Today's post by NEInsider on ESPN board

[Ring 6]

Goddamn it, for the last time, it is called Cover One. The FS has the freedom to decide what part of the field he covers. If the CB gambles and blows it but the FS has misread the QB, it's six points. I've been coaching DB's for 5 years and it is run at EVERY level.

You need to work on reading comprehension.
Cover One DOES NOT have corners covering receivers WITH THE ASSUMPTION THEY HAVE DEEP HELP.
You keep repeating yourself and keep missing the point. If it is cover one the corner is playing a DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE that if he has a safety assigned to the deep zone behind him.
If you really think that a corner will play the same technique in cover one with the POSSIBLITY of deep help that he would when a safety is ASSIGNED to the deep zone behind him and that IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY then you must have lost an awful lot of games in those 5 years.

The original post released Hobbs from any blame for getting beaten deep stating that he was covering as if he had deep help (thereby absolving him of the responsbility for the deep ball) but the safety abandoned him.
That is not cover one that is fantasy land.

Can you flat out tell me that you coach corners to cover in cover one with no regard to the deep ball, just as they would with a safety assigned to the deep zone behind them? Obviously you can't.
The point here isnt whether a corner has deep resposnibilities with the chance he may or may not have deep help, the point is that the original post said he DEEP HELP WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM (so the deep ball isnt his fault) AND ABANDONED HIM. That is not cover one.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, there is one serious problem with what you are claiming.

We have all seen MANY receptions where the CB is playing underneath and either there is no over the top safety help or it gets there several steps too late.

For what you are saying to have substance, the corner has to blow a LOT of assignments by playing underneath when he is supposed to be playing man coverage. I simply cannot believe that a CB is allowed to play by Belichick who make that mistake that many times.

Or for what you are saying, the safety has unconditional over the top coverage but somehow or another he completely blows his assignment or for some inexplicable reason hesitates to execute his assignment. Again, you can't possibly convince me that Belichick has a safety out there that makes that many mistakes.

So there is only one possible explanation for why the over the top coverage is either not there or is seriously late - and that has to be that the safety is making a decision to leave the corner on his own even though it is obvious that the corner is assigned to play underneath - or the safety is being delayed by the time it takes him to read whatever defensive keys he is required to do by his assignment from the coaches and by the time he has made his read, it is too late to get there.

I have no interest in trying to parse the words of the original post - but there are some folks here who might just have the credentials to comment on what assignments and responsibilities safeties have - and I'll stand by my observations above.

No. The explanation is that the route is run in the seams of the zone.

The alternative is that you believe the original poster that BB calls a defense telling Hobbs the deep ball will be handled by a safety, but then tells the safety to watch the other side because most of the time the other corner doesn't do what he's told, so you have to run over there, and abandon what you were assigned to do.

The difference is you are talking about attacking a weak spot in a zone, and the original post is talking about an insubordinate corner being PLANNED for by BB and the safety being assigned the job of covering ass when he doenst carry out his job, so we can keep him out there playing his own defense.

 

[Ring 6]

Good lord.

How many years did you play DB? How many years have you coached it? Are you a DC anywhere?

Please stop it.

Explain to me, with all of this experience you claim to have, exactly what coverage you run that has a safety stand in the middle of the field, and study the corners on both sides of the field---assess how they are lined up, whether they are covering well or poorly, then running to give help after they figure out a guy is open.
Explain further at what point of standing around and watching both corners (both cannot be seen at the same time) in coverage do you make the decision where to go. How far down the field? Obviously this is a critical decision, so it has to be at least after the 5 yard chuck zone, right. You have to check both sides. Now once you pick which side, and the reciever is how far downfield, running his go route, please explain how you expect a safety AFTER THE PLAY HAS DEVELOPED THAT FAR to be able to run to the deep sideline and get there with any hope of impacting the play? He has to run 25 yards straight across. Since he will take an angle he will probably have to run 45 yards to get to where the receiver will be after running 25. You must have safeties that run a 3.2 covering WRs that run a 6.6.

