I got bored - obviously. So, to pick some brain of the grandmaster cheater, I decided to read some books about him, and his cheating franchise. They are: Football scouting methods by Steve Belichick. [Yes. Belicheat Sr. he is.] https://www.amazon.com/Football-Sco...lichick&qid=1569624098&s=digital-text&sr=1-14 Then three by Michael Holley: Patriot Reign War Room Belichick and Brady And... I realized a few things: I - or anybody on this board for that matter - really don't know what goes into the coaching process. That said, the first book is much more important, I think, than the other three. That book is all about how to use scouts to find the weakness of the opposing team next week. The title is massively misleading, but it is not about how to scout the right kid in college. It is highly technical, in depth and in detail. I have indulged myself in X's and O's of the football in the past, but I was more interested in how to build a system that can defeat any adversities - and then I met this book I cannot stress this enough; Ron Jaworski mentions something related to this in his book "The Games that changed the Game." The last section of his book was about how Belichick game-planned against the Rams; he dubbed that section "Bull's eye" game plan. It was a short section, but left me with a lot of questions, one of which was: How will I spot the weakness or how will I formulate the game plan to neutralize such a potent threat? Will I have sufficient time to come up with anything useful in a week's time frame anyway? For that, I considered that part of the book basically ass-kissing. It didn't show any concrete action plan to determine the "square one", and formulate the plan to the "goal." Now I know where that info must come from; that's the scouting report. You could spend hours watching the videos yourself, OR have a competent scout watch the games, file the report, and have it sent to you. Once my thoughts reached this point, I realized I needed to see more than just this; after all, if things get this technical, then there has to be a synchronized organizational effort week in and week out, just to compete with some dignity. That's when I decided to hit on the three books by Michael Holley. I am not finished with Holley's books thus far, but from what I have seen, Belicheat's structure of franchise as an organization is very exhaustive and thorough. Yes, Holley is somewhat of a Belicheat fanboy, so you will have to take a few grains (or nuggets?) of salt, but it's well worth reading.
Zack, the fact that you are studying the enemy is admirable. As they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer! Of all the books mentioned, Steve Belichick's book is probably the best to read. I do recall a while ago when Bill Belichick was being interviewed, he had a library full of books on football. I do recall him stating that Bill Walsh was his favorite author to read. I hope this helps.
Bill Walsh? Which one? Finding the Winning Edge? Or Bill Walsh: The Score Takes Care of Itself? I read both already, by the way. And yes, of course. I couldn't miss Walsh's influence on Belichick - that was clearly as a day even when I was just digging into the playbooks way back. Somehow the essence of WCO playbook that Bill Walsh created flew over every single god-damned so-called WCO disciples. [Starting with Mike Shannahan, Mike Holmgren, Mike McCarthy et al.] and found its residence in Patriots playbook. The playbooks looked nearly the same from 2003 through 2005, and from the way they utilize their players in different formations for same roles, I don't think much could have changed by now either; actually, if I could have my say in it, I'd say that Belicheat and Weis took what Walsh left, then perfected it. If at all, the biggest challenge of WCO has always been its "lingo", i.e. its wordy communication issue. I always loved watching WCO in perfect execution (80's and 90's 49ers, for instance) but I absolutely hated the system in terms of communication. Don't just take my words for it; grab 1981 SF offense playbook, and compare that with every other WCO playbooks of the 90's, and the Patriots playbook of 2003~2005. [I couldn't get newer versions and I gave up on it, but maybe you can get Patriots playbook in 2010's if you try.] You will easily notice that Walsh's playbook looks a lot closer to Patriots playbook than any other "WCO" playbooks. If you ask me, that's a fucking disgrace. Anyway - after that, I came across the Patriots offense. And I gotta say, that's one of the few things I approve out of New England. (Yes. It is THAT good.) It did serve New York well at one point (Giants under Parcells won two Superbowls with it) but Belichick turned it into aerial juggernaut that even the WCO in its heyday would have hard time keeping up. So, clearly there is indeed something about that fat cheating bastard that is absolutely special; and I am coming to grips with that fact.
