Jets' Passing Recap Part 1: Opening Drive

[mascho]

 
Josh McDaniels has frequently been the target of scorn from Patriots fans for his play calling and reluctance to adjust during contests. While this writer has at times joined in the chorus of voices calling for his head, there is occasion to offer the offensive coordinator praise. From their opening drive against the Jets and continuing throughout the game, the Patriots’ offense was in position to prosper due to McDaniels’ competence and creativity.

You know who deserves some credit? This guy:
 

 
Part one details how his usage of personnel and tempo led to the Vereen TD.

 

[twothousandone]

This is really great stuff, and using photos and video really helps me understand the opints you are making. I'm not exactly sure where comments are preferred, but of the second play, you wrote:
 

The Patriots remove Hoomanawanui and Develin and replace them with Rob Gronkowski and Tim Wright. This proved crucial for the next few plays. By replacing a tight end and a running back with two tight ends, New England’s offensive personnel package allows the Jets to keep their base defense on the field ‒ which Rex Ryan chooses to do.

You chose the word "allows, but given the next snippet, did you mean "encouraged," "made it easy to default to" or something similar?

The cornerback and safety both fail to make the tackle, and the third defender who tries to tackle the receiver is Calvin Pace, a linebacker. Because New York has their base defense on the field, LaFell is able to run away from a linebacker instead of a speedier defensive back. The receiver picks up 24 yards and gets the ball out to midfield.

I'm not trying to play editor -- I'm just trying to figure out how much credit you are giving McDaniels. Clearly, if the  CB or S make the tackle, it's still a first down, but at the thirty rather than at midfield, which could easily change the sequence of plays and/or their results. But all, still, with the same personnel. I am inferring that you believe McDaniels went with a line-up in that opening drive (after the first play) that would present difficult match-ups for the Jets, and (maybe?) that he suckered them into doing that -- Develin and Hoomanawanui are very different from Wright and Gronk, but since the latter are TEs, the Jets options were constrained, and it was easy to stick with the base personnel. 
I also infer that you believe were it not for the no-huddle, the Jets would have subbed different personnel as the drive progressed. Is that what you had in mind?

 

[Reverend]

This is really great stuff, and using photos and video really helps me understand the opints you are making. I'm not exactly sure where comments are preferred, but of the second play, you wrote:
 

You chose the word "allows, but given the next snippet, did you mean "encouraged," "made it easy to default to" or something similar?

I'm not trying to play editor -- I'm just trying to figure out how much credit you are giving McDaniels. Clearly, if the  CB or S make the tackle, it's still a first down, but at the thirty rather than at midfield, which could easily change the sequence of plays and/or their results. But all, still, with the same personnel. I am inferring that you believe McDaniels went with a line-up in that opening drive (after the first play) that would present difficult match-ups for the Jets, and (maybe?) that he suckered them into doing that -- Develin and Hoomanawanui are very different from Wright and Gronk, but since the latter are TEs, the Jets options were constrained, and it was easy to stick with the base personnel. 
I also infer that you believe were it not for the no-huddle, the Jets would have subbed different personnel as the drive progressed. Is that what you had in mind?

This is a solid comment and, if I'm not mistaken, may have nailed a spot where we missed a language issue.

But beyond that, don't worry about playing editor--although tips are welcome. We absolutely do NOT want synod what's happening here to replace the usual back and forth. The beauty and strength of message boarding gone right is the chance to as figure out what's what by hashing it out in conversation.

I'm a bit afraid that some people are now unsure if they are still welcome to post what with the new styling a. Short answer: yes. Long answer: please.