After all of that, please explain to me why, in that bizarre, sure to fail defense, you would instruct BOTH of your corners to play tight coverage, and rely on if they get beaten deep there will be a safety covering, when you only have 1 safety for both sides of the field.

If I coach against you, I run gos on both sides of the field. My WR will run past your corners who think they don't have deep responsibility and I'll just have my QB throw to whichever one your safety doesn't look like he's running to, but that doesnt matter either because he cant even get to the one he decides to cover in time.

Tom Brady against that defense would put up 100 points.

You dont seem ignorant, so you cannot really believe what you are saying or you just totally misunderstand.

ONCE AGAIN, there is no defense that exists that tells BOTH corners they are not responsible for the deep ball, then has one safety pick which side he wants to run to, after going through a process that INSURES he cannot get there in time.

If you truly think you can argue this point, please answer the obvious conflicts I have listed here rather than come back with "Im a coach I have to have the right answer even though I dont understand the question".

One last question.
When you run cover one and your corner gets beat for a TD, and comes over to you and says 'not my fault, the safety has the deep ball' do you say, yeah no problem, the other corner needed him more, so its no ones fault we gave up a TD, damn I love cover one, I just wish my safeties were better guessers.
Come on. You know as well as I do that you cannot design a defense that doesnt have at least one player accountable to every part of the field. You cannot give one player the responsiblity for the deep ball on both sides of the field, and tell your corner not to worry about it either.

Understand THAT is what you are defending. It isnt the corners fault because he was told he had deep help, and covered as if he did, but it was a secret to him that it was only a 50/50 chance he would get it, and by the way, Hobbs never gets it because the corner BB puts on the other side of the field MANY TIMES doesn't carry out his assignment and does something different than the coverage calls for so the safety has to go do his job for him.
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING HERE.

 

[JSn]

Best thread ever.

Cover 1

Cover 1 schemes employ only one deep defender, usually a safety. Many underneath coverages paired with Cover 1 shells are strictly man-to-man with LBs and defensive backs each assigned a different offensive player to cover. By using only one deep defender in Cover 1, the other deep defender is free to blitz the quarterback or provide man-to-man pass coverage help.

Cover 1 schemes are usually very aggressive, preferring to proactively disrupt the offense by giving the quarterback little time to make a decision while collapsing the pocket quickly. This is the main advantage of Cover 1 schemes--the ability to blitz from various pre-snap formations while engaging in complex man-to-man coverage schemes post-snap. For example, a safety may blitz while a CB is locked in man coverage with a WR. Or the CB may blitz with the safety rotating into man coverage on the WR post-snap.

The main weakness of Cover 1 schemes is the lone deep defender that must cover a large amount of field and provide help on any deep threats. Offenses can attack Cover 1 schemes with a vertical stretch by sending two receivers on deep routes, provided that the quarterback has enough time for his receivers to get open. The deep defender must decide which receiver to help out on, leaving the other in man coverage which may be a mismatch.

A secondary weakness is inherent in its design: the use of man coverage opens up yards after catch lanes. Man coverage is attacked by offenses in various ways that try to isolate their best athletes on defenders by passing them the ball quickly before the defender can react or designing plays that clear defenders from certain areas thus opening yards after catch lanes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_strategy#Cover_1

 

[Ring 6]

Best thread ever.

Cover 1

Cover 1 schemes employ only one deep defender, usually a safety. Many underneath coverages paired with Cover 1 shells are strictly man-to-man with LBs and defensive backs each assigned a different offensive player to cover. By using only one deep defender in Cover 1, the other deep defender is free to blitz the quarterback or provide man-to-man pass coverage help.

Cover 1 schemes are usually very aggressive, preferring to proactively disrupt the offense by giving the quarterback little time to make a decision while collapsing the pocket quickly. This is the main advantage of Cover 1 schemes--the ability to blitz from various pre-snap formations while engaging in complex man-to-man coverage schemes post-snap. For example, a safety may blitz while a CB is locked in man coverage with a WR. Or the CB may blitz with the safety rotating into man coverage on the WR post-snap.

