Tyquan Thornton already turning heads in the film room

[patfanken]

These are things that improve a team. Thinking is not a negative, thinking puts you in a position to succeed. “Run a 12 yard out regardless of how you are covered” is not better football than “change the route to an in if you are being covered differently”.
Playing different fronts to disguise what you are doing and changing up coverage helps a defense perform better than doing the same thing on every play.
Substitutions put players on the field in the situations they are best in.
Making players be dummies doesn’t win more games.

This is an age old coaching debate. How much of an advantage do you get by adding complexity to an offensive or defensive scheme vs how much of an advantage do you gain by simplifying a scheme so players can "play fast".

I went through the same thing over 50 years ago at the HS level, when you had 60 odd kids (some of whom have never played before) and 4 or 5 coaches and had 3 weeks to get ready for an entire season and no spring football, AND its a part time job. Imagine when you have a dozen or more coaches and another dozen or so support staff, PLUS an unlimited amount of time. So YEAH, it would be very easy to create very complex schemes, routes and plays that would seemingly give that scheme advantages.

Obviously if your team is able to absorb all the complexity you have your advantage. However if you slip just a bit too much, then you risk creating execution flaws. Plus the fact is that not all athletes process what they see at the same rate. It doesn't make them stupid, its just how they are wired.

Tony Dungy was a big believer in "playing fast". His "Tampa 2" was a good example He believed that if a player gets to see all the ways an offense can attack him from the same position, his reaction time would constantly improve and the chances of mental mistakes diminish.

BB is in a different camp. His overall defensive philosophy revolved around a week to week approach. So he developed a set of semantics that allowed for multiple fronts and coverages could change weekly. He was willing to sacrifice some execution issues for the advantages he got from playing multiple schemes.

There really isn't a right or wrong here and over the years Bill had a decided advantage over Tony Dungy teams and their prodigy. But there comes a point where you start to get a diminishing amount of return by adding complexity and through self scouting coaches WILL pull back. THAT is what we are seeing this season. Personally I don't think its as big a deal as the mediots are making it out to be. Like most things in football pendulum swings are part of the game and things go in and out of favor all the time.

Every player wants to simplify his job to play as fast as he can. So EVERY DLman wants to one gap over 2 gapping. It's way easier, and far more fun. Every LB wants to to make one read and go, and every DB wants to play man because it's the simplest coverage. On the other hand all coaches LOVE to add complexity. In a selfish way it allows them a way to positively impact the game they can no longer play. I mean it is the goal of EVERY coach, dare I say DUTY, to try and gain some advantage for his team, unit, or position group. To put HIS players in the best position to win on any given day, even when you might not have the best "individual talent" on the field.

THAT is what makes this game we all love so fascinating. The best TEAMS win, not the best talent. So you might think that Bill sucks at drafting and player acquisition. You can b!tch and moan all day about who the OC and DC's are or are not. But for the VAST vast majority of the last 2+ decades, he has put together highly competitive TEAMS that have represented its fanbase far better and loyally than another in the country.

I'm done. Feel free to restart the incessant whine.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Oh, and he also said to not put guys in coverage who can’t cover as that was unusual for Bill. He said Bill protected him as Johnson said he was horrible in coverage and would’ve been out of the league if that was his only job. McGinest used to complain about the times he went in coverage because he was bad at that as well.

Been trying to tell the forum this for a while now. I don't know what people are watching but he's always protected our LB and ask them to cover very little. Back then and now. Been hearing how bad Bentley & HT have been for years but they've been middle of the pack bc Bill hides his LB in coverage. It's very rare one our LB are covering someone more athletic in m2m.

 

[LFGMac10]

I can’t think of any receiver who was capable but failed because he couldn’t understand you have different options based upon how you are defended.
Receivers who just weren’t very good seem to be the only ones this argument is made about.
In general asking your players to think on the field in order to be more productive is a good thing.

Reggie Wayne, Joey Galloway, Ocho Cinco. All of them just flat out failed in the offense.

 

[Ring 6]

Reggie Wayne, Joey Galloway, Ocho Cinco. All of them just flat out failed in the offense.

They were all over the hill. None did anything anywhere else after they were here. Really hard to argue it was because they couldn’t understand the system when it’s pretty clear they were just done.
It’s like saying John Lynch failed here because he couldn’t learn the system.

