The Game Ball Thread: Wk 6 at Colts

[IdiotKicker]

Is it really that critical to get a team to burn a time out, anyway?  I mean that seems to be one of the two desired outcomes of that comical fake punt call.  I just don't think it's worth anyone's time to be practicing a play where the best-case scenario is getting the other team to call a TO or lure them into a too-many-men penalty.  Practice time is precious, why waste on such a low-impact play?

 
Timeouts can be a big deal. If you get a team to burn one there and Bill has a bad challenge, then the team is down to one effective timeout for the half. This is the type of play that you can teach a team in one 15-minute practice session. It really doesn't require that much help. We used to put in fakes on a weekly basis in college based on what the other team showed on tape, and it would literally be 10-15 minutes of Tuesday practice, a few reps on both Wednesday and Thursday, and a couple reps in walkthrough on Friday. There aren't any reads, there aren't any wrinkles, fakes like this are just go or no-go. So to mess this up is really, really bad. I'm not exaggerating when I say HS teams could do this more effectively.

 

[lexrageorge]

Is it really that critical to get a team to burn a time out, anyway?  I mean that seems to be one of the two desired outcomes of that comical fake punt call.  I just don't think it's worth anyone's time to be practicing a play where the best-case scenario is getting the other team to call a TO or lure them into a too-many-men penalty.  Practice time is precious, why waste on such a low-impact play?

I guess it's possible that you could lure the defense into a shift that temporarily leaves the 3 yards in front of the center to be open or minimally covered.  Of course, that assumes that the rest of the punt team is lined up correctly (which they weren't), and that your eligible receiver can properly snap the ball to a player that never receives those snaps, and that the ball carrier can pick up those 3 yards without actually fumbling the ball.  As it was, had Anderson fumbled, Bolden would have had to only avoid the umpire for an easy 6 points. 
 
The Dolts would have been better served trying a hard count instead.  At least there is the real potential of an offsides penalty resulting in a first down.  The only downside would be the delay of game penalty in case the defense isn't fooled. 

 

[DJnVa]

If the entire plan was NOT to snap the ball to see if the other team would burn a TO, it really shouldn't take a hell of a lot of time to insert that play into the package. Since they were never supposed to snap it, the formation really doesn't matter. If the Pats don't bite, you take the delay of game and punt.

 

[bakahump]

Can you imagine BB ever being on a sideline saying "Who called the play? Who told them to snap it?"  Like Pagano was?  Or looking that confused?
 
It would simply never happen.  And if by some miracle one of players actually went crazy and disregarded BB and the coaches clear instructions on what they should have done he would have simply pulled his sharpie out of his ear and made a note.   And god help that player on tuesday.

 

[lexrageorge]

If the entire plan was NOT to snap the ball to see if the other team would burn a TO, it really shouldn't take a hell of a lot of time to insert that play into the package. Since they were never supposed to snap it, the formation really doesn't matter. If the Pats don't bite, you take the delay of game and punt.

With any given play, there is a chance that something could go wrong.  Chances of things going wrong go up dramatically when you are using a strange formation that is not commonly practiced.  If the sole upside is that the defense burns a time out, that's a very marginal benefit, if any. 
 
A first down has real benefit; but the chances of one in that formation are practically nil if you don't snap the ball, and even closer to nil if you do decide to snap it from that formation. 

 

[Stevie1der]

Can you imagine BB ever being on a sideline saying "Who called the play? Who told them to snap it?"  Like Pagano was?  Or looking that confused?
 
It would simply never happen.  And if by some miracle one of players actually went crazy and disregarded BB and the coaches clear instructions on what they should have done he would have simply pulled his sharpie out of his ear and made a note.   And god help that player on tuesday.

 
Didn't that happen with Chung on a fake punt audible in the Jets playoff game?  Or am I misremembering?

 

[MainerInExile]

Didn't that happen with Chung on a fake punt audible in the Jets playoff game?  Or am I misremembering?

 
That was a good call, he just dropped the ball.  I maintain that if he had fielded it cleanly, he'd still be running.

 

[ernieshore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JP4Y0Xcm4g

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 
 
I keep thinking that the reason the center snapped the ball was that maybe he thought he had someone on the D offsides.
(this assumes, of course, that they at least intended to have a legal formation)
 
but more likely he just panicked

 
Would anyone be surprised if it was Matthew Slater who said "Hut"?
 