The main weakness of Cover 1 schemes is the lone deep defender that must cover a large amount of field and provide help on any deep threats. Offenses can attack Cover 1 schemes with a vertical stretch by sending two receivers on deep routes, provided that the quarterback has enough time for his receivers to get open. The deep defender must decide which receiver to help out on, leaving the other in man coverage which may be a mismatch.

A secondary weakness is inherent in its design: the use of man coverage opens up yards after catch lanes. Man coverage is attacked by offenses in various ways that try to isolate their best athletes on defenders by passing them the ball quickly before the defender can react or designing plays that clear defenders from certain areas thus opening yards after catch lanes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_strategy#Cover_1

Note that the difference between your post and the original post is that in the original post, the corner was absolved from any blame because he IS ASSIGNED deep help, where in cover one he POTENTIALLY COULD GET deep help, which is as different as night and day.
Additionally the original post described this NOT AS A COVERAGE but as THE PATRIOTS SYSTEM. We all know the Patriots dont play cover one every play, and hopefully we finnally all realize that when we play cover one we DO NOT ABSOLVE THE CORNER from deep coverage resposnbilities and GUARNATEE HIM DEEP HELP, only to tell the safety to pick one side or the other.

I agree that cover one resembles what was described in the original post, but the most important details were mangled. When a corner gets beaten deep in cover 1 its because he did a bad job of man coverage not because he wasnt supposed to worry about the deep pass because he was relying on a safety to be there, and that safety had a 50/50 chance of being there.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

I think Andy's point, JSn, is that in the Wiki description, the situation presented does not assume both corners are playing tight man/up zone expecting deep help - instead the corners are playing man on an island and the deep safety is then making his call. Two very different scenarios and two very different ways for the CB's to address the WRs. That's the semantic point these guys are going back and forth with...I think ultimately it's more of a communication issue than anything but I think it's worth it because I've enjoyed reading this thread immensely. Can I make a questionable statement about the LBs so we can do that next?

[edit: I see you were quicker on the draw Andy, sorry for the double coverage ]

You need to work on reading comprehension.
Cover One DOES NOT have corners covering receivers WITH THE ASSUMPTION THEY HAVE DEEP HELP.
You keep repeating yourself and keep missing the point. If it is cover one the corner is playing a DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE that if he has a safety assigned to the deep zone behind him.
If you really think that a corner will play the same technique in cover one with the POSSIBLITY of deep help that he would when a safety is ASSIGNED to the deep zone behind him and that IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY then you must have lost an awful lot of games in those 5 years.

The original post released Hobbs from any blame for getting beaten deep stating that he was covering as if he had deep help (thereby absolving him of the responsbility for the deep ball) but the safety abandoned him.
That is not cover one that is fantasy land.

Can you flat out tell me that you coach corners to cover in cover one with no regard to the deep ball, just as they would with a safety assigned to the deep zone behind them? Obviously you can't.
The point here isnt whether a corner has deep resposnibilities with the chance he may or may not have deep help, the point is that the original post said he DEEP HELP WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM (so the deep ball isnt his fault) AND ABANDONED HIM. That is not cover one.

Best thread ever.

Cover 1

Cover 1 schemes employ only one deep defender, usually a safety. Many underneath coverages paired with Cover 1 shells are strictly man-to-man with LBs and defensive backs each assigned a different offensive player to cover. By using only one deep defender in Cover 1, the other deep defender is free to blitz the quarterback or provide man-to-man pass coverage help.

Cover 1 schemes are usually very aggressive, preferring to proactively disrupt the offense by giving the quarterback little time to make a decision while collapsing the pocket quickly. This is the main advantage of Cover 1 schemes--the ability to blitz from various pre-snap formations while engaging in complex man-to-man coverage schemes post-snap. For example, a safety may blitz while a CB is locked in man coverage with a WR. Or the CB may blitz with the safety rotating into man coverage on the WR post-snap.

