Oldfan Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 1. ...Now tell me, did Zorn not know that he always runs to the left side and that the defense would be ready for it? If Zorn did know that and he did it anyway, then he is a fool for not trying to trick the defense.... You missed the point I made in the post you quoted. It doesn't matter whether Detroit's defensive right side knew Zorn's tendency or not. He doesn't care as long as they don't deploy more troops to the area. Every defender has to assume the play is coming straight at him anyway. It's a good call if Zorn figures his troops deployed post-snap to that side will overpower the defenses troops stationed there. 2. You are suggesting that every time a play is run the people are all going to block perfectly? Nope. It doen't have to be blocked perfectly. Just well enough to get the job done. 3.Not only has Jason already said he is not allowed to audible out of certain plays, (the hb pass being one of them) ...He said no such thing, but it's not relevant here anyway.4. So you do not give a damn what tendency the defense sees because you believe your qb should ALWAYS be able to just call an audible and get out of it?? Before you call that play you should know the defense the last couple weeks has seen that all you do is constantly run left in short situations. You're making up your facts. Defenses know that we are stronger running to the left because of Samuels and Dock. Does that mean to you that we shouldn't run left because defenses know that? Of course not. Does it mean that if they sell out on the goal line, they'll lean to their right at the snap. Sure. They sold out on the run and guessed right, but we still would have scored if Sellers and Dockery make their blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Very nice post. I just don't think Oldfan is going to concede this argument even though everyone knows he should (maybe even himself included). . There will be no concession because there was nothing wrong with the call. It didn't work because it wasn't executed properly and Detroit sold out on the run. Teams will sometimes do that on the goal line. This is just second-guessing BS with the benefit of hindsight. The football geniuses on board just can't admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman69 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 ...He said no such thing, but it's not relevant here anyway. Actually he basically said that exact thing last week on 106.7 after the Rams game. And it actually is relevant, since you said He should have audibled when he saw the defense. Maybe he wasn't allowed to. Since there was a time, last week, that he wasn't allowed to audible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 And it actually is relevant, since you said He should have audibled when he saw the defense.. It isn't relevant here because the pre-snap defense did not show an overload. No reason to audible out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpumd Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 There will be no concession because there was nothing wrong with the call. It didn't work because it wasn't executed properly and Detroit sold out on the run. Teams will sometimes do that on the goal line. This is just second-guessing BS with the benefit of hindsight. The football geniuses on board just can't admit it. No, it's a dumb ass play call even if Portis scores. It was predictable and Portis scoring doesn't change that. I knew it was a run to the left, you knew it was a run to the left, the Lions knew it was a run to the left. This has nothing to do with hindsight. It has everything to do with predictability and unimaginative playcalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 No, it's a dumb ass play call even if Portis scores. It was predictable and Portis scoring doesn't change that. I knew it was a run to the left, you know it was a run to the left, the Lions knew it was a run to the left. This has nothing to do with hindsight. It has everything to do with predictability and unimaginative playcalling. I knew no such thing. In fact, my guess was that that would be the last call he'd make because he did it last week and caught a boatload of crap from the football geniuses for it. He fooled me. Now, don't take this personally because I have no reason to doubt your honesty, but I'm certain that that most of the people who claim they knew the play call are full of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpumd Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It isn't relevant here because the pre-snap defense did not show an overload. No reason to audible out. Please take another look at the video you linked. Pre-snap, there is a defensive lineman lined up almost helmet-to-helmet across from Rabach. Then, there are four more d-lineman to Rabach's left, an outside backer to Rabach's left, and the middle linebacker. That is 7 players on the left side. Looking at the right side, if you count the d-lineman across from the Rabach and the middle linebacker, you have 6 players to the right side. There is an EXTRA defensive lineman on the left side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 :hysterical: that's sig worthy oldfan that's actually zorn's mantra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Actually he basically said that exact thing last week on 106.7 after the Rams game.And it actually is relevant, since you said He should have audibled when he saw the defense. Maybe he wasn't allowed to. Since there was a time, last week, that he wasn't allowed to audible. campbell isn't allowed to audible in the redzone because any miscommunication might lead to a turnover. and i agree with the person above, it doesn't