2cents Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Um actuallly yes if you read the eat crow thread on Haslett people are saying they still wish he was gone and in the thread about Kyle saying passing is our best bet since we weren't running well it was said/implied they'd like him gone. I know there are coaches on here, but I'm sorry, a HS or little league coach may have more insight, but they are not NFL coaches plain and simple. This play still comes down to one thing, if it had worked it was a great call, it didn't so it was stupid. A lot of plays are like that and people just need to deal with it. Would Mike/Kyle be smart is we hadn't got that fourth down TD agains the Cards? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Um actuallly yes if you read the eat crow thread on Haslett people are saying they still wish he was gone and in the thread about Kyle saying passing is our best bet since we weren't running well it was said/implied they'd like him gone. I know there are coaches on here, but I'm sorry, a HS or little league coach may have more insight, but they are not NFL coaches plain and simple. This play still comes down to one thing, if it had worked it was a great call, it didn't so it was stupid. A lot of plays are like that and people just need to deal with it. Would Mike/Kyle be smart is we hadn't got that fourth down TD agains the Cards? Exactly. I have no idea what you're talking about. I never wanted Haslett here, but to fire him now would be stupid. To fire him prior to this season would have been stupid. Once he's brought in, you don't get rid of him that fast. HS coaches can be extremely good football coaches. Several of my colleagues coached at the D1 level, but like HS better due to time commitments, pressure, etc. Your level doesn't always classify how good of a coach you are, and not all people that coach are good. But as a whole, I agree. HS coaches are not NFL coaches. If it worked, it would not have been a great call. It was questionable from the outset. I saw the blitz formation and said, out loud, "Dear God let this be a show and drop for some of these guys". If it worked, we would have executed, but that doesn't make it a great call. And I think Kyle/Mike absolutely made the right call, regardless of whether they got it or not against the Cardinals. It's situational football. It would have been a "ballsy" call either way, though. I will give you that. If you like your coordinators to have metaphorical large cahones, then it was a good call. I don't. I like to be aggressive... On a scale on 1-10, the blitz Haslett called was a 10. On a scale of 1-10 on how I call a defense, I'm closer to a 7 or 8. Aggressive, but not reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaSkinsNut Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Sending 8 there is stupid. Send 6 and have two back deep. We got over-aggressive, and it cost us the game. Bingo, all out blitz is fine but don't do it consecutively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackToGlory Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I have watched this play and you all need to see Kerrigan HE CAUSED THIS!! I have been very impressed with him but honestly Ryan Kerrigan F'd up big time, he DID NOT rush hard and had he not taken that play off he would have been where Romo sits to pee scrambled too and the play would have been a non issue. I personally am glad to see that a Rookie messed up. Please I ask you all look at the play again, look at Kerrigan and how he doesn't get a good rush, doesn't go up the field and basically got ****ed by the right tackle..............Thoughts????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scamp1 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Play calling on both sides of the ball has been terrible and inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Your level doesn't always classify how good of a coach you are, and not all people that coach are good. But as a whole, I agree. HS coaches are not NFL coaches. To say nothing of the fact that if all coaches were making sound decisions at the NFL level, they wouldn't be getting fired or there'd be a lot more 8-8 division winners. Bellichek has distinguished himself by being ahead of the curve on a number of trends in football, as well as being open to doing things more than just by "macho" or "gut" but by intellect. When he realized that teams were figuring out how to cover Moss and then Welker underneath, he knew the only way they could break through that was to employ two TEs, with talented receivers at TE, and that would then open the wideouts back up. He entirely changed how they did things as a result. Haslett made this same mistake LAST YEAR but on FOURTH DOWN and it burned us. Jim Zorn was an NFL coach too, so was the guy, what was his name in Miami that went 1-15 and picked Ted Ginn ninth. ---------- Post added September-28th-2011 at 09:05 AM ---------- Please I ask you all look at the play again, look at Kerrigan and how he doesn't get a good rush, doesn't go up the field and basically got ****ed by the right tackle..............Thoughts????? People have said Kerrigan thought the RB was going to leak out and thus pulled up his rush. I wouldn't say he took the play "off" but that he got confused about what he should do. In fairness, if the RB did what he thought, only Hall would stand in the RBs way of a lengthy gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevej3658 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 disagree, who in their right mind calls an all out blitz on 3rd and 21 ? let's see hummmmm 3rd down 21 yds to go ya think maybe, just maybe the other team might throw the ball ? double cover everybody so they cant covert, send 3 or so in after the q back - and bam ! sounds good on paper anyway........... If that's true, we are in deep trouble. I thought the defense played a very good game, with the exception of a few plays. The offense, on the other hand, was just ineffective. There were times I had no idea who Rex was throwing to. I think we got away from the running game too soon. Our FG unit is so iffy.....gah! If the offense would have just picked things