Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Stinkin Ref

"Trick" Plays.....?

Recommended Posts

As I watched the game last night and many others throughout the years, I have wondered why teams don't try to mix things up a little more?

Mostly referring to flea flickers or half back option passes.

I know the company lines of "risky" and "asking players to do something they do not normally do" and "the more you exchange the ball the more you can turn it over".......but......

many of them really seem to work......you will occassionally see one that backfires.....like a WR throwing a ball on a trick play that even you and I could easily see he should have never thrown and just tucked it away and took the loss or whatever......and I am not a big fan of the double reverses, etc with the speed of defensive lineman these days and what not....

but hardly do you see a team run a flea flicker twice in a game.....I just think if you make the defense think that you may run that trick play more then once a game....it would go a long way in keeping the safeties back and open up space in that second line of defense past the line of scrimmage.......if every time you hand off to the RB up the middle, that safety or safties think you could end up throwing the ball....I think they would have to not be able to attack the line of scrimmage so hard....

and the half back pass that LT runs so well.....show that look a little more.....he always has the option to tuck it away and get what he can on the ground, or thow it out of bounds....

I just think more teams could use these plays and I think even if they aren't always successful.....the mere threat that you may do it, would be worth some yards here and there for your running game....a flea flicker is not that difficult to execute when you are dealing with professional athletes who have time to work on these things....

Edited by Stinkin Ref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no proof, but to me, there are more trick plays now than, say, 20 years ago. There was the flea flicker last night. Hank Baskett botched a pass Sunday for the Eagles. LT threw his 3rd TD of the year. teams seem to run at least one reverse per game. It just seemed like in the 70s & 80s you would only see 1-2 flea flickers, option passes, etc. a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pissed about the flea-flicker last night simply because I have Baltimore's defense. But they saw Ed Reed cheating up into the box all night trying to stop Rudi. So from a scheme standpoint, it was the smart thing to do, even though I thought it was a little sissy of them. ;)

And coaches have egos, make no mistake. A lot of coaches think that if they run gadget plays, that is telling the other team that "we have to trick you in order to beat you" because we cannot line up man-on-man and ram the ball down your throat. Coaches have pride just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coaches are afraid to lose on a play that stands out. If you run a flea flicker and the INT is returned for a TD the narrow minded football fans and media will crucify you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coaches are afraid to lose on a play that stands out. If you run a flea flicker and the INT is returned for a TD the narrow minded football fans and media will crucify you.

Not much worry about that with Carson. With any trick play, be it a flea-flicker or a halfback option, you tell the passer a million times to either find a checkdown receiver or simply throw the ball away if the primary receiver is covered. The fact that Housh was open by 30 yards helped a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many of them really seem to work

Totally disagree. I think you have selective memory on this.Also, the trick play is most effective when it is a surprise and the more you use it, the more you negate that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't used more because they usually involve a high risk of something going wrong. High Risk/High Reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't used more because they usually involve a high risk of something going wrong. High Risk/High Reward.

:goodposting: The court will now refer you to the case of John Fox vs. Minnesota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't used more because they usually involve a high risk of something going wrong. High Risk/High Reward.

That risk is mitigated by allowing a former QB to throw on a WR / halfback option, like ARE. Hank Baskett was a WR throughout college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see team to a shot at a trick play at least once a game..maybe twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought Pittsburgh could of done some entertaining stuff with their offense a few years ago:

- Kordell

- Hines Ward

- Randle-El

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MLBrandow

They aren't used more because they usually involve a high risk of something going wrong. High Risk/High Reward.