And that he's been studying ventriloquism?

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
Didn't that happen with Chung on a fake punt audible in the Jets playoff game?  Or am I misremembering?

Chung had the discretion to call that play if the defensive alignment was right. They just failed to execute.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Would anyone be surprised if it was Matthew Slater who said "Hut"?
 
And that he's been studying ventriloquism?

I don't know...that sounds like cheating to me
 
 

If the entire plan was NOT to snap the ball to see if the other team would burn a TO, it really shouldn't take a hell of a lot of time to insert that play into the package. Since they were never supposed to snap it, the formation really doesn't matter. If the Pats don't bite, you take the delay of game and punt.

This is where I'm at and why I'm still confused. If you wanted to use a strange formation to increase the likelihood of a defensive miscue, it would be critical to use a legal strange formation. Using an illegal formation does not incentivise the defense to do anything at all.
Wierdest play I've seen in all of football and NFL-related media (e.g. including video games. even including NFL Blitz).

 

[DJnVa]

Yeah, I think I left a part out--the formation doesn't matter, but it needs to be legal, because if anyone on the defense recognized it as illegal and shouted that out, then there's literally no threat.
 
It seems that Pagano has worked on this play since last season and not a single person on the staff knew it was an illegal formation? That's amazing.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Wrong thread.

 

[McDrew]

Jamie Collins.
 
Because his PAT block took it from "if the colts recover the onside kick, they're driving for the win" to "if the colts recover the onside kick, they're driving for a tie".  I bet he's had that in his back pocket for a while, but this was a great situation to pull it out. 

 

[McBride11]

Here is how dumb the fake punt was:
 
http://insidethepylon.com/film-study/film-study-nfl/special-teams-film-study-nfl/2015/10/19/colts-leave-barn-door-open-on-swinging-gate-fake-punt/
 

Good read. Is Bolden coached to stay on the end / just off the center (hiker?) and keep contain? Or Did just end up there because the guy he was assigned to block ended up in the center / Qb position?

 

[In Vino Vinatieri]

I don't know...that sounds like cheating to me
 
 
This is where I'm at and why I'm still confused. If you wanted to use a strange formation to increase the likelihood of a defensive miscue, it would be critical to use a legal strange formation. Using an illegal formation does not incentivise the defense to do anything at all.
Wierdest play I've seen in all of football and NFL-related media (e.g. including video games. even including NFL Blitz).

It's a legal formation, they just screwed it up. Everyone ran towards the sidelines as if they were subbing off for a sneaky "real" 4th down play, and in doing so the center ran back a yard or two, so that when he got set, he wasn't on the line of scrimmage. Everyone else lined up relative to him, so they were all not on the line. If the center had lined up on the 37 where the ball was, then they would have had enough men on the line and there would be no penalty.
 

Good read. Is Bolden coached to stay on the end / just off the center (hiker?) and keep contain? Or Did just end up there because the guy he was assigned to block ended up in the center / Qb position?

I have no idea about how he was coached, but it was excellently done. If he doesn't stay on the ball then they could quick snap it and run for an easy first. He also looks like he's directing the other players near him as some of them flow back towards the ball when the Indy players get set. You can see him pointing at the ball, too, as if telling everyone to watch the ball for the snap since it would be easy to jump early in an unfamiliar situation like that when you're worrying about wrapping him up before they can pull of some trick pass or get some momentum running towards the first down marker. Bolden really made that play.
 
I still can't believe they snapped it. The play clock on the tv overlay was literally less than 1 second! All they had to do was wait for half of a second and gain 50 yards in field position. It's obvious Whalen wasn't really expecting it, as he doesn't even get up after being tackled -- his first instinct is to turn around and give the universal "what the fuck were you thinking?" hand gesture to the guy who snapped it.(as seen here): https://streamable.com/d4jy 
 
the only thing that could have made this play better was if it had been 4th and 2 instead of 4th and 3

 

[BigJimEd]

Is it really that critical to get a team to burn a time out, anyway?  I mean that seems to be one of the two desired outcomes of that comical fake punt call.  I just don't think it's worth anyone's time to be practicing a play where the best-case scenario is getting the other team to call a TO or lure them into a too-many-men penalty.  Practice time is precious, why waste on such a low-impact play?

To be fair it didn't look like they spent much time on it.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

The center (Griff Whalen--Colt Anderson is the "QB") did line up on the LOS. Not sure why the rest of them were off, but it wasn't because he was off the line.

