Week 8 Gamete Thread - Chargers

Share this page

aloyouis said:
Find a good pic of her for the “other” thread please.
Click to expand...

FDEfkZlVQAUChnH
 
chevss454 said:
We talked about post-snap movement being important prior to the game on page 3 or 4 of this thread. It's always good to disguise what your DBs are doing but especially with younger QBs. Switching from man to various zone formations is especially troublesome. Last year BB played man; this year he used at least 4 different zone calls to create even more confusion. Using Phillips as a robber worked beautifully.
Click to expand...
Reminded me of the gameplan vs Brady but wasn't as intense in terms of pure changing of looks post snap as much as that one was.
 
TyLawsPick6 said:
I'd have to go back and look, but I didn't get that impression.
Click to expand...

Per @PFF: the Pats went with a heavy zone coverage plan against the #Chargers. They were in cover-3 (46.7%), cover-2 (21.7%), or quarters (5%) on 73.4% of Herbert's drop-backs. Only played their usual cover-1 on 16.7% of passing plays on Sunday.
Mostly match zone that BB and Saban cooked up way back when
 
Barmore is really coming into his own. DL players ofter go unnoticed unless they get sacks or run stuffs.
Noticed that Barmore was playing both inside and outside and getting great push and penetration even when doubled teamed.
He started slow but has come on over the last few games. I think we have ourselves a good one.
 
chevss454 said:
Per @PFF: the Pats went with a heavy zone coverage plan against the #Chargers. They were in cover-3 (46.7%), cover-2 (21.7%), or quarters (5%) on 73.4% of Herbert's drop-backs. Only played their usual cover-1 on 16.7% of passing plays on Sunday.
Mostly match zone that BB and Saban cooked up way back when
Click to expand...
So they ended up showing man on my tv screen but it ended up being zone after the snap. Well, good job of disguising is what I'd say. I don't see the deficiency angle, though. Their stud WRs were taken out of the game except that first drive on Allen's big play. In fact, that one was definitely zone there.
 
Here is a question:

Is it me or were there 2 plays yesterday where the zebras stood there and did nothing and there should have been penalties or another decision made to offset what LA did?

1. Mac drilled well after multiple whistles went. No call. No personal foul. Nothing. I've never seen this before.
2.Chargers D Line tried to start a brawl on our side of the line and wasted all kinds of time, essentially inducing the Pats into calling a timeout. Why there isn't an officials timeout there putting time back on the play clock? I am not sure I've seen this before either. Why wouldn't a defense do that when they wanted to in order to get the other time to waste a timeout? How is there not a rule or something in place so that doesn't happen?
 
TyLawsPick6 said:
Here is a question:

Is it me or were there 2 plays yesterday where the zebras stood there and did nothing and there should have been penalties or another decision made to offset what LA did?

1. Mac drilled well after multiple whistles went. No call. No personal foul. Nothing. I've never seen this before.
2.Chargers D Line tried to start a brawl on our side of the line and wasted all kinds of time, essentially inducing the Pats into calling a timeout. Why there isn't an officials timeout there putting time back on the play clock? I am not sure I've seen this before either. Why wouldn't a defense do that when they wanted to in order to get the other time to waste a timeout? How is there not a rule or something in place so that doesn't happen?
Click to expand...

1. Should have a flag for personal foul on Tillery for sure.
2. At the least the play clock should have been reset.

I'm certain BB sent film to the league today to make them aware.
 
chevss454 said:
1. Should have a flag for personal foul on Tillery for sure.
2. At the least the play clock should have been reset.

I'm certain BB sent film to the league today to make them aware.
Click to expand...
I mean, the officiating essentially stole 7 points from us. Should have roughing the passer and half the distance with a 1st down.

I am glad we won, but this bizarre officiating continues against our team. And, that's beyond the 3 straight calls inside the 5 that went in favor of LA, ironically the first penalty was a clear hold on Henry with the flag mysteriously being picked up.
 
TyLawsPick6 said:
So they ended up showing man on my tv screen but it ended up being zone after the snap. Well, good job of disguising is what I'd say. I don't see the deficiency angle, though. Their stud WRs were taken out of the game except that first drive on Allen's big play. In fact, that one was definitely zone there.
Click to expand...

It was man coverage on Keenan Allen's double move on JCJackson good for 41 yds on their first drive. 90% zone after that.
Deficiency is lack of pure cover corners. We have JC and that's it.
 
chevss454 said:
It was man coverage on Keenan Allen's double move on JCJackson good for 41 yds on their first drive. 90% zone after that.
Deficiency is lack of pure cover corners. We have JC and that's it.
Click to expand...
We don't know that, though. Bryant could be close to what Jones was. I don't buy it. It depends on how good the second WR is, IMO. BB has always used zone as a strategy except for maybe 2011 when they really didn't have two legit starting CBs who could cover in man.

They showed man with Bryant when he trailed the WR early in the game, but then dropped into zone. Not many teams have 2 #1 CBs who care great man cover players, but they still use it in part of the scheme.

I think when you posted that pre and post snap read stuff, that's what we saw in the game.

I remember when Chicago had Vasher and Peanut Tillman and they'd play a Cover 2 shell a lot, but they were very good CBs, IMO. Or even Seattle with Sherman and whoever is on the other side.

Zone doesn't necessarily mean you don't have good cover CBs in man, IMO.
 
TyLawsPick6 said:
We don't know that, though. Bryant could be close to what Jones was. I don't buy it. It depends on how good the second WR is, IMO. BB has always used zone as a strategy except for maybe 2011 when they really didn't have two legit starting CBs who could cover in man.

They showed man with Bryant when he trailed the WR early in the game, but then dropped into zone. Not many teams have 2 #1 CBs who care great man cover players, but they still use it in part of the scheme.

I think when you posted that pre and post snap read stuff, that's what we saw in the game.

I remember when Chicago had Vasher and Peanut Tillman and they'd play a Cover 2 shell a lot, but they were very good CBs, IMO. Or even Seattle with Sherman and whoever is on the other side.

Zone doesn't necessarily mean you don't have good cover CBs in man, IMO.
Click to expand...

OK. I think losing Jon Jones was a significant blow to our CB corps.
 
Last edited:
chevss454 said:
OK. I think losing Jon Jones was a significant blow to CB corps.
Click to expand...
It is. But, like I said if Bryant can be somewhat in the ballpark as Jones, it may not be as bad as you think. I like what I've seen so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top