PatsPropaganda

It has been for the last four seasons at least.

Fake injuries? Those certainly help.

But seriously, it’s an interesting question because the last two years I like what Belichick has done to combat the no-huddle in that he doesn’t have a lot of specialization in his defense. For the most part, they were ready to roll out the same nickel defense with minimal substitutions.

You look back at 2010’s Pats defense and there were wholesale substitutions depending on the down and distance and I always though they should get away from that.

Then here come the Seahawks and everyone is full of praise for a defense with a lot of different pieces that can be mixed-and-matched. I would be curious to see what would’ve happened had the Broncos been in a position to run more no huddle against them to limit the number of substitutions they could make.

The uber-fast 2012 Patriots offense put up 400 yards passing IN SEATTLE on them and really should’ve beaten the Seahawks.

So the key for the defense playing against the no-huddle is to not get wrapped up in changing guys or relaying the play calls. They must quickly get into the defense they want to run and have everyone on the same page. Really that’s the key, because the no huddle preys upon defenses that can’t get set or have players who don’t know the call.

Really that’s all the defense can do, and it can be effective. Otherwise it’s just about conditioning and winning one-on-one matchups.

While in theory I can see why the move could make sense, Pollard seems to wear out his welcome everywhere he goes. I can’t speak to specifically why that is, but I get a sense he’s probably not the kind of guy they’d want in the locker room even if he is a hard-hitting strong safety type that they could use.

I think Harper is the better fit, but I’ve always liked Delmas. I just think with McCourty and Harmon as more free safety-types, they could really use another strong safety-type like Harper.