Completely legal substitution aka the "John Harbaugh is a whiny little brat" thread.

[crystalline]

Well sure, but usually that guy's in the slot and thus is starting the play behind the LOS, and the pass doesn't have to backwards. It's a different animal if the "receiver" is starting the play on the LOS and the pass cannot be a forward pass. The timing and geometry is off - either Brady has to "lead" Vereen backwards, or he has to stand there and wait (behind a 4 OL line) for Vereen to get behind him.

And if Vereen drops it that's a fumble. They won't use a lateral play unless it's uncomplicated enough that fumbles never happen - risk of a turnover is too high.


Solder won't likely ever be made eligible because he'd need to sit out a play before moving back to ineligible LT, and I doubt the Pats want those kind of line changes.


I could see the Pats running the Eagles play with an OL and two WRs stacked to each sideline, though. I think the idea there is that with good run blocking OLs you get a quick screen with blockers on whichever side small DBs line up on. And if a DL gets moved over, the QB can use a quick slant past the DL, or hand off to the RB if the center guys don't respect the run.

 

[crystalline]

Ps. When Easterbrook is saying there is no Pats controversy, there is REALLY no controversy.

 

[Stitch01]

I think they've used Solder as a TE at times this year.
 
In the Jets game in particular, they did use him at TE and then sat him out for the play after.  I agree with you that they should probably avoid those kind of line changes.

 

[Pxer]

I can't wait until Stork snaps the ball to Brady next week without it going through his legs.
 
Maybe try the wrong ball trick?!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQGfM6a3-Q[/youtube]
 
It's mind-numbing that defenders can't grasp these simple concepts. It ultimately falls on the coaching. Hooman was the outside guy on the line, he needs to be covered. Not that hard.
 
Also, you guys will enjoy things more if you don't take it personally that people accuse the Pats of cheating. <3

 

[Harry Hooper]

Well sure, but usually that guy's in the slot and thus is starting the play behind the LOS, and the pass doesn't have to backwards. It's a different animal if the "receiver" is starting the play on the LOS and the pass cannot be a forward pass. The timing and geometry is off - either Brady has to "lead" Vereen backwards, or he has to stand there and wait (behind a 4 OL line) for Vereen to get behind him.

 
Right, but as long as the TE playing "LT" doesn't get totally pancaked or beaten to the inside by his man, Brady should have enough time. I could see a flat-footed Vereen still running for a 4-yard gain before the defense closes in, and if if he dodges a tackle. who knows. The real point of such a play would be to sway the defense to still have someone paying attention to an ineligible Vereen and less able to help out on an eligible guy.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Didn't they just do that on the Edelman TD pass?

Yes.  Despite it being a trick play, it was uncomplicated at the lateral stage: Brady takes the snap and throws it to Edelman, making sure Edelman is further back from the line of scrimmage than Brady.  That's it.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Unless your plan is to throw it to Solder, does it matter?

 
Sure it does.  As a defense, what do you do?  Do you commit a defender to "covering" Solder?  Why waste resources on that?  But if you don't, you're going to end up with a severe numbers mismatch if the Patriots want to run a WR or RB screen to that side.  
 
If you DO commit resources there, that's one more guy that *isn't* available to help out on Gronk on the other side, for example.  And you'll kick yourself for wasting a valuable cover resource on….Nate fricking Solder.

 

[bakahump]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47 - 63 - 66 - 62 - 76 - - - - - - - 34 - - - - 19
- - - 87 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12 - - - - - - - - - - (77) - - - - 77        - Solder can line up in either spot there
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Ok, very strange formation, right?  But it satisfies all the requirements.  7 guys on the line, the five ineligibles are Connelly, Stork, Wendell, Vollmer, and Vereen.  The five eligibles are Gronk, Hooman, LaFell, Solder, and Edelman.
 
