Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    With the possibility/probability that Gronk and Hernandez may be out at the beginning of the regular season, and Welker gone - Brady and the remainder of the WR corp/TE corp have their work cut out for them.  There's a strong history of new incoming WRs (both veterans and drafted players) who failed to grasp the playbook.

    The offense is likely to struggle early on - unless the Patriots simplify things for the new receivers.  Brady also has to be more mindful of not forcing the ball and simply taking who's wide open.

    I'm also hoping the Patriots will mix things up a little more and perhaps allow the RBs to do more, i.e., use the same back for different kinds of plays (runs, blocks, screens, play action) to make it more difficult for defenses.  Maybe we need a little more depth at TE, with Gronk and Hernandez out, Ballard is being brought on slowly - and is our biggest remaining offensive TE threat. I don't know how good the remaing TEs are re: blocking for the RBs - and catching a few passes thrown their way.

    The offense will obviously improve over the upcoming season - so,  a few early losses won't be too worrisome.

    I'm actually hoping that the Patriots have added enough playmakers on defense this year to  bring them back into top 5 in pts. against and red zone defense, and in the middle of the pack for passing yards against.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    I think the playbook will be simplified out of sheer necessity, speaking directly to your point about the complete makeover of the receiver corps and the injuries to Gronk and Hern.

    What I've said elsewhere and will repeat here is that I am optimistic about the team because while remaining competitive the team on both sides of the ball has become quite young. 

    Really looking forward to seeing how all of this will unfold.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    I think the playbook will be simplified out of sheer necessity, speaking directly to your point about the complete makeover of the receiver corps and the injuries to Gronk and Hern.

    What I've said elsewhere and will repeat here is that I am optimistic about the team because while remaining competitive the team on both sides of the ball has become quite young. 

    Really looking forward to seeing how all of this will unfold.



    I'm actually more stoked about the defensive side for this year. The only thing I'd like to see is the Patriots letting the reins loose a lil and allowing the defense to make some timely impact plays.  I don't think they had enough depth or talent defensively to get them off the field more consistently. Wanna see the defense win close games.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    Offensively I think we will see a bigger contribution from RB's backs in the passing game. I wouldn't be surprised to see more formations with an H back and more heavy run sets. Especially if the D can can get off the field more consistently on 3rd down. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    Offensively I think we will see a bigger contribution from RB's backs in the passing game. I wouldn't be surprised to see more formations with an H back and more heavy run sets. Especially if the D can can get off the field more consistently on 3rd down. 



    I hope so.  Ballard and Hooman need to be on top of their blocking game...and the RBs have to   successful in running game in order to sell play action, and for screens to work.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    I'm always optimistic concerning the Patriots. Football is a team sport so continuity is important. That's why many of us here believe that the defense should be markedly improved. I'd like to see the return of some of Belichick's exotic defensive schemes of yesteryear.

    Dumbing down the offense is not a good thing. It means that certain players have not yet learned or cannot learn the playbook. It's going to be interesting watching the new additions learn to work with Tom. Again, I'm optimistic that they will.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    I think it's business as usual.  If you can't get it * ochocinco* then we move on with out you.  These guys are pros. There shouldn't be any dumbing down.  Now we may see a bunch of vanilla but when the press isn't allowed it will be full steam ahead and see what sticks to the wall.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    How 'bout the Pats adopt the Malden High playbook?

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    I'm always optimistic concerning the Patriots. Football is a team sport so continuity is important. That's why many of us here believe that the defense should be markedly improved. I'd like to see the return of some of Belichick's exotic defensive schemes of yesteryear.

    Dumbing down the offense is not a good thing. It means that certain players have not yet learned or cannot learn the playbook. It's going to be interesting watching the new additions learn to work with Tom. Again, I'm optimistic that they will.



    With so many new receivers for Brady, what makes you think that the new receivers can handle it? There have been quite a few incoming rookie WRs and veterans who failed to grasp the play book.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

    I think it's business as usual.  If you can't get it * ochocinco* then we move on with out you.  These guys are pros. There shouldn't be any dumbing down.  Now we may see a bunch of vanilla but when the press isn't allowed it will be full steam ahead and see what sticks to the wall.  



    here's a question, was the offensive play book the same as it was between 2000-2004 vs. 2007 going forward, less complicated, or more complicated?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    With so many new receivers for Brady, what makes you think that the new receivers can handle it? There have been quite a few incoming rookie WRs and veterans who failed to grasp the play book.

    It will take time for the receivers to learn the playbook so simplification will be necessary. That's not a good thing. The defense has had so many new additions the last few years that Belichick can't scheme as much. That wasn't a good thing either.

