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