Why don't the Patriots run no-huddle far more often?

[Snarf]

It's clear to anyone who has watched the Pats for the past few years that Brady is quite comfortable in no huddle. He is sharper, he gets in a rythm. It simply works.

Why then don't the Pats use no-huddle so much more often? Why can't they play most of their downs in no-huddle?

The Colts do it to great success on offense. Brady clearly has the ability to do so...

thoughts?

 

[AzPatsFan]

The Colts DO NOT run the empty backfield, or the five wide hurry up. They usually have a RB in and two WRs with a TE, quirte conventional, as the basis for their passing game.

Especially since Stokely has been injured most of the year and they only have 30 year old Wayne and 36 year old Marvin Harrsion to go with Clark or Utecht at TE.

I don't think you can run an empty backfield for more than spurts, when the D is already somewhat tired. Its a gimmick offense, that works sometimes. Brady would likely end up in the hospital, on IR, if the Pats over did it. All it takes is one missed block.

Some of the benefit is not allowing the Defense to get its players into the game when they go in to the formation. They might run three or four plays before the defense can get its proper players onto the field, and they take advantage of that.

 

[Patriots4Ever]

It's clear to anyone who has watched the Pats for the past few years that Brady is quite comfortable in no huddle. He is sharper, he gets in a rythm. It simply works.

Why then don't the Pats use no-huddle so much more often? Why can't they play most of their downs in no-huddle?

The Colts do it to great success on offense. Brady clearly has the ability to do so...

thoughts?

Alot of it I think may have to do with player personnel.The Pats are a team as we have seen many times.Use certain players for certain times of the game.I think even running "No Huddle" for just a brief few plays in a row may be a negative.Brady does run it very well.I wouldnt be opposed to seeing it happen,just for shoots and grins.But I also realize that Josh Mcdaniels is CERTAINLY not a Charlie Weiss type OC.The two cannot even be compared.I respect what Mcdaniels is TRYING to do with the offense.But I truly hope we do not see him back on the sidelines.Just my 2 cents.

 

[Patriots4Ever]

Why should McDaniels try something that might work? That's not his way.

I know...God Forbid we stick with something that may work.He better learn soon or we wont be going too far through the playoffs...

 

[AzPatsFan]

This offense is better than any other than the 2004 Super Bowl club. But even then its a whole hell of a lot faster and younger too, and unlike them hasn't come anywhere near its peak yet. no starter other than Dillon has even reached thirty yet.

It scores TDs much better and more reliably than the 2004 club, and hasn't had the benefit of the several returns for scores that the 2004 D gave to the 2004 O. This O doesn't end many drives with FGA, it scores TDs. The 2004 club had AV score over a 100 points on FGs, this club won't give Casper that many opportunities. He'll get PAT attempts instead.

Aas for more no huddle, do you really want to put Brady on IR? Sometimes he takes vicious hits using that formation...

 

[AzPatsFan]

Baloney !!

As a sincere friend, NEM catch yourself!

You are reverting to Zampeseism and Weisism at your worst!

McDaniels has a been a good OC. Even with a brand new receiving corps, and a rookie RT, and a rookie RB, and rookie kicker, the O still has been superb and a top ten scoring machine.

This team will project to score around 375 points or 23.4 ppg, in the regular season. The 2004 club scored 437 but 42 of them were from the D on returns, so only 395 or 24.7 ppg were due to the Offense. So it really scored 395 points with over a hundred coming on aborted drives cuminating in FGs from Adam.

This club projects to score around 375 and has zero points so far contributed by the D from returns. But it does have to play Houston, Tennessee, and Miami still. It may well outscore its average to date against these poor clubs. This team has not been giving Casper FGA due aborted drive opportunities; it scores TDs and is near the best in scoring TDs when it gets to the red zone (3rd). it is near the league leaders in getting to the red zone too (2nd).

This O has a deep, fine O line; fine TEs, two franchise RBs, a league leading third down back and of course Tom Brady. It merely suffers from unfamilairity by its 5 deep, talented and adjusting WRs. The best is still to come.

 

[unoriginal]

It's clear to anyone who has watched the Pats for the past few years that Brady is quite comfortable in no huddle. He is sharper, he gets in a rythm. It simply works.

Why then don't the Pats use no-huddle so much more often? Why can't they play most of their downs in no-huddle?

The Colts do it to great success on offense. Brady clearly has the ability to do so...

thoughts?

Because this team believes in the wisdom of making opponents prepare for the entire offensive playbook, not just the freaking K-Gun section.

Running the empty backfield play after play would be a great way to tire out that offensive line of ours. Remember what we did to Detroit last week when they went to that well one too many times?

 

[Brownfan80]

For whatever reason people refuse to acknowledge that this coaching staff knows what has worked and hasn't worked for this developing offense based on the practice reps. If something they've tried in practice hasn't been run well and hasn't had success in trial runs, then WHY would they do it in the game?

I had the feeling that some of the parts of our offense that have gone unused were due to the offense not being gelled yet. I had a feeling that the no-huddle was one of those things, as it requires alot of unspoken adjustment and familiarity between the QB and his recievers due to timing purposes. The no huddle is a great way to speed up a 3 and out if your offense isn't clicking.

Bill's quote from the Patriots.com Newsblitz backs up this theory:

"It's been tough all year," Belichick said of the hurry-up. "It's good to see it come alive here a few times recently. It was a huge factor in the game."

Does that sound like a coach that's upset that his OC hasn't been running the no huddle more? No, it doesn't. That sounds like a coach that knows that his offense wasn't running the no huddle well until really recently and is glad to see the development.

People need to back off of the OC for not calling certain things. He can't call it unless the players show in practice that they can run it like an NFL offense. Our offense would look a hell of alot worse right now if McDaniels had been calling plays that hadn't worked in practice.

You can't call your whole playbook in a game until your offense can execute your whole playbook in practice. That's reality, guys.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

DeOssie (or was it Freddy) said that the hurry up (as opposed to no huddle) is great for a change of pace but if you run it too long the O-line gets wiped out and the fatigue can linger even after a return to huddling up.

 

[Rob0729]

Again, this is the same arguement people were having in 2002 and 2003. We were really successful with the no-huddle spread formation and everyone was yelling to do it full-time. As Belichick said then, we can't.

Between the fatigue and the players still not really being up to speed with the entire offense, this is a bad idea to run more than sparingly. Brady has to call the plays at the line of scrimmage hence players need to learn a whole new set of terminology for the plays that some of them still haven't mastered or we need to limited to a handful of plays. Brady can't actually call the actual play at the line because many other teams use the same terminology as we do.

I wouldn't mind seeing it a little more during the season, but we cannot do it more than a series or two for a game unless we are in desperation mode.

Manning and the Colts can do it because most of the offensive personnel have been together for years. Also, I don't think their offense is nearly as complicated as terms of all the presnap adjustments.