What are the defense's priorities?  Well, you leave Gronk one-on-one on the left, and he can beat you short or deep against almost any coverage.  Edelman can take a handoff or a pitch and run like a RB (not all game long, but for a few plays here and there).  He's so dynamic with the ball.  Hooman can block well enough to hold up for a moment or two anyway against smaller defensive ends.  Edelman is tough enough to pick up a blitzed coming from Brady's left - again, maybe not for long, but enough to save Brady's bacon.  Solder you don't worry about catching passes, of course, but out of this set, you have some incredible blocking potential on the right side.  A decent enough blocking RB in Vereen, Solder is a really good blocking Tackle, and LaFell is an excellent blocker for a WR.  
 
Patriots options off this:
 
1.  A straight handoff or pitch to Edelman to the right - run behind Wendell, Vollmer, Vereen, Solder, and LaFell.  
2.  A short slant to Gronk on the left.
3.  A seam pattern to Hooman.
4.  After Gronk and Hooman clear out the left, a screen or swing pass to Edelman in space on the left.
5.  Have Vereen step back for a lateral with Edelman pushing forward and he, Vollmer, Solder, and LaFell blocking for Vereen.
6.  A WR screen to LaFell behind Vereen and Solder.
 
Obviously you can't run your whole offense like this all day long, but there are a TON of interesting and creative things you could do just from this basic set.  And if you wanted more passing options and less blocking, put Wright in there for Solder.  He's a better blocker than a typical WR, but a better receiver than Solder (obviously).  If teams waste a defender to cover Solder then that opens space elsewhere.  If they don't, you overwhelm them blocking with a numbers advantage.  Or, because Solder used to play TE, I presume he can catch a soft, wide-open pass a few yards downfield, so you run LaFell on a fly pattern to clear out the space and you hit Solder who will be wide open.
 
So much you could do off this.

This is kinda what I was trying to describe.
 
I had Vereen in the spot you had Gronk (I screwed up as he would be uncovered and an Ineligible) .....and I had Kline in instead Solder.) And had Gronk Kline Lefell on the other (basically in your arrangement.) 
 
You could also use a better blocking back (Boldin) in the Vereen Spot you have and make him the ineligible RB.
 
I love the idea of Solder in (instead of my suggestion of Kline)  and I would put him in the Vereen Spot.  As someone else said....instead of any weird ineligibles you simply have a very flexible unbalanced line (with Solder as the EXTREME RT).  The weak spot being Hoo man and a rush from a DE.  You could bring Gronk in tight (like an H Back) with both Gronk and Hooman "chiping" the DE and give a little more time to Brady.
 
One final question.....could you still go in motion out of this?  Is there any rules that Motion has to be to the "outside" of the Tackles?  I think not but am not sure.....So in your formation Edelmen could Motion to the slot between Gronk and Hooman (for instance)  or Stack up (even More) behind Solder.
 
Odds of us ever seeing this again.....less then 2%  but It is a cool mental exercise and I am so thankful that we have a  Coach who is on the design end as opposed to the sour grapes side.

 

[crystalline]

I think they've used Solder as a TE at times this year.
 
In the Jets game in particular, they did use him at TE and then sat him out for the play after.  I agree with you that they should probably avoid those kind of line changes.

Thanks.

What was the goal in those plays- to use Solder as a receiving option or just to unbalance the line leaving him uncovered?

I suppose with 6 OL one of them has to be a TE and eligible, and maybe they think Solder has the best hands. But in the Colts game, Fleming reported as eligible when they went to 6 OL.

Solder in high school: "As a senior, he had 31 receptions for 513 yards and eight touchdowns"
He wasn't used as a receiver much at Colorado but converted from TE to tackle there


Edit: yes here is the Pats v. Jets play with Solder as TE: heavy package, 4th and 1, 7 OL with Fleming playing RG: http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/big-play-breakdown-boldens-run-secures-win-over-jets

 

[Stitch01]

He played something like 9 plays at TE IIRC

 

[bakahump]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 87 - 63i - 66i - 62i - 76i - - - - - - - 38i - - - - 19
- - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12 - - - - - - - - - - (77) - - - - 77        - Solder can line up in either spot there
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
That might be a better allocation of talent. (Edelmen in his normal WR position, Vereen in his normal RB position)
 
Or as I say just keep Solder as the Ineligible, but out wide with Edelmen behind him.  Something like this...
 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 87 - 63i - 66i - 62i - 76i - - - - - - - 77i - - - - 19
- - - 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12 - - - - - - - - - - (11) - - - - 11        - Edelman can line up in either spot there
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
One last edit.....From this you could motion Vereen,Edelmen or Amendola all over the place.
 