 

[IdiotKicker]

Good read. Is Bolden coached to stay on the end / just off the center (hiker?) and keep contain? Or Did just end up there because the guy he was assigned to block ended up in the center / Qb position?

 
I don't think swinging gate is something NFL teams really prep for during the season, but likely something that was just touched on during pre-season (since no one really uses it in the NFL). But it was probably just at the end of a ST meeting one day where BB or Joe Judge says, "Hey, if we ever see swinging gate, Brandon lines up over the center to cover it while the rest of the defense sets up like this." Even when we would play teams in college that actually did this on every XP or FG (I believe it was Colgate who used to do it), we would look at the film for 10 minutes, run through it 2-3 times in practice, and that was it.

 

[McBride11]

Good stuff. But ya however it was mentioned Bolden he clearly paid attention and understood. As Vito above said he really was a prime reason something stupid didnt happen in the center. Demonstrates why he is consistently making this team on ST not his RB abilities.

 

[lexrageorge]

The center (Griff Whalen--Colt Anderson is the "QB") did line up on the LOS. Not sure why the rest of them were off, but it wasn't because he was off the line.

I think when IVV said "center", he meant the long snapper who had lined up over the ball originally.  The long snapper moved to the right and lined up, and the rest of the line seems to line up with him.  
 
From the replay, it does seem as if the lineman are very casual about lining up with the LOS, and instead are doing whatever they can to avoid lining up on the wrong side of the LOS.  But that's just speculation; it could have just been poor execution on a rarely practiced play. 

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Jamie Collins.
 
Because his PAT block took it from "if the colts recover the onside kick, they're driving for the win" to "if the colts recover the onside kick, they're driving for a tie".  I bet he's had that in his back pocket for a while, but this was a great situation to pull it out. 

Bill mentioned on the post game press conference that the Colts interior line dives low to block after the snap on a PAT, so it was an excellent opportunity to get Collins through untouched. But if we didn't know it already, he is the opposite of Pagano. Collins is capable of doing that to many teams I would suspect, but BB only uses that in a situation where the 1 point could have been crucial to the outcome of the game. 
 
Chess to checkers, or in the case of Pagano... Duck, Duck, Goose.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

I think when IVV said "center", he meant the long snapper who had lined up over the ball originally.  The long snapper moved to the right and lined up, and the rest of the line seems to line up with him.  
 
From the replay, it does seem as if the lineman are very casual about lining up with the LOS, and instead are doing whatever they can to avoid lining up on the wrong side of the LOS.  But that's just speculation; it could have just been poor execution on a rarely practiced play. 

Okay. That makes sense. But what's still inexplicable is that the guys on the right are staring to their left directly at Anderson, the majority of them lined up with him on the 35. In other words, even if they don't know where the LOS is, they can see that they're not lined up with Whalen.

I wondered for a moment whether they were intentionally lined up behind the LOS, thinking that would induce the Pats to jump offside by confusing them as to the location of the LOS. Pagano couldn't possibly be that stupid right? And Whalen lining up on the correct LOS wouldn't make any sense if that were the plan. Total chaos seems like the most obvious explanation.

 

[DJnVa]

Why would they not have the normal center snapping the ball? Or pretending to snap the ball?
 
Was a variation of this a play where they going to do a lateral snap where Whalen could have thrown it to someone behind the mass of players on the right?

 

[steveluck7]

Why would they not have the normal center snapping the ball? Or pretending to snap the ball?
 
Was a variation of this a play where they going to do a lateral snap where Whalen could have thrown it to someone behind the mass of players on the right?

I thought the same thing. BB even pointed out that the center on this play was an eligible receiver so maybe they wanted someone with halfway decent hands?  What # is their long snapper? If he wears an ineligible #, wouldn't he have had to declare as eligible? If so, perhaps Pagano had thought at least THAT far ahead in hopes of tricking the Patriots in some way or another

 

[lithos2003]

I thought the same thing. BB even pointed out that the center on this play was an eligible receiver so maybe they wanted someone with halfway decent hands?  What # is their long snapper? If he wears an ineligible #, wouldn't he have had to declare as eligible? If so, perhaps Pagano had thought at least THAT far ahead in hopes of tricking the Patriots in some way or another

 
Right - I read upthread (and it makes complete sense) that since he was lined up on the end of the line, he needed to be an eligible receiver.

