Erhardt-Perkins at it's core. And it's not just the play calling and naming concepts of the offense either. From what I've read, the personnel packages and route trees a very much built off of it.

You might wanna go back and reread about it. Everything I've read about the Pats use of it is just terminology.

 

[Kontradiction]

You might wanna go back and reread about it. Everything I've read about the Pats use of it is just terminology.

I have read it. There's a reason QM left off the last sentence of that excerpt...

With the help of his assistants, Belichick’s primary innovation was to go from an Erhardt-Perkins offense to an Erhardt-Perkins system, built on its method of organizing and naming plays. The offense itself would be philosophically neutral. This is how, using the terminology and framework of what was once thought to be the league’s least progressive offensive system, Brady and Belichick built one of the most consistently dynamic and explosive offenses in NFL history. From conservative to spread to blistering no-huddle, the tactics — and players — have changed while the underlying approach has not.

What they also said about concepts was extremely important since you can literally see them at work every time there is a pass play. Once again, it's not just terminology.

 

[Tuck]

Dropson better get the resume polished up. Maybe he'll embellish a bit by counting all his bobbles as 2 receptions.

Martin's last 2 catches are better than any catch Dobson has made since he's been here.

Agree. I'll take Martin over Dobson at this point.

 

[Galeb]

I have read it. There's a reason QM left off the last sentence of that excerpt...



What they also said about concepts was extremely important since you can literally see them at work every time there is a pass play. Once again, it's not just terminology.

I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of that line. The article says the offense itself is philosophically neutral, and the bolded part simply states that the offense is very adaptive while the "approach" itself doesn't change. In other words, the simple, adaptable nature of the terminology is the "framework" and "approach" to which the bolded part is referring.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of that line. The article says the offense itself is philosophically neutral, and the bolded part simply states that the offense is very adaptive while the "approach" itself doesn't change. In other words, the simple, adaptable nature of the terminology is the "framework" and "approach" to which the bolded part is referring.

Philosophically neural can be used to describe almost every system, offensively or defensively, in the NFL. As teams adapt to what their opponent does, so does their opponent's systems. Simply put, there isn't going to be a team in the NFL that runs the Erhardt-Perkins in it's purest form. What you're going to find are modified versions, such as the one the Patriots use. That still doesn't change what the articles highlighted about the route concepts. Many of the route concepts that the Patriots use come directly from that offense. So while they run a modified version of it, the offense is still the Erhardt-Perkins at it's core.

 

[Galeb]

Philosophically neural can be used to describe almost every system, offensively or defensively, in the NFL. As teams adapt to what their opponent does, so does their opponent's systems. Simply put, there isn't going to be a team in the NFL that runs the Erhardt-Perkins in it's purest form. What you're going to find are modified versions, such as the one the Patriots use. That still doesn't change what the articles highlighted about the route concepts. Many of the route concepts that the Patriots use come directly from that offense. So while they run a modified version of it, the offense is still the Erhardt-Perkins at it's core.

It's a good article, and I've read it before. Even earlier in the quote you posted it explicitly states that BB and his staff went from a Perkins offense to a Perkins system.

It is not the route trees themselves that are from the Ernhardt-Perkins system, rather it is the way that the naming of the plays relays routes etc. This quote is from the same article.

"The backbone of the Erhardt-Perkins system is that plays — pass plays in particular — are not organized by a route tree or by calling a single receiver’s route, but by what coaches refer to as “concepts.” Each play has a name, and that name conjures up an image for both the quarterback and the other players on offense. And, most importantly, the concept can be called from almost any formation or set. Who does what changes, but the theory and tactics driving the play do not. “In essence, you’re running the same play,” said Perkins. “You’re just giving them some window-dressing to make it look different.”

The biggest advantage of the concept-based system is that it operates from the perspective of the most critical player on offense: the quarterback. In other systems, even if the underlying principles are the exact same, the play and its name might be very different. Rather than juggling all this information in real time, an Erhardt-Perkins quarterback only has to read a given arrangement of receivers. “You can cut down on the plays and get different looks from your formations and who’s in them. It’s easier for the players to learn. It’s easier for the quarterback to learn,” former Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis said back in 2000. “You get different looks without changing his reads. You don’t need an open-ended number of plays.”

This simplicity is one of the reasons coaches around the league have been gravitating to the Erhardt-Perkins approach. “Concepts benefit you because you can plug different guys into different formations, into different personnel groups, and if they understand the concept, it gives you more flexibility,” Atlanta Falcons offensive coordinator Dirk Koetter recently explained. “The number system restricts you because it doesn’t allow you to cover all the combinations you want to use, so you have to get into so many tags that eventually you’re calling everybody’s route. In route concepts, one word can describe anything. In my experience, most kids can visualize one-word concepts better.”"

 

[PP2]

You need to be careful what you're talking about. NE is not running the Earhardt-Perkins offense (which was actually pretty conservative). They are using the Earhardt-Perkins terminology and its play-calling/naming concepts.

From the Chris Brown piece at Grantland:

While I think that article is outstanding, I think that Brown's sentence that "Belichick’s primary innovation was to go from an Erhardt-Perkins offense to an Erhardt-Perkins system" is poorly worded, and it's not a surprise that it's confused so many people. In the words of Perkins: “I don’t look at it as us inventing it,” he explained. “I look at it as a bunch of coaches sitting in rooms late at night organizing and getting things together to help players be successful.”

When you say that the EP offense was "actually pretty conservative" you were only describing the team using it, and not the system itself. The system itself is (as has been said) philosophically neutral.

Again the EP is NOT an offense., it's just a new way of organizing routes and options (which is where you get the word "system"). In other words, they threw out the tree method of organizing routes/options, and went with an conceptual way of organizing routes/options. That is, no matter your alignment or position, there is still only an outside, middle, and inside receiver, and your calls are primarily dictated by those concepts and thus where you line up relative to the others, and not your alignment or position.

So the matter of who can fit in this system, is not necessarily someone with high IQ (although a high football IQ helps), but someone who understands concepts. Also this someone needs to be visually and conceptually ambidextrous because those formations (and concepts) sometimes get flipped, and furthermore this someone needs to be able to read what the defense gives to you because that is sometimes what shapes the outcome of the play after the stem and basic route. So if you ran the double slant concept and then saw or felt zone, you nested.

Now what BB did to it was to evolve and build on this system, such as developing the ability to call a play with just one word ("Alabama" comes to mind) and this is a modification of terminology, but the underlying philosophy is the same, e.g., "Alabama" still conjures a concept in the minds of the players, and that is the keeping to the philosophy behind the EP system.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

 

[Joey007]

Man I hope High gets the nod.

 

[Mack Herron]

Man I hope High gets the nod.

One might think this is just the kind of situation they got Bostic for: Hightower ailing against a running team.