Austin didn't run a route? What did he do? Sit down and have a picnic?
He made a bad move that it was he did. A route is designed to gain separation. What Tavon did was gain and then immediately lose separation because of a bad move.
It's exactly the same route as the Manningham catch. Receiver beats CB to the outside and
stays on the outside. Does Tavon do that? No, he beats the CB on the inside and then immediately fade to the outside. What does he accomplish by fading to the outside? He losses all separation he created when he beat the CB, that is what he does. Routes are designed to gain separation, not to lose separation. That is why I said he did not run a route.
What he was supposed to do? Listen to Fisher
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...eback-attempt-died-on-nick-foles-interception
"But often times when there are balls that are intercepted, there’s more involved than just the throw," Fisher said. "There’s routes that need to be run correctly and
pushed down the field, so we have it in perspective.”
"Pushed down the field" = go route, exactly what I was saying, to force the safety to defend his route. That is what Manningham did, that is what Clayton did. Did Tavon do that? No he did not, he faded to the outside after he beat the CB inside. Manningham or Clayton did not fade inside when they beat the CB outside, they stayed outside the whole way, and immediately ran a go route once they beat the CB.
Had Tavon ran the go route immediately after he beat the CB inside, he would have been ahead of Kendricks vertically, thus forcing the safety to commit to him. That was the design of the play, force the safety to defend 2 go routes. But because Tavon does not immediately runs straight ahead after he beats the CB, but instead faded to the outside and slows down, the safety does not have to defend a go route from him, the safety just defends the Kendricks go route and makes the INT.
