skinfan2k Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I haven't read this at all on this board, and haven't heard this point on the radio or from the media. I think it is important to know that if the redskins defense allows for the cardinals to march down the field and score the TD, the redskins lose that game. Being at the game, i immediately knew that quick strike worked against them and that the redskins would be victorious. Scoring quick allowed the redskins to have 2 big possessions at the end of the game. Albeit, at the moment Cardinal fans were probably elated but in reality it bit them in the butt. The next possession they got 1 first down and quickly punted. Just wanted to point that out to people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 That's true, in hindsight. It still doesn't mean it was a good thing at the time. A nice three and out would have sufficed, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichmondRedskin88 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 We could have just stopped them and made it easier. just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 We could have just stopped them and made it easier. just saying. that's true but obviously if they had to score that was probably the best situation because it still kept the game at a 1 possession game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 That's true, in hindsight. It still doesn't mean it was a good thing at the time. A nice three and out would have sufficed, I think. Yeah, I agree. As nice as it is to put a positive spin on sucky defense (which the defense HASN'T been most of the time) it was still crap. I think good defense, like kevin said a 3 and out, would have been better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 You're definitely right that a quick score was less preferable than controlling the clock and still getting that score was as far as the Cardinals are concerned. However, there are at least a dozen other possible outcomes to that drive that do not involve the Cardinals scoring at all... so I'm not really seeing the point of even making the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 The long march down the field wasn't going to happen, because we had adapted to their four-wide set and had been bringing pressure rather steadily and effectively at that point. There's a reason Kolb's helmet was on the turf at the end of that play. We were bringing the heat from then on. There would be no long drives. We were selling out to stop them. That's why their last four possessions went 4-and-out, TD to Fitz, 3-and-out, fumble. That's what I saw anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 That wasn't going to happen, because we had adapted to their four-wide set and had been bringing pressure rather steadily and effectively at that point. There's a reason Kolb's helmet was on the turf at the end of that play.We were bringing the heat from then on. There would be no marching down the field. It was feast or famine at that point. That's why their last four possessions went 4-and-out, TD to Fitz, 3-and-out, fumble. That's what I saw anyway. You make great points Henry. But do you think we would play perfect coverage for the entire game while blitzing. That bomb was a blown up play as a result of our blitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Related aside: That double move that Fitz put on Hall, making him look like a HS kid out there, shows just why he's arguably the best receiver in the league. Even though it came against the Redskins, that was a thing of beauty. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 You make great points Henry. But do you think we would play perfect coverage for the entire game while blitzing. That bomb was a blown up play as a result of our blitz I think we were trying to get to Kolb before he could pick our decimated secondary apart. Given our injury situation I think it was the right decision. It worked three out of the last four AZ possessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Levi Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Yeah I usually point to 70 yard touchdowns establishing an 11 point lead by the opposing team as the key moment my team seized victory. Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Related aside: That double move that Fitz put on Hall, making him look like a HS kid out there, shows just why he's arguably the best receiver in the league. Even though it came against the Redskins, that was a thing of beauty. Yeah. They do pay the other guys too. Fitz is a great player. I love to watch him play ... when he's not playing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaRonDontLikeUgly Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Speaking of that play, I was going nuts over what appeared to be a lack of effort from DHall at the very end. If you get burned and have to chase a guy 70 yards down the field, ****ing LAY OUT and at the very least give a little shot to their best player's ankles as he runs into the endzone. Maybe Hall knocks him out at the 1.... Maybe he doesn't... but I don't know how you let their guy stride through the endzone untouched without at least throwing your body at him. I really like DHall but that was pretty disgraceful and he would get benched for a series if he played for my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 What hurt us much more was not handing the ball off at the end of the game instead of taking a knee It also hurt that we used a TO when the game was in hand which gave them the ball back one more time That bomb while it hurt the