Bill Walsh's WCO I believe goes back to the Cincinnati when he was an OC for the legendary coach Paul Brown (another coach Belichick is in love with). The purpose of this offense was to help a QB back then who was very accurate but did not possess a strong arm. I can't remember the QB's name, I think it was the guy before Ken Anderson. Anderson, by the way, had a strong arm but excelled at the WCO. The WCO born actually in Cincinnati resulted in QBs with higher passing percentages and receivers who could make yards after the catch. It also emphasizes running backs in the passing game. It wasn't the 1st short passing game strategy. For example, Frank Tarkenton would argue he ran it with the Vikings. Others have argued Tarkenton even though was a short passing game, it is not the WCO. Some have argued it goes all the way back to the 30's. The Patriots, in my humble opinion, run more of an Erhardt-Perkins system than the WCO. The Patriots were using this system under Chuck Fairbanks in the 70s. They still have adopted elements of the WCO, but they still are using E-P (Erhardt-Perkins) system which was designed for cold weather play. The Erhardt-Perkins system, probably the most adaptable of all the offensive schemes allows you to be a power running team one week and pass-happy team the next. This offense can morph itself in many ways. For example, Peyton Manning runs it completely different than Brady does. The plays are more conceptual than scripted. For example, you can run the same play with different formations. Another benefit of the system is you can audible much easier and you can also change for example 1/2 the play. Its origin was to develop a simple naming system to make it easier for players to understand. However, its simple naming scheme allows quick changes in the line of scrimmage and makes it very adaptable. Perkins once described it as you pass to score and run to win. So let's say you call a play "Black Dog" where receivers on the left run certain patterns under "Black" and receivers on the right run certain patterns under "Dog". As QB I can shout out on the line of scrimmage "Black Cat" meaning the receivers on the left still run the same patterns but the receivers on the right now run something different. Even though the E-P was initially designed to be a simple offensive scheme, over the years the Patriots have taken the simple play calling nomenclature and made it more complex to suite there needs. The system is very abstract and difficult to defend because it involves so many formations and it actually reacts to the defense presented.
Well. So I see you did your homework. I give you A. 1. That was Virgil Carter by the way. 2. And yes, by the lingo, Patriots offense is Erhardt/Perkins system. The number one goal in E/P system is the ease of communication - which WCO couldn't compete with in the heat of battle. As it happened, Erhardt and Perkins wanted an All-weather offensive system, that didn't depend on whether the team played in a dome or not. Since Parcells was a East-coast minded HC with premium on smashmouth football, his flavor of E/P took the shape of the smashmouth football in the 80's and 90's. Phil Simms is the unlucky victim of all that - Parcells allegedly yelled at Simms at one point for playing "timid." 3. That said, elements of WCO is almost universal in today's offensive systems, and current Patriots' flavor of E/P is no exception. I have yet to see Patriots using rather "old" concepts in their passing games, i.e. sideline flood concepts and et al. They are very high on "efficiency" and they rarely employ more than 2 for any stretch concept, be int vertical or horizontal; and when they do, it's not a "linear" stretch like flood. (Which can be very inefficient if you ask me) rather they go with triangular stretch, which is a WCO staple. 4. Last, but not the least: this is also the goal of E/P system. They don't practice a million different plays. It just "looks" like that to an unsuspecting defense. Take a look at any passing plays. (Like 72/83 Ghost/Tosser, out of 2003 Patriots playbook) The play here is two double slant in the back side, with two vertical stretch along the playside. There is a built-in hot route with RB flat. What you need to pay attention are in two parts: First of all, the latter third of the play sheet will show you in which formation this play can be run out. It's but a same play, but to the defense, this looks like up to 5 different plays. In short, that's how E/P does its "window dressing." But more important section is the middle third of the part, where you see the specific instruction for each specific players. Now, compare this with the following: This is Walsh's WCO from 1985. You see, the major difference between the play sheet above and the Patriots play sheet is that (well, with lingo aside) Walsh has installed "Alert" changes in the last third of the page. Middle third? Very specific, detail-oriented instructions for each player. This is where you see the genius of Bill Walsh; he has installed what is now common "Option routes" in as far back as 1985. That's about what, 3 decades faster than everybody else? I am more than certain that Patriots' offense has the option routes installed in the playbook, unlike their previous version in 2003. Now - compare this with 1994 WCO playbook from Mike Shannahan: It should be very clear where my gripes come from. There is no specific and detailed instructions. There is no sight adjustment calls (i.e. Rita/Linda call in E/P, or Ricky/Lucky and Alert/Check-with-me in 1985 WCO) This looks more like fucking Madden playbook, if anything. Protection calls, key checks, adjustments, all taken out. Is this just Shannahan variant specific symptom? Hell fucking no. Same shit happens with Mike Holmgren flavor of WCO as well: 5. So - where do I see Walsh's influence in current Patriots playbook? You've seen it all in the above diagrams and play sheets, eh? The real meat of any concept in the play lies in the middle part, where each player is assigned a position-specific instructions, and what is expected out of him. In Walsh's case, he even installed how to tinker with the play routes in some certain situations with the option routes and alert calls. Anyway, so I don't think it's an overstatement to say Belicheat runs aerial offense that employs a lot of elements coming from WCO. (I picked the tosser route in the diagram above for a reason; the double-slant is another WCO staple.) If I had to nitpick, I'd say Walsh's 1985 offense playbook is more thorough in explaining/instructing how to run 2-men routes and 3-men routes, but that's about as far as I can go with it. (In 1985 book, for instance, each two-men routes and 3 men routes are explained with half the linemen and every other position in the play, with same detailed and specific explanation/instruction you should expect from Walsh.) And, I was saying "the true heir to Walsh's WCO is the today's Patriots offense" in this vein. Hope that clarified my point. Obviously, it ain't happening here in Jetland. (Ugh!)
