Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thunderraiden

We blitz'd Gamble on the 59-yard catch to lose us the game

Recommended Posts





Tarheels23    733

We didn't blitz Gamble, his guy stayed in to block, which gives him the option to blitz or play an area. They maxed protected, there wasn't anyone in his area, so he rightfully blitzed.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jtnc    3,667

We didn't blitz Gamble, his guy stayed in to block, which gives him the option to blitz or play an area. They maxed protected, there wasn't anyone in his area, so he rightfully blitzed.

Why the fug was he covering Harry Douglas instead of Julio or White? That's bullshit and terrible call by Mcterrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




TruCatzFan    592

Can't believe nobody's talking about the multiple O-Line holding penalties that occurred on that play (while Matt Ryan was in the end zone) that should have gotten us a safety and the win...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chimera    3,446

Can't believe nobody's talking about the multiple O-Line holding penalties that occurred on that play (while Matt Ryan was in the end zone) that should have gotten us a safety and the win...

we're back to the normal refs now. it'll never happen in our favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarheels23    733

Why the fug was he covering Harry Douglas instead of Julio or White? That's bullshit and terrible call by Mcterrible.

We were in zone, and both Julio and White lined up on the left side of the field opposite of Gamble. It wouldn't make sense for Gamble to follow them over there when we're in a zone, but I agree there was a whole lot of things that were wrong on that play. We should've been in some type of prevent defense anyway. There's no way they were going to run the ball, and Rivera has got to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightsout    2,365

It wouldn't have made sense to switch Gamble over in a zone in a NORMAL situation. When we're on the last drive by Atlanta, when they're backed up with no timeouts and having to move quickly, you tell the secondary (after the game White had up to that point) "Gamble goes to White's side, no matter what." That's basic football there. Simple as that. Bad job on McDermott's part. Hopefully he learned a lesson. Gamble would have at least made it a tougher catch, if not knock the pass down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proudiddy    9,510

Two more questions spurred by this article...

1) Why do we have eight men in the box in that situation?

2) Why are we playing cover-2 zone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dash Global    139

Any coach that runs cover 2 late in a game needing to limit a big play needs to be fired directly after the game

You are giving away single coverage deep.

Got to play 2 / 3 Man Under in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coxc63    40

Obvious answer here, our dline pressured ryan all game, we ran cover 2 to cover the flats so ryan couldn't dump it off giving him more space to operate for a deep play. Yea it would've been smart to run man coveragein that situation, but giving the position thefalcons were in, we played it safe and was expecting our line to pressure him again. It was a good read by ryan noticing what coverage we were running and he took a shot downfield, which worked. Ultimately it was a good playcall by al OC, and ryan chose the right guy to throw at in the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×