 

[DJnVa]

The punter should have lined up wide left, and drawn a defender over there. They didn't even make it confusing. A center and a "QB", so all the Pats had to do was stack 3 guys there, with all other available guys lined up on the right with the Colts. There was no spreading the Pats out or anything.
 
Should the Pats and Colts meet in the playoffs, I would love to see the Pats, should they have to punt, come out in this formation (well, except legally) and have the Colts have to use a TO. That would be BB's greatest troll job over.
 
Then, after the TO, they do it AGAIN, and somehow run the fake and convert.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

The punter should have lined up wide left, and drawn a defender over there. They didn't even make it confusing.

It was mentioned somewhere that part of the idea behind the shift right was to make it look like the punting team was running off the field, so if they sent someone out left, it would have blown that subterfuge by making it obvious that wasn't the case.

Of course, the idea was ridiculous from the get go, but I think that's why they had to shift everyone in the same direction and have the center be someone wearing an eligible number.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Yep the idea was they shift right(towards the Indy bench), BB sees that and panics and either calls a time out or sends the defense on the field. If the defense comes on Indy lines up and snaps the ball with too many men on the field.
The entire idea is dumb and it was executed poorly but the bolded part above is where they really went wrong. 

 

[lexrageorge]

The 2 players at the end of the line scrimmage must be eligible receivers.  In the crazy Colts formation, if a real center was to be the one to snap the ball, he would have had to report as an eligible receiver, which would have tipped the Patriots off that something was up when the referee announced the eligible player.   Otherwise, the Colts would have had to keep an eligible receiver to the left of the center to avoid an illegal formation penalty (which they got anyway, proving the whole thing was nothing but a clusterf---- to begin with. 
 
And Ben Volin liked the play call, so there's further evidence that the play made zero sense whatsoever.

 

[lexrageorge]

Yep the idea was they shift right(towards the Indy bench), BB sees that and panics and either calls a time out or sends the defense on the field. If the defense comes on Indy lines up and snaps the ball with too many men on the field.
The entire idea is dumb and it was executed poorly but the bolded part above is where they really went wrong. 

The timeout is a possibility, although that seems like marginal benefit.  
 
As for the defense getting caught with 12 men, it's possible. Except if the Colts snapped the ball in that formation (which they did), they would have been penalized as well (which they were), resulting in offsetting penalties and a replay of the down anyway. 
 
The interesting part is that the defense cannot have 12 men in formation when the snap is imminent.  Given that the Colts were lined up improperly, I'm not sure if the officials would have declared the snap being "imminent" at any time.  The rule book is a bit unclear; the offensive line does not have to be lined up properly until the ball is snapped.  

 

[steveluck7]

The 2 players at the end of the line scrimmage must be eligible receivers.  In the crazy Colts formation, if a real center was to be the one to snap the ball, he would have had to report as an eligible receiver, which would have tipped the Patriots off that something was up when the referee announced the eligible player.   Otherwise, the Colts would have had to keep an eligible receiver to the left of the center to avoid an illegal formation penalty (which they got anyway, proving the whole thing was nothing but a clusterf---- to begin with. 
 
And Ben Volin liked the play call, so there's further evidence that the play made zero sense whatsoever.

But this was originally a punt formation. So it wouldn't have been their true C, it would have been the long snapper. Looking at their roster, their long snapper is listed as #45 Matt Overton. He wears an eligible # so it is even more bizarre that they shifted Whalen to serve as the snapper 

 

[Byrdbrain]

The timeout is a possibility, although that seems like marginal benefit.  
 
As for the defense getting caught with 12 men, it's possible. Except if the Colts snapped the ball in that formation (which they did), they would have been penalized as well (which they were), resulting in offsetting penalties and a replay of the down anyway. 
 
The interesting part is that the defense cannot have 12 men in formation when the snap is imminent.  Given that the Colts were lined up improperly, I'm not sure if the officials would have declared the snap being "imminent" at any time.  The rule book is a bit unclear; the offensive line does not have to be lined up properly until the ball is snapped.  

Yeah the bolded was part of the poor execution I referenced. They went to the trouble of making sure they had an eligible receiver line up as the center so there was no way they would then purposely line up illegally.
 
If they really planned on running some kind of play from the "swinging gate" they would have put the QB in shotgun so he would have had at least a second to get rid of the ball. Of course doing that would have made putting a WR as your center extremely risky since he has likely never long snapped in his life.