That risk is mitigated by allowing a former QB to throw on a WR / halfback option, like ARE. Hank Baskett was a WR throughout college.
Agree with this.If I'm a gambling coach, like say Fisher or Belichick e.g., the only thing holding me back from doing trick plays with regularity is time constraints.Figure that you generally have five days to prepare for a team. TWRFS. Most of that time is spent mastering certain nuances and tendencies of the opponent.To get such a gadget play to work, you have to practice it, and that takes time away from something else in practice.A team like the Patriots can afford to run a lot of trickery because their core is so well-versed and full of 3+ year veterans in that system.A team like the Titans can afford to run a lot of trickery because they have nothing to lose regardless, and sometimes that's the only way they can stay in the game (remember one of the Titans/Colts games of last year where Fisher threw everything he had at Indy).I think any given team probably practices 10-15 trick plays to use once or twice throughout the year, and they probably do this in the preseason, and then just reference them quickly that week. Most teams simply can't afford to spend a lot of time running so many trick plays because you have to first learn your opponent's tendencies.At least that's my theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone see the Browns try this ridiculous trick play vs the Ravens?

After replacing starter Brian Hoyer and handing off on a running play, Manziel appeared to be leaving the field when he ran toward the sideline. He stopped a little short of the sideline, and with his back to the action, pretended to have an animated conversation with offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan when the ball was snapped.

Shanahan, who was keeping an eye on what was going on behind Manziel, told him, "'Go," and No. 2 took off.

Manziel caught a short pass from Hoyer and sprinted down Cleveland's sideline before he was shoved out of bounds at the Baltimore 23.

The play worked to perfection but Browns rookie running back Terrance West was called for an illegal shift, negating Manziel's 39-yard pickup.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/21/johnny-manziel-trick-play-ravens_n_5857706.html

I thought this was actually illegal in the first place, ie you can't just hang out on the sideline and pretend to be off the field.

The play was illegal because Manziel lined up too close to the Browns' bench area; he needed to be at least five yards from the sideline. But the officials never called that unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, and coach Mike Pettine said he was told the way the Browns ran the play was within the rules.

Montgomery said he knew the formation was illegal, and he was hoping the refs wouldn’t see it. According to him, they did.

"He was going to call it," Montgomery said.

That might not make everything clear. But on the half-full side, the illegal shift that was called against Cleveland on the play instead of unsportsmanlike conduct saved the Browns 10 yards.

http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/8284/montgomery-adds-to-confusion-to-johnny-manziel-trick-play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other side does practice defending trick plays. I thought I had succeeded when I got 2 fingers under the hinge of her bra strap. She was prepared ahead of time with the super glue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the “fake punt return” pulled off by the Rams last weekend. Basically Austin, the Rams’ regular punt returner, pretends he is going to get the punt when in fact it is headed to the other side of the field. For whatever reason the punter appears to be the only guy who knows where he punted the ball. It’s unbelievable they do not discuss where the ball is going in the huddle.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000413068/Wk-7-Can-t-Miss-Play-Specials-teams-psych-out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the “fake punt return” pulled off by the Rams last weekend. Basically Austin, the Rams’ regular punt returner, pretends he is going to get the punt when in fact it is headed to the other side of the field. For whatever reason the punter appears to be the only guy who knows where he punted the ball. It’s unbelievable they do not discuss where the ball is going in the huddle.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000413068/Wk-7-Can-t-Miss-Play-Specials-teams-psych-out

From what I understand Jon Ryan screwed up the kick and it sailed to the wrong side. Still I can't believe they dont look up for a half second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the fake punt return pulled off by the Rams last weekend. Basically Austin, the Rams regular punt returner, pretends he is going to get the punt when in fact it is headed to the other side of the field. For whatever reason the punter appears to be the only guy who knows where he punted the ball. Its unbelievable they do not discuss where the ball is going in the huddle.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000413068/Wk-7-Can-t-Miss-Play-Specials-teams-psych-out

From what I understand Jon Ryan screwed up the kick and it sailed to the wrong side. Still I can't believe they dont look up for a half second.

Why did the return blockers seem to roll coverage that way then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rudi Johnson? Carson Palmer on Cincy? Did I enter a time warp?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets trade for Percy Harvin annnnd.... promptly involve him in an awful hide-the-second-returner-for-an-end-zone-lateral routine.... which is covered anyway.

