Something I always wondered about

[Partial]

Why don't teams ever allocate one of their safeties to help jam a dominant receiver at the line? If they did this on third and longs, they could still have effective coverages by going with a cover 1 or dropping a linebacker (like Barnett) back so they still have the two safetys for over the top help.

For example, the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game. If it was Al and Bigby up there mugging him and not letting him pass or split them at the line, I think they'd have a lot more success.

So why is it, that no team ever seems to do this? They do it with gunners on punts, but never good receivers.

[RashanGary]

It might work. YOu better have a dominate front 4 to get pressure or the other guys will kill you.

[pbmax]

Re: Something I always wondered about

TO escaped a lot of jams by being in motion.

A second player on the LOS to bump means one less player in coverage, deep safety or not, so the lesser WRs would find it easier to get open.

And like a gunner on the punt coverage, if you slip by the double, go in motion or they tie each other up, you have two players trailing and out of position.

Why don't teams ever allocate one of their safeties to help jam a dominant receiver at the line? If they did this on third and longs, they could still have effective coverages by going with a cover 1 or dropping a linebacker (like Barnett) back so they still have the two safetys for over the top help.

For example, the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game. If it was Al and Bigby up there mugging him and not letting him pass or split them at the line, I think they'd have a lot more success.

So why is it, that no team ever seems to do this? They do it with gunners on punts, but never good receivers.

[Guiness]

I'd tend to think PBMax has it right - the consequences of the receiver slipping by the double are too great.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: Something I always wondered about

TO escaped a lot of jams by being in motion.

Bingo. I wonder why more teams don't do that on the WR who Harris is covering.

[OS PA]

Re: Something I always wondered about

TO escaped a lot of jams by being in motion.

A second player on the LOS to bump means one less player in coverage, deep safety or not, so the lesser WRs would find it easier to get open.

And like a gunner on the punt coverage, if you slip by the double, go in motion or they tie each other up, you have two players trailing and out of position.

Why don't teams ever allocate one of their safeties to help jam a dominant receiver at the line? If they did this on third and longs, they could still have effective coverages by going with a cover 1 or dropping a linebacker (like Barnett) back so they still have the two safetys for over the top help.

For example, the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game. If it was Al and Bigby up there mugging him and not letting him pass or split them at the line, I think they'd have a lot more success.

So why is it, that no team ever seems to do this? They do it with gunners on punts, but never good receivers.

I agree with your statement PB, but I also find it weird why GB seems reluctant to put a safety over the top of a gamebreaking WR.

In the Dallas game, I was hoping they were going to put Harris on TO on the line and Collins 10 yards off in the same general area of the field. Which would eliminate the chance of TO having a free route to the endzone, which seems to happen more often than not.

I know it might open up crossing routes and open seams up the middle, but that could be fixed by dropping Barnett into the middle of the field and play a 4-1-6 with a Linebacker in a safety position, I can't see any team breaking a big one on us, which is ultimately what our bend not break scheme worries about.

Any reason why these two wouldn't work?

[Partial]

Re: Something I always wondered about

TO escaped a lot of jams by being in motion.

A second player on the LOS to bump means one less player in coverage, deep safety or not, so the lesser WRs would find it easier to get open.

And like a gunner on the punt coverage, if you slip by the double, go in motion or they tie each other up, you have two players trailing and out of position.

Why don't teams ever allocate one of their safeties to help jam a dominant receiver at the line? If they did this on third and longs, they could still have effective coverages by going with a cover 1 or dropping a linebacker (like Barnett) back so they still have the two safetys for over the top help.

For example, the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game. If it was Al and Bigby up there mugging him and not letting him pass or split them at the line, I think they'd have a lot more success.

So why is it, that no team ever seems to do this? They do it with gunners on punts, but never good receivers.

I don't necessarily think they are. On third down, you know they're passing and even if they have 3 wideouts you've still got plenty of DBs to cover them. It is no different than playing it safe with safety help over the top. Ideally, this guy won't get a pass thrown his way all game.

