Texans' LB Brooks Reed: "we weren’t fully prepared"

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Rey

Now you're saying something completely different.

I first posted that Brady said they had to scrap the plan they went into the game with and you said you didn't believe it.

Now you're saying it wasn't hard to switch gears.

I dint think it was Gary kubiak Matt schaub hard, but I have no reason to think Brady is lying when he says the game plan changed.

Originally Posted by Vinny

that's why I try not to engage him...it frustrates me to quickly and I'm too old to fight it.

Vinny, can't you see from the piece that you post a link to, that the game plan evolves around the QB, Brady.

Everything else is secondary.

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by dream_team

BTW, I do agree Kubiak deserves some blame as he is the head coach. At the same time, though, he deserves some credit for the defense's turnaround from 3 seasons ago. That's my point.

Okay, give him credit. But, this thread is about a Texans player admitting that they were not fully prepared, which is a less than positive light being shed. I'm not sure why praise is expected in a thread that is critical by nature.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

I rest my case.

No, you don't. The article is about how the Patriots offense has evolved over the YEARS with Hoodie and Brady being there and how their language is still similar and intertwined with the different personnel they have had there. It isn't about game planning for a game for a week and being able to practice every scenario available for a week. They had to switch gears. Plain and simple. The packages run with Gronk and Hernandez together and the splits, etc are all different. You have to scrap that and go to another plan. You are game planning a team here, not running a skeleton drill where you just go to different plays and run them.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Vinny, can't you see from the piece that you post a link to, that the game plan evolves around the QB, Brady.

Everything else is secondary.

if you read the entire piece it is about systems and concepts that go beyond Brady being the QB.

Erhardt-Perkins system. The offense was named after the two men, Ron Erhardt and Ray Perkins, who developed it while working for the Patriots under head coach Chuck Fairbanks in the 1970s. According to Perkins, it was assembled in the same way most such systems are developed. "I don't look at it as us inventing it," he explained. "I look at it as a bunch of coaches sitting in rooms late at night organizing and getting things together to help players be successful."

The backbone of the Erhardt-Perkins system is that plays — pass plays in particular — are not organized by a route tree or by calling a single receiver's route, but by what coaches refer to as "concepts." Each play has a name, and that name conjures up an image for both the quarterback and the other players on offense. And, most importantly, the concept can be called from almost any formation or set. Who does what changes, but the theory and tactics driving the play do not. "In essence, you're running the same play," said Perkins. "You're just giving them some window-dressing to make it look different."

The biggest advantage of the concept-based system is that it operates from the perspective of the most critical player on offense: the quarterback. In other systems, even if the underlying principles are the exact same, the play and its name might be very different. Rather than juggling all this information in real time, an Erhardt-Perkins quarterback only has to read a given arrangement of receivers. "You can cut down on the plays and get different looks from your formations and who's in them. It's easier for the players to learn. It's easier for the quarterback to learn," former Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis said back in 2000. "You get different looks without changing his reads. You don't need an open-ended number of plays."

The most recent innovation to fall into New England's Erhardt-Perkins framework is a commitment to the no-huddle. In 2012, the Patriots were the league leaders in total plays, first downs, points, and yards — all by a significant margin. Other teams have dabbled in the no-huddle, but they can't commit to it like the Patriots can, for one simple reason: terminology. No team that uses the Coryell or true West Coast systems can adapt easily to a fully functional up-tempo no-huddle because, simply, they can't communicate that efficiently. The Patriots are built to communicate in one- or two-word designations, and so, with judicious use of code words, it's simply a matter of translating what they already do into a no-huddle pace.

This marriage of terminology and technique, of efficiency and elegance, is what makes the Patriots so mesmerizing. Like NFL offenses, in recent years NFL defenses have also become too wordy, relying on long-winded calls designating scheme and technique and impractical checks. With the speed at which New England operates, the message for defenses has become clear: fix your terminology or perish. For opposing offenses, the mandate is less direct but just as imperative. The Patriots have set the standard for modern offense, and if teams are going to keep up, they'll need to change not how they play, but how they talk.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...brady-patriots

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Vinny

if you read the entire piece it is about systems and concepts that go beyond Brady being the QB.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...brady-patriots

You read the article and then first quote you just presented.

In each case, the third paragraph is the key: QB.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

You read the article and then first quote you just presented.

In each case, the third paragraph is the key: QB.