Result: tackled on 3 yard line.

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/10/26/7073749/jets-try-hiding-guy-in-the-end-zone-return-fail-massively

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh said of one of the offensive formations run by New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, “It’s not something that anybody has ever done before,” he didn’t mean it as a compliment.

Down 14 in the third quarter, Bill Belichick dug deep in his bag of tricks to insert running back Shane Vereen as a lineman. Vereen’s size, jersey number, and positioning wide from the four other lineman confused the Baltimore Ravens and enraged their coach, who ran onto the field in protest. The officials flagged Harbaugh, which, along with the confusion wrought by the unique formation, ultimately led to a Rob Gronkowski touchdown reception to the put the Patriots back just 28-21. New England ultimately won the classic contest 34-31.

The losing coach denounced the formation as “illegal,” “clearly deceptive,” and a “trick” after the defeat.

“Maybe those guys gotta study the rulebook and figure it out,” Patriots quarterback Tom Brady opined following the game. “We obviously knew what we were doing and we made some pretty important plays. It was a real good weapon for us.”

Though coaches, to beef up their blocking on run plays or catch the defense off guard on pass plays, generally report a tackle eligible on an every-game-or-so basis, the idea of posting a running back on the line and reporting him as ineligible hadn’t occurred to anybody–at least by Harbaugh’s telling–until Bill Belichick and offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels employed the perplexing formation in the third quarter of Saturday’s game. Despite Alabama running a similar–but not nearly as unconventional–formation against LSU earlier this season, Harbaugh appeared caught completely off guard: “Nobody’s ever seen that before.”

Although Vereen split from the four othernte irior lineman (tackle Nate Solder, who played some tight end at Colorado, lined up as a flanker in the Vine below), an end split wider than him, making him a lineman ineligible to catch a pass. At 5-feet, ten-inches, Vereen surely didn’t strike any of Baltimore’s defensive players as a right tackle, which naturally created confusion for coverage assignments. One of Harbaugh’s complaints to the referees centered on the officiating crew’s failure to give adequate notice to the defense about Vereen’s status as ineligible because of New England’s no-huddle offense.

Like the reactions of coaches more than a century ago to the first appearances of the forward pass and the flying wedge, Harbaugh wants the rules committee to address the legality of Belichick’s offensive scheme. It may, like the pass, become a far more familiar component of the game, or it may, like the flying wedge, become merely legendary because of a quick prohibition against it.

Belichick’s tricks did not cease with the series using just four regular linemen. A few minutes after running the back (who wasn’t back but on the line) ineligible plays, the Patriots ran a double pass–a Brady backwards pass to slot receiver Julian Edelman, a quarterback at Kent State, who threw a perfectly placed ball to doppelganger Danny Amendola–for a touchdown to tie the game at 28.

The normally tight-lipped New England coach appeared almost verbose in his postgame analysis of the controversial receiver-ineligible play.

“It’s a play that we thought would work,” Belichick offered. “We ran it three times, a couple different looks. We had six eligible receivers on the field, but only five were eligible. The one who was ineligible reported that he was ineligible. No different than on the punt team or a situation like that.”

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/01/11/patriot-games-harbaugh-denounces-trick-brady-says-study-the-rulebook/

I have to say, I have no problem with this.

In fact I don't even think it's a "trick". It's a basic lineup, just like every other one, so many men on the line, so many men lined up in position to catch a pass from one of the eligible positions.

If you want to put the left tackle in at QB, and the QB in at TE, and the TE in at halfback, you could do that.

Personally I think there are a lot more things that can be done with formations using players in all varieties of places and it would be nice to see more coaches be creative in this regard. Only other guy I can think of doing this is Chip Kelly and he did most of it when he came into the league last year but gradually cut back on it.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vereen reported as ineligible,ref notified Ravens D,Ravens D covered Vereen. No cheating,legit play,bad defense

Edited by Rubi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree but the ref needs to give more time to the defense to adjust and communicate it around.

