Something from Reiss about how they were used
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-.../patriots-2nd-quarter-review-young-wrs-absent
"4. In the end, I wonder if the Patriots regretted staying in nickel against the Chiefs instead of playing the 4-3 base against everything thrown at them. There is obviously a trickle-down effect of doing that -- it would limit coverage options -- but it was almost as if they were facing a barrage of groupings and formations and perhaps less would have been more for them (we’ll later highlight a play in the second quarter that sparked this thought). "
"4. It was mentioned in the
first-quarter review that perhaps the Patriots might have considered staying in their base defense against the Chiefs’ three-wide-receiver groupings because of their struggles defending the run in nickel. The play that sparked the thought was
Knile Davis' 48-yard run (12:25 remaining). The Chiefs were at their own 14-yard line and came out in a tightly compact 3 WR/1 TE/1 RB package, while the Patriots countered in nickel with three down linemen and
Chandler Jones in a two-point stance on the right side of the line. With effective pre-snap motion and quasi-play-action from left to right, the Patriots’ front was manipulated out of position as Davis took a handoff up the middle and
Vince Wilfork and linebacker
Jerod Mayo appeared to struggle shedding. Too easy for the Chiefs. "