Commander -JB- Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Football fans always play the blame game. It is what it is. Haslett's D has been the best on 3rd down in football & he's blitzed all year. When he blitzed the house deep in NY territory week one & it turned into an INT/TD you applaud him. They blitzed heavy to one side & Romo sits to pee rolled away & found Bryant. It is what it is. I love his mindset to bring the house, try to hit the QB, force the TO... Blaming Haslett is very short sided in my honest opinion. The defense has been a strength but weakens late against the run. Im worried vs Jackson/Rams Sunday.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phixius Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Yeah so calling a play the cowpokes had already seen numerous times and foolishly putting a corner on an Island with their best physical WR with no safety help should be ignored and the blame should fall on the corner that for some reason is receiving an incredible amount of hate from local fans. I don't hate Hall but he knew was alone and don't make fundamental mistakes like turning your back on the QB. Fletcher was a few feet from Romo sits to pee before he threw the pass to Bryant. Suppose Hall did cover Bryant, even if it was for a few seconds? and yeah he grab the face mask adding insult to injury. Hall is trying to make this all about him. That's why fans aren't please with him. He talks about hitting Romo sits to pee's ribs and it came back and bit him. For me, life is too short to be angry at some football player that not only cares about himself but would leave the team tomorrow. It was a risk/reward play and it didn't work for the Redskins....what more can you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinfan56 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 No issues with the aggressive call at all. As the old saying goes, prevent defense prevents you from winning. My issue is with the design and/or execution of the blitz. First off, Dez Bryant was lined up to the right, so you know Romo sits to pee's first inclination will be to look his way. Secondly, say what you want about Romo sits to pee, but he does have good pocket awareness and has always moved well in the pocket to avoid the rush. Now, at the snap of the ball, either by design or by poor execution, the majority of our blitzers come on a backside rush. In my opinion, this is where the play went bad. Romo sits to pee sees the blitz coming pre-snap, and then upon snapping, sees everyone coming from the backside. He rolls right to buy himself time, which also happens to coincide with where Dez Bryant was lined up in man coverage. In this situation, my opinion is that you have to come with a front side blitz in Romo sits to pee's face. This accomplishes a few things: it immediately forces him to start moving to his left, away from his prime target. If he chooses to still throw to his right, he'd have to get it over the top of some leaping DL and LB's. Lastly, if he does move left, it forces him to throw moving to his left, across his body. I feel that sitting in a prevent defense would've allowed them to gain at least 15 yards on 3rd down. Given the game situation, they probably would've gone for it on 4th and 6 - who knows what happens in that situation. As always, hindsight is 20/20, but I personally feel that the aggressive call is OK. A blitzing team will live and die by the blitz. I hope this doesn't deter Haslett from blitzing in the future, just hope for better design and execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 wait, wait, wait.... i just read the subheader for the poll: "Was the 3rd and 21 all out blitz the worst call you've ever seen?" 117 people here must have just started watching the redskins or maybe should temper their emotions, i submit for the record: now please: keep calm and carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 We win last night if the offense doesn't turn into the Fun N Gun in the 4th quarter. Maybe Kyle starts wearing a visor Sunday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If there was another blitz that was successful people would have loved the call. if we sit back and let a completion go by, people would have said that we should have blitzed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggodrill44 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You are failing to take into account the situation. If you want to play hard ball in the 2nd quarter, fine. With 2 minutes left in the 4th and up by a point, you play it SMART and play a prevent there and let them get their 10 yards and 4th and long. Instead you give them the once chance to get the big play. Hall 1-on-1 with any halfass receiver is a mismatch.That was a horrible, horrible decision. It was the right call all day and twice on Sunday.YOU haven't been around long enough to see us lose these games because WE SENT 3 and had 8 defensive backs.We need to dictate to an offense not play any kind of PREVENT! ---------- Post added September-27th-2011 at 05:28 PM ---------- wait, wait, wait....i just read the subheader for the poll: "Was the 3rd and 21 all out blitz the worst call you've ever seen?" 117 people here must have just started watching the redskins or maybe should temper their emotions, i submit for the record: now please: keep calm and carry on LOL....that almost worked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurenai Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I can't remember the last time we swept the season series with them 2005. Yeah, a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 LOL....that almost worked before or after the time out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amm0409 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Seriously, and if we would of sacked Romo sits to pee this thread wouldnt exist either. Cant believe this one is still going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Haslett probably sent the blitz also thinking that it was 4 down situation for dallas and if you play underneath, you would expect to see a 4th and 10 or something like that. If you blitz on 3rd and hit them, they wouldn't go for it seeing they would be near what the 30? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Haslett probably sent the blitz also thinking that it was 4 down situation for dallas and if you play underneath, you would expect to see a 4th and 10 or something like that. If you blitz on 3rd and hit them, they wouldn't go for it seeing they would be near what the 30? congratulations, you've reached the nirvana that people who actually think about the situation instead of just saying "i wouldn't have done that on madden!!!!!" 