If you kept Bolden as the ineligible ....you could motion Solder back across the formation to basically the LT position where he could have momentum on a wham block with Vereen running behind him.
 
Wow....I wish madden would let me do some of this crazy shit.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

 
Sure it does.  As a defense, what do you do?  Do you commit a defender to "covering" Solder?  Why waste resources on that?  But if you don't, you're going to end up with a severe numbers mismatch if the Patriots want to run a WR or RB screen to that side.  
 
If you DO commit resources there, that's one more guy that *isn't* available to help out on Gronk on the other side, for example.  And you'll kick yourself for wasting a valuable cover resource on….Nate fricking Solder.

 
Yes, you're wasting a guy covering Solder, but you've got an extra guy because you don't have to cover Vereen.  That part washes out.
 
However, you now have 2 receiving options (if you're not throwing to Solder) instead of 3 on that side of the field. with no real change in number of defenders to cover those 2 guys.  It's like you've basically guaranteed successful one-on-one coverage of 1 of your 5 eligible players.
 
I think you're outsmarting yourself here, there's nothing to be gained from switching Solder and Vereen in that formation.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 
 
One final question.....could you still go in motion out of this?  Is there any rules that Motion has to be to the "outside" of the Tackles?  I think not but am not sure.....So in your formation Edelmen could Motion to the slot between Gronk and Hooman (for instance)  or Stack up (even More) behind Solder.
 
 

 
Of course.  Lots of times it's Brady and one back in the backfield, and that one back goes in motion leaving an empty backfield.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Yes, you're wasting a guy covering Solder, but you've got an extra guy because you don't have to cover Vereen.  That part washes out.
 
However, you now have 2 receiving options (if you're not throwing to Solder) instead of 3 on that side of the field. with no real change in number of defenders to cover those 2 guys.  It's like you've basically guaranteed successful one-on-one coverage of 1 of your 5 eligible players.
 
I think you're outsmarting yourself here, there's nothing to be gained from switching Solder and Vereen in that formation.

 
I guess I just want to throw the defense off even more, and to give better blocking to that side of the field (Solder instead of, say, Wright).  But maybe you're right.  Either way (Solder/Vereen or Vereen/Solder), pretty creative and I think a formation like this could work 2-3 times a game, because there's so much you could do off it.

 

[BigJimEd]

I think they've used Solder as a TE at times this year.
 
In the Jets game in particular, they did use him at TE and then sat him out for the play after.  I agree with you that they should probably avoid those kind of line changes.

yeah. That formation with that Solder spread out is really nothing more than him as a split end. Vereen is eligible.
Edit: forget above, I think that's just the formatting on my phone and Lafell is covering him


Ignore the number on the jersey. The rule is simple. If a player is lined up off the line, he's eligible. The last player on the line on each side is eligible.


You see plenty of these formations or variations of the a11 offense in youth football or at least in my son's league there a couple coaches who use them.
There are no number requirements in that league so there's no declaring but they will split out 2 or 3 players and who is eligible depends on who steps back.

P.s. on the other hand they will not allow the wrong ball play. A coach for another team asked a couple refs before games and they said there is a broad generic unsportsmanlike rule that plays like that fall under.

 

[Harry Hooper]

He played something like 9 plays at TE IIRC

 
 
I don't have the stats, but Solder was used periodically as a TE as a rookie when Light was still at LT.

 

[allstonite]

This just hit me and I didn't see it in here, but just the stupidity of Harbaugh saying "nobody has ever seen that" when discussing a football play/scheme against Bill Belichick, noted football historian. 

 

[bakahump]

 
Yes, you're wasting a guy covering Solder, but you've got an extra guy because you don't have to cover Vereen.  That part washes out.
 
