I think the Redskins will win

[AJWatson3]

if we can keep QC from scrambling we can win the game. if he beats us with his legs we are done for. i like our matchups everywhere else, but wish ramsey would be in the pocket.

prediction: redskins 17, cowboys 14

[Om]

Things I'm looking forward to seeing incorporated into the conversation:

How a head coach's assistant coaches factor in to both pre-game planning AND in-game adjustments.

How having experienced players familiar with both system and one another factor in to in-game adjustments.

The extent to which the ebb and flow of a football game can be attributed to "coaching." Can momentum be coached?

And probably some other stuff which I'll lob into the arena if this thing starts to slow down.

[Art]

Om,

A lot of the conversation is about the assistant coaches for both teams. It's not Spurrier's fault directly that the Pats had a pretty easy time of it against us offensively in terms of moving the ball. But, for ease sake, the head coach gets the credit and blame for failures in coaching, even if it's by his assistant coaches.

Obviously we know it turned out that Gibbs had a great staff around him. Of course, we don't know if that's because Gibbs was great and everyone got his benefit, or vice versa.

Another question in your post does really come into play here for us though. Familiarity of players not only with the system but with each other. As we are still fairly qualified as a passing team, it does take longer for a passing offense to develop -- though I'm not sure we're a timing based passing offense so much, but who knows.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Art

KT,

1) And at the end, instead of making the Pats use time outs, we threw twice -- though the second should have been ruled a catch and could have made forgivable the play call.

2) They happened to make some pretty terrible calls toward the end of the game themselves, to our great fortune.

3) Offensively after a nice start, I remember looking on with dread as we just got stoned in the second half.

Qoute 1)

So, on at least one of our pass plays during the period in which we were being so handily and 'clearly' outcoached, you admit to the player's abilities/execution as the cause...I wonder how many other plays that cause could be argued.

Quote 2)

So you admit to errors by Belichek during the period when we were outcoached.

Quote 3)

You imply our successful coaching during the first half.

Take those three points in mind and you still say that we were 'clearly' outcoached...My point, from the beginning, is...how does 'clearly' outcoached in a game equal to being outcoached for a half??? a half in which you admit Quotes 1 and 2? a game which the Skins won?

I think the 4-0 turnover, 3 point lead excuse is a bit weak. The only thing that you can say from those stats is, "The Pats played a good game". You can't say we were clearly outcoached just from those stats and your biased observations. Well, you can, but you have to recognize that it is biased.

How can you continue to punish the Redskins for the Patriots' turnovers??? I told you before about what happened with the one caused by Champ in the backfield.. you say, "that's just player ability in man-to-man"....do you understand that you can use that excuse anytime you want in this argument? I could say, "no, that is coaching scheme, since the coach knows that we have superior talent on our defense, he chooses to use man-to-man coverage and prepares the team to be aggressive" but, I won't say that, because I DON'T HAVE A F*CKING CLUE!!! I was not at practice that week, were you?

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

Number One,

It would probably help if you understood what a contradiction is before asking me to apologize for making one. A trick play is not the foundation of an offense. That's not at all contridicted by saying Spurrier's offense is, by nature, designed to adapt play by play to what the defense is showing.

Even attempting to assert these two are somehow even related thoughts much less contradictory thoughts makes you appear to be a halfwit. Don't be a halfwit. Please. No where have I ever said the basis for Spurrier's offense is to take gambles. I've written time and time again that the basis for his offense is to take what the defense gives on every play.

We had this very discussion LAST TRAINING camp when Spurrier tipped the offense to the defensive plays and Cowboy fans mocked it without understanding that the rationale behind doing so is to show the guys that there's the correct play for every defense.

Spurrier is a gambler. He is a risk taker. He has to always be that to be as great as he may become. But, that's not the basis for his offense. Not only is there no implication that such is the case, but, there's not even a HINT of it. In fact, when you say I intimate that such is the case right after posting my quote that says it's NOT the case.

See, you wrote, "The implication there is clearly that the basis of Spurrier's offense is rolling the dice and taking gambles."

You wrote this right after quoting me, correctly, as saying, "But, trick plays aren't really the measure of intelligence. Rolling the dice and taking that sort of gamble is fantastic when it works, but it can't be the basis of an offense."

