Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Nah, no chance.
I mean how would you even have time to practice something like that? The only way - I mean the ONLY way - I can see that even being a gleam in Spags eyes is if that's a play the Chiefs have seen on tape literally a dozen more more times this season. Like if they KNOW the Pats are going to run that play at some point and are going to run it out of that formation. Then MAYBE you do that.
And even then, something tells me that the defensive version of running a screen pass is gonna implode horrifically far more often than it doesn't. The number of guys who would have to simultaneously make the correct call/read on that play is staggering. Nah, I don't think you could ever have an intentionally 'blown' coverage - the risk is just way too high.
As for Ragland not being a coverage backer - you're correct, but look at the personnel group. That's their base formation and at that point, you have on the field who you have on the field. Ragland's been playing the SAM well for several weeks and if he's gonna be your SAM backer, well you have to treat him like one. And that means he's gonna have to occasionally cover that short zone, even if it's Edelman running through it. You look at the fact that he'd have had Breeland over top of him, Hitchens crashing the middle and even Thornhill evidently with a shade to the strong side...well you're not actually asking much of Ragland there. You're not really even asking him to break up a pass - just see if the guy cuts in front of you and if he catches it, de-cleat him.
That's kinda all you ever ask of a SAM in an underneath zone like that. I don't think it's impossible.
|
Yeah, I think you're right. That makes more sense anyway. And at least with Ragland chasing the TE, it does make the throw just a tiny bit harder to execute; not that much, but a little.
Not nearly as fun and interesting as the "lunatic genius" idea though.