Wow, you're pulling out offensive schematics! I definitely get the point you are making now. The Jets need to hire you ASAP! Thanks for reminding me of Virgil Carter. I guess had I remembered his name I might have received an A+ There was not much homework in my part because I am old enough to have seen Virgil Carter and Ken Anderson play. Parcells was not a lover of the WCO. I also remember the WCO being labeled a finesse offensive system when the 49ers lost to the Giants in the playoffs. I also remember Walch deviating the next year a bit and playing more smash-mouth football because he didn't like the idea of his system be called finesse. During this time, the Giants had a pretty smart DC called Belichick who was confusing even the great Bill Walsh. I would venture to say that by coaching against it (WCO), he learned quite a bit about it. Also, keep in mind that Brady was a big fan of the 49ers growing up and would definitely be into the WCO also. Zack, as far as I can tell, most of the NFL employs 3 offensive systems or variants of them. The WCO, the E-P, and the AC (Air Coryell) systems. One could argue the AC is losing popularity. Even Andy's Reid's offense, which is considered WCO still employs non WCO features. The Patriots offensive system definitely incorporates elements of the WCO as you point out so technically. The WCO is not just popular because of the genius of Bill Walsh, it also benefits from the rules today that benefit the passing game. For example how popular would the WCO be if defenses were not restricted by the Mel Blount rule (5 yards bump zone)? Years ago when I use to tell Pats fans that the Patriots employ elements of the WCO, I would get the counter-argument that because Brady was not mobile can't be a WCO. Very few rollouts for example by Brady who is a pocket passer. They would argue when Jimmy G was the QB, the offense was more WCO. No matter what offensive scheme you use, you can't lose the battle of the trenches. Look how pathetic the Patriots offense looked today against the Bills. Brady was under pressure, the Pats could not run the ball, and the receivers couldn't get open. Ok, the Bills might have gotten away with holding or PI, but that is not the reason why the Pats great schematic offense failed today. Have you considered coaching? You seem to have a passion for it.
Great. That makes you much older than I thought you were. (Haha) Good one, old man! That said, I am very certain that, outside of the Walsh house, Belicheat has the most extensive video library of Bill Walsh and the 49ers. I remember one anecdote, where Belicheat played a clip from the past playoff to one of the interviewee. (Was that Phil Simms? That escapes my mind.) The theme of the clip? Jerry Rice rubbing the charging DB to set Taylor free. Giants lost to them as that play allowed TD. And Belicheat's comment was "This is the genius of Bill Walsh!" And we all know how Patriots basically abused the entire NFL in the late 2000s and 2010s with the rubs and picks. Last, but not the least: I know I will never make a good coach. I just am not that kind of material. I don't know if I can educate, much less lead, a group of kids to achieve a common goal. You see, coaching is much, MUCH more than X's and O's.
the cheating Patriots utilize grey areas in the rules better than anyone. Maybe some people can respect that, but I can't. I think you should play the game right. --- For example, it used to be completely illegal to run pick plays. But recently the NFL stupidly changed to allow "contact with the defender" as long as its within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage. BUT that is such a murky rule on many levels. It was instituted so referees didn't have to throw so many flags on incidental contact on the part of a two receivers trying to run their routes in the same area on the edge. The rule was never intended for teams to literally send blockers out to send to get his teammate receiver free from the defender. The Patriots do this every week. The blocker is not even attempting to run a route anymore, the only thing he is doing is setting a pick. He gets to 2 yards or a few steps passed the 1 yard, oh well... the refs don't throw flags anyway because the "1 yard" is difficult to discern in real time. its a loophole that they are taking advantage of and its certainly not the first time the Patriots have done that, its quite common that they look for flawed rules to exploit - obviously. -- Sean McDermott, the Bills coach, to his credit threw the challenge flag for offensive pass interference last week when the Patriots pulled this same bullshit for a crucial big pass to Josh Gordon on 3rd down late in that game. He didn't win his challenge of course and after the game voiced the same things I am saying, good for him. More coaches need to point this shit out instead of taking it
I am not sure what football games you have been watching. Almost every team runs pick plays or do you really think the Pats are the only ones? KC probably runs more pick plays than any other team and they are good at disguising them. Again I will have to ask you, what game were you watching? On that replay, you can see the Patriot's receiver Dorsett (I think it was him) makes no contact whatsoever. He definitely gets in the way, but in the last moment gets out of the way. So per the rule, not an illegal pick play. Was it a pick play? Yes, but since no contact was made no PI. Do I agree with this rule? No, I think accidental picks should be flagged also. I do agree that the pick play gives the offense an unfair advantage. Heck, I don't even like it in Basketball! But please do not act like the Patriots are the only team doing this. Since we are discussing pick plays, what about blocking downfield before the pass is thrown. We see this most of the time not getting called. This is just as bad as the pick play.