 

[Ring 6]

Reggie Wayne, Joey Galloway, Ocho Cinco. All of them just flat out failed in the offense.

To finish the previous thought Galloway was 38 years old. After leaving here he played 10 games and caught 12 passes on 38 targets in Washington.
Wayne quit because he didn’t want to play football any more at 37.
85 never played another down. If it was the system, why didn’t one of those teams with an easy system sign him?

See this is exactly what I meant. The only “evidence” that receivers can’t figure out the system is naming a bunch of over the hill guys who tried to latch in here after they were done and it had nothing to do with understanding the system.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Ok then calm the **** down you are acting like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. If you can't act like a grown up go elsewhere and post.

LOL. Did you forget where you are posting? Grown ups are in very short supply here.

 

[moosekill]

LOL. Did you forget where you are posting? Grown ups are in very short supply here.

Yes sadly that is true. Gettting all caps pissed because Andy is posting something that you disagree with is like pissing against the wind. In the end it doesn't make things any better and you just end up wet.

 

[LFGMac10]

To finish the previous thought Galloway was 38 years old. After leaving here he played 10 games and caught 12 passes on 38 targets in Washington.
Wayne quit because he didn’t want to play football any more at 37.
85 never played another down. If it was the system, why didn’t one of those teams with an easy system sign him?

See this is exactly what I meant. The only “evidence” that receivers can’t figure out the system is naming a bunch of over the hill guys who tried to latch in here after they were done and it had nothing to do with understanding the system.

The largest problem is sample size. There just haven't been enough HOF quality receivers to work their way through the Pats system to really say either way

 

[SlowGettingUp]

There seems to be a general consensus that in the Brady era the Pats had the most complex playbook out there. And it wasn't just the playbook itself that was complex - receivers had to see the coverage the same way as Brady did. That system worked great when you had players like Edelman and Gronk that could mind-meld with Brady, but it posed a challenge for rookies. And it also made it much harder to figure out if a college player would fit here - that's a real cost, as evidenced by the Pat's repeated inability to draft receivers.

With Brady and McDaniels now both gone (as well as Edelman), it's a good opportunity to houseclean the playbook. But there are hints are that it's the running game that will change more, perhaps with more outside zone and RPOs. That of course feeds into the receiver playbook as well. Our running game seemed to be too predictable. I suspect there's going to be generally more space now with wider splits. A RPO with a quick slant to Thornton or Smith should be a staple, and having some super fast players like Thornton on the field will hopefully mean the end of running into packed boxes.

 

[Ring 6]

The largest problem is sample size. There just haven't been enough HOF quality receivers to work their way through the Pats system to really say either way

It’s not a matter of HOF it’s a matter of if the claim is the patriots sustem
Needs to be changed because WRs can’t understand it, then show me any examples of players that failed for that reason. If they failed for that reason and would have succeeded in a dummy system they would surely have gone to one of those teams and succeeded.
It’s kind of hard to argue that the system kills receivers and them have no examples and say it’s true but a sample size problem.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Reggie Wayne, Joey Galloway, Ocho Cinco. All of them just flat out failed in the offense.

REggie Wayne quit the Pats because it was too hard.

“Like a rookie,” Wayne beamed. “They’re throwing a lot at me right now. I’m not getting very much sleep. I feel like a rookie all over again.”

He added that his new playbook in New England is "incomparable to any from his previous 14 seasons."

 

[LFGMac10]

It’s not a matter of HOF it’s a matter of if the claim is the patriots sustem
Needs to be changed because WRs can’t understand it, then show me any examples of players that failed for that reason. If they failed for that reason and would have succeeded in a dummy system they would surely have gone to one of those teams and succeeded.
It’s kind of hard to argue that the system kills receivers and them have no examples and say it’s true but a sample size problem.

That's the problem, which Patriots receivers have gone on to light it up anywhere else. Deon Branch was the only one that left for an ok career at Seattle. I'm not saying you're right or anyone else is right. No Patriots receivers have left the Pats and had major success somewhere else

 

[Rob0729]

Regarding the route argument, Evan Lazar speculates the Pats could simplify the route tree for the WR’s to reduce the “thinking”.

