Put this in the category of "we have the highest scoring offense in history but..." Looking across the league to two offenses that I like from a scheme perspective are Dallas and Indy. Their formations create pressure, double the wideouts and the TE will gash you, play nickel and they will run the ball, give Safety help to the TE and one of the WRs will have single coverage. Reason IMO the offense has been a little inconsistent the past couple weeks: Despite the production from the Pats it just always seems to come back to Brady throwing the ball deep to Moss. More of athletic match ups than scheme. No TEs, Watson is the only pass receiving TE on the roster and he is inconsistent and/or injured. Sure he can run a 4.4 forty but in this offense I would rather have a blocker who can catch the 5 yard out. Watching Whitten it is amazing how simple his routes are, a) run 5 yards and stop, shield LB from the ball, or b) fake the stop and run a down field pattern into the seam. Watson could be a real difference maker in the playoffs. Funny, last year it was all about the 2 TE sets, no we have the no TE sets. Too much reliance on the pass, despite the big game yesterday by Maroney the Pats should have been able to pound both the Jets and Dolphins into submission. They are among the worst teams in the league in run defense averaging almost 150 rushing YPG. Both teams used 'light' boxes to counter the Pats 3 WR sets yet the running attack was still inconsistent. Brady is hell bent on getting the records, and who could blame him but it is at the expense of other offensive components. I was less than impressed with many of the runs that were against 5 and 6 man boxes. Last year against the Jets the Pats ran the ball with Faulk 4 or 5 times in a row because the Jets were caught with a nickel defense, this year there has been almost no attempt to grind out yards on the ground against these light formations. All minor nits, the team is heading into the playoffs healthy and with home field advantage. Go Pats, Merry Christmas to all.