matter the result of the play. what matters is i had a kid sitting with me and my friend that was calling the basic play type and he a) doesn't watch the redskins and only knows about football from the 1 year he played in high school. i mean everyone in the bar understands what they're going to do every time they line up. and if they do want to change it up they try to get so cute with it that there are too many moving parts and it fails. we're the redskins from the nfc east. they're the lions who have lost 19 straight. why don't we line it up and smack them upside the head. why are we backpeddling and letting them shove us around? we are not aggressive and the one part of our team, no huddle offense, that does look like it has people off balance is run 1 time during the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCSMCPCCrskins Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You missed the point I made in the post you quoted. It doesn't matter whether Detroit's defensive right side knew Zorn's tendency or not. He doesn't care as long as they don't deploy more troops to the area. Every defender has to assume the play is coming straight at him anyway. It's a good call if Zorn figures his troops deployed post-snap to that side will overpower the defenses troops stationed there. Nope. It doen't have to be blocked perfectly. Just well enough to get the job done. ...He said no such thing, but it's not relevant here anyway. You're making up your facts. Defenses know that we are stronger running to the left because of Samuels and Dock. Does that mean to you that we shouldn't run left because defenses know that? Of course not. Does it mean that if they sell out on the goal line, they'll lean to their right at the snap. Sure. They sold out on the run and guessed right, but we still would have scored if Sellers and Dockery make their blocks. Actually he did say it, so before you tell me I am lying maybe you should double check things. Which facts are you talking about? It is not just good people on the left, it is the fact we ALWAYS run to the left. They are not just assuming we go left often because we are better there, they know it from film! You keep avoiding the real subject, it is predictable man, very predictable. It is even more predictable when we need only a yard because we always run left to pick up that 1 or 2 yards. Ofcourse you run to the left when you have good players there, you just dont run to the left all the damn time to the point that it is completley predictable. We are talking about a predictable call here, not anything else, why did he call something so predictable? Why is it ok to have a playcaller who calls very predictable plays when those plays are not proven bread and butter plays? It was not just a guess the defense made, they know from tendencies, it was a very educated guess based on film. Can you honestly tell me that running to the left on 4th and 1 was not predictable? If you really did not think they were going to go left....then I got nothing more to say to you. Have I said the word predictable enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Can you honestly tell me that running to the left on 4th and 1 was not predictable? If you really did not think they were going to go left....then I got nothing more to say to you. Have I said the word predictable enough? As I said earlier, the stretch left was the last thing I thought he'd do. He fooled me. I was looking for the QB sneak. You had ONE prior instance where Zorn ran the stretch left in the same situation. That's ONE. There is nothing predictable based on that. One is not a trend. ONE instance does not make anything predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman69 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 As I said earlier, the stretch left was the last thing I thought he'd do. He fooled me. I was looking for the QB sneak.You had ONE prior instance where Zorn ran the stretch left in the same situation. That's ONE. There is nothing predictable based on that. One is not a trend. ONE instance does not make anything predictable. Maybe ONE on the goal line but there were two 4th down plays against the Rams. 4th and 1 at the 20, and 4th and 1 at the 2. Both were run plays to the left. Both failed. One no gain, the other -2. I would also wager that there are some 3rd and short plays this year and last year, and probably some 4th and shorts last year with the same tendency. ANyone who would like to look into more of their Play-by-Play last year. ESPN has a pretty good setup. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teams/schedule?team=was&year=2008&season=2 Damn addicting... here is one from the second giants game. 4th and 1 at WAS 39 (9:32) C.Portis left guard to WAS 39 for no gain (J.Tuck). Second Cowboy Game 4th and 1 at DAL 11 (8:20) C.Portis left tackle to DAL 2 for 9 yards (Z.Thomas). Seattle Game 4th and 1 at SEA 16 (9:24) C.Portis left tackle to SEA 13 for 3 yards (D.Tapp). 9er game 4th and 1 at SF 39 (4:16) C.Portis left guard to SF 36 for 3 yards (N.Clements). In fairness First Philthy Game 4th and 1 at PHI 38 (2:48) (Shotgun) C.Portis up the middle to PHI 35 for 3 yards (M.Patterson). Ram Game 4th and 1 at SL 40 (9:55) C.Portis right tackle to SL 39 for 1 yard (V.Adeyanju, W.Witherspoon). Looked at maybe 3/4 of the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Portis on today's John Thompson show... Sellers bounced out on the 4th and goal, if he ran inside, walk-in TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalRecall Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Sorry, but Campbell was not hot! He made poor throwing decisions and should have had at least 3 INTs, instead of 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.