I am still unclear why the use of the shotgun formation is a bad thing. Maybe you can dismiss the opinion of
Brian Billick, the offensive coordinator for the Vikings when it broke all offensive records, or of
other teams showing success running the shotgun and I-formations, but dismissing the formation out of hand does not support your theory.
The problem is, your argument needs to start with some basis in fact, specifically hard data that some other formation would make the team less predictable and therefore more successful in the red zone or outside the red zone as in your other thread where you also raise the shotgun formation as an issue in the OP. That data would have to account for the Patriots' specific personnel groupings and skill set. Do not offer something like the fact that the red zone offense is lacking as it no more supports that theory than would a lack of execution by the players out of the formation or any formation for that matter. Eliminate drops, missed blocks, bad routes and bad throws as an explanation and your argument might have some force. Otherwise, you sound like a fan who perceives a football IQ of such magnitude that he sees what the entire Patriots staff is missing after days and weeks of film review.
An additional question might be if lining up under center is such a great solution, what happens when Brady doesn't have the extra second to address any blocking deficiencies? The offensive line is not lights out, and oftentimes the reduced sack count is attributable to Brady's ability to sense pressure and unload. Take a second off his response time, as you must lining up under center, and that problem becomes major. The hope then may well be that Hoyer is more durable against bigger hits while back-pedalling.