Content Post Idle thoughts

[SlowGettingUp]

If Matt Patricia was good enough to rise from and OL assistant to a HC in the NFL over 20 odd years, he has proven he is a teacher AND a leader. I am confident he can get across the concepts that Bill wants to see happening on the OL.

I absolutely agree he is a very smart and experienced coach. But my contrast is to someone like Scar - I think you would agree that three decades coaching the OL gives him a depth of specialized experience that Matt can't possibly match.

In recent years there has been a run on OL coaches who had experience in the Shanahan type system - the general belief is that you need someone who has has specific experience in the system:

The difference with Shanahan’s offense and its various clones is that it’s extraordinarily difficult to teach, especially up front, because, for offensive linemen, most of the required movements are unique to this scheme.

Installing the NFL’s Trendiest Offense Is Harder Than You Think

More and more teams are looking to replicate the “Shanahan” offense. But they may not realize what it requires: teachers.

www.si.com

 

[Ring 6]

Are you sure its a full move to the Shanahan system or the incorporation of some of its facets. I suggest you read that rather long article that explained IN DETAIL why that isn't the case based on what the author saw in the Giants game. Worth the read.

But I agree its hopefully a gap year until BOB arrives.

It’s certainly not a change in offensive system, but a potential change in how frequently they use concepts, including using staples of Shanahans scheme, that we have always used here, more often.

I see no reason Patricia and Judge cannot continue in these roles, and BOB returning doesn’t interest me much.

 

[BTTA]

Perhaps rather than "all at once" and "replacing" the Pats have a "one piece at a time" and "additional" approach to the "Shanahan offense". Several articles and posters have indicated that features were used two years ago, and additional one(s) last year.

 

[Lavictoire]

" The WR is MUCH better than we expected" uhh, you mean much better than YOU expected.

 

[Tbone7112000]

Happy to see the "Idle Thoughts" return your posts are some of the most informative and interesting. One of the reasons I keep coming back looking forward to a season of hopefully great "Idle Thoughts".

Take care and good luck at the tables.

Agreed! For my money, Ken is the MVP (Most Valuable Patsfan Poster)

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Are you sure its a full move to the Shanahan system or the incorporation of some of its facets. I suggest you read that rather long article that explained IN DETAIL why that isn't the case based on what the author saw in the Giants game. Worth the read.

But I agree its hopefully a gap year until BOB arrives.

We also need to stop saying Shanahan when it's more McVay even though they're from the same tree.

Good post but you could crap and get 15 winners here. Some of us are still hungry big guy.

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps rather than "all at once" and "replacing" the Pats have a "one piece at a time" and "additional" approach to the "Shanahan offense". Several articles and posters have indicated that features were used two years ago, and additional one(s) last year.

This is where a lot of people get confused. The Patriots use elements of every scheme. They have run outside zone since belichick arrived. How much they do depends upon game plan, “season plan” and personell. They have a bootleg package, but have not had a QB it worked for so they haven’t used it barely at all.
Belichick is all about change and adapting to league trends. Always has been, but he does it within the framework of his scheme and philosophy.
Nothing Shanahan does is anti what the Patriots do, it’s all in the playbook. If BB feels he can exploit what defense are doing with more of it he will. Just as he has with more/less use of the FB, 2 TE base, 3 wide base, a home run offense when he had moss, a passing game that ran off of welker as the fulcrum, LBs at TE, DL at FB, WRs okaying nickel back, nickel base defense, big nickel, etc, etc, etc.

 

[patfanken]

I absolutely agree he is a very smart and experienced coach. But my contrast is to someone like Scar - I think you would agree that three decades coaching the OL gives him a depth of specialized experience that Matt can't possibly match.

In recent years there has been a run on OL coaches who had experience in the Shanahan type system - the general belief is that you need someone who has has specific experience in the system:

Installing the NFL’s Trendiest Offense Is Harder Than You Think

More and more teams are looking to replicate the “Shanahan” offense. But they may not realize what it requires: teachers.

www.si.com

That was a REALLY good read that you posted SGU, it should be a must read for everyone who has an interest in this topic. But.... I saw nothing in it that keeps me from believing that Patricia and Yates can't be an effective duo in teaching the OL. YES, teaching the outside zone running game is filled with nuances and details that make it hard to install, but Patricia isn't some college coach just entering the league. He has 20 YEARS of coaching experience, most of which were trying to figure out how to defend the outside zone. AND if you want to be able to defend a certain kind of scheme, you damned well better be well versed in all the nuances and details that go into it.

AND don't you think that when they decided that they wanted to add this scheme to the offense, that they didn't spend DAYS familiarizing themselves in all those nuances and details that exist in that scheme. It would be a lot of work just trying to translate Shanahan's terminology into the language they speak in Foxboro. This is what goes unseen in the off season. The hours and hours of work the assistants and support staff put in getting prepared for a new season.