However, you now have 2 receiving options (if you're not throwing to Solder) instead of 3 on that side of the field. with no real change in number of defenders to cover those 2 guys.  It's like you've basically guaranteed successful one-on-one coverage of 1 of your 5 eligible players.
 
I think you're outsmarting yourself here, there's nothing to be gained from switching Solder and Vereen in that formation.

Your really only focusing your Best blocking at the point of attack.
 
If you put Solder at LT and Put Hooman out to the right side in a bunch formation and threw a WR screen.....You would have Hooman and Lefell (not bad blockers) creating a path for Edelmen.
 
If Solder is out there you Have Lefell and him doing the same thing (a bit better blocking). Hell Gronk and Solder in front of Edelmen might be crazy. (hooman takes the tradition LT spot).
 
 
If you decide to run out of that formation you could motion Solder to (or near) the "point of attack" and then hike the ball ensuring that one of your best possible blockers is there and blocking in space.

 

[Stitch01]

Some of these formations, like putting Gronk at left tackle while making Solder ineligible and lined up wide, seem to create nothing but disadvantages to me.
 
Others work great until Hooman and Edelman have to actually block someone.
 
This worked great against the Ravens because on early downs they were running a super predictable rush scheme and didnt adapt their coverage so that there was a simple and quick read where Brady could throw the football.  There's a reason why once the Ravens had a chance to go to the sideline the Pats stopped using the formation, once a defensive coordinator understands what's going on you basically can't design a play where Brady has to hold the ball for more than about a second unless you want to risk him getting murdered.  Im salivating if the Pats run this play and Im the defensive coordinator, Im putting seven plus guys on the line of scrimmage, pressing everyone at the line, and bringing five plus every play with every kind of stunt, twist, and overload game I can think of off of Hooman's side.  If you want to try to set up a lateral to Vereen where Brady has to turn completely away from the pass rush on the left side, great, you might get 15 yards and I might get to defend Jimmy G for the second half of the game.

 

[Stitch01]

yeah. That formation with that Solder spread out is really nothing more than him as a split end. Vereen is eligible.
Edit: forget above, I think that's just the formatting on my phone and Lafell is covering him


Ignore the number on the jersey. The rule is simple. If a player is lined up off the line, he's eligible. The last player on the line on each side is eligible.


You see plenty of these formations or variations of the a11 offense in youth football or at least in my son's league there a couple coaches who use them.
There are no number requirements in that league so there's no declaring but they will split out 2 or 3 players and who is eligible depends on who steps back.

P.s. on the other hand they will not allow the wrong ball play. A coach for another team asked a couple refs before games and they said there is a broad generic unsportsmanlike rule that plays like that fall under.

I know Vereen or the RB is eligible when Solder reports into the game, I was just responding to the post saying they probably wouldnt use Solder as an eligible receiver.  Theyve done it this year when he was the starting left tackle.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

Your really only focusing your Best blocking at the point of attack.

 
I was only responding to Solder out wide off the line eligible with Vereen on the line ineligible.
 

If you put Solder at LT and Put Hooman out to the right side in a bunch formation and threw a WR screen.....You would have Hooman and Lefell (not bad blockers) creating a path for Edelmen.
 
If Solder is out there you Have Lefell and him doing the same thing (a bit better blocking). Hell Gronk and Solder in front of Edelmen might be crazy. (hooman takes the tradition LT spot).

 
Absolutely, but you don't need to do the Solder-Vereen eligibility swap to make that work, you just need to have a split line.
 

If you decide to run out of that formation you could motion Solder to (or near) the "point of attack" and then hike the ball ensuring that one of your best possible blockers is there and blocking in space.

 
That seems like overthinking it to me, as well.  If you want to run, why not just use a traditional 5-man line instead of a 4-man line and an extra moving OL?  I would think his motion would give away the direction of the run, no?

 

[bakahump]

 
I was only responding to Solder out wide off the line eligible with Vereen on the line ineligible.
 
