Originally Posted by Beast_from_East
How can more coverage make a passing game more effective?
What we are saying is that a WR like Dez is going to have an easier time catching the ball if he is single covered compared to double covered. If Dallas can run the ball and force a safety to drop down in the box, then Dez doesnt have to worry about the safety covering him as well as the CB.
So please explain to me how less coverage does not equal more effective passing and you get less coverage if the defense is having to commit extra people to stop your running game.
How many plays per game would a safety drop down into the box if you're running well, compared with if you're not running well? Is the opponent going to keep two safeties deep when you bring in a jumbo package on third-and-1 just because you're not running well? Is the opponent going to put a safety in the box on third-and-8 just because you are running well? Or will the defense play based on the down and distance? Is the defense going to load up against the run on first-and-10 when you're down by 10 points in the fourth quarter, or will the defense play based on the game situation?
A theory about how things *should* happen is nice, but in reality, whatever advantage is gained is minimal -- if any. It happens so rarely, and teams pass effectively without rushing well so often that it makes almost no difference in the outcomes of games.