3rd and 21.. clearly the play of the game.. Fault Haslett?

[SirClintonPortis]

You do not get interceptions often in man coverage, espcially if you're on an island. If you want picks, you call a play where your corner can play underneath covereage.

---------- Post added September-29th-2011 at 02:19 AM ----------

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/hothandf.html

[Soup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIK4z1YWNLE

Skip to 1:30

Eric Mangini talks about the effectiveness of the zero blitz. Basically it works great but they called it too much in the game and cowboys adjusted.

Dhall expected the ball to come out hot, this is totally a dumb call by the coaching staff. I guess they thought dallas wouldn't adjust but like dHall said its doesn't take a genius to see what the skins were doing.

[Oldfan]

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.

You are over-thinking this, DG. Haslett violated a very basic strategic concept: You take no more risk than you need to take to win the game.

If the play you cite repeats, the risk Haslett ran results in an interception that we didn't need to win the game. All we needed to do to win was to prevent a first down which should have been an easy task.

Haslett's blitz made an interception that we didn't need more likely; it made the sack which we didn't need more likely; but it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

That call alone makes a strong argument for Haslett's incompetence, IMO.

[darrelgreenie]

You take no more risk than you need to take to win the game.

I'm divorcing myself from the result and I completely understand the playcall.

I think its easy to say that when a play failed it was too risky or too whatever.

But if executed correctly I don't see what makes that call too risky or a bad call.

In your hypothetical, the risk Haslett ran results in an interception that we didn't need to win the game. All we needed to do to win was to prevent a first down which should have been an easy task. Haslett's blitz made an interception that we didn't need more likely; it made the sack which we didn't need more likely; but it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

Actually that play I mentioned that results in an interception isn't a hypothetical it happened earlier that game.

And although the outcome was an interception I'm not saying the expected result on a zero blitz is an interception or a sack; it just so happened that was the actual outcome on that play.

When executed correctly the expected result is to create a stop.

The expected result is for the ball to some out quick, short and under the pressure.

Given the Cowboys receivers issues, center/QB snap issues, the previous success of that type of pressure, Romo sits to pee tendency to chuck and duck I completely understand the call.

Like I said earlier:

If the Blitz gets home and D-Hall doesn't give up the inside to Bryant? Then what? Still a bad call?

Its not what I prefer but there's nothing wrong with the call.

[Oldfan]

I'm divorcing myself from the result and I completely understand the playcall.

I think its easy to say that when a play failed it was too risky or too whatever.

But if executed correctly I don't see what makes that call too risky or a bad call.

Haslett added unnecessary risk by blitzing. It was a bad call regardless of the outcome because of this:

Haslett's blitz made an interception that we didn't need more likely; it made the sack which we didn't need more likely; but it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

[KDawg]

Haslett's blitz made an interception that we didn't need more likely; it made the sack which we didn't need more likely; but it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

Bingo. Blitz? Sure. Blitz 8? Not smart.

[MartinC]

Given the Cowboys receivers issues, center/QB snap issues, the previous success of that type of pressure, Romo sits to pee tendency to chuck and duck I completely understand the call.

A part of coaching and play calling though DG is understanding the game situation. If we had been behind or if it was earlier in the game then I think you can make a case for that call - its still not a call I would make on 3rd and 21 but I can see how it would be defensible. However at that point in the game all we have to do is get off the field, run off tackle 3 times and we almost certainly have the game won.

Given that I can't see how an 8 man blitz leaving single coverage outside against a 2 man route can be defended. The offense needs a big pass play to make the first down - their chances of making that play go up significantly against a blitz if they can pick it up versus throwing against say a cover 3 or 4 scheme with a 4 or 5 man rush. Thats bad strategy and therefore a bad call IMO. I was shouting at the TV in real time before the snap don't blitz, don't blitz praying that we were showing a blitz and then dropping out of it. We all know what happened but even without hindsight I thought it was a bad call and I still do.

[Oldfan]

Haslett added unnecessary risk by blitzing. It was a bad call regardless of the outcome because of this:

Haslett's blitz made an interception that we didn't need more likely; it made the sack which we didn't need more likely; but it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

The outcome NEVER determines whether it was a good call or a bad one. A good call increases the probability of winning. A bad call diminishes the probability of winning.

[KDawg]

The outcome NEVER determines whether it was a good call or a bad one.

Again, 100% in agreement. It was a risky call that wasn't necessary in that situation. The outcome doesn't matter, the call was not within the context of playing situational football.

[darrelgreenie]

A part of coaching and play calling though DG is understanding the game situation. If we had been behind or if it was earlier in the game then I think you can make a case for that call - its still not a call I would make on 3rd and 21 but I can see how it would be defensible. However at that point in the game all we have to do is get off the field...