The main weakness of Cover 1 schemes is the lone deep defender that must cover a large amount of field and provide help on any deep threats. Offenses can attack Cover 1 schemes with a vertical stretch by sending two receivers on deep routes, provided that the quarterback has enough time for his receivers to get open. The deep defender must decide which receiver to help out on, leaving the other in man coverage which may be a mismatch.

A secondary weakness is inherent in its design: the use of man coverage opens up yards after catch lanes. Man coverage is attacked by offenses in various ways that try to isolate their best athletes on defenders by passing them the ball quickly before the defender can react or designing plays that clear defenders from certain areas thus opening yards after catch lanes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_strategy#Cover_1

 

[Ring 6]

Best thread ever.

Cover 1

Cover 1 schemes employ only one deep defender, usually a safety. Many underneath coverages paired with Cover 1 shells are strictly man-to-man with LBs and defensive backs each assigned a different offensive player to cover. By using only one deep defender in Cover 1, the other deep defender is free to blitz the quarterback or provide man-to-man pass coverage help.

Cover 1 schemes are usually very aggressive, preferring to proactively disrupt the offense by giving the quarterback little time to make a decision while collapsing the pocket quickly. This is the main advantage of Cover 1 schemes--the ability to blitz from various pre-snap formations while engaging in complex man-to-man coverage schemes post-snap. For example, a safety may blitz while a CB is locked in man coverage with a WR. Or the CB may blitz with the safety rotating into man coverage on the WR post-snap.

The main weakness of Cover 1 schemes is the lone deep defender that must cover a large amount of field and provide help on any deep threats. Offenses can attack Cover 1 schemes with a vertical stretch by sending two receivers on deep routes, provided that the quarterback has enough time for his receivers to get open. The deep defender must decide which receiver to help out on, leaving the other in man coverage which may be a mismatch.

A secondary weakness is inherent in its design: the use of man coverage opens up yards after catch lanes. Man coverage is attacked by offenses in various ways that try to isolate their best athletes on defenders by passing them the ball quickly before the defender can react or designing plays that clear defenders from certain areas thus opening yards after catch lanes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football_strategy#Cover_1

The other flaw in the original post was that it implied that Hobbs got hurt by doing his job. That the safety sits back and analyzes step by step how Hobbs and the other corner are aligned, covering, whether they do their job or not prior to making a decision. Thats just not feasible.
Of course the safety reads the play and reacts. If he waits to see which corner is getting run past, he can never get to the reciever by the time he figures it out.
In other words a COVER ONE SAFETY READS KEYS, he doesnt stand in the middle of the field until someone is open then run after him. That would make him useless. And there is absolutely no way a safety can watch and assess the technique and positioning of both corners at the same time in order to decide which side of the field to go to. Standing in the middle of the field doing nothing for that long eliminates him from having any impact on the play,. unless he is lucky and the play comes right to where he is standing and studying.

 

[JSn]

Note that the difference between your post and the original post is that in the original post, the corner was absolved from any blame because he IS ASSIGNED deep help, where in cover one he POTENTIALLY COULD GET deep help, which is as different as night and day.
Additionally the original post described this NOT AS A COVERAGE but as THE PATRIOTS SYSTEM. We all know the Patriots dont play cover one every play, and hopefully we finnally all realize that when we play cover one we DO NOT ABSOLVE THE CORNER from deep coverage resposnbilities and GUARNATEE HIM DEEP HELP, only to tell the safety to pick one side or the other.

I agree that cover one resembles what was described in the original post, but the most important details were mangled. When a corner gets beaten deep in cover 1 its because he did a bad job of man coverage not because he wasnt supposed to worry about the deep pass because he was relying on a safety to be there, and that safety had a 50/50 chance of being there.

Yeah, I wasn't taking sides, just trying to get my head around all of this. I love football, the intricacies are just taking their time holing up in my brain.

