Cause he has faith his blitzes will get there. Exotic blitzes is his forte.
Go big or go home. If you’re going to get after the quarterback send enough guys you make damn sure you’ll get there or force a very early throw. Love it especially on 3rd or 4th and short.
Going to be interesting playing the bills because we know how good that O-line + how good Allen is good againt pressure
But in spags we trust
Jags and Bangles might want to rethink their zone coverage. They couldn’t stop anything last week
I dunno who this #0 is but he must be really good if we created a whole scheme around covering him.
Spags let’s them hang.
In Spags we trust. HBTC
13% is a lot, I get it.
But how is 13% nearly twice of 9%? (The second highest cover0 rate is dolphins at 9%)
Because the way I see it, double of 9% is 18%, 13% is 4% away from 9%, yet 13% is 5% away from 18%.
It’s literally closer to the “once” rate of the next-closest than the “twice” rate of the next-closest.
![[Football Insights] Team coverage rates through week 4. Spags uses Cover 0 nearly twice as much as the next-closest coordinator.](https://www.rawchili.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/a9kgfjt80lsf1-1496x1024.jpeg)
8 comments
Cause he has faith his blitzes will get there. Exotic blitzes is his forte.
Go big or go home. If you’re going to get after the quarterback send enough guys you make damn sure you’ll get there or force a very early throw. Love it especially on 3rd or 4th and short.
Going to be interesting playing the bills because we know how good that O-line + how good Allen is good againt pressure
But in spags we trust
Jags and Bangles might want to rethink their zone coverage. They couldn’t stop anything last week
I dunno who this #0 is but he must be really good if we created a whole scheme around covering him.
Spags let’s them hang.
In Spags we trust. HBTC
13% is a lot, I get it.
But how is 13% nearly twice of 9%? (The second highest cover0 rate is dolphins at 9%)
Because the way I see it, double of 9% is 18%, 13% is 4% away from 9%, yet 13% is 5% away from 18%.
It’s literally closer to the “once” rate of the next-closest than the “twice” rate of the next-closest.