Ted Johnson echoed the same thing defensively. He said there’s too many new guys to throw around multiple fronts and coverage. And he also wants to see Bill cut out the musical chairs of substitutions.

The current thinking is the Pats are moving to a Shanahan style of offense which is more effective against the current styles of defense in the NFL today. In the Shanahan offense, routes are not nearly as important as zones of the field for outside receivers. If the Pats do install this offense, Thornton will likely be asked to go to a certain zone of the field with the Pats doing a lot of play action for Jones to give his receivers a extra second or so to get open. Although slot and possession receivers still can have more disciplined routes, the outside guys can freelance a bit as long as they get into their zones.

 

[Keyser Söze]

Please baby Jesus, we need this one to work out.

 

[Ring 6]

REggie Wayne quit the Pats because it was too hard.

If it was just for that he would have signed elsewhere.
He was here like a week so I doubt he put much effort into learning.
No one is disputing they ask them to learn, the question is habe any been incapable of learning.

 

[Ring 6]

That's the problem, which Patriots receivers have gone on to light it up anywhere else. Deon Branch was the only one that left for an ok career at Seattle. I'm not saying you're right or anyone else is right. No Patriots receivers have left the Pats and had major success somewhere else

So if the system was holding them back and causing good receivers to fail, which is the claim, then there would be many who left and did better elsewhere.
I think the reverse is actually true. The system allows them to exceed their raw abilities by playing smart.
Would Edelman have done what he did elsewhere? Welker?

 

[Rob0729]

There seems to be a general consensus that in the Brady era the Pats had the most complex playbook out there. And it wasn't just the playbook itself that was complex - receivers had to see the coverage the same way as Brady did. That system worked great when you had players like Edelman and Gronk that could mind-meld with Brady, but it posed a challenge for rookies. And it also made it much harder to figure out if a college player would fit here - that's a real cost, as evidenced by the Pat's repeated inability to draft receivers.

With Brady and McDaniels now both gone (as well as Edelman), it's a good opportunity to houseclean the playbook. But there are hints are that it's the running game that will change more, perhaps with more outside zone and RPOs. That of course feeds into the receiver playbook as well. Our running game seemed to be too predictable. I suspect there's going to be generally more space now with wider splits. A RPO with a quick slant to Thornton or Smith should be a staple, and having some super fast players like Thornton on the field will hopefully mean the end of running into packed boxes.

The Pats had one of the harder playbooks in the league. Very few teams have presnap adjustments for the receivers beyond maybe a hot read. The Shanahan style of offense which is becoming the most en vogue offense today doesn't have any presnap reads or adjustments.

Also, the Pats offense is/was a timing offense which means the QB many times threw the ball to an area expecting the receiver to be where the ball is when it gets there which requires precise route running. Again the Shanahan offense has the outside receivers to run to a zone on the field and uses play action to extend the play to allow the QB to wait for the receiver to get open.

I don't know if the Pats had the most complicated offense for receivers, but it was clearly far more complicated than most.

And again the Pats are reportedly moving to the Shanahan offense (or a modified version of it). That offense is radically different for all the skill positions including receivers and RBs. That is why you are hearing about outside zone running and RPO. Shanahan's offense is basically the offensive version of a zone defense. Everything about the offense is about zones. Receivers have zone responsibility to have receivers at all levels of the field and RBs have their own zone responsibilities when running the ball.

 

[Toofy]

That's the problem, which Patriots receivers have gone on to light it up anywhere else. Deon Branch was the only one that left for an ok career at Seattle. I'm not saying you're right or anyone else is right. No Patriots receivers have left the Pats and had major success somewhere else

Brandin cooks... But again whether we can consider him a pats receiver or mercenary is up for debate..

 

[LFGMac10]

So if the system was holding them back and causing good receivers to fail, which is the claim, then there would be many who left and did better elsewhere.
I think the reverse is actually true. The system allows them to exceed their raw abilities by playing smart.
Would Edelman have done what he did elsewhere? Welker?

I'm actually not taking the position that the system held them back. Edelman never played anywhere else. Welker played with a broken HGH Manning that had two other recievers which were the focus of the offense. I'm saying there's not enough evidence to say it helped or hindered recievers and how much it wad Brady elevating their game too

 

[Ring 6]

Brandin cooks... But again whether we can consider him a pats receiver or mercenary is up for debate..

He did just as well here.