E5 Yaz said:SportsCenter now promoting an "emerging controversy" about the Patriots
NFLN teasing it too.
E5 Yaz said:SportsCenter now promoting an "emerging controversy" about the Patriots
SoxinSeattle said:That play is from EA NCAA 12. Stolen from a poster at SB Nation. Also the same play was used by Alabama to beat LSU in OT this year.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/10/7526841/the-patriots-trick-play-that-got-john-harbaugh-mad-ravens
Yeah, technically he was playing RT (just split really wide from the RG, Vollmer), and Wendell was snapping the ball from the LG position in an unbalanced line.Bunt4aTriple said:Is Vereen considered a tackle in this formation for intentional grounding purposes?
Interesting, Alabama split out a tackle out wide when they ran the play. In college, you cannot report as ineligible; linemen must wear a number between 50 and 79. The Patriots added another wrinkle by splitting out a player with an eligible receiver's number, and placed the onus on the defense to recognize that. Clearly, they failed.SoxinSeattle said:That play is from EA NCAA 12. Stolen from a poster at SB Nation. Also the same play was used by Alabama to beat LSU in OT this year.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/10/7526841/the-patriots-trick-play-that-got-john-harbaugh-mad-ravens
New rule. You have to give a Harbaugh as much time as he needs to figure out what the hell is going on.GregHarris said:I am curious as to how the refs should assist the D beyond what they already did. Apparently it was announced and they even told the D not to cover him. How is it the refs job to make sure the D is properly line up to defend the play? How much time should be allowed, and what if the D still doesn't understand whats going on given extra time?
It's basically 11 on 10 with Vereen being out of the play and they couldnt stop it. Major sour grapes.
Ralphwiggum said:By the way, they ran this formation three times the entire game. All three plays worked but it was a very small part of the overall game. Absurd that Harbaugh just didn't call a timeout after the first time they saw it.
Couldn't Vereen also receive a backward pass (which would go in the books as a rushing attempt) or a handoff on a jet sweep for that matter?Jnai said:OK, I've thought about it some more, and this was:
a) Brilliant and
b) Probably never going to be seen in an NFL game again
If the defense reacts properly, which is to say that they leave Vereen alone, the Pats are effectively playing down a man. If they swap, and Hooman stays inelligible, then the Pats are effectively playing with Hooman as a lineman.
Well, if Vereen is actually called upon to block like you say (ie, the defense recognizes the play), it effectively becomes a 4 wide formation with four linemen and an inel rb in an awful position to try to throw a block.crystalline said:I am not sure we'll see it again much, but it may not be a terrible strategy.
I saw a play where Vereen was on the line and sprinted into the backfield after the snap looking for someone to block.
Assuming he can get back fast enough, this is just like leaving an RB in to block on a pass play. The TE becomes an extra receiver. The main issue is going from 5 to 4 actual offensive linemen. The Pats today had at least one play where Suggs was unblocked and they relied on quick throws to prevent DL from getting to Brady in time.
So perhaps if Vereen comes back to help protect, and Brady treats it like a blitz or screen and has one or more very fast reads reads, it might be a semi-legit play.
I do think that, just like the Wildcat, teams with a full training camp to prepare will beat it easily.
Mooch said:Love the way Vereen sells it by calling for the ball. Brilliant.
PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:Mort on ESPN confirms that the NFL has declared the play legal and there is no issue with how it was run or how the player reported.
he must have seen that Dion Waiters clip.Mooch said:Love the way Vereen sells it by calling for the ball. Brilliant.
Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.PaulinMyrBch said:So if he's uncovered next week, he catches that and takes off like a bubble screen.
Yes - like any other gimmick it works because the defense hasn't seen it.Jnai said:Well, if Vereen is actually called upon to block like you say (ie, the defense recognizes the play), it effectively becomes a 4 wide formation with four linemen and an inel rb in an awful position to try to throw a block.
Which is a disaster, offensively.
He is allowed to catch a lateral though.Mooch said:Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.
Mooch said:Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.
He can't receive a forward pass. A backward pass is OK - would be considered a rushing attempt (and a live ball if he drops it)Mooch said:Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.
Exactly, if you look, by the time Brady throws it Vereen is nearly parallel. I bet that is a wrinkle that we might see depending on how the D lines up.DrewDawg said:
Not if he drops behind Brady, which I think was what he meant.
Got it. Wasn't clear that you guys were talking about a lateral there. It would be an interesting wrinkle for sure.Eddie Jurak said:He can't receive a forward pass. A backward pass is OK - would be considered a rushing attempt (and a live ball if he drops it)
dcmissle said:Let's not get butt sore about this as Pats fans. There is no cheating narrative. From what I have seen, commentary running against Harbaugh 3 to 1, at least. He should have stopped with his base line comment about the game -- we played well but came up short.
New Jersey. What do you expect? I am talking about commentators who actually have some influence.PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/01/did_bill_belichick_and_new_england_patriots_cheat_again_baltimore_ravens_say_yes.html
Headline: Did Bill Belichick and New England Patriots cheat again? Baltimore Ravens say yes
dcmissle said:Let's not get butt sore about this as Pats fans. There is no cheating narrative. From what I have seen, commentary running against Harbaugh 3 to 1, at least. He should have stopped with his base line comment about the game -- we played well but came up short.
Also, if getting the refs' attention was the rationale for running on the field, wouldn't it have been smarter to throw a challenge flag than to take a 15-yard penalty in that spot? Seems a lot less valuable to me.McBride11 said:I like how he blames the officials for not understanding what was going on and therefore he haddd to take the penalty to make them understand. Im pretty sure the officials understood what was going on Jim. It's the same 'deception' when a player announces as a tackle eligible.
johnmd20 said:Man, those Harbaugh boys really aren't sore loses at all. They take every single piece of adversity with grace, humility, and tenderness.
Seriously, they are two absolute sore losers. Great coaches, of course, but whining babies, too. No wonder Jim lost the SF locker room and I hope John loses Baltimore. He will.
JokersWildJIMED said:As much as some in the print media want to make it so, this is not controversial. It is simply Harbaugh being unprepared and out coached. Harbaugh claims he "had" to take an unsportsmanlike penalty to stop the madness. No John, you simply had to call a timeout. Just hope those that know better call him out on it