4th and 10 because you were in prevent and all of the sudden you're too passive and you're playing not to lose instead of playing to win. 4th and 21, they're probably punting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurenai Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Possible outcomes: Blitz = incompletion or sack (let's say, 60% of the time) Blitz = short to medium gain of 5-10 yards (let's say, 30% of the time) Blitz = give up long play of 20+ yards (lets say 10% of the time) The percentages were clearly in Hazlett's favor. It just backfired is all. Remember the game where the Redskins faced a 3rd-and-27 but Brunell scrambled for 25 yards to make it a 4th-and-2? (which the Redskins later converted and went on to win the game?) Hindsight bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You have to pick and choose your times to be aggressive...You don't leave Dez one on one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 2010 Stats: player a - 44 catches for 871 yards 19.4 average player b - 45 catches for 561 yards 12.5 average which one scares you more? dez caught a ton of touchdowns last year, but he isn't the player everyone is making him out to be. you know everyone blasts the media for pumping up the cowboys, but dez is just like most of his team a whole lot of hype with some flashes but not elite. dez wishes he could hold larry fitz's or andre johnson's jock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 It was the right call all day and twice on Sunday.YOU haven't been around long enough to see us lose these games because WE SENT 3 and had 8 defensive backs.We need to dictate to an offense not play any kind of PREVENT! Were you really so desperate that you pulled the age card when it is completely irrelevant. I've lived through a decade plus of seeing us blow games because of playing not to lose. If it'd been 3rd and 10, I'd have been all for sending the house. On 3rd and 21. Force them into a 4th and long. Such a sad argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 congratulations, you've reached the nirvana that people who actually think about the situation instead of just saying "i wouldn't have done that on madden!!!!!"4th and 10 because you were in prevent and all of the sudden you're too passive and you're playing not to lose instead of playing to win. 4th and 21, they're probably punting. I'm confused are you agreeing or disagreeing with me lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Possible outcomes:Blitz = incompletion or sack (let's say, 60% of the time) Blitz = short to medium gain of 5-10 yards (let's say, 30% of the time) Blitz = give up long play of 20+ yards (lets say 10% of the time) The percentages were clearly in Hazlett's favor. Hmm, I'd say you are only breaking down the general numbers. What you have to look at is the percentage completed in one-on-one coverage. And why have teams entire gameplans/styles of defenses relied on shutting down parts of the field or preventing the long pass, if going Cover 0 blitz against a scrambling, improvising QB and elite (athletically) wideout was the answer? You act aggressively (non-prevent) on first, maybe second down. The problem is, Haslett dialed the same play up (maybe some slight variation on the field but same idea) and it bit us. THE SAME THING HAPPENED vs. HOUSTON in 2010. This is not a thing of "oh, we only complain if we win" or complaining of a blitz on 4th and 2. That is understandable. The fact is, a blitz leaving your corners on islands INCREASES the odds that a first down/TD gaining reception occurs. The odds of a first down/TD reception happening when you DONT go Cover 0 goes down. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I'm confused are you agreeing or disagreeing with me lol? i'm agreeing with you. you have to look at the situation and not just the play by itself. (funny because everyone says it was a bad situation decision) it's funny because people are so confused as to why it was bad, they just assume it was bad because it didn't work. i keep hearing "you don't single cover dez," please, dez had done nothing all game and we had been blitzing pretty consistently. if dez was as dangerous as everyone makes him out to be maybe the cowboys wouldn't have to kick 6 field goals. wasn't it just a few plays earlier when the redskins were successfully blitzing the cowboys and causing incompletions because Romo sits to pee wanted to dump the ball short that gruden pointed out they were going straight man with no safety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I don't understand how sending 8 was a good decision no matter how you slice it. Blitzing? Absolutely. Blitzing everyone? No freakin' way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I thought it was the right call EXCEPT i would have shown OJ or Landry blitzing, and then dropped them back to play center field. All night Romo sits to pee was throwing quickly not wanting to take a hit. I can't fault Haslett thinking someone would get there and force an early throw. It was just a good play by Romo sits to pee, he ran like 20 yards backwards lol. All we needed was one safety defending that first down marker and he either picks that ball off easily or Romo sits to pee throws it out of bounce. Sucks it went down the way it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger187126 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 I thought it was the right call EXCEPT i would have shown OJ or Landry blitzing, and then dropped them back to play center field. All night Romo sits to pee was throwing quickly not wanting to take a hit. I can't fault Haslett thinking someone would get there and force an early throw. It was just a good play by Romo sits to pee, he ran like 20 yards backwards lol. All we needed was one safety defending that first down marker and he either picks that ball off easily or Romo sits to pee throws it out of bounce. Sucks it went down the way it did. 1 safety means that he has to pick a side of the field and weren't there two stacked on the opposite side of bryant. i can't remember, but 1 guy can't cover a 33 1/2 by 40 yard area. remember some no name beat the 49ers so it's not like you can just double dez like everyone just assumes would have worked. hindsight, hindsight, hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel__44 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 It's the wrong call even though the zero coverage worked all game. The Redskins showed a tendency to do this and the Cowboys went in to max protect. This allowed Romo sits to pee to escape the pocket and hit a wide open Dez. The correct call on D would have been to show blitz and go into a cover 2 or 3. It would have been ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Bad call I think, yes, given Romo sits to pee's ability to roll out of the pocket like he did. But you can't fault Haslett for the loss. His unit kept the Cowboys out of the endzone all day. Thats extremely rare these days for any defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Also, if you're playing Cover 0, all that disruption via blitz will rarely result in the PERCENTAGE of an INT going up. A fumble maybe, but you get picks by sitting back and reading the QB, routes. If you blitz ONE guy and generate just a TOUCH of pressure, you possibly get that pick/pass breakup you're looking for. If you're playing on an island, you are asking a lot for the pass breakup AND INT. The odds for an INT fall drastically when you have Cover 0 going, at least if it's a Cover 0 and the house coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.