To me it seems like the Safety has to make a call immediately to be any help at all. This coverage calls for corners with some serious physical tools, speed being a big one. If you're right (still trying to think past the headaches this thread has caused, lol) the corner is absolutely responsible, but the safety is going to hear about making the wrong choice if he does it very often.

Or maybe I am now officially talking out of my a$s.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, I wasn't taking sides, just trying to get my head around all of this. I love football, the intricacies are just taking their time holing up in my brain.

To me it seems like the Safety has to make a call immediately to be any help at all. This coverage calls for corners with some serious physical tools, speed being a big one. If you're right (still trying to think past the headaches this thread has caused, lol) the corner is absolutely responsible, but the safety is going to hear about making the wrong choice if he does it very often.

Or maybe I am now officially talking out of my a$s.

No, thats the whole issue. The original post said you cant blame the corner because he is supposed to have deep help and doesnt get it. Its moronic that a corner would play as if deep help is guaranteed when its not. And yes, there isnt time for the safety to act the way it was described, and also it was decscribed as our system, and I an guarantee we arent playing cover 1 even 1 of every 5 plays, and more likely hardly at ever.

 

[Dragda]

Yeah, it's called cover one.

And they do it all the time at the pro level. The Patriots do it. It's not a high school coverage. it's used at all levels. I coached it on my son's junior high team for every down.

 

[unoriginal]

I think Andy's point, JSn, is that in the Wiki description, the situation presented does not assume both corners are playing tight man/up zone expecting deep help - instead the corners are playing man on an island and the deep safety is then making his call.

I think this just about sums it up.

 

[Dragda]

The point is very simply this.
WE DO NOT RUN A DEFENSE where a corner is told he has deep help and a safety can decide whether to give deep help or not.
Either it is the SAFETYS JOB to play over top of that corner, or it is not. Under no circumstances would a corner think he has deep help but a safety think its up to him to give it or go somewhere else.

There are many calls, plays and routes where something along the lines of what is talked about here happens. For example if our safeties are playing deep halves, and the outside receiver runs a fly and the inside reciever a deep post, the safety must choose. The corner knows he COULD have help, but with 2 receivers on his side realizes he won;t.

The big issue with the original post is that it implied our corners are blameless because we tell them to cover as if they have deep help (really deep help means someone else is responsible for the deep route, not them, so they will cover diffferently than if they had responsibility for the deep route) but the safety can choose to not give it.
THERE IS NO DEFENSE RUN BY ANY TEAM AT ANY LEVEL WHERE THAT HAPPENS.

I don't have access to scouting film, but I'm certain if I did I would be able to find examples at every single level. Maybe every game played.

Provide deep help. Sometimes that is a single DB who must react to the play. Mostly, the defense called in is very clear for the defender to know his coverage responsibility. Other times it is figured out on the field as the play unfolds.

I would think this couldn't even be argued.

 

[JSn]

I would think this couldn't even be argued.

Allow me to introduce you to the internet...

 

[Dragda]

Explain to me, with all of this experience you claim to have, exactly what coverage you run that has a safety stand in the middle of the field, and study the corners on both sides of the field---assess how they are lined up, whether they are covering well or poorly, then running to give help after they figure out a guy is open.
Explain further at what point of standing around and watching both corners (both cannot be seen at the same time) in coverage do you make the decision where to go. How far down the field? Obviously this is a critical decision, so it has to be at least after the 5 yard chuck zone, right. You have to check both sides. Now once you pick which side, and the reciever is how far downfield, running his go route, please explain how you expect a safety AFTER THE PLAY HAS DEVELOPED THAT FAR to be able to run to the deep sideline and get there with any hope of impacting the play? He has to run 25 yards straight across. Since he will take an angle he will probably have to run 45 yards to get to where the receiver will be after running 25. You must have safeties that run a 3.2 covering WRs that run a 6.6.

After all of that, please explain to me why, in that bizarre, sure to fail defense, you would instruct BOTH of your corners to play tight coverage, and rely on if they get beaten deep there will be a safety covering, when you only have 1 safety for both sides of the field.

