[ad_1]
The use of a significantly reduced Khalil Mack against the New England Patriots leaves a judgment call on defense personnel, who, like every coaching team, is responsible for placing players in the best positions, literally and figuratively, to succeed.
Did the coordinator, Vic Fangio, and the defensive staff did it with Mack and, by extension, the rest of the defense? And what are the implications for Sunday's game with the Jets, in which a limited number of Mack projects would create not only a diminished strength, but in fact an absolute weakness? When is its capacity lower than a healthy backup, normally less? Assuming Mack is even active, of course.
Because of Mack's ankle injury in Miami, he was unable to deliver more than the shadow of his strong point. As a result, he only rushed Tom Brady on 16 of his 54 shots, less than his losses in the cover. But that was then …
The most immediate question is whether Mack belongs to a cover concept versus a rookie of Jets quarterback Sam Darnold. And no one accepts that Mack's absence has a domino effect on others, especially since the Bears were among the top 10 defensives without Mack last year.
"For anyone to use this as a crutch, it's simply searching for a reason," said defensive coordinator Vic Fangio. "It plays at its best or at a lower level than an injury, it does not affect how the other 10 players have to do their job. Now, can the result be better? Yes, for the unit. But that still should not affect how you do your job and I do not think that's why this guy is not playing so well or that guy is not playing as well. "
The problem is less with the inefficient pass rushing; Indeed, half a Khalil Mack moving almost in a straight line after a slightly mobile quarter is probably better than, say, a full Isaiah Irving. But Mack's poor coverage is another matter, since that's not what Mack does well in the first place.
In 70 career games, Mack has exactly two interceptions and 13 defenses. The vast majority of these came while Mack was rushing and raised his hand to deflect a ball, not in the blanket of a man on the back or the tight part.
Lovie Smith has already explained that he had left linebacker Lance Briggs in the dime package, believing that Briggs was better in coverage than the defensive backs available from the Bears.
Applying the Smith-Rod Marinelli approach: versus Brady, was an impaired Mack really better than a healthy Irving, Kylie Fitts, linebacker Joel Iyiegbuniwe or even Nick Kwiatkoski? Really? They are so bad?
Part of the problem may lie in the constraints of ABC imposed on practices. It may not be easy to discern Mack's alteration because of a limited number of contacts.
Anyway, Mack has never been effective against the biggest quarterback in NFL history, who obviously had no trouble understanding that not only did the Bears' best pass offer little Threat to his pocket and his normal quick release style Brady did not have to worry much about men's coverage or short areas. It was not the best chance of success, and Brady had little trouble getting the second best passer in his last 12 games.
The problem should be that if Mack is again altered enough to slow his run against Darnold, does he weaken the defense against a vulnerable rookie?
Yes, but…
"It could affect our overall performance," said Fangio, "but that's not a reason for a guy here and a guy out there to have a bad fall because [Mack] is below normal. It's just a fact.
Source link
