The Game Ball Thread: Wk 15 @ Broncos

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I seem to recall Cannon had a foot injury that cost him a few games, and he was clearly limited when he came back. Both Mason and Andrews have developed from their rookie seasons, and Thuney has done a credible job as a rookie, despite his struggles Sunday. And, of course, Solder.
I hope Thunk's struggles were simply a bad game against a very good defense in a hostile environment, and not indicative of the beginning of the "Rookie Wall."

I will echo the praise for Solder. The silence on him in the game threads and overall discussions of the season are likely as good a compliment as an OLineman might ever want, and Cannon, in comparison to last season's debacle (not just against Denver), has been a revelation, but Solder has held down the blind side quite admirably all season.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
It is mentioned upthread, but bears repeating...the Broncos had to put a man on McClellin. Just because he is an ineligible receiver does not mean that he can't get the ball. He just can't catch a pass or go downfield prior to a pass. Likely? Nope, I would put the odds of him getting a lateral at about 1/1,000,000. But the defense can't completely ignore him either. As someone said, that play was designed to do one thing...get Von Miller off the line of scrimmage and out of the play.
If I'm Denver, I think I'm taking my chances with a defender who never touches the ball trying to catch a lateral (which is a fumble if he drops it) and then run forward without fumbling.
 

StupendousMan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,909
If I'm Denver, I think I'm taking my chances with a defender who never touches the ball trying to catch a lateral (which is a fumble if he drops it) and then run forward without fumbling.
If you are the Denver coaching staff, have you prepared your defensive line and linebackers for this situation in practices?

If you are a Denver defensive player, and you have not been prepared for this situation, and you have about 7 seconds to make a decision, do you play it safe and cover the offensive player, or leave him completely uncovered?

I've read that some teams have "safety" plans for dealing with unexpected formations (such as the Colts' fake punt play). Wouldn't the "safe" option here be to cover the player?

Props to the Patriots' coaches for giving the opponent yet another item to keep in mind.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
If you are the Denver coaching staff, have you prepared your defensive line and linebackers for this situation in practices?

If you are a Denver defensive player, and you have not been prepared for this situation, and you have about 7 seconds to make a decision, do you play it safe and cover the offensive player, or leave him completely uncovered?
I agree with all this. I was responding to the specific notion that Denver had to cover McClellin. They didn't. Miller made the safe play in the moment, but given more time to think about it he would have left McClellin alone and rushed. The Patriots know this too, which is why they didn't try to run it again. The value was all in the surprise.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,758
Pittsburgh, PA
It is mentioned upthread, but bears repeating...the Broncos had to put a man on McClellin. Just because he is an ineligible receiver does not mean that he can't get the ball. He just can't catch a pass or go downfield prior to a pass. Likely? Nope, I would put the odds of him getting a lateral at about 1/1,000,000. But the defense can't completely ignore him either. As someone said, that play was designed to do one thing...get Von Miller off the line of scrimmage and out of the play.
It was designed to also do a second thing: get the TE who's on the end of the line treated as an OL, going unblocked, and catching a nice pass up the middle like Hoomanawanui did two years ago.

In this case, the Broncos, being a good defense, actually covered him and he wasn't open. So we threw incomplete. Alas.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
It is mentioned upthread, but bears repeating...the Broncos had to put a man on McClellin. Just because he is an ineligible receiver does not mean that he can't get the ball. He just can't catch a pass or go downfield prior to a pass. Likely? Nope, I would put the odds of him getting a lateral at about 1/1,000,000. But the defense can't completely ignore him either. As someone said, that play was designed to do one thing...get Von Miller off the line of scrimmage and out of the play.
If no defensive player is within 15 yards of him, I think the odds of McClellin getting the lateral are significantly higher than 1/1,000,000. I'm guessing it's part of Brady's pre-snap read of the formation.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
If no defensive player is within 15 yards of him, I think the odds of McClellin getting the lateral are significantly higher than 1/1,000,000. I'm guessing it's part of Brady's pre-snap read of the formation.
I'm with you on this.

