(09-25-2020, 03:47 PM)knarnn Wrote:

(09-25-2020, 03:32 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: On 3rd and goal from the 5... yah, I do.  The scheme and call were good on this play.  Now, if you want to argue Wash or the LB coach didn't do their job well teaching Jack how to execute on this play, I'm with you.  Again, I hear a bunch of emotional complaining from people about the D, but no one with enough tactical knowledge to say what they would do differently with the shortage of talent we have on our team to make it better.

If you drop Smoot in coverage, who’s playing the 5 tech here on this play and let Jack blitz instead of dropping back and you rush Taven, Jack either splits the block for a pressure/sack or forces Tannehill to roll to his right because of Smoot - who in this scenario is in perfect position to take away the TE on a short crosser.

I like your creativity.  But a few problems with that:

1.  You think Smoot will play the hook-curl zone better than Jack?  No.
2.  You are making a HUGE assumption that Jack just splits between 2 pass protectors like that is easy.  Basically, you're counting on a lineman to blow an assignment here.
3.  You would have no outside contain with your pass rush on the weak side without Smoot coming at the 5 tech..  Even if you did get pressure with Jack in that scenario, Tannehill could just roll to his left.  No one schemes a pass rush without outside contain of the QB... especially one that can run a bit.
4.  If you want to bring Taven here, fine.  That's still just a 4-man rush and they have 5 to block it.

Your idea is not terrible, but the play call here is better.  Just poorly executed.

---