Now, perhaps halfwit is too generous. I need you to explain right now how you came to the conclusion that the implication of my statement is that the basis of Spurrier's offense is rolling the dice and taking risks from the sentence in which I wrote, "IT CAN'T BE THE BASIS OF AN OFFENSE."

You initially assert to me a position someone else took. You've rightfully corrected that implication. Now, you need to correct this error as well. And then, we can move on and you can rise back up to halfwit status, or even, a three-quarter wit depending on how rapidly you recognize this idiocy and correct it.

Or, you can scream about insults and how I'm deflecting, and then I get to giggle and extend this .

Lost in your meandering need to have an apology for your own lack of comprehension are some very sound and reasonable points. All of which have been spoken about, but can fairly be spoken of again. Just not until we get you to focus on what's real and stop creating positions in words you even quoted yourself.

I may have made a mistake, as you did in a previous post on another thread. Once again, I do love the classy comments you have here. In another thread, in which the subject matter was slightly different, and I had nothing that could be directly and mistakenly identified as pro-Spurrier sentiment directly expressed in my post, you revealed your bias against me. In my mistake here, this thread has shown that you choose to attribute at least some of our success to our "talent", as opposed to Spurrier's coaching. You have posted to the effect that Spurrier has not prepared the team well. "It can't be the basis of an offense" may have been your opinion of what you thought Spurrier's offensive scheme was, I think it is a fair assessment given the context of the sentence. No matter, I must take you at your word as you took me at mine. For the record, I didn't demand an apology for the contradiction, but an admission. You have addressed the issue nonetheless.

The playcalling of Spurrier was good in this game precisely because he didn't go with the pass where in the past he has shown his penchant for doing just that. You say it is a cornerstone of his offense to take what the defense gives him... you are saying that it's expected that Spurrier will go to the run when the defense gives him the run. However, you also say Spurrier is a risk taker. I don't believe many people agree with you (that he just takes what defenses give him), in fact, I believe many would say that Spurrier goes to the pass before the run more times than not. I don't really feel the need to show evidence of this in spite of your comments, because it seems like pretty much everyone knows this. We all know that Spurrier doesn't pass *all* the time, but who doesn't know that Spurrier prefers to pass, and often will pass regardless?

Why do you think Bellicheck, a coach who I admire, was unable to put a defense on the field to stop us from running 65 yards, all 65, on that TD drive? I feel it is probably because he expected us to pass. LC, in the quote I gave you, feels that Bellicheck was giving Spurrier the run. Does it sound like Spurrier was outcoached because he took what Bellicheck gave him early on, and then was able to hold on to the lead despite a valiant comeback effort? The fact that there were injuries on Bellicheck's team can be used as an excuse for being down 20-3 in the third quarter, and 20-10 until there was under 4 minutes to go in the fourth. We can even use turnovers as an excuse to say that Bellicheck did a good job. But to use what are obviously negatives as evidence of Bellicheck outcoaching Spurrier, I don't really buy that argument.

As for preparation, do you remember the fumble at the 1 that Champ got? It looked like the Skins might have been ready for that play. In a winning effort, that alone might be enough to convince that good coaching was at play that day. A turnover at the 1 yard line, even though it was third down and they would have had to punt anyway... that just makes it even easier to get 7, which they did.

But Spurrier was outcoached?

I mean, really, does your argument make sense when it's put this way?

I admit, when you only say... look, they had the benefit of 4 turnovers, the other team was very injured, and they only won by 3... it sounds like a good argument. But when you realize that the other team had to claw back up late.... and when you realize one very critical turnover that gave us 7 may have been the direct result of preparation, and then that even after the Skins miscues at the end and they get the ball with great field position and then they fail to do anything... I think the argument falls to shambles.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Om

Things I'm looking forward to seeing incorporated into the conversation:

How a head coach's assistant coaches factor in to both pre-game planning AND in-game adjustments.

How having experienced players familiar with both system and one another factor in to in-game adjustments.

The extent to which the ebb and flow of a football game can be attributed to "coaching." Can momentum be coached?

And probably some other stuff which I'll lob into the arena if this thing starts to slow down.