The article is about language and concepts but you are too dense to see that.

[76Texan]

In the third paragraph of the article, it says Brady became the centerpiece.

In the third paragraph of your first quote, it elaborates that the system is built from the perspective of the QB.

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

In the third paragraph of the article, it says Brady became the centerpiece.

In the third paragraph of your first quote, it elaborates that the system is built from the perspective of the QB.

Sure it mentions Brady...he's their QUARTERBACK. Hell the article is titled SPEAK MY LANGUAGE - the damn thing is about how the Patriot language and lack of a route tree and conventional systems is why they succeed. But you would have to friggin' read the piece to the end to get that.

Speak My Language

As the players and schemes have changed, it's the way the Patriots talk that's continued their offensive dominance.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Vinny

The article is about language and concepts but you are too dense to see that.

And because the Gronk is not in there that there's nobody to interpret the language and concept?

[Vinny]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

And because the Gronk is not in there that there's nobody to interpret the language and concept?

dude, you annoy me. talk to someone else and I'll avoid engaging you please.

[Jules Winnfield]

Originally Posted by IDEXAN

“The hurry-up, again we weren’t fully prepared for some reason,” said outside linebacker Brooks Reed, who didn’t play in the first matchup because of a groin injury. “It’s extremely hard to get the call in and line up when they are going hurry-up. They’re not going to wait for you. They’ve got plays planned out and one audible and they’ve got their play ready. Whereas we’ve got to get the call from the sideline, get lined up, recognize the formation.

“It takes us a lot more time to get lined up than they do. That’s the challenge and again that’s what kind of got us today. And making plays too, it’s them making plays not just them hurrying up. I think we could have been a little bit more prepared. We knew that was going to happen. We saw it on film, them lining up quick and defenses not being ready. We didn’t think it was going to be us and in some cases today it was.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/tag/_/name/brooks-reed
******
That's a pretty candid remark by Reed, but it tells us something - Wade Phillips is not perfect.

anybody who believes this generic superficial response is an idiot.

you just got beat by a better team with a better quarterback and better
head coach.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by Vinny

Sure it mentions Brady...he's their QUARTERBACK. Hell the article is titled SPEAK MY LANGUAGE - the damn thing is about how the Patriot language and lack of a route tree and conventional systems is why they succeed. But you would have to friggin' read the piece to the end to get that.

Again, what does it have to do with losing a TE on game day?

Without the route tree and the conventional system, you can plug any offensive threat in there to run the same pattern.

The guy that replaces Gronk may not be as good, but they can still run their offense just the same; there is no on-the-fly adjustment.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

And because the Gronk is not in there that there's nobody to interpret the language and concept?

Read what I put above. It isn't like putting your car from Neutral to park. You go into a game with a script or whatever game plan you have. That script or game plan has packages involved that match up with the other teams defensive packages. No team is going to just run the same thing they did the last game and expect that the other team didn't adjust. Despite the scores the Texans didn't use the same game plan as Game 1 and the Pats didn't either. So the Pats come out and lets say they worked all week on using Gronk in the slot while Hernandez is on the slot on the other side to spread the field or they have Gronk lined up tight while Welker is in the slot. This is all game planned through film, etc. Once that game plan is blown you can go to something else but you didn't prepare or practice and say, "well Woodhead will be the RB for 60% of those packages, but if he goes down we need to use Vareen as a WR on the boundry." No matter if Brady is the QB or not, their GAME PLAN had to change.

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Again, what does it have to do with losing a TE on game day?

Without the route tree and the conventional system, you can plug any offensive threat in there to run the same pattern.

The guy that replaces Gronk may not be as good, but they can still run their offense just the same; there is no on-the-fly adjustment.

Really? So instead of exploiting weaknesses in the D you'd rather plug an inferior guy in and hope the D still respects that person? That isn't how it works. If they don't respect the sub, they then lay off the guy and add help elsewhere. That is how you outscheme teams.

[76Texan]

Look at the description of the 3-man route and then read the text.

The keyword is simplicity.

Then read the quote.
it says " Concepts benefit you because you can plug DIFFERENT guys into..."

That tells you that any offensive weapon can be plugged in at any spot on the field on any given play.

[76Texan]

Then go to the Ghost/Tosser concept.
Look at the diagram and the read the text.