    Youth is good and bad. It's good because they are fast and athletic and hungry to prove themselves. It's bad because they don't know diddly about the NFL game, specifically Belichick's version of it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    I think a lot of the posters on BDC want the playbook dumbed down so they can understand it!

    I mean seriously guys.  Yesterday there were posts calling for more dump-offs to the fullback.  Maybe that worked in high school.  Maybe it worked in the NFL in 1972.  And sure, Patrick Pass and Marc Edwards and Heath Evans caught a few for the Pats in the early 2000s. But no team in the NFL relies on the fullback all that much anymore, and very few (if any) use two-back sets as their base package. Most teams prefer a third receiver or a second TE to a second back.  

    Over the past two or three years the Pats have had one of the most productive offenses in the NFL, relying heavily on a hurry-up style that keeps opposing defenses off balance and requires quick decision making by all offensive players.  Yes, they have struggled in the playoffs and against certain teams in the regular season.  But that doesn't mean they need to dumb things down.  What it means is they need better--and more diverse--offensive weapons so they aren't quite so dependent on one tactic.  The coaches have done a great job of making the Pats offense highly productive despite its limited diversity of talent.  Trying to dumb the playbook down won't improve the talent or make the talent more diverse.  It will just make the talent less effective. What we need are better X receivers, a healthy Gronk (or at least effective back-ups), more consistent run and pass blocking, and a more explosive passing back.  Add the talent and the playbook will adjust accordingly.  Just dumbing it down, though, does nothing but turn the Pats into an average team.  Despite all the criticism the coaching gets on this site, it is the coaching (including the complexity of the offense, the use of the shotgun, the use of the short pass, the hurry up, and all the other things the coaches are criticised for) that turns the Pats from the pedestrian team its talent suggests it should be to a Super Bowl contender. 

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I think a lot of the posters on BDC want the playbook dumbed down so they can understand it!

    I mean seriously guys.  Yesterday there were posts calling for more dump-offs to the fullback.  Maybe that worked in high school.  Maybe it worked in the NFL in 1972.  And sure, Patrick Pass and Marc Edwards and Heath Evans caught a few for the Pats in the early 2000s. But no team in the NFL relies on the fullback all that much anymore, and very few (if any) use two-back sets as their base package. Most teams prefer a third receiver or a second TE to a second back.  

    Over the past two or three years the Pats have had one of the most productive offenses in the NFL, relying heavily on a hurry-up style that keeps opposing defenses off balance and requires quick decision making by all offensive players.  Yes, they have struggled in the playoffs and against certain teams in the regular season.  But that doesn't mean they need to dumb things down.  What it means is they need better--and more diverse--offensive weapons so they aren't quite so dependent on one tactic.  The coaches have done a great job of making the Pats offense highly productive despite its limited diversity of talent.  Trying to dumb the playbook down won't improve the talent or make the talent more diverse.  It will just make the talent less effective. What we need are better X receivers, a healthy Gronk (or at least effective back-ups), more consistent run and pass blocking, and a more explosive passing back.  Add the talent and the playbook will adjust accordingly.  Just dumbing it down, though, does nothing but turn the Pats into an average team.  Despite all the criticism the coaching gets on this site, it is the coaching (including the complexity of the offense, the use of the shotgun, the use of the short pass, the hurry up, and all the other things the coaches are criticised for) that turns the Pats from the pedestrian team its talent suggests it should be to a Super Bowl contender. 

     

     

     



    I wouldn't advocate getting the ball to a fullback I would advocate getting the ball to Ridley and Vareen in open space and getting them in advantagous match-ups. Don't dumb anything down use your weapons to their fullest potential.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    I think a lot of the posters on BDC want the playbook dumbed down so they can understand it!

    I mean seriously guys.  Yesterday there were posts calling for more dump-offs to the fullback.  Maybe that worked in high school.  Maybe it worked in the NFL in 1972.  And sure, Patrick Pass and Marc Edwards and Heath Evans caught a few for the Pats in the early 2000s. But no team in the NFL relies on the fullback all that much anymore, and very few (if any) use two-back sets as their base package. Most teams prefer a third receiver or a second TE to a second back.  

