Lightning Offense when ball is at the 1

[brdmaverick]

With work being busy I haven't been on the boards as frequently as years past, so my apologies if this has already been talked about at length......but I wanted to see how the board felt about the Patriots going into their lightning quick offense when the previous play takes the ball to the opponents one yard line.

I've never played or coached football so I'm sure some here have a much better grasp of the x's and o's or strategy behind it, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking here are the reasons why we do it......

1.) Pedal to the Metal - after making a big positive play to get the ball to the 1 yard, I figured the Pats want to strike again before the defense can process what just happened and are not mentally prepared to defend the next snap

2.) Personnel - there are times when the prior play was run with a "small" package with 4 or 5 wide receivers. This will have the defense in a nickel or dime package. The difference for us, however, is that our 4 or 5 wide set includes Gronk and Vereen playing the role of wide receiver. Those two are also integral to a "big" package as well so we can switch from small to big without actually changing personnel. By running at a lightning quick pace, the defense can't substitute to their "big" defensive package.

Please educate me if there is more to it as I'd be interested to learn. If my understanding is correct, I do see the strategic benefits and oftentimes do see the positive results, so I guess it's a matter of taking some of the small negative side affects as well.

The one negative side affect is that the Pats don't give themselves a chance to challenge the previous play because they don't even give themselves the opportunity to look at a replay. I'm sure many consider that a small point because if you can't score from first and goal at the one then maybe you didn't deserve to score, but I do find myself yelling at the TV for some challenges. I'm not sure about you guys.

A few examples....
Gronk successfully did drag multiple Broncos into the end zone when they ruled him down at the one.

I think Gronk did score on one of the opening drives against the Steelers (that one is less clear though).

I also thought Amendola's catch and roll against the Bengals was worth another look. It was close.

I'm sure there are some more examples I am not recollecting at the moment, and yes, I realize they did end up scoring on the Broncos situation I brought up. Maybe it is a case of the positives far outweighing the negatives so you have to be willing to take the negatives.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Also, do you think there is something the opponents can do to adjust? I mean, it's no secret by now, but I still think it may be unstoppable due to Gronk and Vereen's flexibility. I don't think it's a matter of coaching from a defensive perspective but instead a matter of personnel. You either have players on defense that are flexible (can play in a big or small package) or you don't.

 

[Galeb]

I'm no expert either, but I would suggest that with everyone packed so tight at the goal line, if someone is in the wrong place and or/not ready, they are more likely to negatively impact or get in the way of defenders who are ready.

 

[captain stone]

I sure wish they had run a Lightning Offense against the Bungles from the 1,
or against the Panthers from inside the 10.

 

[BlueThunder]

I sure wish they had run a Lightning Offense against the Bungles from the 1,
or against the Panthers from inside the 10.

I sure wish Ridley hadn't fumbled earlier.......a FG would have beat Carolina.

 

[Sicilian]

I think overall the positives outweigh the negatives, but there are times I'd like to see them slow it down. Oddly enough, I want this for the same reason the lightning seems to work: Personnel. Just as the defense would prefer to have its bigger bodies on the field, the Pats best goal line running formation includes more than just Gronk. You'd want Develin, Blount/Ridley, Gronk, Hooman/Mulligan and a wide receiver. Chances are if you are trying to catch the defense in a smaller package, you're also fielding subpar personnel for the situation.

 

[Gumby]

I think that if you have a HIGHLY DISCIPLINED TEAM that does SITUATION BASED practices for those VERY SITUATIONS; ....

the odds are that YOUR EXECUTION is >>> OPPONENTS EXECUTION in such a situation.

The Patriots are probably the leagues most disciplined-organized team (on the offensive side of the ball). They are certainly one of the teams that either does MORE situation based drills or else BB is much better at selecting THE RIGHT SITUATIONS TO PRACTICE in the week prior. Every game it seems like players always say, "yeah we did it that way because we just practiced it that way on ___day."

So they are using this as an ON AVERAGE if our plays would have a 50% success rate; that will go up to 60-75% if we do it quick versus the LESSER OPPONENTS.

I think they should be more judicious sometimes about using it versus some of the better organized-disciplined Defensive teams.

 

[captain stone]

If the Pats awful defense has just given up another long possession, then the offense
should use the slow-down; if the defense has forced a rare 3 & out, then the offense
should use the hurry-up.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The two that OP highlighted pretty much sum it up. First and foremost, you don't want to let the defense put its goal line personnel on the field. Secondarily, it's easier to get that last yard if the defense hasn't had a chance to dig in.

 

[ewg_gestalt]

The one negative side affect is that the Pats don't give themselves a chance to challenge the previous play because they don't even give themselves the opportunity to look at a replay. I'm sure many consider that a small point because if you can't score from first and goal at the one then maybe you didn't deserve to score, but I do find myself yelling at the TV for some challenges. I'm not sure about you guys.

There were some stories about this just this past week, in reference to the non-challenges. I believe this is likely intentional on Belichick's part, because he doesn't like to challenge something when he doesn't think it's going to be of much benefit versus the use of the challenge—especially since the number of challenges per game is so limited, and the cost of an overruled challenge is the loss of a timeout.

In the Vereen example in particular, by making it to the one-yard line, Vereen got the team a fresh set of downs. Therefore, the use of a challenge really didn't seem worth it, when there were still four more chances to get it into the end zone. If the result of the play had led to a 4th and goal situation, I think the ruling would almost certainly have been challenged.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If the Pats awful defense has just given up another long possession, then the offense
should use the slow-down; if the defense has forced a rare 3 & out, then the offense
should use the hurry-up.

Congratulations, this is the post that convinced me to put you on ignore after 6+ years of scrolling past and occasionally reading your nonsense. You're a rare combination of "relentlessly negative" and "has no insight to contribute". Plenty of people are one or the other, but to have both in such extremes is a real rarity.

 

[BradyBranch39]

The two that OP highlighted pretty much sum it up. First and foremost, you don't want to let the defense put its goal line personnel on the field. Secondarily, it's easier to get that last yard if the defense hasn't had a chance to dig in.

Yeah, I don't see much reason to look into it any further than this:

2.) Personnel - there are times when the prior play was run with a "small" package with 4 or 5 wide receivers. This will have the defense in a nickel or dime package. The difference for us, however, is that our 4 or 5 wide set includes Gronk and Vereen playing the role of wide receiver. Those two are also integral to a "big" package as well so we can switch from small to big without actually changing personnel. By running at a lightning quick pace, the defense can't substitute to their "big" defensive package.

It seems like when we do score using the "Lightning Offense when ball is at the 1" it's a TD of the walk-in variety. So maybe it reduces injuries a little, too?

 

[brdmaverick]

Yeah, I don't see much reason to look into it any further than this:

It seems like when we do score using the "Lightning Offense when ball is at the 1" it's a TD of the walk-in variety. So maybe it reduces injuries a little, too?

That is a good point that is hard to overlook, the fact that some of the times when it has worked it has been extremely easy.

 

[BradyBranch39]

That is a good point that is hard to overlook, the fact that some of the times when it has worked it has been extremely easy.

Maybe some defenses are better equipped to deal with it than others... and it's impossible to know which ones are until you try it?

 

[Nikolai]

At the 1, a quick QB sneak might just do the trick. Outside the 1-yard line, obviously, you have to entertain other options, but the Pats have had some success doing this.