Follow the offensive problem and the defensive answer at the same reading stage.
These diagrams select responsibilities from published accounts. Their positions and pace explain an idea; they do not reproduce game timing or a full defense. Each panel names the evidence it uses.
Opportunity · execution · result
Did the defense stop the play?
A favorable result can hide an opportunity conceded. An unfavorable result can also hide a good defensive possession. Read what happened before using the score to assess the defense.
2025-09-28 · Colts at Rams
Mitchell: a fumble changes the result
OpportunityCatch made; two defenders escaped
ExecutionBall lost before the goal line
Recorded resultTouchback; Rams possession
The published account
Mitchell completed the contested catch, escaped two Rams defenders and lost control near the one-yard line. The ball went out behind the end zone. This was a fumble after a reception, not a dropped pass in the end zone.
Our interpretation
The earlier coverage and tackling still conceded a scoring opportunity. The opponent’s ball-security error changed the result; it does not establish that the defense forced that error.
What to check: Could the defender affect the catch or finish the tackle? Locate the failure before assessing the favorable result.
Sources and limits
This sequence does not determine an alternative final score. Later possessions and decisions would also change.
First six Ravens drivesTD → TD → TD → TD → TD → TD
Final scoreRavens 45 · Rams 6
The published account
Baltimore scored touchdowns on its first six possessions. Jackson supplied both rushing production and touchdown passes. This was sustained offensive success against Wade Phillips’ defense, rather than a conclusion drawn from one missed tackle.
Our interpretation
The repeated drive outcomes justify a broader review of run fits, quarterback responsibility, coverage and tackling. They do not identify which assignment failed on a given snap.
What to check: Who accounts for Jackson when the back threatens a different gap, and what happens to coverage when a defender commits? Chart the answer on each snap before naming one schematic cause.
Sources and limits
The preview resolves the remembered record: Baltimore entered 8–2, Los Angeles 6–4. The recap establishes the sequence; complete assignments still require film.
Opening overtime drivesBoth offenses go three-and-out
Deciding playWallace punt-return touchdown
The published account
Jackson found Flowers for a late touchdown and the two-point conversion. The Rams forced overtime with a field goal. After each offense went three-and-out, Wallace returned a punt for the winning touchdown in Baltimore’s 37–31 victory.
Our interpretation
The late touchdown belongs in the defensive review; the overtime stop belongs there too. The deciding return belongs in the punt-coverage review. A final score cannot do all three jobs.
What to check: Can the review credit the overtime defensive stop while still identifying the earlier coverage problem and the later return failure?
Sources and limits
This sequence describes the closing possessions. It is not a grade for every defensive snap in the game.
Compare a specific Minnesota touchdown with the front-and-coverage approach McVay described after Super Bowl LIII.
Different games and different evidence: a reported snap beside a coaching account of an early-down approach. This is not the same play against two defenses.
September 27, 2018 · reported play
Minnesota: isolate Woods
○ Offense · ◇ Defense · ● Ball · Ring: player to follow
Setup
Gurley begins behind the formation. Woods is the receiver to follow.
Response
The shift places Gurley outside Woods. Hill stays wide; Barr takes Woods.
Outcome
Woods wins up the seam and Goff completes the touchdown pass.
What the offense wants
Use the back’s alignment to create an inside receiving matchup.
The defensive response
Minnesota leaves Hill outside with Gurley and Barr inside against Woods.
The price
Analysis: moving the back outside removes his backfield protection position. The seam still needs time and an accurate throw.
Sources and drawing limits
The source identifies the shift and matchup. Other receivers, the full protection and exact spacing are omitted.
○ Offense · ◇ Defense · ● Ball · Ring: player to follow
Setup
Read the front and the deep defenders together. Alignment alone does not identify every assignment.
Response
The illustration keeps help above the inside route as it develops. It does not reproduce New England’s full matching rules.
Question
The first route has help above it here. Which other route can become available before protection ends?
What the offense wants
Find a downfield window while keeping the protection workable.
The defensive response
McVay described a loaded front paired with early-down quarters coverage.
The price
Analysis: deeper coverage must still connect to underneath routes and run support. The account does not prove those spaces were available on every snap.
Sources and drawing limits
Generic quarters teaching picture. The selected front markers are not a full front count, and no Super Bowl snap or pass result is reconstructed.
Put the intended isolation for Donald beside Green Bay’s protection and play-action example.
A preseason design goal and a playoff example answer different questions. The comparison tests the connection between rush, protection and coverage; it does not grade the entire defense from one game.
2020 preseason · stated coaching intent
The design goal: an isolated rush
○ Offense · ◇ Defense · ● Ball · Ring: player to follow
Setup
Two blockers can potentially account for the interior threat in this simplified picture.
Response
The helper moves toward another threat. This is one way to explain the isolation goal, not a claimed historical adjustment.
Question
Donald faces one blocker in the illustration. The rush still has to win before the receiver becomes available.
What the offense wants
Allocate protection help without exposing another rusher.
The defensive response
Staley wanted more one-on-one opportunities for Donald and flexible roles for Ramsey.
The price
Analysis: shifting help away from Donald requires another credible threat. Isolation itself does not guarantee pressure or coverage success.
Sources and drawing limits
Illustration of the isolation goal, not a documented Rams protection scheme. Ramsey is discussed in the account but no invented assignment is drawn for him.
The back can expand the receiving picture, wait behind a rush or become a downfield target. Those jobs create different protection and coverage demands.
Faulk’s panel illustrates a role described in a retrospective. Gurley and Kyren have located receiving examples. These are not player rankings or a claim that the offenses used the same system.
1999 offense · retrospective role illustration
Faulk: another receiving responsibility
○ Offense · ◇ Defense · ● Ball · Ring: player to follow
Setup
The retrospective describes an offense that sought downfield opportunities and used varied formations.
Response
The diagram separates a deeper receiver and a shorter back option. These paths are conceptual.
Question
Can the quarterback reach the available receiver while the remaining protectors hold?
What the offense wants
Threaten downfield while making the back part of the receiving picture.
The defensive response
Account for both the receivers’ depth and the back. The retrospective does not specify one defensive call.
The price
Analysis: sending more eligible players out places more of the protection burden on the line.
Sources and drawing limits
Generic deep and short paths illustrate the role discussion. No Faulk route, exact read order or individual snap is claimed.