Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88
They were playing Cover-1 man on the Moncrief TD. It wasn't a result of getting burned by tightening zones. It was a result of...
1. Jags spreading out Colts, and Arthur Maulet having to play CB this week. Maulet sucks.
2. Hooker rotating over a tad late (I'm sure a read held him, but I'd need to see the full route tree)
3. A poor tackle by Hooker then erased by Maulet tackling Hooker off Moncrief.
I don't think you can look at that play and say "see, this is what happens when you tighten your zones!" Mostly because it wasn't zone coverage.
I do think you can look at it and say: we need to do a better job hiding man coverage before the snap if we're going to play man.
|
I know they were playing man coverage, that's what I said
But whether it is playing man or tightening the zones, the point is these corners are not great at playing any sort of tight coverage. Which is why I think they are playing so far off.
That and with no pass rush to speak off they again don't want to get beat deep, knowing the QB is going to have time and the WRs will have time to get downfield.
But really yesterday, do the Jags have any real WR "threats" beside Moncrief, and we all know he is a moderate "threat" at best? I would think somehow they could have just made sure he was covered the rest of the game even if you have to use an extra guy in coverage for him.
But it goes back to lack of pass rushers and a lack of talent at corner. No scheme is going to be able to cover for those problems over the course of a whole game or over the course of a season.