 
Absolutely, but you don't need to do the Solder-Vereen eligibility swap to make that work, you just need to have a split line.
 
 
That seems like overthinking it to me, as well.  If you want to run, why not just use a traditional 5-man line instead of a 4-man line and an extra moving OL?  I would think his motion would give away the direction of the run, no?

It could give away direction...eventually.....until you run a counter....then Whoa.....they where supposed to run behind Solder.
 
I know its all theoretical....and the other guys are pretty smart too....but doing something "Different" can sometimes be good.  Lining up 5 guys and bashing 5 guys while 1 guy runs around trying to avoid them is the norm.  Shake it up.  Who knows what would fall out of the tree.
 
I will say that BB shows his brilliance by doing this in the most simplistic way.  Simply "reporting" had Baltimore confused.  As someone mentioned Reporting isnt that big a deal and so for the Pats it was less moving parts.  More confusion for the Ravens.....as little as possible for your team.  Brilliant.
 
Agreed on the Vereen ineligible idea.   Split line is way more feasable.  See my post at #262.  I think thats a little more realistic.

 

[Phil Plantier]

Harbaugh walks back his comments a little, but not that much
 
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12162036/baltimore-ravens-john-harbaugh-trick-plays-new-england-determine-outcome-game?ex_cid=espnapi_public
 

 
"Bill [Vinovich, the referee] was great about it. He said he would slow it down," Harbaugh said. "I think he went over and told their sideline the same thing, and we didn't see it after that. I thought it was well-handled. In talking to the league since then, Dean [Blandino, the NFL's head of officiating] has told me that the mechanics are being looked at, so changes will have to be made."

 
So, if he's right, that would be the second rule, by my count, that would have to be added due to the Patriots' innovation (along with hiring McDaniels after he was fired by Denver), not counting the "point of emphasis" stuff that Polian got in the 2005. I wonder what's the largest number of rules that were added due to a team's innovation?

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't know the number, but historically I'd guess the answer to which coach caused the most rule changes is bound to be "Paul Brown"

 

[Stitch01]

I like Harbaugh generally, but even that response is such a steaming pile of horseshit with the insinuation that the Pats stopped using it once the rules were enforced correctly and not when the element of surprise wass gone and the vague "mechanics are being looked at, changes will have to be made" crap. 

 

[soxfan121]

Harbaugh walks back his comments a little, but not that much
 
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12162036/baltimore-ravens-john-harbaugh-trick-plays-new-england-determine-outcome-game?ex_cid=espnapi_public
 
 
So, if he's right, that would be the second rule, by my count, that would have to be added due to the Patriots' innovation (along with hiring McDaniels after he was fired by Denver), not counting the "point of emphasis" stuff that Polian got in the 2005. I wonder what's the largest number of rules that were added due to a team's innovation?

 
The Tucker Rule, too.
 

I don't know the number, but historically I'd guess the answer to which coach caused the most rule changes is bound to be "Paul Brown"

 

 

[Tony C]

This just hit me and I didn't see it in here, but just the stupidity of Harbaugh saying "nobody has ever seen that" when discussing a football play/scheme against Bill Belichick, noted football historian. 

 
 

I like Harbaugh generally, but even that response is such a steaming pile of horseshit with the insinuation that the Pats stopped using it once the rules were enforced correctly and not when the element of surprise wass gone and the vague "mechanics are being looked at, changes will have to be made" crap. 

 
I like Harbaugh generally, too, but man alive does this make him look bad. 1: Just shut up when you've been out-smarted. The PTI segment in which they mentioned the Pats as cheaters was noted up above, but I don't think the main gist of Kornheiser-Wilbon's conversation was emphasized: that the Pats were both legal and that Harbaugh was too slow to keep up. Harbaugh looks terrible here. 2: continuing to insinuate there is something here is, I suppose, a way for him to save face. But it really is dishonest. Everyone has been clear: the Pats were smart; Harbaugh was dumb. Acknowledge and move on.

 

[Norm Siebern]

So just to get this straight:

1. The Ravens were outplayed.
2. Harbaugh was out coached.
3. The Ravens lost.
4. Harbaugh whined.

That's So Raven!

