Ineligible "Ravens" formation vs Broncos

[Schmo]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, or that anyone noticed during the gameday thread.... I had to go back to the replay to watch.

I noticed Thuney missed his first snap of the season against Denver. His replacement? Shea McClellin. The play didn't work in that it resulted in an incomplete pass to Bennett. It did work in the form of causing Von Miller to cover the "RT"

Patriots snap count: McClellin snapped Thuney’s ironman streak

Difference this time was that McClellin has an ineligible number, so he didn't need to be announced.

 

[luuked]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, or that anyone noticed during the gameday thread.... I had to go back to the replay to watch.

I noticed Thuney missed his first snap of the season against Denver. His replacement? Shea McClellin. The play didn't work in that it resulted in an incomplete pass to Bennett. It did work in the form of causing Von Miller to cover the "RT"

Patriots snap count: McClellin snapped Thuney’s ironman streak

Difference this time was that McClellin has an ineligible number, so he didn't need to be announced.

Yeah, most of the usual other spots (PatsPulpit, newspapers) wrote about it but since it didn't really do anything except hold Von Miller from rushing it didn't get the same traction as other plays. What it will do however is force other teams -- especially in the playoffs -- to use some time to prepare for that look.

Personally, I think they tried this out in practice a few times with McClellin (he has a basketball and RB background) but it must have not worked satisfactory enough to risk a lateral to Shea in a big spot. Because otherwise it makes me wonder why, with the win being never really in question, the coaches decided to unveil the look here and not save it up for the playoffs. If you recall the segment about the double pass in the "Do your Job" documentary they specifically were happy that Amendola killed that attempt against KC otherwise it would have been "not available" against the Ravens.

 

[Wheelman]

@luuked That was rather early in the game when they used it.

And BB mentioned this season a while ago he doesn't believe in the whole saving plays for another game tactic.

 

[luuked]

@luuked That was rather early in the game when they used it.

And BB mentioned this season a while ago he doesn't believe in the whole saving plays for another game tactic.

True it was in with about 5min remaining in the first quarter. Maybe the first few series' gave BB/McD some concerns about protection.. still find it weird that we would burn this one so early in a game..

 

[Schmo]

True it was in with about 5min remaining in the first quarter. Maybe the first few series' gave BB/McD some concerns about protection.. still find it weird that we would burn this one so early in a game..

I think it's useful to see how a team defends against it in a spontaneous game situation. The way I see it, there are 3 choices a defense has against it:

1) What Denver did. Essentially keeping a DE on McClellin in "man coverage." Basically spying the ineligible player anticipating a lateral. This creates a slight advantage for the offensive line (going from 5vs4 to 4vs3).

2) Rush the DE anyway, leaving the ineligible man open for a lateral or a mismatch elsewhere in coverage.

3) Drop the DE into zone coverage, trusting that the D can react quickly enough to a lateral. (probably the best option) Plus, the offense is taking a chance by risking a fumble if McClellin can't secure the ball. I would think Brady just throws the ball away if nothing else, and move on to the next play.

Feel free to correct me on any of this if I'm missing something in regards to the rulebook. Perhaps there are also other options for the offense (McClellin throwing the ball). But at some point, relying on a defensive player to handle the ball at all in the playoffs seems like a bad idea, but what do I know?

Simply having the opposing team prepare for it is satisfying enough.

 

[luuked]

I think it's useful to see how a team defends against it in a spontaneous game situation. The way I see it, there are 3 choices a defense has against it:

1) What Denver did. Essentially keeping a DE on McClellin in "man coverage." Basically spying the ineligible player anticipating a lateral. This creates a slight advantage for the offensive line (going from 5vs4 to 4vs3).

2) Rush the DE anyway, leaving the ineligible man open for a lateral or a mismatch elsewhere in coverage.

3) Drop the DE into zone coverage, trusting that the D can react quickly enough to a lateral. (probably the best option) Plus, the offense is taking a chance by risking a fumble if McClellin can't secure the ball. I would think Brady just throws the ball away if nothing else, and move on to the next play.

Feel free to correct me on any of this if I'm missing something in regards to the rulebook. Perhaps there are also other options for the offense (McClellin throwing the ball). But at some point, relying on a defensive player to handle the ball at all in the playoffs seems like a bad idea, but what do I know?

Simply having the opposing team prepare for it is satisfying enough.

I generally agree with that. It's just that the first time you use it there is a good chance that the opponent will go with option 1 unless specifically prepared for this look. So in a way it's a wasted one-off formation that could have been used down the stretch in the playoffs.

That being said and keep in mind that like everyone else I also have no clue whats going on in practice but I see the look with McClellin out as nothing more than a one-time bluff to get the DE frozen. Yes, he has RB and basketball background but like you said do you really want to risk a lateral to him in a big spot ?

Of course I hope that they are simply planting the seed for more trickery with this formation down the road but I dont see it. At the very least now the opponents have to waste a bit of time preparing for it so why not..

 

[Dragda]

Often plays are used to setup other plays. Maybe for film, maybe in game. Charlie Weis says as much in his book that only I and his editor read.

 

[patfanken]

I think finding out who played how many snaps is a great indicator of who is doing well, and what game plan is being used. I'm always hoping to see someone link a Reiss article since he always does it and I refuse to go the ESPN site on my own. Somehow linking to Reiss from a third part doesn't seem so bad .

BTW- anyone else think that Malcolm Brown's "stomach issue" was that he suddenly had to go back to the lockerroom and take a sh!t.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I would prefer if you'd call it the Crybaugh formation.

 

[Schmo]

I think finding out who played how many snaps is a great indicator of who is doing well, and what game plan is being used. I'm always hoping to see someone link a Reiss article since he always does it and I refuse to go the ESPN site on my own. Somehow linking to Reiss from a third part doesn't seem so bad .

BTW- anyone else think that Malcolm Brown's "stomach issue" was that he suddenly had to go back to the lockerroom and take a sh!t.

I was THIS close to linking Reiss' ESPN article, but I know how many people boycott going there.

I was thinking maybe he was puking, but I find the **** theory to be more entertaining..... "Brown is out with Chipotleitis. His return is questionable."