If we had Breelend last year which almost happened, we win the SB.

:sigh:
[Reply]

He was still hurt last year and his foot was clearly bothering him and he did NOT play this well last season.
[Reply]

He's clearly in a zone drop. I'm not sure how you can watch that and think otherwise.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

Now I will agree with you that I THINK he was in a drop zone.

But I can't state it with authority. You don't generally see a guy let the WR get that far into his body, forcing him to turn his hips and try to break like that if he's in a true zone coverage.

I think that was a designed drop, yes. I also think that there was some really bizarre technique getting back into his zone, especially with that little jab step he took towards the slant as he flipped his hips.

That's not a natural movement if you're in a drop zone. I figure you don't let Edelman eat up the space that quickly and then you stay in your backpedal longer if you were intending to drop the whole way.

I mean unless your ultimate conclusion was that he was baiting Brady into THINKING it was man coverage to force the throw. But man, that's 4D chess kinda shit that you usually only see from the truly elite CBs.

And even his biggest fans won't call Breeland this super-savvy, elite CB, would they?
[Reply]

Yeah, I think you're right. That makes more sense anyway. And at least with Ragland chasing the TE, it does make the throw just a tiny bit harder to execute; not that much, but a little.

Not nearly as fun and interesting as the "lunatic genius" idea though.
[Reply]

What do you think about Mathieu's pick against the Raiders a week ago?
[Reply]

I think he probably set Carr up. I also think safeties are more able to do that sort of thing because they have the play in front of them and aren't responsible for primary coverage very often. I also think Mathieu has been notable throughout his career precisely BECAUSE he has shown an ability to do that sort of thing.

That's a skill that very very few players have so it's not one I'm just going to assume Breeland possesses or was demonstrating on that play.

Like I said, I think Breeland was probably in a zone look there, but I don't think we can take it as any kind of article of faith. There's a big difference between an average CB changing his backpedal and faking a jab step vs. a premier safety watching a QB and not breaking early.
[Reply]

While that’s true, both were zone/mix calls with elements of man looks. Spag’s scheme has been incredible in disguising looks for 3-4 weeks now. I’m certainly not saying Breeland is good; I’m saying the call put him in outstanding position to make the pick.
[Reply]

And I'm not saying he WASN'T trying to bait him.

I'm just saying I wouldn't take either as a given. He's a veteran corner; he's learned a few tricks. It's possible he was. And it's also possible he just screwed up and got a little lucky.

And then again, the theory I subscribe to is that a combination of a good defensive call and Breeland's generally utilitarian and somewhat awkward style is what led to that rep looking as odd as it did and he ended up in the right place at the right time.

My point being that he MAY have fucked up and I think dismissing that possibility out of hand is probably giving him more credit than his track record warrants.
[Reply]

He was one of the best CBS over the last 7 or 8 games.
[Reply]

I wonder a lot how much pull the defensive coordinators have in the draft. I mean, Veach did have a bad first draft but a great second draft. Was Bob Sutton pounding the table for Breeland Speaks and Dorian O'Daniel insisting that they would be a boost for his defense? I think that most of the rest of the people involved in the draft were relatively unchanged to the best of my knowledge. Defensive picks were overall bad during the entire Reid era until Sutton was replaced by Spags. Is it a coincidence?
[Reply]

Thing about it is how effortless it looked.

I haven’t paid enough attention to Edlemans career to know if he’s lost a step, but he hasn’t lost that much. I know he’s been injured and whatever but that fucking guy is always open.

Breeland made him look like a kid out there. Like blocking a 5th graders shot in basketball. Maybe it was more lucky than good but man it looked the part from the couch.

I must reiterate, that bastard is always freaking open. And he looked silly there, where there was no slip or bumped off his route or anything. Dude looked silly.
[Reply]

I have a hard time believing Sutton would shut off Matlock long enough to look at draft cut ups.
[Reply]

I suspect strongly, and I say STRONGLY that The Chiefs were planning on letting Sutton go, and had decided to go to a 4-3. I think they didn't want to blow up both sides of the ball in one offseason, opting to keep continuity on defense for a year since we were handing the offense to a then unproven 2nd year QB in Mahomes. Pat was better than anyone dreamed, and so here we are.

Speaks is not a known quantity right now. He was miscast as a 3-4 OLB, but not as a 4-3 down lineman. He's been injured this year, and so we don't know what he is, really. I think Speaks was a pick for the future; for Veach and Andy's move to a 4-3.

O'Daniel should've been Sorensen's replacement; basically your big safety/coverage backer. It doesn't seem that he's developed of course. But he's not a better fit in a 3-4 than a 4-3 skillset-wise.

I think they were looking at skillsets in a general way in the '18 draft; I think the numbers favor a 4-3 IF half the league is running a 3-4. I don't think they knew exactly WHO yet or what sort of 4-3 they'd go to.

This offseason, Spags was in pre-draft, and so I'm sure had some input on the shopping list. So it was a more targeted approach. It makes sense that it would be more successful.

In short, I'm saying Sutton was a lame duck, they didn't draft anyone that last season for his 3-4, they drafted in a general way for a switch to the 4-3.
[Reply]