Harv, you're completely right about moving people in motion away from Harris. I am surprised the Dallas game didn't open some more eyes.

Can you outright tackles someone in the first five yards or what are the rules regarding this?

[Zool]

So you assign one safety to sit and bump, you assign a DB to bump and run and you assign the other safety with over the top coverage. You're then playing 10 on 8 football. If a team did this to me, I would line him up weak site every single down and make him run a go every single down. Then work the entire other side of the field with 1-2 WR, a TE and a back.

On the off change the deep safety bites on something else, he has no backup being that he's covering the entire deep section of the secondary.

[gbgary]

Re: Something I always wondered about

the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game.

if i remember right they started the game jamming him but when al intercepted that ball (that was taken away by the refs) they started putting t.o. in motion to counter him.

[Freak Out]

if you do that against a well coached QB he'll beat that almost every time.

[Partial]

Re: Something I always wondered about

the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game.

if i remember right they started the game jamming him but when al intercepted that ball (that was taken away by the refs) they started putting t.o. in motion to counter him.

Right, I agree with that. However, he wasn't in motion every play. And they didn't give him the chance to jam anyone really with all the zone. Personally I don't see a reason not to cut block the slot receiver down if you can legally do whatever you want to them within 5 yards. I've seen Al take quite a few guys down so I'm not clear at all on the rule.

[KYPack]

Re: Something I always wondered about

Why don't teams ever allocate one of their safeties to help jam a dominant receiver at the line? If they did this on third and longs, they could still have effective coverages by going with a cover 1 or dropping a linebacker (like Barnett) back so they still have the two safetys for over the top help.

For example, the Packers didn't really give Al the chance to jam TO in the Dallas game. If it was Al and Bigby up there mugging him and not letting him pass or split them at the line, I think they'd have a lot more success.

So why is it, that no team ever seems to do this? They do it with gunners on punts, but never good receivers.

PB pretty well covers it above.

With the gunners, you know they are running down the field to cover the punt, so it's a percentage play.

With a WR, yer weakening your back line by pulling a S so far out of position.

The 4- 1- 6? Love that cover, but the old Master, Fritz Shurmur ain't around to tweak it, but it's a good 3rd down coverage. We have some excellent cover backers and Hawk and Barnett would do well in those schemes.

The Bates D has two safeties in the base shell so it stays pretty intact.

[SkinBasket]

Re: Something I always wondered about

I agree with your statement PB, but I also find it weird why GB seems reluctant to put a safety over the top of a gamebreaking WR.

Our safeties can't handle covering average TEs and RBs. How the hell are they supposed to help on "gamebreaking WRs?"

[b bulldog]

I actually have heard a conversation on this some time ago on ESPN. They thought that in the future, the D changes may include more S's playing bump and run the first 5-10 yards cause they are usually more physical and just bigger than DB's and this would be better at throwing the Wr's timing off. They than said that the pure Db's would be sitting back in coverage a tad and with their fluidity as athletes, they than could run with the Wr's. Bigger, more physical players up front, faster, more fluid players in back.

[pbmax]

Re: Something I always wondered about

If it was Moss, then you might see a safety closer to the edge of the field as a safety over the top. But Moss is much more likely to run a go route, double move, etc.

Owens did most of his damage running into the middle of the field, not deep on the outside. If you moved the safety closer to Owens, you are opening up more of the middle of the field.

What I'd like to know is why were they switching Harris off Owens when he motioned.

Is it the dictate of the scheme? Or is it not Harris' strength to cover without a bump?

Or was this a new wrinkle intended to confuse young Romo about what kind of coverage he could expect?

Mad, we need to credential someone so we can send questions to the press conferences

I agree with your statement PB, but I also find it weird why GB seems reluctant to put a safety over the top of a gamebreaking WR.

In the Dallas game, I was hoping they were going to put Harris on TO on the line and Collins 10 yards off in the same general area of the field. Which would eliminate the chance of TO having a free route to the endzone, which seems to happen more often than not.