Re: Patriots looking to to sign their 3rd fullback
posted at 3/26/2012 10:11 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Patriots looking to to sign their 3rd fullback
ALL : Alright, this was the thread I was looking for... Been posting less, due to certain redundant !d!ots and !d!ocies rampantly present on this board these days (in this respect I wanted to reply to Zb's additions on the workings of Ron E's policies and schemes, but didn't). Still, I HAVE to know, specifically from those very well versed in schematics and deployments of personell packages (see zbellino , PatsEng , Faucetman , MrBungle , Russ , Prolate , TrueChamp , among others), Exactly what Belichick could be angling towards in terms of Offensive Looks. Here's my broader theme: NE, in signing Fiametta, Getting Eric Kettani back from his Military stint (for the 1st time fully I believe), and even with Ridley too- See these guys are each and all between 5'11-6'2 and 225-243lbs respectively, whereas with Woodhead and Vareen, we're lookin' at 5'8-5'9 guys, with both right about dead even at the 200lb mark... So (the big question), In terms of versatility of a base design package, and solely in terms of deploying an Offensive Scheme that we can ideally hope to use, as many of NE's weapons out of- Just HowInTH, Can NE best hope to accomplish this?!? So IF NE's moving back towards the 1 FB (or bigger back) and small back 2 RB set-up, to use again (or more...or at all), How does this affect being able to deploy the 2 TE set-up...and/or use of multiple wideouts (beit only even 2, or more). How can NE remain versatile in their schematics and deployment of having 2 or more TEs on field (or something similiar, esp in light of our 2 star proven producers at those standard and pass-catching TE positions and simultaneous deployment), and/or 2 or more wideouts (or something similiar, esp in light of all the wideouts we've picked up), Yet still be angling towards moving to a 2 RB set-up within this whole mess (without short-changing some other area in terms of numbers of wideouts and/or TEs). What I'm looking for are different theories of design packages wherein NE can deploy this 2 RB set, and yet STILL have the least amount of- idk "shortchanging" of the wideouts and/or 2 TEs, but STILL remain schematically versatile enough in this usage wherein the oppossing Defense still must respect both the versatility of what the NE Offense still might be able to do per play (e.g. 2 RBs, 2 TEs, 5 Linemen, 1 QB, and 1 WR-you're gonna creep up and crowd the box on Defense, ya know? So, I want to various theories to hope to best offer as many possible threats, in as many possible areas of the field as possible to keep the defense from guessing and from cheating their countering personell-pass, run, power run, deep ball, TE mismatches, play-action...can screens be a big factor, etc.)? Ideas?
Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium
One thing Laz is they can change their packages and formations a lot more with a larger number and variety of players. Last year, they relied awfully heavily on just six guys (Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Branch, BJGE, and Woodhead). This contributed to their lack of diversity and their predictability on offense. Now, they can mix it up a lot more. You'll see all sorts of combinations, no back, one back, two backs, maybe even three backs on occasion. You'll see anywhere from zero to three TEs. And you'll see anywhere from zero to five wideouts. I don't think there will be one "base" package on offense. Instead, there will be multiple formations and packages which they'll use depending on situation and which they'll be changing constantly during games. Plus, BB has a way of lining up players in unusual positions--FBs and RBs lined up as wideouts, TEs in the backfield or split out wide, WRs in the backfield. . . What we'll have is a much more protean offense . . . and that's going to make the offense a lot harder to pin down, a lot less predictable, and a lot harder to defend against.
Let's just hope all these players are real contributors . . . if so, the offense could be scary good next year.