All of these are valid points. It's extremely hard to assert things like this in most sports- it's hard to try to kind of tie things directly to coaching. Calling the fake field goal and getting the winning touchdown (stupid Bears!) was clearly a good playcall at a critical time, just as we saw some good work in the Seahawks game. It's a bit harder to make coaching comparisons within a game and come to conclusions in a game; there are just so many factors. You end up making assumptions that may or may not be true- turnovers happen by accident. Maybe, maybe; but maybe someone noticed that Tiki (I know, Giants, but he's such an easy target for this example) tends to hold the ball loosely when he cuts left, and so they practiced that? Do you know? Maybe they realized that the Patriots run a certain play at a certain time... like they have a tendency to direct snap to the RB at a certain point in the game... and the Skins were ready...

It's hard to label these things, and the more assumptions you have to make to prove your argument, the less defensible your argument becomes. I prefer not to make assertiosn like "Spurrier outcoached Bellicheck" or "Bellicheck outcoached Spurrier" for this exact reason; instead, I challenge that assertion, particulary when it's even less believable in a losing effort. It's even worse when it was further qualified as "clearly outcoached".

[Art]

Ying and Yang.

It's almost appalling how silly you are both being.

KT,

I'm not punishing the Redskins for the Patriots turnovers. I'm punishing Spurrier for being unable to produce a more complete victory despite a turnover advantage that should lead to a multiple score win.

Now, I realize that in order to make this a positive you have to believe Spurrier designed the defense to produce those turnovers. Or, perhaps, you'll come to the conclusion that such a belief and expression is idiotic.

Edwards/Spurrier did a good job putting Champ into position to cause a fumble. That's to their credit. But, they didn't design the play to cause a turnover. They designed the defense, called it and hoped to stop a play in that area. They were successful. This happens in every game. That Faulk happened to fumble was a benefit to us.

Teams can, schematically, teach the creation of turnovers. But, you don't game plan them. You don't create them by design but in the most rare of instances, as described earlier in this thread. When you have a corner in man coverage and he gets a pick, this is not a stroke of coaching genius.

Coaching genius isn't winning by 3 against an injured team at home with a 4-0 turnover ratio and only winning by giving them the ball back with time and time outs. It just isn't. Spurrier isn't a genius for calling a sweep that the Pats sniffed out, hitting the running back at the line of scrimmage, only to have him squirt free, run 30 yards, FUMBLE, have three Patriots around the ball and have our guy fall on it.

Preparation and design is simple to see. We lack it. We lacked it against the Pats. As they altered their game and clamped us down, we managed 12 total yards in the fourth quarter. That's not brilliant gamesmanship. That's not even playing conservatively. That's just bad.

That's why we got out gained. That's why we barely won despite a turnover advantage that several hundred games are played without a team losing with such an advantage. I don't have to have been at practice to know Edwards didn't call that fumble play to create a fumble.

I think it's fairly amusing, KT, that you believe if Spurrier outcoached Belichek for a half that he can't have been outcoached for the game. It's ignorant as all get out, but it's amusing just the same. Spurrier also bested Gruden in the first half against Tampa, only to get slaughtered in the second half like a helpless waif.

Now, obviously, Edwards is the guy we mean, but, Spurrier is the encompassing guy's name we're using. Nonetheless, no one is confused by this teams lack of preparation. I don't have to be at practice to know they aren't prepared. All I have to see is a running back not know where to go on a block against a blitz to know we're not prepared.

All I need to know is we won by three against an injured team at home witha 4-0 turnover ratio after giving them the ball with time and time outs. This is HORRIBLE coaching. To defend it may give you warm fuzzies. But, it doesn't change what it is and what it has been much of the year.

Number One.

You seem to have not seen the game all that well. The Skins ran for 64 yards on that drive. On that drive 42 of them came on a play that Canidate made, breaking tackles at the line and cutting across the middle, where he fumbled and we picked it up a few yards later.

This is not really great coaching on Spurrier's part. It's not bad coaching on Belichek's part. Belichek had his guys in position to make the play on that play. His guys failed. Other than positioning, there's NOTHING a coach can do. Too often Spurrier's greatest successes have come from our own talent rather than by his design.

Again, a severe part of the problem here is Edwards has been so drastically whipped. But, ultimately that falls on Spurrier. And when you win a squeaker despite a 4 turnover advantage, you didn't win the coaching battle that day. It really shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

Ying and Yang.

It's almost appalling how silly you are both being.