To a MUCH smaller degree, I remember spending time with a friend who ran a triple option offense when it first burst onto the scene in NE. I spent about 2 week that summer going to his house every day and spend hours discussing all aspects of this offense just so I could try and defend it, and in doing so I had to learn enough to be able to install it myself. Then as the offense became more popular in the region, I had years to refine my defenses as the offense evolved and grew more complex This is what Patricia has done over the years with the Pats, only 1000 times more hours than I spent AND in much more detail.

With the slight exception of Andrews and Brown, this is a very young OL, so if you ask me if I thought that the OL will be better at running the outside zone next year, I'd say YES. The more reps you run something the better you get at it. So even if you had Chris Foster and Kyle Shanahan coaching the offense this year, it is STILL going to be better next year than this one. But that doesn't mean it can't be effective THIS year. just another tool in the bag

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I understand that most people consider me to be naive or unrealistic, but I have set the bar and goal of winning the Super Bowl for the Patriots since 1974. Perhaps some felt Kraft's statement that he intended to bring a championship here when he bought the team twenty years later to be simple, obligatory rhetoric. But he - and I - meant it. It turned out to in fact be realistic with Fairbanks & Parcells here...in the 80's, it was contingent upon Eason not being in, which turned out to be dependent upon injury. Ditto with Bledsoe after Parcells left; passing yards obviously do not translate to winning.

Belichick is not perfect but he is by far the most experienced, proven and innovative mind in the NFL coaching ranks, until he decides to retire. Jones has a good attitude - which, like Brady before him, automatically separates himself from most other quarterbacks, regardless of how much more talented and experienced they are.

Thus, I like our chances this year.

Sorry to be redundant, but as I've said before, team attitude and chemistry is vital to our success. I'd want Bryan Cox here if he were still playing.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

We also need to stop saying Shanahan when it's more McVay even though they're from the same tree.

From what I've read, one of the differences is that McVay generally has tighter splits, which might work better if the Pats run one of their more old-style gap running plays because the WRs are better available to block. Also more boots, which might be a good fit for Mac.

My guess is that Bill will come up with his own wrinkles here. Also noting that commentators have been broadly hinting at plays that get Smith (and Montgomery) out in space.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

With the slight exception of Andrews and Brown, this is a very young OL, so if you ask me if I thought that the OL will be better at running the outside zone next year, I'd say YES. The more reps you run something the better you get at it. So even if you had Chris Foster and Kyle Shanahan coaching the offense this year, it is STILL going to be better next year than this one. But that doesn't mean it can't be effective THIS year. just another tool in the bag

Fans are impatient and somehow expect a completely re-jiggered OL learning a (somewhat) new complex system with a new OL coach to be perfect off the bat. Maybe at the outset they'll only run the "new" stuff a couple of times a game - but even that is enough to make the defense a little slower to react to everything else. Bill is all about options and matchups, and this gives him another tool in his tool chest.

 

[Froob]

From what I've read, one of the differences is that McVay generally has tighter splits, which might work better if the Pats run one of their more old-style gap running plays because the WRs are better available to block. Also more boots, which might be a good fit for Mac.

My guess is that Bill will come up with his own wrinkles here. Also noting that commentators have been broadly hinting at plays that get Smith (and Montgomery) out in space.

They need to run Jonnu plays for him to be effective, he isn't a conventional tight end.

 

[PatsFan2]

They need to run Jonnu plays for him to be effective, he isn't a conventional tight end.

He wasn't too un-conventional with the Titans he played like the criminal.

 

[farn]

this is obviously a bridge year...they've decided to run the Shanahan offensive system. This will take all season to iron out the kinks and maybe more.

I don’t know what ‘is expected’ but you could argue that every season you aren’t a top SB contender is a bridge year.

Having said that, a slide to ‘not even contending for the playoffs’ would disappoint me.

 

[Froob]

He wasn't too un-conventional with the Titans he played like the criminal.

Not really, go watch his Titans highlights.

 

[PatsFan2]

Not really, go watch his Titans highlights.

You're right saw a lot of misdirections and design plays for Jonnu. I hope they have some roll outs and moving pocket plays for Mac that should free up Jonnu some. He seems to thrive in an Offense where he's kind of an afterthought that's my impressions.

 

[Froob]

You're right saw a lot of misdirections and design plays for Jonnu. I hope they have some roll outs and moving pocket plays for Mac that should free up Jonnu some. He seems to thrive in an Offense where he's kind of an afterthought that's my impressions.

Not sure why we even signed him if we don't design him plays. If he just becomes an overpaid Cordarelle patterson, so be it just get him the ball.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

From what I've read, one of the differences is that McVay generally has tighter splits, which might work better if the Pats run one of their more old-style gap running plays because the WRs are better available to block. Also more boots, which might be a good fit for Mac.

