Pats Offense @ AU

[Deckhead 6]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

[AU64 10,122]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

[Tiger 8,818]

I think it's much easier for an NFL team to switch up their identity week to week because they have unlimited time to work with the players.

[Deckhead 6]

^^ good point ^^^

[Tiger 8,818]

However, I think we will see a little more versatility from the offense with JJ at QB than we did with NM. That doesn't mean we'll have overall better QB play, because NM was a force on the ground. We have yet to see if JJ can be the consistent threat through the air that NM was on the ground. I think we will see our WRs run a wider variety of routes, though. Maybe, if our TE's are capable, we will see the TE utilized more through the air as well.

[alexava 6,973]

offenSe..... I couldn't help it.

[caleb1633 1,418]

Whatever he does, I just hope he runs with Jovon from the one yard line instead of passing it.

[AU64 10,122]

I think it's much easier for an NFL team to switch up their identity week to week because they have unlimited time to work with the players.

Not really...the player's contracts has all kinds of limits on practice time, two-a-days, practice in pads, etc.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9224807/college-football-follow-nfl-lead-contact-practice

Just sayin' that if Gus had time to put in that awful throwback to the QB, he could teach the guys how to make the tackle eligible...

[WarTiger 3,901]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

[Deckhead 6]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

If i'm not mistaken, we ran a play a couple of years ago where Sammie was ineligible, we faked a pass to him, and a lineman was eligible, and completing a big play.

[WarTiger 3,901]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

If i'm not mistaken, we ran a play a couple of years ago where Sammie was ineligible, we faked a pass to him, and a lineman was eligible, and completing a big play.

you are mistaken. I suggest you read some of the plays in the Football rules and interpretations thread pinned at the top of the forum. There's no such thing as a tackle eligible in college football.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

That wouldn't be a bad idea for next year. Maybe Gus is already thinking about that.

[cole256 17,043]

Well I think the players make a big difference with the offense as well. McDaniel's offense wasn't that good with Tim Tebow at qb

[mikeymac 8]

Well I think the players make a big difference with the offense as well. McDaniel's offense wasn't that good with Tim Tebow at qb

his offensive scheme was much different with Tebow at QB

[FoundationEagle 637]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

If i'm not mistaken, we ran a play a couple of years ago where Sammie was ineligible, we faked a pass to him, and a lineman was eligible, and completing a big play.

you are mistaken. I suggest you read some of the plays in the Football rules and interpretations thread pinned at the top of the forum. There's no such thing as a tackle eligible in college football.

Well that was rude

[cole256 17,043]

That's sort of my point. I can't imagine too many offenses that would look bad with Brady. Can you?

[caleb1633 1,418]

That's sort of my point. I can't imagine too many offenses that would look bad with Brady. Can you?

Read option lol now I'm just being a douche

[cole256 17,043]

That's sort of my point. I can't imagine too many offenses that would look bad with Brady. Can you?

Read option lol now I'm just being a douche

Lol I thought of that and that's why I said too many. You know on here somebody has to dispute everything LOL

[auburn2oregon 0]

Havent we run "tackle eligible" plays the last 2 seasons? I am 99% sure we have. First it was Shon Coleman (with GRob at LT) and last season it was Braden Smith with Shon LT.

Now granted, its not a full out "tackle eligible" play because the guys have to change numbers, so I guess they would of been considered more of an extra TE than an eligible offensive lineman. But I know we have run the formation...

[WarTiger 3,901]

Havent we run "tackle eligible" plays the last 2 seasons? I am 99% sure we have. First it was Shon Coleman (with GRob at LT) and last season it was Braden Smith with Shon LT.

Now granted, its not a full out "tackle eligible" play because the guys have to change numbers, so I guess they would of been considered more of an extra TE than an eligible offensive lineman. But I know we have run the formation...

No we haven't. What we have run is nothing more than a formation with the player on the end of the line is uncovered and has an eligible number. That player is not a tackle, he's an end. Yes, he's a TE because if they are numbered 50-79 they are NEVER eligible to go down field or catch a forward pass.

[Supernova88 0]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

If i'm not mistaken, we ran a play a couple of years ago where Sammie was ineligible, we faked a pass to him, and a lineman was eligible, and completing a big play.

you are mistaken. I suggest you read some of the plays in the Football rules and interpretations thread pinned at the top of the forum. There's no such thing as a tackle eligible in college football.