 

[chief1]

So just to get this straight:

1. The Ravens were outplayed.
2. Harbaugh was out coached.
3. The Ravens lost.
4. Harbaugh whined.

That's So Raven!

So let me get this straight, Harbaugh is saying he knows its legal but they shouldn't have been allowed to do it because he had never seen it before?
So innovations like:
1. The Zone Blitz
2. The West Coast Offense
3. The 4-3 defense
4. The Shotgun
5. The 46 Defense
6. The No Huddle Offense
7. The 3-4 Defense
8. The Run 'N Shoot Offense
9. The Tampa 2
10. The Wildcat Offense
should never have been allowed without telling the other coach first? Please. He is embarrassing himself.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I just have to say, tip of the cap to the Pats coaching staff on this. It seems rare that 'new' wrinkles are found and exploited and so when that happens I think it warrants a hat tip.

You can't tell, but I just tipped my hat.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

I just have to say, tip of the cap to the Pats coaching staff on this. It seems rare that 'new' wrinkles are found and exploited and so when that happens I think it warrants a hat tip.

You can't tell, but I just tipped my hat.

The sad thing is, it's not even that new.  Maybe no one had run it with precisely the same implementation as what the Pats used, but this thread has documented multiple previous instances of putting an ineligible player far from the line near where a slot or wide receiver usually is and/or having an eligible receiver lined up as a quasi-offensive tackle.

 

[dcmissle]

I like Harbaugh generally, but even that response is such a steaming pile of horseshit with the insinuation that the Pats stopped using it once the rules were enforced correctly and not when the element of surprise wass gone and the vague "mechanics are being looked at, changes will have to be made" crap. 

I think Harbaugh was horrified that he had no answer and that accounted for his in game behavior.

Afterwards, I think he was embarrassed and frustrated, and that was reflected in post game remarks that were out of line. Embarrassed because this was not the first time they were fooled that day: frustrated because they had the game on their racquet and I'm not sure he expected to be in that situation with a decimated secondary (anyone else notice how quiet the Ravens were all week?).

He really needed to let it go altogether. He is an outstanding coach and should be above this.

 

[Reverend]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47 - 63 - 66 - 62 - 76 - - - - - - - 34 - - - - 19
- - - 87 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12 - - - - - - - - - - (77) - - - - 77        - Solder can line up in either spot there
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Ok, very strange formation, right?  But it satisfies all the requirements.  7 guys on the line, the five ineligibles are Connelly, Stork, Wendell, Vollmer, and Vereen.  The five eligibles are Gronk, Hooman, LaFell, Solder, and Edelman.
 
What are the defense's priorities?  Well, you leave Gronk one-on-one on the left, and he can beat you short or deep against almost any coverage.  Edelman can take a handoff or a pitch and run like a RB (not all game long, but for a few plays here and there).  He's so dynamic with the ball.  Hooman can block well enough to hold up for a moment or two anyway against smaller defensive ends.  Edelman is tough enough to pick up a blitzed coming from Brady's left - again, maybe not for long, but enough to save Brady's bacon.  Solder you don't worry about catching passes, of course, but out of this set, you have some incredible blocking potential on the right side.  A decent enough blocking RB in Vereen, Solder is a really good blocking Tackle, and LaFell is an excellent blocker for a WR.  
 
Patriots options off this:
 
1.  A straight handoff or pitch to Edelman to the right - run behind Wendell, Vollmer, Vereen, Solder, and LaFell.  
2.  A short slant to Gronk on the left.
3.  A seam pattern to Hooman.
4.  After Gronk and Hooman clear out the left, a screen or swing pass to Edelman in space on the left.
5.  Have Vereen step back for a lateral with Edelman pushing forward and he, Vollmer, Solder, and LaFell blocking for Vereen.
6.  A WR screen to LaFell behind Vereen and Solder.
 