I wouldn't make that call either but it doesn't make it a bad call.

I agree about game situation and those factors I mentioned before are also part of the game situation and can not be ignored.

Haslett made a call that he thought would get us off the field based on success earlier in the game and the circumstances previously mentioned.

Given that I can't see how an 8 man blitz leaving single coverage outside against a 2 man route can be defended. The offense needs a big pass play to make the first down - their chances of making that play go up significantly against a blitz if they can pick it up versus throwing against say a cover 3 or 4 scheme with a 4 or 5 man rush.

The offense enemy is the amount of yardage they need to convert.

They need time to complete a long pass.

The play failed because of poor execution.

Fletcher, and I love the guy, didn't get home and was supposed to be a free rusher coming up the A gap IIRC.

D-Hall isn't supposed to be squating hard he supposed to be playing over the top inside leverage, not playing trail from the outside.

---------- Post added September-29th-2011 at 08:24 AM ----------

Haslett added unnecessary risk by blitzing.

There is also risk in not blitzing, there is risk in every play.

it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

Why?

How does that blitz if executed correctly make a conversion more likely to succeed?

The design of the play is to get quick pressure.

[2cents]

Give up DG...all the head coaches and D coordinators on this board know so much more about football and the right calls that it is obviouse they know so much more than the guys who do it for a living. It is really as simple as if it worked, it was a great call because it forced Dallas to make a bad play. It didn't work so it sucked. If we had 8 guys back and they get the yards, it would be, OMG a prevent D Haslett sucks....we needed to blitz everyone. People refuse to say $hit happens and we need to get over it.

[Oldfan]

There is also risk in not blitzing, there is risk in every play... How does that blitz if executed correctly make a conversion more likely to succeed? The design of the play is to get quick pressure.

I took for granted that someone with your knowledge of the game understood that the blitz, compared to not blitzing, is a higher risk, higher reward play. And, in this case, the higher reward (sack, interception, loss of yardage) wasn't needed.

[KDawg]

Give up DG...all the head coaches and D coordinators on this board know so much more about football and the right calls that it is obviouse they know so much more than the guys who do it for a living.

Dude, really? We've been through this. No need to revisit. But there are different folks who believe differently. DG and I get in our fair share of arguments, but to say neither one of us possesses football knowledge would be silly. Fact is, I would NOT have thought it was a good call if it worked. We went to the well one too many times, and were much too aggressive in the that situation. But in the end, it's an opinion.

Take your own advice. People disagree. NFL coordinators make mistakes, too. I promise.

[darrelgreenie]

I took for granted that someone with your knowledge of the game understood that the blitz, compared to not blitzing, is a higher risk, higher reward play. And, in this case, the higher reward (sack, interception, loss of yardage) wasn't needed.

The whole risk/reward view is too general when we can discuss this play specifically and I still don't see how that blitz if executed correctly make a 3rd-23 conversion more likely to succeed?

[KDawg]

The whole risk/reward view is too general when we can discuss this play specifically and I still don't see how that blitz if executed correctly make a 3rd-23 conversion more likely to succeed?

Less guys in coverage allows a mismatch. When you say "if the blitz was executed correctly" you can be countered with "if the protection/hot read was executed correctly by the offense". The problem with saying things like that is that there's a human element. I don't know if there's ever been a play in the NFL where all 22 guys on the field did exactly what their job was. Heck, maybe in all of football. Someone does something wrong on every play.

Knowing personnel, and understanding that we left Hall alone on an island with the taller Dez Bryant, meanwhile completely neglecting the fact that Bryant has a height advantage, I can't ever say that play was a good decision by Haslett. At the snap, when the blitz came, Romo sits to pee literally just had to lob it up and let Dez go get it. I respect the fact that he took a risk. I really do. But I don't think it was a calculated risk, but rather a reckless one.

[Oldfan]

The whole risk/reward view is too general when we can discuss this play specifically and I still don't see how that blitz if executed correctly make a 3rd-23 conversion more likely to succeed?

Using your logic, a play call is never a bad one "if executed correctly." Carrying your logic a step further...a play call is only bad if it's not executed correctly. And, carrying it still further, there's no such thing as a poor play call, there's only poor execution.

Here's the thing:

If we had a computer like the one used on televised Poker to give us the percentages of success before the play, and it showed you that Dallas had a 17% chance of making the first down if we don't blitz and a 33% chance to make it if we blitz, you would know that blitzing was dumb -- and you wouldn't be asking "Well, what if the blitz is executed correctly?"