With BB's history, I really doubt he puts a guy out there who can't catch. I'm sure they've run the version of this play where he gets the ball quite a few times in practice, and I'm sure Brady was ready to throw it to him. It's a free first down if they don't cover it and he can catch, it's a disaster if he can't because you've got an overloaded line. BB doesn't put the guy out there if he isn't confident he can do his job.

Think about the defensive players that BB has put on the field during offensive downs - they're few and far between.
 

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
449
I'm with you on this.

With BB's history, I really doubt he puts a guy out there who can't catch. I'm sure they've run the version of this play where he gets the ball quite a few times in practice, and I'm sure Brady was ready to throw it to him. It's a free first down if they don't cover it and he can catch, it's a disaster if he can't because you've got an overloaded line. BB doesn't put the guy out there if he isn't confident he can do his job.

Think about the defensive players that BB has put on the field during offensive downs - they're few and far between.
It was really just Vrabel and Seymour, right? Well, I guess you'd count Klecko, too, back in the day. (And obviously not counting some of our previous defensive backs like Troy Brown and Julian Edelman who could also play WR, too). (wait, that wasn't a quiz question?).
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It seems like the setup would be to have a few plays where McClellin (or whomever) come in as eligible and split wide out off the LOS or on so that he seems like a real option (a la Vrabel in his heyday). Then run the formation as on Sunday.'

Or run it a couple more times where he is ineligible for anything other than a lateral, ignore him completely> And then runs play where you actually lateral to him when the D has given up on him'
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
With BB's history, I really doubt he puts a guy out there who can't catch. I'm sure they've run the version of this play where he gets the ball quite a few times in practice, and I'm sure Brady was ready to throw it to him. It's a free first down if they don't cover it and he can catch, it's a disaster if he can't because you've got an overloaded line. BB doesn't put the guy out there if he isn't confident he can do his job.
My opinion is that McClellin is 100% a decoy and there is no scenario where he gets the football. There are five eligible receivers and because of the nature of the play there are only four blockers. Brady isn't going to have five seconds to get to a sixth player in the progression. It's designed as a quick hit to Lengel (eligible but lined up like a LT) and there's probably an option b, maybe even c in case he's covered (as he was here) but at that point Brady's throwing it away because the protection isn't going to be there for any other options.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
I'm with you on this.

With BB's history, I really doubt he puts a guy out there who can't catch. .... BB doesn't put the guy out there if he isn't confident he can do his job.
Cyrus Jones approves of this post.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
My opinion is that McClellin is 100% a decoy and there is no scenario where he gets the football. There are five eligible receivers and because of the nature of the play there are only four blockers. Brady isn't going to have five seconds to get to a sixth player in the progression. It's designed as a quick hit to Lengel (eligible but lined up like a LT) and there's probably an option b, maybe even c in case he's covered (as he was here) but at that point Brady's throwing it away because the protection isn't going to be there for any other options.
I agree Brady isn't going to have much time to progress through multiple receivers after the snap, that's why I wrote it would be part of his pre-snap read.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
Wouldn't him getting the ball first b
My opinion is that McClellin is 100% a decoy and there is no scenario where he gets the football. There are five eligible receivers and because of the nature of the play there are only four blockers. Brady isn't going to have five seconds to get to a sixth player in the progression. It's designed as a quick hit to Lengel (eligible but lined up like a LT) and there's probably an option b, maybe even c in case he's covered (as he was here) but at that point Brady's throwing it away because the protection isn't going to be there for any other options.
That's what you think until he throws it to McClellin, who then throws it back to Brady, who then throws it to Hogan running down the sideline against the Ravens in the 2016/17 Playoffs!
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm sure this applies to most professional athletes, but McClellin was a 3-sport athlete in high school. We've already seen his athleticism in his leaping-the-center FG block (quick aside: I bet that play is deemed illegal next year). I bet there are real, football-related reasons that he's the guy out there and none of them are related to the fact that he wears the same number as Von Miller
 