    Over the past two or three years the Pats have had one of the most productive offenses in the NFL, relying heavily on a hurry-up style that keeps opposing defenses off balance and requires quick decision making by all offensive players.  Yes, they have struggled in the playoffs and against certain teams in the regular season.  But that doesn't mean they need to dumb things down.  What it means is they need better--and more diverse--offensive weapons so they aren't quite so dependent on one tactic.  The coaches have done a great job of making the Pats offense highly productive despite its limited diversity of talent.  Trying to dumb the playbook down won't improve the talent or make the talent more diverse.  It will just make the talent less effective. What we need are better X receivers, a healthy Gronk (or at least effective back-ups), more consistent run and pass blocking, and a more explosive passing back.  Add the talent and the playbook will adjust accordingly.  Just dumbing it down, though, does nothing but turn the Pats into an average team.  Despite all the criticism the coaching gets on this site, it is the coaching (including the complexity of the offense, the use of the shotgun, the use of the short pass, the hurry up, and all the other things the coaches are criticised for) that turns the Pats from the pedestrian team its talent suggests it should be to a Super Bowl contender. 

     

     

     

     



    I wouldn't advocate getting the ball to a fullback I would advocate getting the ball to Ridley and Vareen in open space and getting them in advantagous match-ups. Don't dumb anything down use your weapons to their fullest potential.

     



    I haven't been impressed with Ridley's ability to catch the ball, which is why I think Woodhead was used so much last year.  I'm hoping though that Vereen will give us more of that Faulk quality back.  For all the complaining about subbing running backs, people forget what a huge role Faulk played in the offense back in the early 2000s.  I'm hoping Vereen will be that guy for us next year. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    It is not the play book that is complicated but the wars realizing what they see at the line of scrimmage to make the right adjustments

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to CliffordWasHere's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

     

    I think it's business as usual.  If you can't get it * ochocinco* then we move on with out you.  These guys are pros. There shouldn't be any dumbing down.  Now we may see a bunch of vanilla but when the press isn't allowed it will be full steam ahead and see what sticks to the wall.  

     



    here's a question, was the offensive play book the same as it was between 2000-2004 vs. 2007 going forward, less complicated, or more complicated?

     

     



    Are you serious? More.  When Branch returned in 2010 he said he had a ton to learn and that's because what they were doing since he left, had changed.

     

    This goes back to the belligerents claiming our offense never changes and we only run plays out of the Erhardt/Perkins system. lol

    Of course BB changes it here, there, and everywhere. It's what he does.

    I liked your original post and it's what I've been saying for a while now. The Gronk and Hern surgeries are a blessing in disguise, IMO.  It forces to Brady to get back to basics and learn all his WRs instead of being so spoiled throwing to the same three high end targets, day after day in camp.

    Someone above said if we scale back the playbook it means the new guys haven't learned the playbook, which is not the case to me.  I just want the basics mastered again.  The 3rd and 2 run, the check down, the motion and blocking, etc.   Get the stuff nailed and then worry about the depth of the playbook. Tom Brady is your QB, there is a great OL here and good RBs, etc. Enough with over-thinking everything.

     




    How many years was Branch out of the NE? Maybe he knew he was going to have to study becuase of the difference systems? Being from outside the organization we have no clue how much the systemhas changed outside of how they are playcalling.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I think a lot of the posters on BDC want the playbook dumbed down so they can understand it!

    I mean seriously guys.  Yesterday there were posts calling for more dump-offs to the fullback.  Maybe that worked in high school.  Maybe it worked in the NFL in 1972.  And sure, Patrick Pass and Marc Edwards and Heath Evans caught a few for the Pats in the early 2000s. But no team in the NFL relies on the fullback all that much anymore, and very few (if any) use two-back sets as their base package. Most teams prefer a third receiver or a second TE to a second back.  

    Over the past two or three years the Pats have had one of the most productive offenses in the NFL, relying heavily on a hurry-up style that keeps opposing defenses off balance and requires quick decision making by all offensive players.  Yes, they have struggled in the playoffs and against certain teams in the regular season.  But that doesn't mean they need to dumb things down.  What it means is they need better--and more diverse--offensive weapons so they aren't quite so dependent on one tactic.  The coaches have done a great job of making the Pats offense highly productive despite its limited diversity of talent.  Trying to dumb the playbook down won't improve the talent or make the talent more diverse.  It will just make the talent less effective. What we need are better X receivers, a healthy Gronk (or at least effective back-ups), more consistent run and pass blocking, and a more explosive passing back.  Add the talent and the playbook will adjust accordingly.  Just dumbing it down, though, does nothing but turn the Pats into an average team.  Despite all the criticism the coaching gets on this site, it is the coaching (including the complexity of the offense, the use of the shotgun, the use of the short pass, the hurry up, and all the other things the coaches are criticised for) that turns the Pats from the pedestrian team its talent suggests it should be to a Super Bowl contender. 