It says "this conceptual approach is how the Patriots are able to run the same basic plays, whether spreading the field with four or five receivers or using multiple TEs and RBs".

What it really ways is that you can put a receiver in place of the Gronk and you can still run the same play.

THERE IS NO adjustment on the fly.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

Look a the description of the 3-man route and then read the text.

The keyword is simplicity.

Then read the quote.
it says " Concepts benefit you because you can plug DIFFERENT guys into..."

That tells you that any offensive weapon can be plugged in at any spots on the field and any given play.

You are completely whiffing on this!

Re-read what I wrote just above this. We aren't talking about their "system" overall. We are talking about "schemes" for individual games. Being able to plug an inferior WR into Wes Welker's spot doesn't make the gameplan foolproof because the defense will then not respect that WR and will adjust accordingly. It is how you exploit match ups. This isn't a video game where you only have so many set plays and players. When Gronk goes out and Woodhead goes out, you don't run the same packages because Vareen does things better than Woodhead and vice versa. The defense can't sit on Hernandez when Gronk is on the other side. Plugging different guys in makes it an easy system to be in but doesn't mean the game plan is the same. Defenses adjust and you have to adjust too.

It is like Chess. Just running the same plays with lesser guys won't work when the defense adjusts. It is the same as a defenses top DB going down. You can't say "its the 3-4 and the backup can just be plugged in to cover WRs." Offenses know this and attack the lesser DB. The counter to that is safety help which opens up other things for the offense. It is adjusting on the fly.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

You are completely whiffing on this!

Re-read what I wrote just above this. We aren't talking about their "system" overall. We are talking about "schemes" for individual games. Being able to plug an inferior WR into Wes Welker's spot doesn't make the gameplan foolproof because the defense will then not respect that WR and will adjust accordingly. It is how you exploit match ups. This isn't a video game where you only have so many set plays and players. When Gronk goes out and Woodhead goes out, you don't run the same packages because Vareen does things better than Woodhead and vice versa. The defense can't sit on Hernandez when Gronk is on the other side. Plugging different guys in makes it an easy system to be in but doesn't mean the game plan is the same. Defenses adjust and you have to adjust too.

It is like Chess. Just running the same plays with lesser guys won't work when the defense adjusts. It is the same as a defenses top DB going down. You can't say "its the 3-4 and the backup can just be plugged in to cover WRs." Offenses know this and attack the lesser DB. The counter to that is safety help which opens up other things for the offense. It is adjusting on the fly.

The Article talks about concept.
It's like you you design a shelf, now you can either use a flat head or a Phillips screw to secure the shelf.

On game day, you don't need to go find a particular screw to use.
Now the flat head may not be as strong for a certain place, but you don't need to go redesigning a new shelf and spending time to build it.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by 76Texan

The Article talks about concept.
It's like you you design a shelf, now you can either use a flat head or a Phillips screw to secure the shelf.

On game day, you don't need to go find a particular screw to use.
Now the flat head may not be as strong for a certain place, but you don't need to go redesigning a new shelf and spending time to build it.

I give up!I explained in detailed how they work on game weeks and in games.

You are explaining their offense in basic generalities. The article is how it evolved over the years and how the concepts you are discussing work. Like when Moss left, they could adjust the system without breaking it completely. It doesn't mean on game day you can add in inferior players and it will keep working the same. Again, defenses adjust.

[dream_team]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

I give up!I explained in detailed how they work on game weeks and in games.

You are explaining their offense in basic generalities. The article is how it evolved over the years and how the concepts you are discussing work. Like when Moss left, they could adjust the system without breaking it completely. It doesn't mean on game day you can add in inferior players and it will keep working the same. Again, defenses adjust.

Just stop it... I think you guys are talking about two different things and the argument is going no where.

So this begs the question, you think we could have done better against a "Gronk & Woodhead" featured offense? I think we do better covering tight-ends than backs coming out of the backfield. And Vereen is faster than Woodhead.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by dream_team

Just stop it... I think you guys are talking about two different things and the argument is going no where.

So this begs the question, you think we could have done better against a "Gronk & Woodhead" featured offense? I think we do better covering tight-ends than backs coming out of the backfield. And Vereen is faster than Woodhead.

It's not an argument. It's a discussion on how team play offense and game plan.

I think with Gronk, the game might have been worse. Vareen is faster but Woodhead also is effective in his role. I wouldn't be able to tell you on what their plan was though.