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Haslett added unnecessary risk by blitzing. It was a bad call regardless of the outcome because of this:

Haslett's blitz made an interception that we didn't need more likely; it made the sack which we didn't need more likely; but it also made the first down attempt, which was crucial, more likely to succeed.

The outcome NEVER determines whether it was a good call or a bad one. A good call increases the probability of winning. A bad call diminishes the probability of winning.

Again, 100% in agreement. It was a risky call that wasn't necessary in that situation. The outcome doesn't matter, the call was not within the context of playing situational football.

I've been defending the coaching staff, but these two posts and thoughts make a lot of sense. I can see why people have a problem with the play calling.

I'm not a big second-guesser just because I realize that coaches know more than I do. It's possible Haslett was getting fired up with the success of the blitz, but he's got to be able to divorce himself from the emotion and make the call that will give us the highest probability of walking off the field winners.

I've come around...most of this is on Haslett even though I think better execution should have yielded a game-winning result as well.

[JustAfan47]

Using your logic, a play call is never a bad one "if executed correctly." Carrying your logic a step further...a play call is only bad if it's not executed correctly. And, carrying it still further, there's no such thing as a poor play call, there's only poor execution.

Here's the thing:

If we had a computer like the one used on televised Poker to give us the percentages of success before the play, and it showed you that Dallas had a 17% chance of making the first down if we don't blitz and a 33% chance to make it if we blitz, you would know that blitzing was dumb -- and you wouldn't be asking "Well, what if the blitz is executed correctly?"

I like the way u just broke that down to simplest scenarios.

[darrelgreenie]

Using your logic, a play call is never a bad one "if executed correctly." Carrying your logic a step further...a play call is only bad if it's not executed correctly. And, carrying it still further, there's no such thing as a poor play call, there's only poor execution.

Um no. (and if you read your post above you contradict yourself)

But anyway why resort to this when I clearly state my view here:

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.

You're having a hard time answering a straight forward question, maybe the third time is the charm?

How is that blitz if executed correctly make a 3rd-23 conversion more likely to succeed?

Here's the thing:If we had a computer like the one used on televised Poker to give us the percentages of success before the play, and it showed you that Dallas had a 17% chance of making the first down if we don't blitz and a 33% chance to make it if we blitz, you would know that blitzing was dumb -- and you wouldn't be asking "Well, what if the blitz is executed correctly?"

And where we disagree is on the percentages.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If we had a computer like the one used on televised Poker to give us the percentages of success before the play, and it showed you that Dallas had a 17% chance of making the first down if we don't blitz and a 33% chance to make it if we blitz, you would know that blitzing was dumb -- and you wouldn't be asking "Well, what if the blitz is executed correctly?"

They should totally have that in football. You might have just uncovered the next step in televised sports.

[Oldfan]

I've been defending the coaching staff, but these two posts and thoughts make a lot of sense. I can see why people have a problem with the play calling.

I'm not a big second-guesser just because I realize that coaches know more than I do. It's possible Haslett was getting fired up with the success of the blitz, but he's got to be able to divorce himself from the emotion and make the call that will give us the highest probability of walking off the field winners.

I've come around...most of this is on Haslett even though I think better execution should have yielded a game-winning result as well.

I rarely second-guess coaches on play calling, but there's no doubt Haslett dropped the ball on this one.

Sure, better execution would have bailed him out, but I still would have said it was a bad call.

[GO HAMSKINS]

If this was madden i would have scored a td. Dumb,Dumb,call

[SirClintonPortis]

People, the play prior had OJ Atogwe going free and forcing Romo sits to pee to toss it out hot. Do you REALLY think that the Cowboys' braintrust did not notice? It was a smart, even genius, move on them to have a TE and RB go block Kerrigan and Atogwe to force Kerrigan and Atogwe to back off in case the TE and RB "slipped out". The play design deliberately gave Romo sits to pee space to work to the right while letting a delayed rusher from the left try to get to him before coverage breaks down.

Man-on-man coverage is a QB's friend if the corner is not "shutdown", and that's why Romo sits to pee worked the SHORT SIDE of the field to Hall instead of the more spacious long side to his left.

[KDawg]

How is that blitz if executed correctly make a 3rd-23 conversion more likely to succeed?

Did you ignore my post? It's not an answer from OF, but it's an answer.

[Oldfan]

Um no. (and if you read your post above you contradict yourself)

But anyway why resort to this when I clearly state my view here:

You're having a hard time answering a straight forward question, maybe the third time is the charm?

How is that blitz if executed correctly make a 3rd-23 conversion more likely to succeed?

And where we disagree is on the percentages.

I showed you that you were asking a dumb question, but you insist you want an answer.

You have no basis for disagreement on percentages unless you want to maintain, against common football wisdom, that blitzing entails less risk than not blitzing.