They should change the rule in the offseason and allow a 5 sec delay to give defense time to adjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree but the ref needs to give more time to the defense to adjust and communicate it around.

They should change the rule in the offseason and allow a 5 sec delay to give defense time to adjust.

if you watched the vid clip in that link you'd have seen the caption

And here's six seconds between announcing ineligible and the snap. So. Not sure how long he's supposed to wait?

I didn't hand time it

so, what's your complaint?

I believe this is from another article

Vereen declared himself ineligible, with Vinovich

actually announcing that the Ravens should not cover No. 34. The Ravens,

however, did cover No. 34, which allowed Brady to connect with Hoomanwanui for another 14 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree but the ref needs to give more time to the defense to adjust and communicate it around.

They should change the rule in the offseason and allow a 5 sec delay to give defense time to adjust.

you're kidding right....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree but the ref needs to give more time to the defense to adjust and communicate it around.

They should change the rule in the offseason and allow a 5 sec delay to give defense time to adjust.

you're kidding right....?

Posted this elsewhere ...

FWIW, Tony Dungy was on Dan Patrick this morning saying that Belichik's "ineligible RB" strategy would be outlawed this offseason. I wish Dan has asked him for a confidence factor or something. But Dungy was adamant that the Competition Committee would pretty much summarily put this to bed this spring. I wonder who Dungy talked to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree but the ref needs to give more time to the defense to adjust and communicate it around.

They should change the rule in the offseason and allow a 5 sec delay to give defense time to adjust.

you're kidding right....?

Posted this elsewhere ...

FWIW, Tony Dungy was on Dan Patrick this morning saying that Belichik's "ineligible RB" strategy would be outlawed this offseason. I wish Dan has asked him for a confidence factor or something. But Dungy was adamant that the Competition Committee would pretty much summarily put this to bed this spring. I wonder who Dungy talked to?

the whole reason they ran the play was to confuse the other team and to hopefully gain an advantage with the surprise factor while playing within the rules.....allowing the other team time to "adjust" defeats the whole purpose.....people try to act like 'doing something different" is cheating.....deception is a huge part of this game.....should teams announce...."hey we are getting ready to run play action, so don't fall for our fake handoff, and make sure you have the personel in the game that you want in".....one mississippi, two mississippi, three........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole reason they ran the play was to confuse the other team and to hopefully gain an advantage with the surprise factor while playing within the rules.....allowing the other team time to "adjust" defeats the whole purpose.....people try to act like 'doing something different" is cheating.....deception is a huge part of this game.....should teams announce...."hey we are getting ready to run play action, so don't fall for our fake handoff, and make sure you have the personel in the game that you want in".....one mississippi, two mississippi, three........

JIslander also heard Dungy this morning, and clarified what he said:

Two things about what Dungy said:

1) Vereen not notifying he was ineligble until he lined up vs. Before going into huddle

2) Vereeen becoming "ineligible" and "eligible" while staying in game.

#1 - that's pushing the sportsmanship part IMO. Play doesn't work so well I suppose if Vereen informs when he should.

#2 - refs blew no penalty on that

Maybe the rule change will be that notifications must be made before a huddle? Looks like JIslander's implying rhar there's already a rule on the books about being ineligible and then eligible on consecutive plays without leaving the game for a play (but is there?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the ref goes out of his way to tell your team not to cover a certain player, but you do so anyway, you really have no one to blame but yourself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole reason they ran the play was to confuse the other team and to hopefully gain an advantage with the surprise factor while playing within the rules.....allowing the other team time to "adjust" defeats the whole purpose.....people try to act like 'doing something different" is cheating.....deception is a huge part of this game.....should teams announce...."hey we are getting ready to run play action, so don't fall for our fake handoff, and make sure you have the personel in the game that you want in".....one mississippi, two mississippi, three........

