[BostonCard]

Yes, uncovered is a "special case" of open. That is why I said most teams try to get a receiver "open". There are many different ways to do this, but it is a goal of most teams. The QB is instructed to "find the open man", not "find the single-covered man". We often throw to receivers that have no or almost no separation, i.e. are not "open". That  really puts the onus on KJ to throw a perfect ball ball. He often does, particularly when he has time. However, that is a lot to ask, and in any game, there will be mistakes or hurried throws. If the receiver is "open", a bad throw probably leads to an incomplete pass. If the receiver is covered, a bad throw can be a 50/50 ball or worse. Our receivers can go get a ball that is well placed, but if it isn't well placed, it can cost us. Underthrows can kill you if the DB jumps the route.

We do get guys "open" occasionally, but not often enough to base the offense on it. Running precise routes can get our guys open, but it requires great timing on the play in most instances, which is not our specialty. We also don't have the speed some other teams use to get separation. OSB maybe does. Our tight ends don't. Play action only works if the defense believes you actually will run. So, the "new" pass first offense has it's own issues. (Not the least  of which is sacks, but we are back to the OL issue there.)

I'm thinking we are probably converging on agreement, if we replace "uncovered" with "open".  I'm happy to concede that an offense would rather find the man who is open because he's gotten a step on his DB, or found the seam in coverage, or is the outlet receiver underneath, and it is better to throw it to "that guy" than the receiver who is tightly covered.  But if that is the definition, then I disagree that we are particularly bad at it.  Look at the six Kaden Smith receptions Stanford highlighted (not sure about the other two):

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1049480064407093250[/tweet]

The first he was open underneath.  The second was tight one-on-one coverage (the only tight coverage I found).  The third catch he had clear separation from his coverage.  The fourth catch he had a step on his coverage (maybe only a half-step, but the DB was not in position to make a play).  The fifth catch he found a soft spot in the zone.  The sixth is tough to tell if it was a man or zone, but it looks like he found the soft spot again; the mike linebacker is close-ish but Costello easily threw it out of reach.

So, out of six passes to Smith that they showed, one was into tight coverage, two were into loose coverage (an advantage you generally would take), and in three Smith was open either underneath, in a seam in the zone, or because he clearly had a step on his DB.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes, uncovered is a "special case" of open. That is why I said most teams try to get a receiver "open". There are many different ways to do this, but it is a goal of most teams. The QB is instructed to "find the open man", not "find the single-covered man". We often throw to receivers that have no or almost no separation, i.e. are not "open". That  really puts the onus on KJ to throw a perfect ball ball. He often does, particularly when he has time. However, that is a lot to ask, and in any game, there will be mistakes or hurried throws. If the receiver is "open", a bad throw probably leads to an incomplete pass. If the receiver is covered, a bad throw can be a 50/50 ball or worse. Our receivers can go get a ball that is well placed, but if it isn't well placed, it can cost us. Underthrows can kill you if the DB jumps the route.

We do get guys "open" occasionally, but not often enough to base the offense on it. Running precise routes can get our guys open, but it requires great timing on the play in most instances, which is not our specialty. We also don't have the speed some other teams use to get separation. OSB maybe does. Our tight ends don't. Play action only works if the defense believes you actually will run. So, the "new" pass first offense has it's own issues. (Not the least  of which is sacks, but we are back to the OL issue there.)

I'm thinking we are probably converging on agreement, if we replace "uncovered" with "open".  I'm happy to concede that an offense would rather find the man who is open because he's gotten a step on his DB, or found the seam in coverage, or is the outlet receiver underneath, and it is better to throw it to "that guy" than the receiver who is tightly covered.  But if that is the definition, then I disagree that we are particularly bad at it.  Look at the six Kaden Smith receptions Stanford highlighted (not sure about the other two):

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1049480064407093250[/tweet]

The first he was open underneath.  The second was tight one-on-one coverage (the only tight coverage I found).  The third catch he had clear separation from his coverage.  The fourth catch he had a step on his coverage (maybe only a half-step, but the DB was not in position to make a play).  The fifth catch he found a soft spot in the zone.  The sixth is tough to tell if it was a man or zone, but it looks like he found the soft spot again; the mike linebacker is close-ish but Costello easily threw it out of reach.

So, out of six passes to Smith that they showed, one was into tight coverage, two were into loose coverage (an advantage you generally would take), and in three Smith was open either underneath, in a seam in the zone, or because he clearly had a step on his DB.

BC