If I coach against you, I run gos on both sides of the field. My WR will run past your corners who think they don't have deep responsibility and I'll just have my QB throw to whichever one your safety doesn't look like he's running to, but that doesnt matter either because he cant even get to the one he decides to cover in time.

Tom Brady against that defense would put up 100 points.

You dont seem ignorant, so you cannot really believe what you are saying or you just totally misunderstand.

ONCE AGAIN, there is no defense that exists that tells BOTH corners they are not responsible for the deep ball, then has one safety pick which side he wants to run to, after going through a process that INSURES he cannot get there in time.

If you truly think you can argue this point, please answer the obvious conflicts I have listed here rather than come back with "Im a coach I have to have the right answer even though I dont understand the question".

One last question.
When you run cover one and your corner gets beat for a TD, and comes over to you and says 'not my fault, the safety has the deep ball' do you say, yeah no problem, the other corner needed him more, so its no ones fault we gave up a TD, damn I love cover one, I just wish my safeties were better guessers.
Come on. You know as well as I do that you cannot design a defense that doesnt have at least one player accountable to every part of the field. You cannot give one player the responsiblity for the deep ball on both sides of the field, and tell your corner not to worry about it either.

Understand THAT is what you are defending. It isnt the corners fault because he was told he had deep help, and covered as if he did, but it was a secret to him that it was only a 50/50 chance he would get it, and by the way, Hobbs never gets it because the corner BB puts on the other side of the field MANY TIMES doesn't carry out his assignment and does something different than the coverage calls for so the safety has to go do his job for him.
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DEFENDING HERE.

I've read all your posts with bold words in them, but I don't have a clue what you mean. I'm sure you have a point, but I think you might be the only one who understands it.

The only place I read that the Patriots run a coverage where the safety doesn't cover as he was supposed to is in your posts.

 

[unoriginal]

I don't have access to scouting film, but I'm certain if I did I would be able to find examples at every single level. Maybe every game played.

Provide deep help. Sometimes that is a single DB who must react to the play. Mostly, the defense called in is very clear for the defender to know his coverage responsibility. Other times it is figured out on the field as the play unfolds.

I would think this couldn't even be argued.

The argument isn't about if the defensive backs react to keys on the field, its if those "keys" are reasonable.

Asking a corner to modify coverage based on safeties is unreasonable. Corners do not have eyes in the back of their head. Either they can watch what's going on in front of them, or what's going on behind them. Not both.

I also regard asking a single safety to read both corners and their receivers as unreasonable, because that is a very wide and detailed field of vision with many keys. TripleOption disagrees, and that's fine, this could very well be a scheme difference. I still think more reasonable methods would be "deepest man in the middle" or "QB eyes/combo route recognition," but I'm sure NFL teams could run "omniscient" man free at times with the talents who play the position.

Also, as a general note to what Andy mentioned in your quote, normal method of deep cover 2 against multiple deep threats is to "split the distance" until the ball is thrown. If the slot and Z receiver run fade/seam, the safety should be about five yards deeper than the deepest receiver, and midway between the fade and the seam. It's up to the system whether the linebacker/nickel follows the slot up the seam, or the corner follows the Z on the fade. The remaining player generally has combined flats and hash/curl responsibility.

 

[Dragda]

The argument isn't about if the defensive backs react to keys on the field, its if those "keys" are reasonable.

Asking a corner to modify coverage based on safeties is unreasonable. Corners do not have eyes in the back of their head. Either they can watch what's going on in front of them, or what's going on behind them. Not both.

I also regard asking a single safety to read both corners and their receivers as unreasonable, because that is a very wide and detailed field of vision with many keys. TripleOption disagrees, and that's fine, this could very well be a scheme difference. I still think more reasonable methods would be "deepest man in the middle" or "QB eyes/combo route recognition," but I'm sure NFL teams could run "omniscient" man free at times with the talents who play the position.