My guess is that Bill will come up with his own wrinkles here. Also noting that commentators have been broadly hinting at plays that get Smith (and Montgomery) out in space.

Biggest difference is a FB or lack of one in McVays case. That's why I say more McVay than Shanahan when talking about what we're seeing. Plus i think the Rans might run more of "our" stuff like duo even windback runs that Mcvay used to help counter what he saw up front after tha SB. But yea the biggest difference between them is that position. You could probably argue the QB position to a lesser extent in different ways. McVay seems to really understand the importance and zero sum game at that spot where Kyle might have "settled for less" before going all in with Lance. Like not really on the field but how they viewed that spot.

I just talked about them recently in another thread. They're both excellent at using the WR position specifically to help OL gain leverage or make it easier on those guys in the all important first step(s).

Another reason we might be practicing more stretch runs is bc it automatically attacks the MOF. LBs naturally flow side to side leaving the MOF open to pick apart. That was a huge strength of Mac's coming out and the Pats have and will always attack those spots. I think our PA game was lacking at times and a lot was on Mac. Being late mostly but we had guys wide open there running crossers or sitting. Those stretch runs only help in that area so I wouldn't be surprised if we had similar thoughts.
Just expanding here the big problem is when defenses just commit and take away a part of the field. Choke off the middle, shut down outside, we the case. Do you have a guy that can create and is able to throw into tight coverage or extend plays in the pocket.

I believe that's why reason why Shanahan went Lance > Jones. That and teams can't really keep their other saf back if Lance is a running threat. You don't really have to mess with your backend to stifle OZ as Bill made famous after stealing it from Vic. You can't stop it if you have the horses up front.

Another reason why I don't think Bill would rely heavily on one thing. It's too easy to figure out or stop. The league is trending in that direction. Most teams run the stretch plays now so Bill might be looking at our own variations or how to best stop it in different ways. We'll see.

 

[JayNM]

I don't know how you are so secure about the WRs Ken, if I am being honest

I am glad that Parker is here, he seems better than advertised, but his biggest thing was injury-proness. Meyers has perhaps taken a step forward? And then Thornton... That's the real good stuff.

About Nixon and Humphrey, to me and I know Im getting hate for not going with the hype, but oh well, seems to be a bit of an over reaction. Im not denying good stuff out has come out (I haven't seem A LOT of it, but some good stuff for sure), but always against questionable adverseries AND they have pretty high bar to succed now. Otherwise, as good as they are, they aren't sticking (in the 53).

Wilkerson was the dark horse, but now he's injured and it REALLY sucks for him since in this instance it doesn't seem that it was his fault, but he has missed a lot of time for such a short career, for us especially.

Then Bourne... I read that Ross suggested that a trade might happen and the rose-tainted glass kinda came off. Except for his off-field chemestry with Mac, there hasn't been much good on him.

Unfortunately, I have to make it crystal clear here: I am NOT saying our WR group sucks. I think they are good (If the Bourne situation is smoke and not fire), but to say, like you said "The WR is MUCH better than we expected. ", i really can't agree

EDIT: I forgot about Agholor . The thing about him for me is two-fold actually, and I think you might understand why i forgot him:
the point of empashis for this season IS to have him involved (unless he's traded) AND last year, he was having the same type of reports (although less so recently, yesterday was a good day for him) - He would do really well in Individual drills and good on situational drills, but on 11-11, not so much. Last year his reports were really good in-so-far August. So, in reality, He has the most difficult position of all, for me personally: He has high expectations, but no (consisent) production when it matters. So until proven otherwise, in game, I find it difficult to reliably say that he improved

 

[catent]

I don't know how you are so secure about the WRs Ken, if I am being honest

I am glad that Parker is here, he seems better than advertised, but his biggest thing was injury-proness. Meyers has perhaps taken a step forward? And then Thornton... That's the real good stuff.

About Nixon and Humphrey, to me and I know Im getting hate for not going with the hype, but oh well, seems to be a bit of an over reaction. Im not denying good stuff out has come out (I haven't seem A LOT of it, but some good stuff for sure), but always against questionable adverseries AND they have pretty high bar to succed now. Otherwise, as good as they are, they aren't sticking (in the 53).

Wilkerson was the dark horse, but now he's injured and it REALLY sucks for him since in this instance it doesn't seem that it was his fault, but he has missed a lot of time for such a short career, for us especially.

Then Bourne... I read that Ross suggested that a trade might happen and the rose-tainted glass kinda came off. Except for his off-field chemestry with Mac, there hasn't been much good on him.

Unfortunately, I have to make it crystal clear here: I am NOT saying our WR group sucks. I think they are good (If the Bourne situation is smoke and not fire), but to say, like you said "The WR is MUCH better than we expected. ", i really can't agree

No mention of Agholor? Sounds like he has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way this season.