KT,

I'm not punishing the Redskins for the Patriots turnovers. I'm punishing Spurrier for being unable to produce a more complete victory despite a turnover advantage that should lead to a multiple score win.

Now, I realize that in order to make this a positive you have to believe Spurrier designed the defense to produce those turnovers. Or, perhaps, you'll come to the conclusion that such a belief and expression is idiotic.

Edwards/Spurrier did a good job putting Champ into position to cause a fumble. That's to their credit. But, they didn't design the play to cause a turnover. They designed the defense, called it and hoped to stop a play in that area. They were successful. This happens in every game. That Faulk happened to fumble was a benefit to us.

Teams can, schematically, teach the creation of turnovers. But, you don't game plan them. You don't create them by design but in the most rare of instances, as described earlier in this thread. When you have a corner in man coverage and he gets a pick, this is not a stroke of coaching genius.

Coaching genius isn't winning by 3 against an injured team at home with a 4-0 turnover ratio and only winning by giving them the ball back with time and time outs. It just isn't. Spurrier isn't a genius for calling a sweep that the Pats sniffed out, hitting the running back at the line of scrimmage, only to have him squirt free, run 30 yards, FUMBLE, have three Patriots around the ball and have our guy fall on it.

Preparation and design is simple to see. We lack it. We lacked it against the Pats. As they altered their game and clamped us down, we managed 12 total yards in the fourth quarter. That's not brilliant gamesmanship. That's not even playing conservatively. That's just bad.

That's why we got out gained. That's why we barely won despite a turnover advantage that several hundred games are played without a team losing with such an advantage. I don't have to have been at practice to know Edwards didn't call that fumble play to create a fumble.

I think it's fairly amusing, KT, that you believe if Spurrier outcoached Belichek for a half that he can't have been outcoached for the game. It's ignorant as all get out, but it's amusing just the same. Spurrier also bested Gruden in the first half against Tampa, only to get slaughtered in the second half like a helpless waif.

Now, obviously, Edwards is the guy we mean, but, Spurrier is the encompassing guy's name we're using. Nonetheless, no one is confused by this teams lack of preparation. I don't have to be at practice to know they aren't prepared. All I have to see is a running back not know where to go on a block against a blitz to know we're not prepared.

All I need to know is we won by three against an injured team at home witha 4-0 turnover ratio after giving them the ball with time and time outs. This is HORRIBLE coaching. To defend it may give you warm fuzzies. But, it doesn't change what it is and what it has been much of the year.

Number One.

You seem to have not seen the game all that well. The Skins ran for 64 yards on that drive. On that drive 42 of them came on a play that Canidate made, breaking tackles at the line and cutting across the middle, where he fumbled and we picked it up a few yards later.

This is not really great coaching on Spurrier's part. It's not bad coaching on Belichek's part. Belichek had his guys in position to make the play on that play. His guys failed. Other than positioning, there's NOTHING a coach can do. Too often Spurrier's greatest successes have come from our own talent rather than by his design.

Again, a severe part of the problem here is Edwards has been so drastically whipped. But, ultimately that falls on Spurrier. And when you win a squeaker despite a 4 turnover advantage, you didn't win the coaching battle that day. It really shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp.

First, I believe it's "Yin and Yang" not "Ying and Yang".

I think this argument has been beaten to death by now. The points have been made. I was at that game, I recorded it on my digital camcorder, and I actually watch it occasionally since it's always nice to see us win, no matter if we dominated or not.

"Belichek had his guys in position to make the play on that play."

These are the kinds of quotes that mean this argument can't end. If you think that you can know this, if you think you can attribute what happened there specifically to coaching with all of the possibilities that exist... and meanwhile attribute good plays by our team to "luck of the bounce" and not good positioning and preparation...

You refuse to comment on the direct snap to Kevin Faulk, that led directly to a touchdown. It would seem to most, that maybe the Redskins were not fooled by the Patriots trying a somewhat tricky play... and maybe they were prepared. You refuse to comment on that, that's fine I suppose- a game changing play getting attributed to good preparation really would make your stance look shaky, wouldn't it?

