Brooks jumping on the bandwagon, I see.
There was nothing revolutionary about what McDaniels drew up. Using motion and shifts to reveal coverage is basic OC'ing. Most coordinators do it.
I enjoy the part where he discusses the first play as if it was a clever 6-yard gain and completely ignores that Sherman would have stopped him for one yard if he hadn't missed the tackle. The third play again features a defender falling down behind the speedy Edelman, otherwise it's a fourth down. The Gronk-on-Wright is a basic mismatch that any OC worth his salt (including Bevell) can create. None of this is rocket science.
He admitted that Brady executed a dink-and-dunk approach on par with Rivers/Romo earlier in the season. But that in itself a compliment to the Legion of Boom. By definition, there is really no way to shut down a dink-and-dunk offense, so allowing it isn't a failure for a defense. It's a compliment, because it means the QB has to take the hardest route possible to victory. Brady did.
And targeting a second-year CB who was injured his entire first year and routinely exploited up until the current game isn't "outstanding awareness and football intelligence". I'd expect that from any starting QB. Wipe the drool off your chin, Brooks.
He also forgets that the Seahawks don't have a "fierce pass rush". They have one solid rusher, the ineffective Avril, the inscrutable Irvin, and that's it. And after saying Seattle's O-line "held up" against said "fierce" pass rush, he goes right on to say that Brady's gameplan involved getting the ball out quickly. Which doesn't require the O-line to do much. I don't remember many deep routes at all from the Pats. Frankly, I think they respected Seattle's weakened DL more than they needed to.
So many problems with that article.