 

[mascho]

This is really great stuff, and using photos and video really helps me understand the opints you are making. I'm not exactly sure where comments are preferred, but of the second play, you wrote:
 
 
 
You chose the word "allows, but given the next snippet, did you mean "encouraged," "made it easy to default to" or something similar?
I'm not trying to play editor -- I'm just trying to figure out how much credit you are giving McDaniels. Clearly, if the  CB or S make the tackle, it's still a first down, but at the thirty rather than at midfield, which could easily change the sequence of plays and/or their results. But all, still, with the same personnel. I am inferring that you believe McDaniels went with a line-up in that opening drive (after the first play) that would present difficult match-ups for the Jets, and (maybe?) that he suckered them into doing that -- Develin and Hoomanawanui are very different from Wright and Gronk, but since the latter are TEs, the Jets options were constrained, and it was easy to stick with the base personnel. 
I also infer that you believe were it not for the no-huddle, the Jets would have subbed different personnel as the drive progressed. Is that what you had in mind?

 
I think "made it easy to default to" is exactly the language that would apply here. The Jets like to stay in their base defense (another point I should have made clearer) and when the Pats went to 12 it made it easy for the Jets to keep their base personnel on the field. Later when the Patriots went with 11 personnel (Vereen's TD for example) they were in nickel.
 
And while it is easy to speculate, I do think that if Rex had the opportunity to alter personnel on the opening drive he would have, once he saw how the Patriots were using their 12 personnel. By spreading the field New England was able to create some mismatches and opportunities throwing the ball. Now, if Rex brings in his nickel defense, maybe the Patriots stay up-tempo but use Vereen in the run game/out of the backfield more. 
 
Hope that makes things clearer. Thanks for reading and, more importantly, thanks for commenting. 

 

[twothousandone]

Thanks for reading and, more importantly, thanks for commenting. 

You may regret that.
 
So, I'm trying to connect "Facing 2nd and 7 on the Jets’ 48-yard line, the Patriots again forgo a huddle and prevent New York from switching out of their base defense deployment." from the article, with 
 

 Later when the Patriots went with 11 personnel (Vereen's TD for example) they were in nickel.

Maybe that's my ignorance of the phrasing -- is nickle the alignment or the personnel? If it's the alignment, are you suggesting the base personnel are weaker in the nickel (you pointed out Allen's mistake). Would someone else typically have been out there when the Jets go to the nickel?
 
And, it caught my attention because, if I'm connecting the dots properly, LaFell catching that badly thrown pass from Brady was HUGE. It was only for three yards, but a drop (likely?) means the Jets get a chance to adjust personnel and Vereen's TD either doesn't happen or requires some very different skills. 
 
So, again walking through your analysis of the first four plays, did McDaniel possibly hope the Jets wouldn't adjust when Wright and Gronk came in, and when he saw that they didn't, he decided no-huddle was a way to press that advantage? Can he, and the rest of the coaches, and the players, react that fast? Had the Jets brought in someone different fater that first play, does McDaniel never go to the no-huddle, and come up with a different plan of attack? 
 
if feels like it's a bit of chess game (while understanding Brady has to make a great throw) for the coaching staff to match personnel with plays in order to exploit a minor weakness on defense. Great plays can offset the minor weaknesses, of course, but players play and coaches coach. if a part of coaching is creating that minor mis-match that permits a player to take advantage (and I've read part 2), then evaluating a coach (or at least that aspect of his job) becomes somewhat quantifiable, right? On both sides of the ball. So, McDaniel did his job, even if Brady overthrows Vereen, and even if the Jets do roll their coverage. He forced them to defend a Patriots strength with less than optimal personnel/alignment.

 

[soxfan121]

You may regret that.
 
So, I'm trying to connect "Facing 2nd and 7 on the Jets’ 48-yard line, the Patriots again forgo a huddle and prevent New York from switching out of their base defense deployment." from the article, with 
 
Maybe that's my ignorance of the phrasing -- is nickle the alignment or the personnel? If it's the alignment, are you suggesting the base personnel are weaker in the nickel (you pointed out Allen's mistake). Would someone else typically have been out there when the Jets go to the nickel?
 
And, it caught my attention because, if I'm connecting the dots properly, LaFell catching that badly thrown pass from Brady was HUGE. It was only for three yards, but a drop (likely?) means the Jets get a chance to adjust personnel and Vereen's TD either doesn't happen or requires some very different skills. 
 