Tackle elliagble does not exist in college football. You can't declare like in the NFL. You must be wearing legal number (1-49,80-99) to line up as a elligible in college football. This is why last year shon Coleman wore 37 sometimes and Braden smith wore 91 at points during the season becuse they lined up at the tight end position. However you can change jersey numbers in the middle of the game but not in the same drive. Once a drive starts and you have been on the field with a number you must keep that number untill there is a defined stoppage(aka quarter, timeout or touchdown).

[Supernova88 0]

Bottom line no matter the formation in college football you must be wearing (1-49,80-99) to go downfield for a pass.

In the NFL you just have to declare to the ref before the play beings and he will announce "75 is elligible 75 is eligible " thus allowing you to go down field. This rule is in place becuss you only have a 53 man travel roster in the NFL. When you add the two deep on offense and defense you have 44 in addition you your 1extra "pass rushers" and you dime DB so that puts you at 46 plus you have kicker punter long snapper that makes 49. That leaves 4 spots for "role players"

You don't have a travel roster of 70 like college so you may have to use other people as ellaigbles on offense.

[WarTiger 3,901]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

If i'm not mistaken, we ran a play a couple of years ago where Sammie was ineligible, we faked a pass to him, and a lineman was eligible, and completing a big play.

you are mistaken. I suggest you read some of the plays in the Football rules and interpretations thread pinned at the top of the forum. There's no such thing as a tackle eligible in college football.

Tackle elliagble does not exist in college football. You can't declare like in the NFL. You must be wearing legal number (1-49,80-99) to line up as a elligible in college football. This is why last year shon Coleman wore 37 sometimes and Braden smith wore 91 at points during the season becuse they lined up at the tight end position. However you can change jersey numbers in the middle of the game but not in the same drive. Once a drive starts and you have been on the field with a number you must keep that number untill there is a defined stoppage(aka quarter, timeout or touchdown).

What's the rule reference for that?? I've never seen it in a rule book. Other than that, I'm not sure why you quoted my post to respond too. I know there's no such thing as a tackle eligible.

[autan 737]

However, I think we will see a little more versatility from the offense with JJ at QB than we did with NM. That doesn't mean we'll have overall better QB play, because NM was a force on the ground. We have yet to see if JJ can be the consistent threat through the air that NM was on the ground. I think we will see our WRs run a wider variety of routes, though. Maybe, if our TE's are capable, we will see the TE utilized more through the air as well.

I have the feeling TE won't be used very much except short yardage. It's the only position on the team without at least a 4*. Could be one of the reasons we haven't recruited an elite TE. Just not featured in CGM's offense (so far at least).

[aujeff11 6,243]

After watching the SB, and how efficient the Pats were on O, anyone here think that Gus could/would implement any of that with JJ at the helm? Plus, JJ is more mobile that Brady, so with the threat of the run, that should open up the "down the field" throws that were not open for the Pats. Even if you look at the Pats the whole year, they may run the ball 50 times in one game, and throw 50 times in another, depending on what the d gave em. It just seemed to me that the make up of their team (size and speed), and AU's looked similar, except that we would have a more mobile qb.

Shoot, I like their "tackle eligible" plays....seems with the big guys we have at H back, we could make a few subtle shifts and make Braden Smith an eligible receiver.

Braden Smith would have to change his number to be an eligible receiver. It's not just making shifts.

If i'm not mistaken, we ran a play a couple of years ago where Sammie was ineligible, we faked a pass to him, and a lineman was eligible, and completing a big play.

you are mistaken. I suggest you read some of the plays in the Football rules and interpretations thread pinned at the top of the forum. There's no such thing as a tackle eligible in college football.

Tackle elliagble does not exist in college football. You can't declare like in the NFL. You must be wearing legal number (1-49,80-99) to line up as a elligible in college football. This is why last year shon Coleman wore 37 sometimes and Braden smith wore 91 at points during the season becuse they lined up at the tight end position. However you can change jersey numbers in the middle of the game but not in the same drive. Once a drive starts and you have been on the field with a number you must keep that number untill there is a defined stoppage(aka quarter, timeout or touchdown).

What's the rule reference for that?? I've never seen it in a rule book. Other than that, I'm not sure why you quoted my post to respond too. I know there's no such thing as a tackle eligible.

Now you're just being defensive. He was probably just following up your quote and not chopping up the discussion. I prefer it that way even though it takes up damn near a whole page.