JIslander also heard Dungy this morning, and clarified what he said:

Two things about what Dungy said:

1) Vereen not notifying he was ineligble until he lined up vs. Before going into huddle

2) Vereeen becoming "ineligible" and "eligible" while staying in game.

#1 - that's pushing the sportsmanship part IMO. Play doesn't work so well I suppose if Vereen informs when he should.

#2 - refs blew no penalty on that

Maybe the rule change will be that notifications must be made before a huddle? Looks like JIslander's implying rhar there's already a rule on the books about being ineligible and then eligible on consecutive plays without leaving the game for a play (but is there?).

Give me a break, he just has to report when he lines up at illegible position, tackles do this at the TE spot all the time. They stay in the game but then report, even for consecutive plays, every time they line up an illegible position they report, when they don't they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole reason they ran the play was to confuse the other team and to hopefully gain an advantage with the surprise factor while playing within the rules.....allowing the other team time to "adjust" defeats the whole purpose.....people try to act like 'doing something different" is cheating.....deception is a huge part of this game.....should teams announce...."hey we are getting ready to run play action, so don't fall for our fake handoff, and make sure you have the personel in the game that you want in".....one mississippi, two mississippi, three........

JIslander also heard Dungy this morning, and clarified what he said:

Two things about what Dungy said:

1) Vereen not notifying he was ineligble until he lined up vs. Before going into huddle

2) Vereeen becoming "ineligible" and "eligible" while staying in game.

#1 - that's pushing the sportsmanship part IMO. Play doesn't work so well I suppose if Vereen informs when he should.

#2 - refs blew no penalty on that

Maybe the rule change will be that notifications must be made before a huddle? Looks like JIslander's implying rhar there's already a rule on the books about being ineligible and then eligible on consecutive plays without leaving the game for a play (but is there?).

Give me a break, he just has to report when he lines up at illegible position, tackles do this at the TE spot all the time. They stay in the game but then report, even for consecutive plays, every time they line up an illegible position they report, when they don't they don't.

Maybe a player with an eligible number can't do it like that. Well, we'll see if anything comes of it this off-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets trade for Percy Harvin annnnd.... promptly involve him in an awful hide-the-second-returner-for-an-end-zone-lateral routine.... which is covered anyway.

Result: tackled on 3 yard line.

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/10/26/7073749/jets-try-hiding-guy-in-the-end-zone-return-fail-massively

This was unbelievable when it happened. Such a disaster. Ahhh…Rex. We are not going to miss your drive-killing wildcat. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick noted that the team's offensive set featuring four offensive linemen was something they had picked up from film study of another NFL team. That's one of the benefits of a postseason bye week: additional film study and the benefit to add wrinkles to your playbook.

And while we don't know for sure which NFL team Belichick was referring to, we did come across a play that may have been a root of their motivation. Back in Week 6, the Detroit Lions traveled to Minnesota to play the Vikings. At 8:59 of the third quarter, Detroit deployed a personnel group that actually featured six offensive linemen, but the formation is nearly identical to what the Patriots did on Sunday with their four offensive linemen set.

The Lions flexed an offensive lineman out between two receivers, similar to what the Patriots did with Shane Vereen. In both cases, these players were ineligible receivers based off of alignment (note: any player that aligns on the line of scrimmage but is covered up by another receiver is ineligible).

On the other side of the formation, the Lions had two receivers aligned outside but off of the line of scrimmage, making the right tackle an eligible receiver, much like Michael Hoomanawanui was for the Patriots while on the left side of the line.

As far as route concepts go, much like the Patriots did, the Lions sent four of their receivers vertically up the field (including the right tackle on a seam route, a la Hoomanwanui) and kept the ineligible receiver behind the line of scrimmage.

The Lions were less successful in their attempt (the Vikings sacked quarterback Matthew Stafford), but the challenge it presented the defense was similar: in both cases, the ineligible receiver was accounted for, while the eligible receiver aligned in a conventional offensive tackle alignment (like Hoomanwanui) was largely left ignored and free to press up the seam.

thx, field yates

note: pats played detroit a few week after this game

Edited by Kool-Aid Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree but the ref needs to give more time to the defense to adjust and communicate it around.

