If I were having lunch with BB...

[patfanken]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

Hi Ken...interesting questions as always.

1. 50 Tds, 8 Ints. Those stats alone should show the benefits of the read/option passing game. It definitely does require a smart QB and smart receivers, though. Also (and you'll hear this again on #2), I think the complexity of today's defenses really forces offenses to react to them on the fly. There's so much more film study done week to week now than back in the day that any scheme where routes were set in stone before the snap of the ball would be 'easy pickings' for a good DC.

PP the question wasn't designed as a critique of the Pats offense in particular, but as a comment on the league as a whole. Sure the increased passing numbers would seem to indicate that the read/option passing techniques are effective. I'm wondering if it would now be an advantage if you went another way (at least for a while)

BTW-it wouldn't be "easy pickings" if you ran predetermined patterns, since the defense wouldn't know which one of the 9+ patterns the receiver is going to run and in what combination. Also because the receiver would know where he's going, there SHOULD be an increase in his EXECUTION

2. Same as above - the DL and linebackers rarely stay nicely lined up for an OL to focus on them exclusively after the ball is snapped. Remember how the Pats were initially stymied by the Bretts' 'roaming defenders' thing back in 2006 when almost the entire defense was moving around at the snap of the ball? A zone scheme is the perfect remedy for that defense, versus dedicated assignments that focus on one defender. The latter leads to offensive confusion and defensive guys coming completely free after the snap.

Not really, PP the simple rules of on- over- inside (or outside) would apply to even the "roving" defenses that the Pats and Jets have run. Also being aggressive against a passive standing up defensive front would create a number of VERY 'soft spots" that an aggressive RB could take advantage of.

3. Wouldn't we all like to know. I've always assumed he just didn't think it was a big deal, and he'd just get warned to stop if it was a problem. Like you, I can't really see what benefit they could have really gotten from such lousy film.

That's pretty much what I thought, but I'd like to hear it from the source

 

[slash83]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

Id ask him how he pulled that hot blonde he's been spotted with lol

 

[patfanken]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

Excellent topic.
1. The problem with skilled perfect execution is that in the ancient pre-salary cap only the very best talent could do it consistently enough to win. In a salary cap era, you have to have systems that embrace mediocracy, especially if a starter is injured. Even moreso, the defenses today are radically more complex than those in the Unitas era. The environment is different, requiring different tactics to survive and prosper.

I have to disagree here. I think today's players have much more physical skills than "back in the day" I'm a perfect example. In the early 70's I came perilously close to making an NFL roster as a former LB turned SS, Yet someone with my physical skill set in today's environment (6'1, 205 4.8 40, and being a good but not great athlete) would be hard pressed to make my division 3 college team.

2. See item one.

3.

I believe that BB had such hubris that he thought his rationale would prevent any substantive league penalty. I believe his utter disdain and lack of respect for Goody led him to making a major mis-judgement of the consequences. Additionally, the situation got out of hand and escallated beyond his imaginings when the Jets called security. He was only expecting the typical post game complaint to the Commish. I recommend that BB read Nicolas Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan" to understand the unexpected consequences of the erroneously assumed improbable.

Good answer

 

[patfanken]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

1. "Ken, I'm just coaching football. It isn't rocket science. It doesn't involve delivering tons of high explosive with pin point accuracy at the risk of killing your own troops. It doesn't involve coordinating troop movements through enemy territory across rough terrain. It's football, played by some of the world's best athletes under almost ideal conditions. Sight adjustments are part of the game and have been in one form or another since I started breaking down film for my father."

2. "I don't make the rules. Offensive linemen are no longer allowed to use their helmets to spear defensive linemen. Defensive linemen are no longer allowed to head slap. Those are the rules and we just play within them."

3. "Do you have a question about Miami?"

Nice job Box, But I think this is the kind of general football question that BB would get off on, and he wouldn't just pass it off with Billspeak

 

[patfanken]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

After 7 years of this including a .715 regular season and .824 playoff winning percentage - not to mention a perfect regular season - I feel sorry for anyone who needs to ask the first two questions, while having no sympathy for anyone asking the last...

Classic BB responses though.