Obviously you can't run your whole offense like this all day long, but there are a TON of interesting and creative things you could do just from this basic set.  And if you wanted more passing options and less blocking, put Wright in there for Solder.  He's a better blocker than a typical WR, but a better receiver than Solder (obviously).  If teams waste a defender to cover Solder then that opens space elsewhere.  If they don't, you overwhelm them blocking with a numbers advantage.  Or, because Solder used to play TE, I presume he can catch a soft, wide-open pass a few yards downfield, so you run LaFell on a fly pattern to clear out the space and you hit Solder who will be wide open.
 
So much you could do off this.

 
I'll leave it to better football minds than mine to say if this would work with respect to trickeration. I do note, however, that it is fundamentally different from the mismatches Belichick was trying to create with his use of players declaring ineligible.
 
Specifically, in all three instances of the formation, Belichick set it up so that there were three receivers on the left covered by only two defenders by disguising the third one. I think you are significantly less likely to get one man on two receivers, though, as there is a limit to how far the right side LB will shade over, so you'll still have the right side LB and CB on a WR and a TE which isn't the kind of mismatch they pulled off yesterday.
 
And you'd probably put Brady in shotgun too, as Super Nomario mentioned.

 

[Stitch01]

An actual example of exploiting a loophole (and I liked it even though I hated the circumstances) would be putting 12 men on the field in a situation where giving up five yards basically had zero deterrent value.  This is simply playing football.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I like Harbaugh generally, but even that response is such a steaming pile of horseshit with the insinuation that the Pats stopped using it once the rules were enforced correctly and not when the element of surprise wass gone and the vague "mechanics are being looked at, changes will have to be made" crap. 

And of course the Pats stopped using it because after his little tantrum the Pats were on like the 5 yard line and thus there was no longer a need to roll unusual formations.

 

[E5 Yaz]

And of course the Pats stopped using it because after his little tantrum the Pats were on like the 5 yard line and thus there was no longer a need to roll unusual formations.

 
This brings up something I must be too stupid to understand. ... Why did they use those plays in the first place? I know they said "we thought it was something that would work," and normally that would be enough.
 
But they were moving the ball pretty well as it was. Were those three plays really that necessary in those circumstances?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

They eanted to spread out the D and cause confusion and hesitation. And since they clearly weren't going to try running, it kept the Ravens off balance and away from Brady.

 

[Stitch01]

They ran it after they were down 14 and the last two drives had been an INT and a three and out and, as SJH said, they probably weren't going to be running.  It was the absolute perfect situation to use that IMO.

 

[semsox]

I'd be very surprised if rule changes were actually made, for the simple reason (which has been stated several times in this thread), that the formation actually provides a mis-match in favor of the defense if they are able to diagnose it correctly. The offense and defense are constantly trying to confuse, disguise, misdirect, etc. throughout the course of the game, and this was no exception, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

I'd be very surprised if rule changes were actually made, for the simple reason (which has been stated several times in this thread), that the formation actually provides a mis-match in favor of the defense if they are able to diagnose it correctly. The offense and defense are constantly trying to confuse, disguise, misdirect, etc. throughout the course of the game, and this was no exception, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Agree.  The NFL response was also short and to the point - I don't think they consider it a live issue.  Also, as far as rules changes are concerned, I think the catch-no catch controversy from the Dallas game is sucking up a lot of the oxygen.

 

[MainerInExile]

I'd be very surprised if rule changes were actually made, for the simple reason (which has been stated several times in this thread), that the formation actually provides a mis-match in favor of the defense if they are able to diagnose it correctly. The offense and defense are constantly trying to confuse, disguise, misdirect, etc. throughout the course of the game, and this was no exception, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 
How can they change it?  They have to allow eligible numbers to be ineligible and vice-versa.  NFL rosters are too small, plus the punt team situation. The only possible rule change I can see is for one similar to the substitution rule where the ref stands over the ball for a little while after an ineligible/eligible announcement.

 

[Harry Hooper]

If Harbaugh didn't think the D had enough time Saturday, he would have had a coronary under the old rules where the official didn't stand over the ball to delay the no-huddle offense.

