New England's 6 Wide Receiver Set

Brandon

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
250
Reaction score
26
Honestly, I think this is genius, and it really goes to show the depth of knowledge Bill has as a coach. I've heard some peeps of it being a "stretch of the rule book" but I don't see anything wrong with it. For those of you who didn't see in the game against Baltimore, New England lined up with 6 wide receivers. It is not legal in the NFL to have 6 wide receivers run a route, however there is no rule stating there cannot be 6 wide receivers on the line of scrimmage so long as at least one of them remains on the line as an eligible blocker.

I'm not 100% clear if the WR that is the eligible blocker has to report as the blocker, but if not then this creates a devastating matchup problem for the defense. The defense suddenly has no idea who the cover because it is not a standard offensive formation and assignments suddenly get very tricky.

What are your thoughts on this play? I think the only downfall is it leaves one less body on the Oline for protection.
 

red4tribe

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
1,290
Reaction score
258
Location
New York
I think it'd be interesting to do. Maybe try it out a few times and have the ineligible lined up with Sherman? I'm not sure how effective that'd be, but it wouldn't hurt to try.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,542
Reaction score
2,322
Honestly, I think this is genius, and it really goes to show the depth of knowledge Bill has as a coach. I've heard some peeps of it being a "stretch of the rule book" but I don't see anything wrong with it. For those of you who didn't see in the game against Baltimore, New England lined up with 6 wide receivers. It is not legal in the NFL to have 6 wide receivers run a route, however there is no rule stating there cannot be 6 wide receivers on the line of scrimmage so long as at least one of them remains on the line as an eligible blocker.

I'm not 100% clear if the WR that is the eligible blocker has to report as the blocker, but if not then this creates a devastating matchup problem for the defense. The defense suddenly has no idea who the cover because it is not a standard offensive formation and assignments suddenly get very tricky.

What are your thoughts on this play? I think the only downfall is it leaves one less body on the Oline for protection.

I think it was a great call by McDaniels. The Ravens defense looked totally confused on it as they tried to cover Vereen who declared himself ineligible (which he has to do).
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
23,167
Reaction score
2,663
Location
Milwaukee
the players have to report as ineligible to the ref and then the ref reports to the defensive captain
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
23,167
Reaction score
2,663
Location
Milwaukee
the players have to report as ineligible to the ref and then the ref reports to the defensive captain
 

Hincha

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
122
Reaction score
13
Location
Rosario, Argentina
Agreed... ingenious.

I could not figure out why Harbaugh was so mad at first and why he got the penalty, afterwards I understood.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Anyone have a video? I don't see where this is any kind of advantage. What did they do, put 6 WR on the field and only 4 OL or did they put a WR at QB?
 

Powarun

Big Bay Blues fan
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
2,047
Reaction score
355
Location
Madison
I don't think there was any foul play, just confusion on the defense that well ticked a whiny coach off. Not really genius just brilliant.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,675
Reaction score
688
Very slick.

In theory, the guy that declares ineligible should be able to step back and take a backwards lateral from the QB if the QB sees he is ignored by the defense. Am I correct?
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Very slick.

In theory, the guy that declares ineligible should be able to step back and take a backwards lateral from the QB if the QB sees he is ignored by the defense. Am I correct?

Nope. That would be like an o line taking a lateral. He can't run with the ball or catch it.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Anyone have a video? I don't see where this is any kind of advantage. What did they do, put 6 WR on the field and only 4 OL or did they put a WR at QB?

Advantage is the defense has a hard time matching up because they are confused about who is eligible.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
I think it'd be interesting to do. Maybe try it out a few times and have the ineligible lined up with Sherman? I'm not sure how effective that'd be, but it wouldn't hurt to try.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think Sherman only plays on the outside.

Can't legally line up and have an outside receiver ineligible, therefore Sherman would not get matched up with one.
 
Last edited:

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
23,167
Reaction score
2,663
Location
Milwaukee
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...legal-plays-tom-brady-says-study-the-rulebook

During the third quarter, the Patriots decided to use an unorthodox blocking scheme that only called for four offensive lineman. Because New England still needed another player at the line of scrimmage, the Patriots would have running back Shane Vereen or tight end Michael Hoomanawanui check-in as ineligble.


Vereen, who's circled, is an ineligible receiver on this play because only the end player on the line of scrimmage is eligible. Vereen clearly isn't the end player.

The yellow line represents the route Hoomanawanui is going to run. Hoomanawanui is lined up next to the left guard, where the left tackle would usually be, but Hoomanawanui isn't the left tackle, he's actually an eligible receiver.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
Nope. That would be like an o line taking a lateral. He can't run with the ball or catch it.

So why can't an o-line take a lateral? They obviously can't receive a forward pass, but anyone can legally take a lateral - you see it all the time on last play desperation attempts.

From the rule book:
Article 1 Backward Pass.
A runner may throw a backward pass at any time (3-22-4). Players of either team
may advance after catching a backward pass, or recovering a backward pass after it touches the ground.
 
Last edited:

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
So why can't an o-line take a lateral? They obviously can't receive a forward pass, but anyone can legally take a lateral - you see it all the time on last play desperation attempts.

Difference on those plays is the lineman are not the first to touch the ball after the QB. Ineligible receivers cannot get the ball directly from the QB whether it's a run or pass.

That's the rule.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
Difference on those plays is the lineman are not the first to touch the ball after the QB. Ineligible receivers cannot get the ball directly from the QB whether it's a run or pass.

That's the rule.

I will believe you when you show me the rule. That's probably true for a run or a forward pass, but not a backward pass. The rule I quoted said any player on either team can receive a backward pass so I'm sticking with that until proven otherwise.

Found another definition: The backward pass can be made anywhere on the field, and all offensive players are eligible to receive such a pass.

Doesn't say anything about lineman not being able to be the first to receive a backward pass.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
I will believe you when you show me the rule. That's probably true for a run or a forward pass, but not a backward pass. The rule I quoted said any player on either team can receive a backward pass so I'm sticking with that until proven otherwise.

I could be wrong. You added the rule to your post after I quoted it.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
I could be wrong. You added the rule to your post after I quoted it.

You just sounded so sure of yourself when you said "That's the rule." so I figured you knew of the so called rule, but I can't find anything that says what you claim. If you can find a rule that states this, then I will believe you, but not until then. :)
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
You just sounded so sure of yourself when you said "That's the rule." so I figured you knew of the so called rule, but I can't find anything that says what you claim. If you can find a rule that states this, then I will believe you, but not until then. :)

Been digging and it looks like you're correct. I thought I remembered seeing it somewhere where that the lineman could not take a lateral, but guess not.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,675
Reaction score
688
I'm officially worried. I can practically hear Pete Carroll saying, dang! Why didn't I think of that. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him try this out on us. Very interesting play.
 

Members online

Top