They should change the rule in the offseason and allow a 5 sec delay to give defense time to adjust.

you're kidding right....?

Posted this elsewhere ...

FWIW, Tony Dungy was on Dan Patrick this morning saying that Belichik's "ineligible RB" strategy would be outlawed this offseason. I wish Dan has asked him for a confidence factor or something. But Dungy was adamant that the Competition Committee would pretty much summarily put this to bed this spring. I wonder who Dungy talked to?

Soooooo that means it was legal THIS season,which is when the game was played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like when the steelers 'roided their way to championships

here's matt chatham's write up on it

not crazy different from the rest, but I like that dude --- he used to play lb for us

What the Ravens should have done is not focus on who they have, but instead check out of any defensive call that requires them to matchup presnap. In other words, when the formation is confusing, check out of man coverage calls immediately into a zone one where it doesn't matter if you fully understand who's eligible.

Every team in the NFL has what we referred to as a "safe" call...a presnap zone check that makes sure there are no mistakes if something bizarre happens because the defense just guards areas and not specific people. Who's eligible at that point doesn't really matter. The Ravens have a rookie middle linebacker, I'm not sure if that contributed to them not checking into a better call. But the players on the field have to put the defense in the best position possible. The NFL isn't college, there's plenty of onfield autonomy to make the necessary changes when the other team is trying to screw with you.

Edited by Kool-Aid Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick noted that the team's offensive set featuring four offensive linemen was something they had picked up from film study of another NFL team. That's one of the benefits of a postseason bye week: additional film study and the benefit to add wrinkles to your playbook.

And while we don't know for sure which NFL team Belichick was referring to, we did come across a play that may have been a root of their motivation. Back in Week 6, the Detroit Lions traveled to Minnesota to play the Vikings. At 8:59 of the third quarter, Detroit deployed a personnel group that actually featured six offensive linemen, but the formation is nearly identical to what the Patriots did on Sunday with their four offensive linemen set.

The Lions flexed an offensive lineman out between two receivers, similar to what the Patriots did with Shane Vereen. In both cases, these players were ineligible receivers based off of alignment (note: any player that aligns on the line of scrimmage but is covered up by another receiver is ineligible).

On the other side of the formation, the Lions had two receivers aligned outside but off of the line of scrimmage, making the right tackle an eligible receiver, much like Michael Hoomanawanui was for the Patriots while on the left side of the line.

As far as route concepts go, much like the Patriots did, the Lions sent four of their receivers vertically up the field (including the right tackle on a seam route, a la Hoomanwanui) and kept the ineligible receiver behind the line of scrimmage.

The Lions were less successful in their attempt (the Vikings sacked quarterback Matthew Stafford), but the challenge it presented the defense was similar: in both cases, the ineligible receiver was accounted for, while the eligible receiver aligned in a conventional offensive tackle alignment (like Hoomanwanui) was largely left ignored and free to press up the seam.

thx, field yates

note: pats played detroit a few week after this game

And Lombardi is the Lions OC who used to be QB coach with the Saints and I could swear the Saints used to do this in the past, especially near the goal line with Zach Strief. But I don't recall it this year.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patriots' savvy tactic leaves Colts defense confused

If you watched even a little of the Indianapolis Colts' loss to the New England Patriots on Sunday night, you undoubtedly heard the game officials repeatedly announcing that No. 71 was reporting as an eligible receiver.

You probably paid it very little mind at the time. But you perhaps should have, because this was actually a key element in the game.

No. 71 has a name. He's Patriots rookie offensive lineman Cameron Fleming, and he reported as an eligible tackle some 37 times, according to ESPNBoston.com. Hard as it might be to believe, the tactic wreaked havoc on the Colts defense and loomed large in the Patriots' rushing success.