 

[loshjott]

The 2 players at the end of the line scrimmage must be eligible receivers.  In the crazy Colts formation, if a real center was to be the one to snap the ball, he would have had to report as an eligible receiver, which would have tipped the Patriots off that something was up when the referee announced the eligible player.   Otherwise, the Colts would have had to keep an eligible receiver to the left of the center to avoid an illegal formation penalty (which they got anyway, proving the whole thing was nothing but a clusterf---- to begin with. 
 
And Ben Volin liked the play call, so there's further evidence that the play made zero sense whatsoever.

 
I mistakenly thought that the center had to be covered on both sides of the LOS so couldn't be an eligible receiver ever. I looked it up this morning and that's wrong. As long as the center is at the end of the LOS and he's wearing an eligible number, he can catch a pass without reporting as eligible. So, the Colts screw up formation wise* was only that the guys on the right were not on the LOS, leaving them with only 2 guys there, which is an illegal formation.
 
* Of course there were other screw ups coaching wise and execution wise.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

But this was originally a punt formation. So it wouldn't have been their true C, it would have been the long snapper. Looking at their roster, their long snapper is listed as #45 Matt Overton. He wears an eligible # so it is even more bizarre that they shifted Whalen to serve as the snapper 

The idea was probably that whomever was initially lined up as center had to sprint right, to look like he was running off the field with the rest of the unit. And Whalen was the Colt initially lined up on the opposite sideline as the far left gunner, so as the main formation shifted from center to right, he shifted from left to center, in the same direction. So that at least was consistent with the stated (and, of course, stupid) purpose of creating the impression of the punt team running off the field.

Anderson, though, lines up in the normal formation, sprints right, then sprints back left to the ball to take the snap, destroying whatever shred of subtlety there was to the play design.

The more we talk through it, the less sense it makes.

 

[nighthob]

But this was originally a punt formation. So it wouldn't have been their true C, it would have been the long snapper. Looking at their roster, their long snapper is listed as #45 Matt Overton. He wears an eligible # so it is even more bizarre that they shifted Whalen to serve as the snapper

 
If the long snapper ends up over the ball no one is fooled. The idea is for the other coach to think that the offense is sneaking back on to the field to try a fourth down play and try and exploit the chaos of the special team coming off the field and the defense running back on. So as no team runs a standard offensive play with the long snapper over C his presence is a dead giveaway. So he has to start to move off the field with the rest of the special teams. The bizarre part is that anyone would consider running a play like this against New England.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

http://m.colts.com/news/article-1/McAfee-Clarifies-Fake-Punt-Whalen-Wasnt-Original-Center-Explains-Design/a9b75475-9fb8-4692-be8e-83dca04adcc0

Just wow. Suffice it to say, a BB coached team would never make this kind of a dumbass fuckup.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/656507313759612928

 

[burstnbloom]

http://m.colts.com/news/article-1/McAfee-Clarifies-Fake-Punt-Whalen-Wasnt-Original-Center-Explains-Design/a9b75475-9fb8-4692-be8e-83dca04adcc0

Just wow. Suffice it to say, a BB coached team would never make this kind of a dumbass fuckup.

 
The best part of the initial "reason" for the play is that it wouldn't work.  As soon as they snap the ball, illegal formation and offsetting penalties is the best case scenario for them.  Zero upside.  

 

[steveluck7]

http://m.colts.com/news/article-1/McAfee-Clarifies-Fake-Punt-Whalen-Wasnt-Original-Center-Explains-Design/a9b75475-9fb8-4692-be8e-83dca04adcc0

Just wow. Suffice it to say, a BB coached team would never make this kind of a dumbass fuckup.

Wait, weren't the Patriots doing this (running the punt team off and the O back on quickly) a few years ago? And, as a result, didn't the league emphasize that the referees had to allow time for the D to sub an equal number of people onto the field. 
So they thought they'd catch a Belichick coached team off guard by doing something that he's done before?
It's not even chess vs. checkers anymore
It's Bobby Fischer vs. a guy explaining chess to Bobby Fischer

 

[nighthob]

The best part of the initial "reason" for the play is that it wouldn't work.  As soon as they snap the ball, illegal formation and offsetting penalties is the best case scenario for them.  Zero upside.