Also, as a general note to what Andy mentioned in your quote, normal method of deep cover 2 against multiple deep threats is to "split the distance" until the ball is thrown. If the slot and Z receiver both run fade/seam, the safety should be about five yards deeper than the deepest receiver, and midway between the fade and the seam. It's up to the system whether the linebacker/nickel follows the slot up the seam, or the corner follows the Z on the fade. The remaining player generally has both flats and hash/curl responsibility.

Well, you phrased it in a slightly different way emphasizing the CB playing different based on the safeties reaction which would be very difficult and prone to frequent breakdown. It just wouldn't work. So why did we start the 100 posts about it, again?

 

[unoriginal]

Well, you phrased it in a slightly different way emphasizing the CB playing different based on the safeties reaction which would be very difficult and prone to frequent breakdown. It just wouldn't work. So why did we start the 100 posts about it, again?

Because NEInsider is either an impostor or a sloppy writer.

Even his most common sense notions are non-sequitur:

Since we do not flip corners and have a corner cover a specific receiver our cornerbacks absolutely must not break the scheme or they endanger the other cornerbacks coverage and the defense called

 

[VJCPatriot]

Stop giving this fake the credit he needs to continue on. Enough is enough. Stop treating whatever he says as gospel.

I agree. This sounds like complete BS. Why do people keep buying what this fraud selling? Just cos he's offering Koolaid??

 

[arrellbee]

Andy, there is one serious problem with what you are claiming.

We have all seen MANY receptions where the CB is playing underneath and either there is no over the top safety help or it gets there several steps too late.

For what you are saying to have substance, the corner has to blow a LOT of assignments by playing underneath when he is supposed to be playing man coverage. I simply cannot believe that a CB is allowed to play by Belichick who make that mistake that many times.

Or for what you are saying, the safety has unconditional over the top coverage but somehow or another he completely blows his assignment or for some inexplicable reason hesitates to execute his assignment. Again, you can't possibly convince me that Belichick has a safety out there that makes that many mistakes.

So there is only one possible explanation for why the over the top coverage is either not there or is seriously late - and that has to be that the safety is making a decision to leave the corner on his own even though it is obvious that the corner is assigned to play underneath - or the safety is being delayed by the time it takes him to read whatever defensive keys he is required to do by his assignment from the coaches and by the time he has made his read, it is too late to get there.

I have no interest in trying to parse the words of the original post - but there are some folks here who might just have the credentials to comment on what assignments and responsibilities safeties have - and I'll stand by my observations above.

No. The explanation is that the route is run in the seams of the zone.

The alternative is that you believe the original poster that BB calls a defense telling Hobbs the deep ball will be handled by a safety, but then tells the safety to watch the other side because most of the time the other corner doesn't do what he's told, so you have to run over there, and abandon what you were assigned to do.

The difference is you are talking about attacking a weak spot in a zone, and the original post is talking about an insubordinate corner being PLANNED for by BB and the safety being assigned the job of covering ass when he doenst carry out his job, so we can keep him out there playing his own defense.

Well, you didn't really address my question.

This whole discussion started with the situations where Hobb's gets beat deep - don't think there is any disagreement on this.

There also doesn't seem to be any disagreement that on many or most of the Hobb's plays that we are talking about that there is no safety even close to the play.

So what you seem to vehemently disagree with is Insider's assertion that the safety 'decided' to support the other corner - you seem to think that there is no way that the safety is supposed to ever make that kind of decision.

In the cases we (at least I) am talking about, there is no zone or seam. It's simply the receiver getting the ball over the top of Hobbs pretty much straight down the sideline.

So the question I was trying to get to:
Are you saying Hobbs is blowing those assignments and shouldn't have been expecting safety help ?

Or if not, what is it exactly you think the safety was doing such that he wasn't there to help ?

 

[Ring 6]

I've read all your posts with bold words in them, but I don't have a clue what you mean. I'm sure you have a point, but I think you might be the only one who understands it.

The only place I read that the Patriots run a coverage where the safety doesn't cover as he was supposed to is in your posts.

Read the original post. All of my posts are explaining why it is inaccurate.