It's a multi-level throw that has to be simultaneously *higher* than the DB but *low* enough for the WR/TE to catch--and even more challenging in the endzone with a backline.

Given that all throws have inherent variance, each route is evaluated (i.e. "success/failure ratio") based upon how much the success of the play is affected by the accuracy of the throw. This calculation produces a window of opportunity for the throw to be successful. All routes are affected by accuracy variance, but NONE more so than the fade. The fade route has *the smallest* success window of any route in football--implying that it allows for the lowest variance in the throw. The throw has to be almost perfect to succeed--more so than any other route. Translated in common language, it requires more "touch" than any other throw. (NOTE: It also has one of the higher INT ratios given that the DB is likely to be fronting the WR/TE)

To the coaches credit, the small success window can be maximized by isolating a matchup of tall WR/TE versus a small DB. Nobody in their right mind calls this play without an advantage because the metrics are so horrible. (NOTE: The fact that it's only run with a favorable matchup speaks to the fact that the success window is so small to begin with.) Back to the supposed "matchup" advantage, the advantage is maximized in a man-press situation (minimizes the chance that the DB can visualize the ball) and minimized when the DB drops off by 5+ yards (maximizes the chance that the DB can visualize the ball). Anyone want to guess where the DB lined up on this play? Audibling to this play is criminally bad when the DB is playing so far off the LOS. A DB playing this far back should be an automatic kill read for that play.

I would also argue that size is only half the equation in determining an advantage. It's really only a tie-breaker for to players with equal legs/feet. A 5'8" DB who gets the right spot has a massive advantage over a 6'5" WR/TE who doesn't get to the spot.