No, if the rest of the players had actually lined up properly it would have been a legal formation. It's just that the long snapper forgot where the LoS was and lined up on the 35, so everyone else arranged themselves around him. It was just a Paganoesque comedy of errors.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Wait, weren't the Patriots doing this (running the punt team off and the O back on quickly) a few years ago? And, as a result, didn't the league emphasize that the referees had to allow time for the D to sub an equal number of people onto the field. 
So they thought they'd catch a Belichick coached team off guard by doing something that he's done before?
It's not even chess vs. checkers anymore
It's Bobby Fischer vs. a guy explaining chess to Bobby Fischer

Yes, but the point of the play is that Indy makes no substitutions, thus NE doesn't need to be given extra time for subs.

As designed, the Indy punt team is supposed to line up, then run for the sidelines - but instead of actually running off of the field, the punt team is supposed to line up in the swinging gate formation. Since no one actually subbed off, New England doesn't get extra time to make their own subs. So, if they jump the gun and try to get the defense back on, Indy can (if they are in a legal formation) snap it and catch them with too many men.

 

[Toe Nash]

http://m.colts.com/news/article-1/McAfee-Clarifies-Fake-Punt-Whalen-Wasnt-Original-Center-Explains-Design/a9b75475-9fb8-4692-be8e-83dca04adcc0

Just wow. Suffice it to say, a BB coached team would never make this kind of a dumbass fuckup.

Man, if true, this is fireable. You had a trick play that, questionable gain or no, was at least practiced. But then basically the key guy in its execution gets hurt. Just scrap it at that point. Put it back in the playbook for another day. Amazing.

 

[riboflav]

Yes, but the point of the play is that Indy makes no substitutions, thus NE doesn't need to be given extra time for subs.

As designed, the Indy punt team is supposed to line up, then run for the sidelines - but instead of actually running off of the field, the punt team is supposed to line up in the swinging gate formation. Since no one actually subbed off, New England doesn't get extra time to make their own subs. So, if they jump the gun and try to get the defense back on, Indy can (if they are in a legal formation) snap it and catch them with too many men.

 
Well, sure, but BB is going to wait for the ref's signal that the Patriots have time to sub. He's not just going to panic and try to sub because he knows the ref has give him a chance to sub by signaling with his arms outstretched like an airplane. It's the kind of play that may have worked 10 years ago but very hard to pull off now that the refs have been emphasizing giving the defense time to sub.

 

[nighthob]

Well, sure, but BB is going to wait for the ref's signal that the Patriots have time to sub. He's not just going to panic and try to sub because he knows the ref has give him a chance to sub by signaling with his arms outstretched like an airplane. It's the kind of play that may have worked 10 years ago but very hard to pull off now that the refs have been emphasizing giving the defense time to sub.

Right, obviously the play has no chance of working against a Belichick coached team. It really requires that someone like Chuck Pagano be standing on the other sideline.

 

[Bergs]

It really requires that someone like Chuck Pagano be standing on the other sideline.

 
I laughed.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
Well, sure, but BB is going to wait for the ref's signal that the Patriots have time to sub. He's not just going to panic and try to sub because he knows the ref has give him a chance to sub by signaling with his arms outstretched like an airplane. It's the kind of play that may have worked 10 years ago but very hard to pull off now that the refs have been emphasizing giving the defense time to sub.

Obviously that's why they added in the "draw them offsides" component.

I wonder if the Pats have a swinging gate play. I would love to see the Pats burn an opponent with the swinging gate.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

Obviously that's why they added in the "draw them offsides" component.

I wonder if the Pats have a swinging gate play. I would love to see the Pats burn an opponent with the swinging gate.

It would be nice, but there's so much discussion of swinging gate right now that there would be little element of surprise.  To the extent that the ineligible receiver formation against BAL had been done previously, it hadn't received nearly this amount of attention.
 
He might try it 2 years from now.  

 

[BlackJack]

Right, obviously the play has no chance of working against a Belichick coached team. It really requires that someone like Chuck Pagano be standing on the other sideline.

 
Which is why it worked in practice.

 

[dynomite]

 
Only off by a few decades
 

No, I'm not. It happened twice:

"He hesitated right from the beginning," Oquendo said. "It seemed like he froze. When I saw him stop, I was waving and shouting, 'Go! Go!'

"I don't know what happened. Maybe he thought I was shouting 'No! No!'

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cardinals/2004-10-27-suppan-baserunning_x.htm