(10-07-2024, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(10-07-2024, 05:03 PM)carp8dm Wrote: Good: 

...

...

...
Ugly:
The Lawrence INT.  The decision to throw that ball into triple coverage was terrible.  The route design of that play also had 2 players converging into the same spot.  It was just a bad throw and a bad route tree.  Of course, Lawrence had Strange open for a dump off.  Lawrence should have taken the check down to Strange.

It wasn't even double coverage 

Please stop posting this ridiculous inaccuracy 

The Saftey in zone saw TL's intention and broke off of his area of assignment to make a play

How many defenders were coming to the ball?  Just look at the video.  He threw it to where 3 defenders where able to make a play on the ball.  That's triple coverage, in my book.  By the time the ball was intercepted, there were 2 other defenders right there to help with the play.

That.  Is.  Triple.  Coverage.  He threw it into an area that was well defended.  He had Strange waiting for the check down.  He should have thrown it there.  And I'll say this as well:  The 2 WRs converging into the same area in the middle of the field was ugly route design.

You can to try and nuance it as much as you want.  But it was triple covered.  There was really no place that Trevor could have thrown that ball that would have resulted in success.  That's triple coverage in my  book.  The under route was covered.  The over route was covered.  And the safety came in to get the INT.  That's 3 players in the area.  3 means triple.  3.  Tres.  Trios.  Drei.  Mittsu.  Seh.  Tria.  Tre.

---