(02-07-2018, 02:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(02-07-2018, 02:22 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Well I agree with your analysis here, generally.  I think there needed to be more formation/personnel variety.

I just don't know if I would label it a conservative approach.

I don't know that a one back set makes something conservative.  The Gibbs era skins were a one back set and they threw the ball all over the place.  The Greatest Show on Turf Rams ran a lot of one back with Faulk, and I wouldn't call them conservative for that, either.

They not only switched from a more varied set with more options to a power set with fewer options, they generally only called the more obvious option from the more limited set.

It seems at the very least "stubborn" to me.  The pity is that multiple receivers and backs were getting open for relatively low risk throws from that "Shotgun Bunch" set and the pats really hadn't stopped it much. 

I don't get the strategy of abandoning that in favor of running 27 up the middle on 8 or 9 first downs against a loaded box. 

Don't get me wrong. I like Marrone and I really like it when Hackett opens up the book a little bit. I just hope they analyze those 4 or 5 games and see that they could have kept their foot on the gas to a better outcome.