Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron96
This is possible also.
It's hard to say, because Ragland just turns and takes off after the TE ASAP; which is kind of weird, because there's no way he has the speed to keep up. In fact, he's beaten almost immediately off the line. Not to mention that Ragland isn't a coverage LB at all. At all. AT ALL. The only way I see Ragland being effective at all on that play is if he were lined up at least two yards farther up-field than he actually was at the snap. Then MAYBE he has a chance to jump Edelman as he catches the ball, assuming it's delivered at about the same time of the actual pass. But even then it'd be tough for Ragland to make that tackle, wouldn't it? I mean, Tom's not an idiot, so he would've delivered the ball when Edelman was even or past Ragland, and then Ragland really has no chance of catching Edelamn, so . . .
Is it possible that Edelman was really Hitchens/Wilson's responsibility? I mean they were both right there in the middle, and if the ball came to Edelman instead of to the TE, one of them would've probably been in a position to make the tackle.
I don't know. But Edelman wasn't Breeland's man on that play, that much is for certain.
Afterthought:
Maybe Ragland was supposed to chase the TE as part of the trap? Make TB think "well look at that ridiculous match-up, I just have to take that." Would Spags create a design that subtle? Would any DC? If he did, the man's a certifiable lunatic genius.
|
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.