Mo, like I said to Box, I think this is the kind of question that BB would love to expound on. Again its a generalquestion, not Pats specific

 

[emoney_33]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

PP the question wasn't designed as a critique of the Pats offense in particular, but as a comment on the league as a whole. Sure the increased passing numbers would seem to indicate that the read/option passing techniques are effective. I'm wondering if it would now be an advantage if you went another way (at least for a while)

BTW-it wouldn't be "easy pickings" if you ran predetermined patterns, since the defense wouldn't know which one of the 9+ patterns the receiver is going to run and in what combination. Also because the receiver would know where he's going, there SHOULD be an increase in his EXECUTION

IMHO, it would only be a benefit for teams with QBs/WRs with less intelligence and experience. For a team that can put together an intelligent QB and WRs, read/react opens up tons more opportunities. Using the pre-determined route, you leave a LOT of plays on the field. If the receiver/QB notices coverage going into your exact route, you pretty much are done at the beginning even though you could have changed it up. For instance go back to the 3rd down from our own 1 when Cassel hit Moss along the sideline. It was a read and adjustment by Moss/Cassel, which would have resulted in nothing had Moss been forced to stick to his original route.

As long as you can install the system and get the right pieces, the read/react is the optimal offensive style. It allows you to maximize your opportunities while being less handicapped from the original route/playcall.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

Regarding #1, I believe someone posted last year about the route adjustments and that BB said that most adjustments aren't sight adjustments, but rather timing adjustments. For example, on a pass to Welker across the middle, Welker is expected to be in the vicinity of a spot on the field in a certain amount of time. If he gets bumped at the LOS, that will slow his route so to compensate, he'll have to cut the route off shorter. However, he's still running the route for the most part even if the defender is cheating towards the inside; He's not going to take it outside as a sight adjustment.

In the game this post referred to, I recall BB said there were only 4 sight adjustment routes run the whole game.

I should probably dig up this post :bricks:

Regards,
Chris

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

I have to disagree here. I think today's players have much more physical skills than "back in the day" I'm a perfect example. In the early 70's I came perilously close to making an NFL roster as a former LB turned SS, Yet someone with my physical skill set in today's environment (6'1, 205 4.8 40, and being a good but not great athlete) would be hard pressed to make my division 3 college team.

I wasn't saying that. I was trying to say that in the salary cap era it's hard to draft and KEEP the skilled players that relative to the opposition are superior as were the Colts of that era..

 

[patfanken]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

Regarding #1, I believe someone posted last year about the route adjustments and that BB said that most adjustments aren't sight adjustments, but rather timing adjustments. For example, on a pass to Welker across the middle, Welker is expected to be in the vicinity of a spot on the field in a certain amount of time. If he gets bumped at the LOS, that will slow his route so to compensate, he'll have to cut the route off shorter. However, he's still running the route for the most part even if the defender is cheating towards the inside; He's not going to take it outside as a sight adjustment.

In the game this post referred to, I recall BB said there were only 4 sight adjustment routes run the whole game.

I should probably dig up this post :bricks:

Regards,
Chris

Yeah, if you can dig it up, I'd be very interested. Thanks

 

[DaBruinz]

... here a few of the questions I'd be sure to ask him.

1. Bill, I'd think we'd all agree that eliminating the possibility of TO's is a huge part of game preparation. In that vein, isn't time to consider that the multiple option read passing game that has swept through the league might be part of the problem. Even though it looks great on the board when you draw it up, the fact is that you put your team where you are always in danger where only ONE of the 4 or 5 guys who are running patterns or throwing the ball makes a miss read, and a play can blow up on you really badly.

Wouldn't you get better execution and a much less risky play if the receivers ran patterns called in the huddle. That way you eliminate any hesitation by the receivers. The QB would know EXACTLY where every receiver is going to be at any time. So wouldn't the improved EXECUTION would make up for any loss you'd have in creating separation by running option/read patterns?

Also wouldn't going back to that kind of system perhaps saved a guy like Chad Jackson, and allowed him to thrive, as opposed to crash and burn like he did. Back in the day Everyone knew that Unitas was going to throw that 12 yd out to Ray Berry, but the execution was SOOOO precise that it was completed anyway.

