JoshAllenHasBigHands

No, it is definitely cover 0. 3 route runners, 3 defenders, no deep help. That is text-book cover 0. The confusion is the corner back. I honestly think he screwed up. Him backpedaling there makes zero sense and leaves Cole wide open, with the slot (Mackenzie) double covered. HOWEVER, reading the play from the beginning, it looks like it is going to be man coverage. JA cannot predict that the corner is going to inexplicably backpedal himself out of the play. Good comeback. You really got me.

Right, I knew there is no way you misunderstood the play call. Yeah, the 4th DB is off screen behind the other two. He starts deep, but on a cover-0 blitz the assumption is he will come down to get Beasley (or whoever his assignment is) in coverage. It doesn't work out that way, hence the screen shot above, but that is the reason JA looks right. Look, when the coverage says all your WRs are gonnna be 1-1, you go to your best WR. That is what Josh did. I just wish they would have audibled to a more makable pass. Please start using periods and commas. I literally have no idea what you are trying to say.

Its Dabol's play call man. Its Daboll saying if you see cover-0 with Brown 1-1 on the outside that is your read. You can dream up whatever fiction scenario you like for this to justify your irrational anger, but that doesn't make it any less incorrect. Wait....you've been around forever, there is no way you don't know what Cover-0 means...

It is important to read the post-game interviews before posting.

Lol

On cover-0 it is not uncommon to have just the one read. The defense is sending an all out blitz, so the QB just doesn't have the time to make a bunch of reads. The problem is that his one read is a difficult low-percentage play. It was a dumb play call.

It was never a decision. It was cover-0, meaning he got one read. He had Brown (his #1 WR) 1-1 on the outside running either a go or an option route, depending on whether he got a jump. The ball was always going to Brown, and the read was always on the right. These snap shots do nothing to help explain what happened on the play.

He completed 5 passes yesterday for 20+ yards. Those are big plays.

Sort of beside my original point, but sure.

You haven't seen it successfully happen. It is clearly what they are trying to do, though. Are they not good enough to do that? You are probably right. But that doesn't mean we should misdiagnose what is happening as the team "hasn't found their identity."

That was definitely true against the Browns, but not so much against the Eagles, and he still received the same criticism.

Any chance we can nip that "identity" narrative in the bud? Daboll is attacking match ups he thinks they can take advantage of. It isn't work as well as we'd hope, but its his plan. Saying we haven't developed an "identity" completely misunderstands what the coaches are trying to accomplish.

Sacks are an overrated stat. There are give or take 80 offensive snaps a game. Great sack teams get 4 to 5 sacks a game. Awesome, but the percentage is so small a sack just doesn’t consistently change the course of a game. A 50% pressure rate, on the other hand, that changes the whole dynamic of the game. Granted, sacks usually indicate a high pressure rate. However, if I had to choose between a relatively high sack rate and a high pass rush rate, I pick the latter

That is a quick turn around on Liuget. It'd be one thing if we only had three DTs, but throwing him in with only a couple days preparation with a healthy roster of DTs seems excessive.

I'm rooting for 300 yards through the air and a loss. Just to stick it the stats crowd. Wait...

I too think we should stop making accuses for the offense.

Stop. Game planning to attack a defense's weaknesses does not mean we are being dictated to. If that is really a model you oppose, than that necessarily means you oppose the Bill Bilicheck model. This is just silly.

For everyone else in the world? Yes. For Nextmanup? No. Time to fire Pegula.

I think we found ourselves a stat guy. Stat guys never call themselves stat guys, but we all know...

I know ScottLaw and GG have argued vehemently that Edmunds isn't built for MLB because he isn't racking up tackles and that is what the MLB is supposed to do, or some dribble like that. It has been super obnoxious. Meh, I think you are wrong, but that argument is being had in enough other threads. No need to do it here.

Do you want a good illustration of the difference in how people view the All-22? I think it is the stat crowd that hounds on Edmunds, and the All-22 people that think he is playing very well.

OCs formulate game plans to attack defenses' weaknesses. Philly's biggest weakness was their secondary. Their biggest strength was stopping the run. What kind of gameplan do those strengths and weaknesses call for? A heavy passing attack. Josh is supposed to be able to throw through the wind, as should any NFL caliber QB. Execution failed. It happens.

Its worth at least following his twitter. For what its worth, hearing your comments caused me to think: are we talking about the same guy? In my mind, that is the farthest from the way I would describe his work. Also, the fact that he gets so much affirmation from players on twitter about how he is correctly analyzing play calls, assignments, etc. tells me he knows what he is talking about. With respect to the Rams, there was an article written recently about why they are failing. It had to do with comments made by Pats after the Super bowl that they were easy to stop once they found a way to work around McVay calling in the plays after they lined up.

Out here doing God's work

I don't know how not to love Tre White.