     

     

     



    who did they rely on to make all those catches? Woud it be Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez?

    Well, it's possible all three may not be around at the beginning of the season. So, who has experience with the system that they can rely on?

    In addition, when Brady went down in 2008 and Cassel stepped in - did they use more complicated plays at the beginning of the season or did they "dumb it down"?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

     

     

    I wouldn't advocate getting the ball to a fullback I would advocate getting the ball to Ridley and Vareen in open space and getting them in advantagous match-ups. Don't dumb anything down use your weapons to their fullest potential. The Patriots can make it more complicated as the season progresses.

     

     



    IMO, the Patriots have to get the RB corp more involved in the offense early in the season. Not that we become a run-first team; rather, become less predictable by maybe using one RB for blocking, running, play actions, and screens.

     

    And, imo, they gotta dumb things down for the newer WRs and TEs because otherwise the team might see them running wrong routes resulting in quick 3 and outs and INTs.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to digger0862's comment:

     

    I'm always optimistic concerning the Patriots. Football is a team sport so continuity is important. That's why many of us here believe that the defense should be markedly improved. I'd like to see the return of some of Belichick's exotic defensive schemes of yesteryear.

    Dumbing down the offense is not a good thing. It means that certain players have not yet learned or cannot learn the playbook. It's going to be interesting watching the new additions learn to work with Tom. Again, I'm optimistic that they will.

     



    With so many new receivers for Brady, what makes you think that the new receivers can handle it? There have been quite a few incoming rookie WRs and veterans who failed to grasp the play book.

     

    What makes you think they can't handle it ? They have 10 WR's on the present 90 man roster and 7 TE's, with Gronk,Hernandez,Edelman,Harrison and Boyce presently nursing injuries of various degrees of severity. That would still leave 5 veteran WR's availible and 3 veteran TE's already in place. Though Ballard didn't play a down last year you can bet the farm he spent the entire season watching and learning the playbook. The other two guys played on last years team and neither one was cut so they at least have a grasp of the offense,because if we've learned nothing else in BB's time as HC if you can't understand the playbook you ain't staying around for long. Also there is no guarentee that all 5 of the injured won't be ready come the exhibition season. The Patriots only need 2 of the ten Wr's to totally get the playbook and Amendola has experience in the McD playbook so that only leaves one guy out of 9 to get it.


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

     

    What makes you think they can't handle it ? They have 10 WR's on the present 90 man roster and 7 TE's, with Gronk,Hernandez,Edelman,Harrison and Boyce presently nursing injuries of various degrees of severity. That would still leave 5 veteran WR's availible and 3 veteran TE's already in place. Though Ballard didn't play a down last year you can bet the farm he spent the entire season watching and learning the playbook. The other two guys played on last years team and neither one was cut so they at least have a grasp of the offense,because if we've learned nothing else in BB's time as HC if you can't understand the playbook you ain't staying around for long. Also there is no guarentee that all 5 of the injured won't be ready come the exhibition season. The Patriots only need 2 of the ten Wr's to totally get the playbook and Amendola has experience in the McD playbook so that only leaves one guy out of 9 to get it.


     



    what makes you think they can?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Re: Simplify The Offensive Playbook? Reasons for Optimism.

    Simplifying the offense is nto a good thing or a bad thing. It's just what BB and McD must do for the new make up of this offense; new players, rookies, injuries, etc. So, no matter what it looks like this offense will be geared to our new personnel.

    This is what I have been thinking about for a while, we let Woodhead go to FA. But, in my mind our biggest problem was how predictable our running game was. If we had Ridley in it was pretty much run run run. Rarely did we set screens with him, fake passes to him, or even actually pass it to him. Then we would sub in Woody, it was obvious what we are doing with him on the field, pass pass pass. Yes we did run the ball with Woody, but he was never going to help carry the team and if the passing game wasn't on point his running game drastically suffered. So, we would bring back in Ridley and it was obvious he was in there for the run and wasn't an asset in the passing game.

    Now wha will be using just Ridley and Vereen, two RBs I personally believe coud carry the load for this team and make our offense more potent. Ridley is bigger and he really just needs to get better at pass protection and catching little passes out of the backfield. That mixed with his stats last year I would be very happy. Vereen needs to stay healthy but he has amazing skills running and passing.

    If we can make one of our RBs a primary back, our offense could become more simplified by this new design. As far as our WR go, they're all new so I see us slowly incorporating new wrinkles into the offense based on their skill set development with Brady throughout the year.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share