So, again walking through your analysis of the first four plays, did McDaniel possibly hope the Jets wouldn't adjust when Wright and Gronk came in, and when he saw that they didn't, he decided no-huddle was a way to press that advantage? Can he, and the rest of the coaches, and the players, react that fast? Had the Jets brought in someone different fater that first play, does McDaniel never go to the no-huddle, and come up with a different plan of attack? 
 
if feels like it's a bit of chess game (while understanding Brady has to make a great throw) for the coaching staff to match personnel with plays in order to exploit a minor weakness on defense. Great plays can offset the minor weaknesses, of course, but players play and coaches coach. if a part of coaching is creating that minor mis-match that permits a player to take advantage (and I've read part 2), then evaluating a coach (or at least that aspect of his job) becomes somewhat quantifiable, right? On both sides of the ball. So, McDaniel did his job, even if Brady overthrows Vereen, and even if the Jets do roll their coverage. He forced them to defend a Patriots strength with less than optimal personnel/alignment.

 
You're hired. Check you PMs.

 

[mascho]

You may regret that.
 
So, I'm trying to connect "Facing 2nd and 7 on the Jets’ 48-yard line, the Patriots again forgo a huddle and prevent New York from switching out of their base defense deployment." from the article, with 
 
Maybe that's my ignorance of the phrasing -- is nickle the alignment or the personnel? If it's the alignment, are you suggesting the base personnel are weaker in the nickel (you pointed out Allen's mistake). Would someone else typically have been out there when the Jets go to the nickel?

 
 
The Jets' base personnel is three down linemen, four linebackers and four defensive backs. Their nickel personnel is four down linemen, two linebackers, five defensive backs. If the Jets bring in their nickel personnel, it is unlikely they play Cover 3 on that play. They likely go with Cover 4 or Cover 2 with man coverage underneath, in which case Allen (a converted cornerback) is not covering a deep third to the outside.
 

So, again walking through your analysis of the first four plays, did McDaniel possibly hope the Jets wouldn't adjust when Wright and Gronk came in, and when he saw that they didn't, he decided no-huddle was a way to press that advantage? Can he, and the rest of the coaches, and the players, react that fast? Had the Jets brought in someone different fater that first play, does McDaniel never go to the no-huddle, and come up with a different plan of attack?

 
McDaniels likely had a plan either way. Say the Jets do bring their nickel personnel in. Now they're playing with six guys up front. McDaniels likely responds by using Wright and Gronk primarily as blockers and focuses on the run game with Vereen. Use seven up front (5 OL plus 2 TE) to block their six and hope that you beat them. Their strength is their front, so while I'm personally surprised that Rex didn't do that, I understand. Remember, they are extremely thin right now in the secondary. Rex probably thought his base personnel had a better shot at stopping them than did his nickel grouping, where he removes a front seven player for an extra DB, likely a huge drop in ability given their injuries in the secondary. 
 

 
if feels like it's a bit of chess game (while understanding Brady has to make a great throw) for the coaching staff to match personnel with plays in order to exploit a minor weakness on defense. Great plays can offset the minor weaknesses, of course, but players play and coaches coach. if a part of coaching is creating that minor mis-match that permits a player to take advantage (and I've read part 2), then evaluating a coach (or at least that aspect of his job) becomes somewhat quantifiable, right? On both sides of the ball. So, McDaniel did his job, even if Brady overthrows Vereen, and even if the Jets do roll their coverage. He forced them to defend a Patriots strength with less than optimal personnel/alignment.

 
Yep. Which is why I think McDaniels deserves credit for this drive (as it was an instance of the Patriots' offense actually dictating terms to the defense), as well as for some of the designs discussed in Part II. When the Jets did bring pressure McDaniels turned to two receiver routes that were able to protect Brady with extra blockers and yet still attack the coverage using only Edelman and LaFell.