Why a deep safety on the last play?

[RU848789]

First, let me be clear that I loved the way our defense played today and the gameplan they executed. By far, our best defensive effort. Really liked how the D-line mostly stuffed the run and got occasional pressure on the QB. LBs are improving and the secondary played pretty well, except for the badly blown coverage on the TD pass.

Having said all that, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why in the hell we had a deep safety on 3rd and 7 with under 2 minutes left. It was pretty obvious they were going to run, since we had no TOs left - and even if not, you have to stop them to keep the game going, so taking some risk by playing man defense and leaving no safeties was the way to go. If the safety had been up near the line, maybe he makes a play on the RB, but no, he was a non-factor.

Bad coaching decision, IMO (as was going for it on 4th and 3 near the end of the half).

 

[jtung230]

It was 3rd and 7. No need to sellout. One deep is the right call. Just bad execution.

 

[RU848789]

It was 3rd and 7. No need to sellout. One deep is the right call. Just bad execution.

Disagree. The safety is only back that far to stop a huge gainer or to help break up a pass, which was never going to come (or at least very unlikely to), hence the need to take a risk and not have a deep safety. If he had been at LB depth, maybe he stops the RB short of the first down. Absolutely worth the risk, IMO.

 

[Blitz Pakage]

Disagree. The safety is only back that far to stop a huge gainer or to help break up a pass, which was never going to come (or at least very unlikely to), hence the need to take a risk and not have a deep safety. If he had been at LB depth, maybe he stops the RB short of the first down. Absolutely worth the risk, IMO.

yep, the game was on the line right there. We had to stop them or the game was over. Even if they did pass and score, the game was over. Had to move him up.

 

[jtung230]

Disagree. The safety is only back that far to stop a huge gainer or to help break up a pass, which was never going to come (or at least very unlikely to), hence the need to take a risk and not have a deep safety. If he had been at LB depth, maybe he stops the RB short of the first down. Absolutely worth the risk, IMO.

They had an unbalance formation. The reason for 1 deep is to fill either direction. His job is to read and fill. At LB level he just plays a gap. Hard to do vs unbalance formation. If they pass, wouldn't we want to break up the pass? It's 3rd and 7, so not a binary down meaning you can give up yards w/o giving up a 1st down.

 

[RU848789]

They had an unbalance formation. The reason for 1 deep is to fill either direction. His job is to read and fill. At LB level he just plays a gap. Hard to do vs unbalance formation. If they pass, wouldn't we want to break up the pass? It's 3rd and 7, so not a binary down meaning you can give up yards w/o giving up a 1st down.

You're completely missing the point. There was no way in hell they were going to pass, up 7, with under 2 minutes left, and with us having no TOs left - they were not going to risk an incomplete pass and the clock stopping. We had to sell out 100% on the run and that means no deep safety.

 

[jtung230]

Just watch the replay and didn't realize how deep he was. Agree with you that's way too deep for that down and distance.

 

[Pils86]

I wondered the same thing while at the game. If they get a first down the game is over, why is the safety about 12 yards deep?