 

[Stitch01]

Im sure a scholar and gentleman such as John Harbaugh has never had a player fake an injury to slow down a no huddle offense.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

BB should have threw a tantrum when Coughlin took an intentional penalty at the end of SB 46 to exploit the rules.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Had the Pats not run the legal "illegal" substitution plays and still won, what would Harbaugh have bitched about?  Any guesses? (Serious question.)  I can't think of anything even remotely controversial.  It's hard to imagine him not whining about something.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

The sad thing is, it's not even that new.  Maybe no one had run it with precisely the same implementation as what the Pats used, but this thread has documented multiple previous instances of putting an ineligible player far from the line near where a slot or wide receiver usually is and/or having an eligible receiver lined up as a quasi-offensive tackle.

Right.  I saw the Eagles vs Skins game live when they did something similar (I think it was last year, not this year btw), but what was 'new' to me was the somewhat rapid succession of plays. Anyway, I know it's not technically 'new', but it's unique enough that it threw a pretty well schooled football coach in to a tizzy, so again - tip of the cap!

 

[DJnVa]

 
This brings up something I must be too stupid to understand. ... Why did they use those plays in the first place? I know they said "we thought it was something that would work," and normally that would be enough.
 
But they were moving the ball pretty well as it was. Were those three plays really that necessary in those circumstances?

 
I also think that they were assuming the Ravens would burn a TO and maybe that would be the end of it. They didn't, and it was working, so they kept going.

 

[Reverend]

 
This brings up something I must be too stupid to understand. ... Why did they use those plays in the first place? I know they said "we thought it was something that would work," and normally that would be enough.
 
But they were moving the ball pretty well as it was. Were those three plays really that necessary in those circumstances?

 

They eanted to spread out the D and cause confusion and hesitation. And since they clearly weren't going to try running, it kept the Ravens off balance and away from Brady.

 

They ran it after they were down 14 and the last two drives had been an INT and a three and out and, as SJH said, they probably weren't going to be running.  It was the absolute perfect situation to use that IMO.

 
They got 41 of the 80 yards on that drive from the formation and another 5 from the penalty. They were absolutely rolling with it and created numerical mismatches with the Ravens covering ineligible receivers at the expense of covering eligible ones all three times--it was more of a sequence of use than just a play.
 
FC should be putting something out on it that goes over just how successful the whole sequence in the drive was.
 
 

How can they change it?  They have to allow eligible numbers to be ineligible and vice-versa.  NFL rosters are too small, plus the punt team situation. The only possible rule change I can see is for one similar to the substitution rule where the ref stands over the ball for a little while after an ineligible/eligible announcement.

 
The problem wasn't even the formation, really--as per Harbaugh's clarification, it was that the Patriots were snapping the ball too quickly after the announcement. Of course, that implies he would have wanted to sub and if he's not gonna sub in response, it doesn't matter. But to the extent that Harbaugh has a gripe, it's with the reffing.
 
 

Had the Pats not run the legal "illegal" substitution plays and still won, what would Harbaugh have bitched about?  Any guesses? (Serious question.)  I can't think of anything even remotely controversial.  It's hard to imagine him not whining about something.

 
Harbaugh also said in his press conference that that is not why they lost the game.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Besides giving the defense more time or allowing for substitutions, the other conceivable rule change I could see would be to mandate the standard 5-man offensive line be used in every formation.  This would be more drastic, but under it the game of football could still be played and be recognizable as such.  It would make me sad though.  I like "trick" plays where a team does something legal but unusual.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The problem wasn't even the formation, really--as per Harbaugh's clarification, it was that the Patriots were snapping the ball too quickly after the announcement. Of course, that implies he would have wanted to sub and if he's not gonna sub in response, it doesn't matter. But to the extent that Harbaugh has a gripe, it's with the reffing.

 
Harbaugh's point wasn't ultimately about substitution for him, it was about knowing who the eligible receiver was and having time to determine how to defend that receiver.     Given that people have timed it and he had 6-10 seconds, this isn't all that persuasive relative to the time available during a hurry-up....but I do see why he was frustrated.