2. In the same vein that everything is cyclical in football (the shot gun that is the rage now is merely a version of the single wing that was run in the 30's and the spread formation has been used since the late 40's. So here is my next queston. I still can't get over how offensive line blocking has evolved into the zone blocking techniques we see today. Back in the day, (when the rules were a lot different and a lot HARDER for OLmen) the OLman AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKED his assigned man. He put his helmet into the man's chest and drove him back or at an angle. Today's technque we USE TO deride as "titty blocking". Standing straight up and litterally hand fighting the defensive lineman.

Once again this is a trade off between crisp execution and the read/option knd of thing that looks great when you draw it up, but requires the RB and blockers all to read the same thing. When it works it looks great, when it doesn't it nets negative yardage. AGAIN I ask, Bill, wouldn't you be better off in a system where everyone knows his assignment at the snap of the ball, and the runner knows WHERE the hole is going to be and is limited to PERHAPS a single option (ie 0ne hole over, depending on what he sees)

3. The first couple of questions I'd be asking him kind of coach to coach. But I would finally have to ask him the question WTF was he thinking when he sent that guy to film the Jets defensive signal AFTER getting the league memo NOT to do that anymore. Was he surprised at how strong the response was? What was the real purpose of the filming anyway, they certainly didn't get any advantage on the day they filmed?

In other words I'd ask him the same questions everyone else would...and more, but I have to run so I'll stop with these 3

PFK -
You do realize that the two items you mention in the 3rd question didn't happen in the same season, right? It was brought out that the league memo came out prior to the 2006 season, not the 2007 season as was mis-reported numerous times by that crappy 4 letter network.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

I want to talk to BB about the draft.

Why is this the first year that they drafted a LB high when they have won SB with all first day picks at LB. Teddy B, Vrabel, Ted Johnson and Willie Mac. all first day picks. Why Monty B, Chad Brown, Alexander.

First off, BB did not have a hand in drafting Bruschi, Vrabel or Johnson. BB wasn't with the team.

As for Beisel, he was brought in to learn from Bruschi and Johnson. The problem was that Bruschi had the stroke and Johnson abruptly retired when he couldn't pass a physical prior to camp. So, a guy who wasn't supposed to start ended up being thrust into that situation.

Chad Brown was brought in for his versatility. Brown was someone they pictured could end up moving inside to help out with the rotation there, again, they didn't expect him to start.

Alexander was a UDFA whom they brought in on the advice of Nick Saban. Alexander has been a very good special teamer and they probably have him slated to take over Izzo's spot at some point.

Why draft M. Hill in the 2nd round when they had used a 1st round pick on Vince the round earlier and Vince makes it 3 #1's on D-linemen. Why not use the pick in another area.

My guess is that Belichick saw Hill as a low risk/high reward type player. When he was drafted, Hill was very raw, but the Patriots also had the potential of Seymour leaving in a year. So, they figured that the year would give Hill the time to adapt to the system, it would give the Patriots depth at DE and potentially groom a replacement for Seymour in case he didn't re-new his contract. As it turned out, Seymour did re-new his contract and Hill ended up behind 3 guys who are all starting caliber DEs.

Why so many TE's and O-linemen drafted instead of D players.

Its a matter of the value of the players available at the time they pick. Also, I suggest you do some more homework here. During Belichicks tenure, (excluding 2000 since he had to use Grier's draft info), the Patriots have had 67 draft picks. 33 of those have been defensive players. 2 have been kickers. 4 have been quarter backs, 6 have been WRs, and 4 have been RBs. There have been 8 TEs and 10 O-linemen drafted.

So 18 players who cover 6-7 positions on the field to 33 players who cover 11 positions on the field. The ratio looks about the same. 3 to 1.

Why have they tanked the 2nd round of the draft.

There are ton questions I would have about the draft.

I believe that Belichick would tell you that they haven't "tanked" the 2nd round. To "tank" the 2nd round would imply that they have intentionally gone out of their way to draft poorly. And I think that Belichick would walk away from you at that point. I think that you need to be reminded that Matt Light, Deion Branch, and Eugene Wilson all came out of the 2nd round. Belichick would probably also tell you that he didn't feel that Marquis Hill was a bust either because Hill was behind so many talented players and that Hill provided them with a skilled player for the scout team.

The players whom they've had trouble with in the 2nd round were Bethel Johnson and Chad Jackson. Two wide receivers. Both of whom had significant injury issues when they got to the NFL.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

BB will never say direct bad things about a guy but M Hill was a bust as a player. I zeroed in on him the few times he was on the field. He was absolutely pathetic against the run and would get stood up and danced around by opposing RTs. Yes, he was behind really good players and even if he was developing he still would not have started but in his limited PT he was ineffective.

