01-24-2019, 08:54 PM
(01-24-2019, 06:26 PM)Whatever Wrote: I don't think anyone is advocating no backers for a base defense.
I'm also not sure where you are arriving at your conclusions about the Chargers from.
Let's look at the snap count % by position group for a team we all watch a lot, the Bengals.
DL-402.38%
LB-228.70%
CB-262.44%
S-206.37%
No big surprises here. The Bengals are almost always running 4 DL and 2 S's, and we know they run 3 CB nickel base over 2/3 of the time.
Look at SD's
DL-382.82%
LB-159.28%
CB-275.87%
S-273.36%
Statistically speaking, the Chargers are running only 1 LB more often than the Bengals are running 3. They are running a 3rd S almost as much as a 3rd CB and more often than a 2nd LB, and they run a 3rd CB more than the Bengals do.
Looking at the game by game logs it appears the Chargers added the third safety beyond 20% a game or so once Perryman got hurt. Reading back to articles it sounds like it was a bit of necessity due to coverage concerns with their Lbs.
My point was you claimed they “ran it all year” and they really didnt. They ran a little more big nickle than most but again it’s skewed a bit when they lost Perryman injury. To my point teams will run over light personnel like the patriots did. Part of the issue at times is people like to do what they Do vs what teams give them versus the Pats who attack your weaknesses. I’d imagine if they show a ton of dime personnel next year they will get attacked.
Again, the Cards are ready to punt on the Buccanon experiment same with the Burnett thing in Pitt. Chargers got away with it a to an extent I wouldn’t go chasing it, especially as colleges are producing more smaller LBs who can run but already know how to stack and shed.
As a side note football outsiders does a really good analysis of this every off season. I’ll be interested to see how the break down their personnel groupings week by week and see how it matches with what I see looking at individual game logs.
