09-25-2016, 08:58 PM
(09-25-2016, 07:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15750.msg173151#msg173151 date=1474829406]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15750.msg173066#msg173066 date=1474812316]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15750.msg173026#msg173026 date=1474784444]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
[/quote]
Fade is bread and butter in Shaw's playbook, where we like tall receivers/tight ends. A-W has 2-3 inches on Meadors... That's not a Toilolo-esque advantage, but it's something. And maybe A-W has a good vertical. I think it was a good (albeit predictable) call.
[/quote]
JJ-AW is a former basketball player. I think it's fair to say he has a pretty good vertical.
BC
[/quote]
According to the Tom Fitzgerald story in today's Chronicle, he has a 31.5" vertical. He also says Meadors is 5-11, even though the UCLA website says he's 6'0 (and the ESPN website has him at 6'1)