BB took a chance on him as a to be developed talent as described but that chance flopped. Another Day One pick that was a big zero.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

not sure exactly what you mean by that.

Per your comments, you asked questions that elicited detailed responses and gave listeners some insight into BB's thinking...compare that to the daily questions eliciting monosyllablic answers asked by the guys doing this for a living - it's clear you should have been flunked out of journalism school for daring to include creative thinking in your interview effort.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

Yeah, if you can dig it up, I'd be very interested. Thanks

Found it...sort of:

3 or 4 sight adjustments in 30 pass plays is high

It's an old post from October 2006. The source is supposedly BB himself from a podcast provided in a followup post:

Source: WEEI podcast

Note that I did not listen to the podcast itself (or check if the link still works), so I'm going solely by the post in the first link. Also note that I have no idea if this info still applies to 2007 and/or 2008. Maybe they do run more sight adjustment routes.

Regards,
Chris

 

[LiveShot]

... here a few of the questions I'd be sure to ask him.

1. Bill, I'd think we'd all agree that eliminating the possibility of TO's is a huge part of game preparation. In that vein, isn't time to consider that the multiple option read passing game that has swept through the league might be part of the problem. Even though it looks great on the board when you draw it up, the fact is that you put your team where you are always in danger where only ONE of the 4 or 5 guys who are running patterns or throwing the ball makes a miss read, and a play can blow up on you really badly.

Wouldn't you get better execution and a much less risky play if the receivers ran patterns called in the huddle. That way you eliminate any hesitation by the receivers. The QB would know EXACTLY where every receiver is going to be at any time. So wouldn't the improved EXECUTION would make up for any loss you'd have in creating separation by running option/read patterns?

Also wouldn't going back to that kind of system perhaps saved a guy like Chad Jackson, and allowed him to thrive, as opposed to crash and burn like he did. Back in the day Everyone knew that Unitas was going to throw that 12 yd out to Ray Berry, but the execution was SOOOO precise that it was completed anyway.

2. In the same vein that everything is cyclical in football (the shot gun that is the rage now is merely a version of the single wing that was run in the 30's and the spread formation has been used since the late 40's. So here is my next queston. I still can't get over how offensive line blocking has evolved into the zone blocking techniques we see today. Back in the day, (when the rules were a lot different and a lot HARDER for OLmen) the OLman AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKED his assigned man. He put his helmet into the man's chest and drove him back or at an angle. Today's technque we USE TO deride as "titty blocking". Standing straight up and litterally hand fighting the defensive lineman.

Once again this is a trade off between crisp execution and the read/option knd of thing that looks great when you draw it up, but requires the RB and blockers all to read the same thing. When it works it looks great, when it doesn't it nets negative yardage. AGAIN I ask, Bill, wouldn't you be better off in a system where everyone knows his assignment at the snap of the ball, and the runner knows WHERE the hole is going to be and is limited to PERHAPS a single option (ie 0ne hole over, depending on what he sees)

3. The first couple of questions I'd be asking him kind of coach to coach. But I would finally have to ask him the question WTF was he thinking when he sent that guy to film the Jets defensive signal AFTER getting the league memo NOT to do that anymore. Was he surprised at how strong the response was? What was the real purpose of the filming anyway, they certainly didn't get any advantage on the day they filmed?

In other words I'd ask him the same questions everyone else would...and more, but I have to run so I'll stop with these 3

As long as he picked up the check I could care what he said. I'd just sit, listen and learn.

 

[Richter]

Re: if I were having lunch with BB....

First off, BB did not have a hand in drafting Bruschi, Vrabel or Johnson. BB wasn't with the team.

Actually, Belichick was with the team at the time, as assistant head coach. He was fired in '95 when Modell sabotaged him and the team by moving them to Baltimore. I don't know if he actually had any hand in drafting Bruschi, but he would have helped coach him, along with Al Groh. Ted Johnson was drafted earlier, I think a year earlier, so BB wasn't there for that. Vrabel was obviously not even drafted by the Patriots, he was drafted by the Steelers some time after 1996, but Belichick and Pioli did sign him, in their first year here.