speedracer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,832
If no defensive player is within 15 yards of him, I think the odds of McClellin getting the lateral are significantly higher than 1/1,000,000. I'm guessing it's part of Brady's pre-snap read of the formation.
'Screen' pass to the WR on his side with McClellin as lead blocker seems more likely to me. Not all that different from some of Chip Kelly's wide tackle formations.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
'Screen' pass to the WR on his side with McClellin as lead blocker seems more likely to me. Not all that different from some of Chip Kelly's wide tackle formations.
Yeah, this is a wrinkle that makes sense to me. Force the D to account for McClellin from a numbers standpoint at least, but don't risk him having to catch the ball.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
'Screen' pass to the WR on his side with McClellin as lead blocker seems more likely to me. Not all that different from some of Chip Kelly's wide tackle formations.
Except that it was designed by an effective NFL coach.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
I'm sure this applies to most professional athletes, but McClellin was a 3-sport athlete in high school. We've already seen his athleticism in his leaping-the-center FG block (quick aside: I bet that play is deemed illegal next year). I bet there are real, football-related reasons that he's the guy out there and none of them are related to the fact that he wears the same number as Von Miller
Well, one of the reasons is related to his number, since that is why the formation is legal the first place.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
A guy split out must wear Von Miller's number?!???
Genius!
My point being that McClellin had certain athletic advantages over other Patriots with eligible numbers.

I wonder if we will see the return of a defensive player, and again, Shea is the most likely, IMHO, to the Mike Vrabel short yardage TD machine role.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
A guy split out must wear Von Miller's number?!???
Genius!
My point being that McClellin had certain athletic advantages over other Patriots with eligible numbers.

I wonder if we will see the return of a defensive player, and again, Shea is the most likely, IMHO, to the Mike Vrabel short yardage TD machine role.
Given the lack of depth at WR, maybe it's more likely we'll see a defensive back running patterns for Brady.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,278
AZ
Under the new rule, it's actually a bit easier to be deceptive, because there is no announcement that the guy is ineligible. I guess the play under the old rule worked because it relies in part on the defender saying "that's Vereen, we better cover". But really, that's not how the "trick" works. It worked against Baltimore because when a defensive back sees two guys on either side of center, he thinks, "I don't have to worry about them". Now, the cat is out of the bag, and you know you do. If you see a guy with an eligible number on a four man line, now, you have to be alert. And if he starts running a pass pattern, you know instantly that the team is not stupidly taking an obvious man downfield penalty and so you cover him.

What's happening elsewhere on the line is really not all that important. In other words, the question of how the offense got a fourth man legally on the line is really a bit of a red herring. if you see a four man line with an eligible guy, just think "alert" and you will be fine. I guess if the offense is frequently using a tight end to block in a four man line then you do need to be able to diagnose when it's a trick and when it's not, but what offense is going to do that more than once or twice?

If a bye-product of the play is that a defender takes himself out of the play by thinking about an ineligible guy, that's great. But that's not really what the trick is, and for the trick the cat is out of the bag.

Edit: by-product not bye-product. Clearly I have the football playoffs on the brain.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
God, I hope not. The Pats DBs have hands of stone for the most part. I don't think I've ever seen -- at least not in the past few years -- a Pats defender make a great catch.
I agree with your larger point about hands of stone, but below has to count as a great catch...

 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
God, I hope not. The Pats DBs have hands of stone for the most part. I don't think I've ever seen -- at least not in the past few years -- a Pats defender make a great catch.
On the off chance this isn't just ingenious sarcasm, Malcolm also made a really nice pick, I believe early this season, where he kind of scooped a ball nearly off the turf while executing a barrel roll. It was dope
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
McCourty's interception last week showed good hands. Plus he was the primary kick returner in 2012. He may not have the hands of a good receiver, but hands of stone isn't right.