up 50%, that game would have been ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Might as well all out blitz a hail marry attempt, what the hell right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChampSkinsFanatic Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I have watched this play and you all need to see Kerrigan HE CAUSED THIS!! I have been very impressed with him but honestly Ryan Kerrigan F'd up big time, he DID NOT rush hard and had he not taken that play off he would have been where Romo sits to pee scrambled too and the play would have been a non issue. I personally am glad to see that a Rookie messed up. Please I ask you all look at the play again, look at Kerrigan and how he doesn't get a good rush, doesn't go up the field and basically got ****ed by the right tackle..............Thoughts????? Are you ****ing serious!? It was the play call period, I dont understand how you can blame the players who were put into a terrible position with a stupid play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkproof Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 After looking at the replay many times. I have to say Kerrigan blew it on this play. He was clearly blitzing on the play. Half way into the blitz, for some odd reason, he stops on his tracks and starts dropping into coverage (with no Dallas receiver anywhere near him) as Romo sits to pee rolled out. He was unblocked on the play and had Romo sits to pee in his sights. Had he continued to blitz, Romo sits to pee doesn't get as much time to roll out and make an accurate throw. You can't ask for a CB to cover an NFL receiver for that long a time when they are 1 on 1. Kerrigan's mental mistake was the break down on an otherwise good call from Haslett.[/quoteI saw the exact same thing... Granted he's a linebacker/DE but... had he pursued more up field to begin with vs the line he did take it would have landed him right in Romo sits to pee's lap resulting in a bad throw or a sack. Kerrigan is definitely athletic enough to run down Romo sits to pee. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadExField Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 After looking at the replay many times. I have to say Kerrigan blew it on this play. He was clearly blitzing on the play. Half way into the blitz, for some odd reason, he stops on his tracks and starts dropping into coverage (with no Dallas receiver anywhere near him) as Romo sits to pee rolled out. He was unblocked on the play and had Romo sits to pee in his sights. Had he continued to blitz, Romo sits to pee doesn't get as much time to roll out and make an accurate throw. You can't ask for a CB to cover an NFL receiver for that long a time when they are 1 on 1. Kerrigan's mental mistake was the break down on an otherwise good call from Haslett.[/quoteI saw the exact same thing... Granted he's a linebacker/DE but... had he pursued more up field to begin with vs the line he did take it would have landed him right in Romo sits to pee's lap resulting in a bad throw or a sack. Kerrigan is definitely athletic enough to run down Romo sits to pee. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda... I can't blame any ONE play or player for the reason we lost the game. I think there are a number of reasons we lost. The one play was definitely a blown opportunity, but not the sole reason we lost. We can blame Brown for whiffing on several pass plays that led to sack/fumbles, and we can blame Kyle for his questionable play calling to begin with... but I think the team falls a part when they single guys out and play the blame game, instead of taking responsibility as a unit. IMHO, the offense and defense played well enough to LOSE. The defense didn't capitalize on key potentials turnovers in Dallas territory, and the offense didn't capitalize on how many trips to the red zone? That is a constant issue with this team, not having confident play calling in the redzone, which I think is where the majority of our problems lie. Think about it, we score more points, Dallas would've needed to convert on a handful on 3rd and 4th downs, not just one to seal the game. But I'll play along and I'll blame the turf, the cowboys clearly urinated on it before the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 It was a bad call, but you guyss need to chill out. The Cowboys offensive line and Tony Romo sits to pee made a play. We sent 8 guys. They blocked them long enough for Romo sits to pee to do something with it. Thats all it is. Hall has always been overrated. He has never been a shutdown corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 My definition of a bad call is play who's design in the given situation even when executed correctly wouldn't achieve the expected/favorable result. Some important notes: o we all know Romo sits to pee history in pressure situations o we know the troubles the Boys were having at Center and at WR o we know that Romo sits to pee likes to throw off his back foot o we know that Romo sits to pee wasn't handling the blitz very well all game If you think the 3rd and 21 call was a bad then you should consider this play bad also: 3rd qtr: 3rd and 19 we ran 0 blitz the defense executes the play: o the pressure arrives on time Orakpo IIRC comes free from the right edge o the DBs cover o Romo sits to pee throws off his back foot o Barnes intercepts the ball. What a terrible call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I know one thing - it was the play that people can point to that cost us the game ...... No matter what call was made there would still be coaches at all different levels posting on here sucking through their teeth saying - I would not have done that I would have done X, Y and Z ..... and would have won the game 18,000,000 to 6 ... Had Haslett sent 6 or 7 and not put any pressure on Romo sits to pee and Romo sits to pee made the 30 yard pass then the comment would have been " how can you send half a blitz, the game is on the line, go all out all not at all, its situational football people sheeze .... hasslett is a moron" If we sent 4 and dropped 7 and Romo sits to pee made a short throw that Bryant or Witten turned up the field