Here's how:

Fleming's insertion into the lineup was not expected by the Colts, and when he did enter the game, it left the Colts unable to easily identify the offense's strong side. That had a cascading effect, creating confusion among the Colts' defensive linemen, who determine where to line up based on the offense's strong side. The pre-snap confusion had a clear impact after the snap, too, contributing to their failure to corral running back Jonas Gray.

Why the confusion?

Because the strong side is typically the one on which the tight end lines up. That tight end often is Rob Gronkowski, who the Colts certainly had to respect in the running game. But, ultimately, the Patriots ran the ball more often to Fleming's side of the line.

And it's no wonder why.

"We call it jumbo," Colts coach Chuck Pagano said. "No. 71, they used (him) as an extra tight end. He comes in, reports eligible and you get a bigger guy on the edge at the point of attack. They did a nice job. They had a good scheme."

A good scheme indeed. But why didn't the Colts respond better? Why didn't they make better adjustments?

After talking with Pagano and players about this issue, it became clear they never fully got a handle on what was going on, allowing the Patriots to continue enjoying the advantage that came from having an extra blocker in the running game.

Thus the reason the Patriots used Fleming 37 times.

It was another inevitable Patriots wrinkle. And the Colts' inability to counter it contributed greatly to their decisive loss Sunday night.

http://www.indystar.com/story/colts-insider/2014/11/18/colts-patriots-extra-blockers-cameron-fleming/19200921/

Honestly to me it's the same thing.

Great coaching, the NFL should be thankful for BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, it's just the semantics of what constitutes 'different'.

like I posted earlier, it's basically just a story because it's belichick, but as for the actual play, the scheme is nothing unusual, it's just some of the details of the execution that maybe make it look different to some people.

both the above examples and this play involve swapping typically eligible/ineligible guys, and of course the defense can make subs of their own to match the offense in both cases.

the patriots' versatile players allowed them to make a typically eligible guy ineligible rather than the other way around, so it's just some pretty clever scheming, and the manner in which you build your roster.

and, of course, the baltimore handling of it certainly didn't hurt........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole reason they ran the play was to confuse the other team and to hopefully gain an advantage with the surprise factor while playing within the rules.....allowing the other team time to "adjust" defeats the whole purpose.....people try to act like 'doing something different" is cheating.....deception is a huge part of this game.....should teams announce...."hey we are getting ready to run play action, so don't fall for our fake handoff, and make sure you have the personel in the game that you want in".....one mississippi, two mississippi, three........

JIslander also heard Dungy this morning, and clarified what he said:

Two things about what Dungy said:

1) Vereen not notifying he was ineligble until he lined up vs. Before going into huddle

2) Vereeen becoming "ineligible" and "eligible" while staying in game.

#1 - that's pushing the sportsmanship part IMO. Play doesn't work so well I suppose if Vereen informs when he should.

#2 - refs blew no penalty on that

Maybe the rule change will be that notifications must be made before a huddle? Looks like JIslander's implying rhar there's already a rule on the books about being ineligible and then eligible on consecutive plays without leaving the game for a play (but is there?).

Give me a break, he just has to report when he lines up at illegible position, tackles do this at the TE spot all the time. They stay in the game but then report, even for consecutive plays, every time they line up an illegible position they report, when they don't they don't.

Maybe a player with an eligible number can't do it like that. Well, we'll see if anything comes of it this off-season.

From the NFL rulebook:

A player who has reported a change in his eligibility status to the Referee is permitted to return to a position indicated by the eligibility status of his number after:

[A] a team timeout;

the end of a quarter;

[C] the two-minute warning;

[D] a foul;

[E] a replay challenge;

[F] a touchdown;

[G] a completed kick from scrimmage;

[H] a change of possession; or

[i] if the player has been withdrawn for one legal snap. A player withdrawn for one legal snap may re-enter at a position indicated by the eligibility status of his number, unless he again reports to the Referee that he is assuming a position other than that designated by the eligibility status of his number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.