Cards didn't have a damn thing to do with the march the team went on down the field to get us into scoring position And the bomb didn't have a damn thing to do with Gano kicking the game winner Or did it have a damn thing to do with the strip fumble that Westbrook came up with to seal the game So I respectfully disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 This is exactly what I said before Fitzgerald was in the end zone "at least they did it quick." This was the first time, probably ever, that we gave up a TD while already trailing in the 4th quarter and the game was still realistically winnable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats7 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXsZv29zTRQ Kolb may be an erratic passer, but he's one tough hombre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 What hurt us much more was not handing the ball off at the end of the game instead of taking a kneeIt also hurt that we used a TO when the game was in hand which gave them the ball back one more time That bomb while it hurt the Cards didn't have a damn thing to do with the march the team went on down the field to get us into scoring position And the bomb didn't have a damn thing to do with Gano kicking the game winner Or did it have a damn thing to do with the strip fumble that Westbrook came up with to seal the game So I respectfully disagree It has actually everything to do with those plays. We had enough time to score the first time and then get the ball a 2nd time and then score a FG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
757SeanTaylor21 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 May not of had to do anything with it but it sure enough kept alot of time on the clock for us is what i think the op is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Related aside: That double move that Fitz put on Hall, making him look like a HS kid out there, shows just why he's arguably the best receiver in the league. Even though it came against the Redskins, that was a thing of beauty.Hail. To be honest, I was sorta waiting for it to happen. Fitz is always going to get his. D-Hall tackled well and kept him relatively in check all day, but I knew it was just a matter of time until Fitz won one of those battles. Which is sad, because we played solid defense most of the day, and D-Hall's coverage was going to be a high point. But Fitzgerald is a frakking monster. I wasn't even pissed off when it happened. I kinda just went "welp, Larry got his touchdown, I totally expected that". If you get burned and have to chase a guy 70 yards down the field, ****ing LAY OUT and at the very least give a little shot to their best player's ankles as he runs into the endzone. Maybe Hall knocks him out at the 1.... Maybe he doesn't... but I don't know how you let their guy stride through the endzone untouched without at least throwing your body at him. Man, Fitz is one of the fastest receivers in the league, and by time D-Hall got close enough to sort of touch him, Fitz was already at the one and was going to score. At that point, if you throw your body at him, all you do is hit him in the back and force him forward over the goal line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakinaiken Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXsZv29zTRQ Kolb may be an erratic passer, but he's one tough hombre haha Kolb got up iike he just concluded a bender.. dazed, hair all over the place. Fletcher smoked him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da#1skinsfan Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 We could have just stopped them and made it easier. just saying. /thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Speaking of that play, I was going nuts over what appeared to be a lack of effort from DHall at the very end.If you get burned and have to chase a guy 70 yards down the field, ****ing LAY OUT and at the very least give a little shot to their best player's ankles as he runs into the endzone. Maybe Hall knocks him out at the 1.... Maybe he doesn't... but I don't know how you let their guy stride through the endzone untouched without at least throwing your body at him. I really like DHall but that was pretty disgraceful and he would get benched for a series if he played for my team. I think there was one angle that made Hall look bad or like he was not giving the effort out there .. but in a play he was well beaten he pursued Fitz all the way down the field and by the time he was close (though not close enough to make the tackle) Fitzgerald was well in for the score .. all the hit would have done was potentially drawn a flag or resulted in injury ... neither are particularly desirable ... The other thing is ... not sure they would have scored on us .. why it was inevitable they would have driven the length of the field and scored on us on that drive ... not sure i really understand this thread .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 what a stupid thread that presumes A LOT. If byron had stripped the ball earlier instead of the bomb to fitzgerald that would have been better right? making some predictions about one possession later might be possible but not TWO possessions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRobi21 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I think it was Gano's FG, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 19, 2011 Author Share Posted September 19, 2011 FACT: the added time as a result of the quick strike by the cardinals allowed the redskins to come back. case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.