and convereted the 3rd down then it would have been " how can you not bring the pressure on 3-21 with the game on the line, send the house - its situational football people sheeze ... hasslett is a moron" etc etc The point is we should not have been in this situation . We let the cowboys stay in the game . If you stop your opponent from getting in the end zone and you have the lead in the 4th with 5 minutes to go and end up with the ball in your hands on the last drive of the game then you have to get the execution to close out the game - but then the other team is also paid to make plays and win games. I am not going to dwell - look forward to the next game ... I am not going to make excuses but then I am not going to pull the team apart either ... Its thursday tomorrow new week new problems ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralStonewallTaylor Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 The point is we should not have been in this situation . We let the cowboys stay in the game . If you stop your opponent from getting in the end zone and you have the lead in the 4th with 5 minutes to go and end up with the ball in your hands on the last drive of the game then you have to get the execution to close out the game - but then the other team is also paid to make plays and win games. I am not going to dwell - look forward to the next game ... I am not going to make excuses but then I am not going to pull the team apart either ... Its thursday tomorrow new week new problems ... Well said. We didn't deserve to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeezgob Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 My definition of a bad call is play who's design in the given situation even when executed correctly wouldn't achieve the expected/favorable result.Some important notes: o we all know Romo sits to pee history in pressure situations o we know the troubles the Boys were having at Center and at WR o we know that Romo sits to pee likes to throw off his back foot o we know that Romo sits to pee wasn't handling the blitz very well all game If you think the 3rd and 21 call was a bad then you should consider this play bad also: 3rd qtr: 3rd and 19 we ran 0 blitz the defense executes the play: o the pressure arrives on time Orakpo IIRC comes free from the right edge o the DBs cover o Romo sits to pee throws off his back foot o Barnes intercepts the ball. What a terrible call. I have to disagree with you. what you're not accounting for is the context and the state of the game. It's 3rd and 21, we've got a one point lead and Haslett runs a high risk play....for the third time in a row. Ok, call the all out blitz, but not in that situation at that point in the game...oh and for the 3rd time in a row. You think they couldn't see it coming? I call that bad play calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 What a terrible call. Ever heard of going to the well one too many times? How about the term "situational football"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Ever heard of going to the well one too many times? How about the term "situational football"? Wow, could you ask a more argumentative question? Because I disagree it was a bad call I guess I must have never heard of either huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Wow, could you ask a more argumentative question?Because I disagree it was a bad call I guess I must have never heard of either huh? No. It was your sarcasm that incited that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darc Requiem Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Fans can't have it both ways. D-Coordinators always get reamed for changing what has been working all game in the 4th Quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 No. It was your sarcasm that incited that.yeah, um okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wit33 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 SIDE NOTE- Has anyone taken the time to look at how effective Barry Coefield has been this year. I am just wondering because I have not heard his name much (I understand NT's sometimes do not get their names called--territory of the job), but still would like to know how well he has played. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Sending a blitz that would leave the defense vulnerable to a big play on 3rd and long is the definition of stupidity. I blame Haslett for not knowing when to call off the dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANSKINS98 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I don't blame Haslett for this loss he continued to do what he did all game and it was working (no touchdowns), so why would you shy away from what was working. I blame our O but mostly our special teams our kickoff returns were horrible, Banks couldnt even bring the ball out past the 20. In a game like this field possession is crucial ala losing by 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backpack3r Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 My definition of a bad call is play who's design in the given situation even when executed correctly wouldn't achieve the expected/favorable result.Some important notes: o we all know Romo sits to pee history in pressure situations o we know the troubles the Boys were having at Center and at WR o we know that Romo sits to pee likes to throw off his back foot o we know that Romo sits to pee wasn't handling the blitz very well all game If you think the 3rd and 21 call was a bad then you should consider this play bad also: 3rd qtr: 3rd and 19 we ran 0 blitz the defense executes the play: o the pressure arrives on time Orakpo IIRC comes free from the right edge o the DBs cover o Romo sits to pee throws off his back foot o Barnes intercepts the ball. What a terrible call. Yeah but do you need to blitz EIGHT people? No one is really arguing against the blitz in the situation, but wouldnt you like to have a safety over the top? They should have blitzed 5 or 6 at the most, not 8 freakin defenders, especially since it was so obvious the blitz was coming, and Romo sits to pee reacted accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.