A few take-aways from the game

Pats Eng. Please. you are out of your element. This defense coaches that if a QB scrambles/runs, that the defensive backfield is to man up 

you can also choose to ignore the facts that DMC was on the field for 57 snaps and Harmon for 50 snaps, and they were mostly in cover 2. Butler and Jones predominantly played against a specific WR not a left or right side, but even though they lined up against that man, they released to the deep S most of the game. I would peg a percent from memory (I have no snap count numbers) that the 2nd half the team was in cover 2 almost the entire half. the first half I would say 50% of the defensive snaps they were in cover 2...that was from my vantage point 

no, but over the last 3 games the team is giving up on average 12 points per game
this offense should be putting up 30 plus per game. perhaps the offense red zone performance is more cause for concern? this D needs to keep the opposition to 17 points or less, and they will be fine. 3 games in a row mission accomplished.

on to the Chargers. 

I played as a S in college (BC) and after injury as an assist coach in the secondary (NEU) and I can tell you there is no scheme in the world that switches from zone to man mid play as the play dictates. It's either dictated that way pre play by assignment or it's a blown coverage because someone didn't know what they are doing. Are you high, I'm serious are you? If you are talking a QB scrambling on a broken play CBs are too busy concentrating on their assignments to switch to man because a QB is scrambling. You'd have to have every CB watching the QB to switch to man unless you want to cause more confusion and blown coverage. CBs typically unless they are in drop zone are too busy watching their charges and reacting off those charges to be staring down a QB unless in a drop zone or are a spy. Have you ever noticed when a broken play happens and a QB scrambles downfield most CBs are turned away from the QB and are late to react to him scramble? It's not because they are switching to man. CBs need to be disciplined and say on their assignments not switch scheme mid play. Now you can have an under zone and have over top coverage pick up man at a certain point and you can have underneath man that drops to underneath coverage that looks like zone but really it's just playing an under thrown ball after a certain yardage (basically what Ryan did last year and what Bad is doing now, unless the WR goes outside the numbers then they usually stay stride for stride) but you don't switch schemes mid play, that's not how it works and certainly not because of a broken play. That's how you give up big plays. Honestly I'd love you to ask BB if he switches a coverage scheme mid play and see his reaction

Edit: But feel free to prove me wrong by providing an example of it. Find a single video of what you described, there is coaching film out there, Pro use to get it, so you should be able to find a switch in assignment mid play that wasn't designed that way

Yeah, no it's not. Do you have direct access to know this, you heard it from BB directly? I'd love for you to pull up a single video to shows that. If that's what they do that should be easy. That's how you give up big plays and cause massive confusion and blown coverage. No secondary is coached switch to man if you see a QB scramble

Edit: How many times have we heard BB say stick to your assignment? You really think BB is going to tell an entire secondary to use their own judgement call on switching schemes mid play and get off their assignments because a QB breaks contain on a broken play?

Well it should be easy to find a video of it happening

Because the onus is on you to prove your claim if you are so right. I can't prove a negative if it never happens so you have to prove it does. Matter a fact I tried googling any article about switch scheme mid play and haven't found a single result here all post all the results I've found: " " 

There is nothing out there about switching scheme mid play but there is plenty that say the scheme is set pre play and they stick to that scheme. If you are correct it should be easy to prove, there is plenty of data and film out there. Here as an example here is an X and O's article on the 2014 Seahawks secondary which was considered one of the best int he history of the game. I don't see a single mention of switching scheme mid play but I do see multiple mentions of the scheme set pre play and not switching even if the O changes out:

www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/1/29/5355360/super-bowl-xlviii-seahawks-defense-richard-sherman-earl-thomas-covering-peyton-manning

You questioned my knowledge on the situation so I have to include it as reference and assist coach for a school who no longer has a football program. But, you have yet to show any evidence of your claim now any reference to how you have obtained any knowledge of what the Pats do other than watching with your eye. But then again when you have a weak argument discredit rather than proved proof. Shows how weak your argument is

You question my knowledge and then make fun of when I provived a reference to that knowledge and now that I asked for proof you back down knowing it doesn't exist? Rkarp if you are going to make claims and then try to discredit me please provide a single shred of proof of that claim. Please I'd like to see it and I'd be glad to admit I'm wrong otherwise if you don't have any try not to discredit someone because you are tossing out claims you can't substantiate 

Well if they do it all the time not every game was fogged right, you can get film from another game. No one is arguing they didn't run 2 deep S but that doesn't mean CBs ran zone nor that they switched zone to man mid play

That is what I saw as well. But I think they played a mix (if you can call it that) of man and zone..it was actually cover 2. Man with the CBs underneath, but help over the top from the safeties each responsible for their half of the field. I went back and watched some of the tape specifically looking at Bademosi. he had help all night behind his man. He was responsible for man coverage of his man underneath his man, but didn't have to worry about getting beat deep. This is probably a big reason why the Pats only gave up 2 plays greater than 20 yards. Because the safeties were playing deep, negating any big plays, and the CBs played man, underneath the WRs. 

Read what I wrote, I said they had CBs playing man and Chung/Harmon and McCourty over top with McCourty over Bad and Harmon/Chung playing mostly double on Julio. That is 2 S deep with one covering Bads side and the other covering Julio's side. They do not switch from zone to man because the CBs were in man to begin with! Wow, you keep trying to move the goalposts so much it's not even funny.

Ok Rkarp I think I understand were you are confused so let's break it down

The CB's - they played man (do you agree or disagree)
The S's location - they played 2 deep (do you agree or disagree)
McCourty - primarily played over Bad and main job was to pick up Bads player if went deep enough otherwise secondary responsibility stayed in half field zone mid/deep (agree or disagree)
Harmon/Chung - primarily played over Julio and main job double coverage Julio unless on short slants then secondary responsibility stay in half field zone mid (agree or disagree)

the mid play switch we'll never agree

Edit: Perfect article describing Man-2 deep vs cover 2


bleacherreport.com/articles/2154983-nfl-101-breaking-down-the-basics-of-2-man-coverage


The coverage known as 2-Man is a two-deep, man-under defense with “trail-man” coverage underneath and the protection of two deep-half safeties over the top.



Similar to Cover 2 (two-deep, five-under zone defense) from a pre-snap look, 2-Man is designed to put a tent on the top of the defense with both safeties gaining depth at the snap to play “top-down” while working to overlap any throw to the middle of the field (weakness of the scheme).

Sound familiar?