You think that despite getting 4 turnovers, we didn't win the coaching battle that day since we won by 3 points. So anytime one team turns the ball over 4 times, they have to win by a large margin or they were "outcoached" (no matter that the score was 20-10 with under 4 minutes left, and although we may have played poorly for that 4 minutes, we still held on for a close win of 20-17.... I mean, had we not surrendered a TD there, and the final score was 20-10, I suppose then Spurrier was not outcoached... it's a shame that drive decided Spurrier's comparable coaching with Bellicheck in the game).

If one of your great points is that they altered their game and clamped us down while being down 10 points, and then managed to score with under 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter to bring it within 3, only to lose in the end... and this is proof of being outcoached...

If, after all that has been discussed in this thread, if this is what you continue to say... then this argument is certainly not going to end.

One final point. Earlier you said that I was making good points. If I was making good points, then Spurrier was not "clearly outcoached". I may have said this before, I don't recall, and I am so tired of looking at this thread by now that I won't bother to see if I posted that previously. Regardless, you did not address this either, or choose to ever elucidate on what "good points" still do not take away from Spurrier being "clearly outcoached".

Whatever the case, we will have to agree to disagree. I felt that your opinion was questionable, which was all I had to prove, since it clearly is an opinion, and as stated if it was questionable then you were wrong to say Spurrier was "clearly outcoached".

You, then, must feel your opinion was unquestionable.

I continue to tell you that I was not really arguing that Spurrier won the coaching battle, but rather that the opinion that Bellicheck won the coaching battle was certainly questionable. I would personally say that there were fine points in the game for both coaches, so I don't think I would say that either coach really won the battle. The only thing that may tip the scales to Spurrier in a case like this is the final score.

But you know, it's all good.

This thread is done, at least for me. The points have been made, and I can only repeat myself so often, while you pick and choose what you hear.

[Art]

Actually, Number One, perhaps it would be helpful instead of saying what I continue not to address if you would actually read the thread and address the fact that you're wrong. I did address it. I did comment on the fumble play that led to our touchdown.

I can't help you further beyond that. A lot of what you say would be really compelling stuff if only I hadn't spoken directly on the topic. But, yes, I know that winning by three despite a 4-0 turnover ratio is not winning the coaching battle in that game. No, I don't know that you could never win the coaching battle with a 4-0 turnover ratio. That's not what I said.

In fact, again, I said PRECISELY something other. I said given the circumstances of THIS game and how THIS game played out, outlining the things that happened in this game, that no, Spurrier didn't win the coaching matchup. I've addressed your imaginary posit in another thread.

But, you've HIT the nail on the head. If Spurrier hadn't allowed another touchdown -- and then the subsequent possession with time and time outs to possibly tie the game -- and the game had ended 20-10, Spurrier wouldn't have been outcoached. He'd have gotten his guys to make the key stop. That's exactly right. Had Spurrier limited their production and won the game as comfortably as the turnover margin dictated, he'd have won his matchup with Belichek in terms of coaching performance. But he didn't.

And Belichek was able to help his team overcome the turnovers and be in position to tie or win at the end. That's good coaching. That's better than what we've had most of the year.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Once again, you pick certain aspects of coaching and you say.."This over here is outcoaching... Spurrier/Edwards may have designed and called the play which reaped a certain effect, but that's not outcoaching" why assume either way??

When did I say anything was idiotic...I said, and I will say again, assuming that a play or game's outcome is solely the effect of outcoaching is not sound...conjecture...opinion...biased.

"Belichek had his guys in position to make the play on that play. His guys failed. Other than positioning, there's NOTHING a coach can do."

I wonder how many times Spurrier/Edwards had their guys in position but they didn't make the play, during the great outcoaching session.

"Spurrier also bested Gruden in the first half against Tampa, only to get slaughtered in the second half like a helpless waif."

The Bucs won the game Art, the Bucs won the game...The basic problem is, like you actually SAID before, it's very hard to argue someone outcoaching someone else in a loss...no matter how many turnovers, points, yards...whatever....do you want to know why?? Because the other biased arguer can always point to some aspect of coaching that was pertinent for that particular game. I could say, "Apparently, Belichek didn't have his team 'prepared' enough because they fell behind to a deficit they couldn't crawl out of". For another example, if a coach outgains and defends his opponent overwhelmingly in normal play, but loses the game in special teams, it can be argued that he was still outcoached, or at least that he definitely didn't 'clearly' outcoach the opponent.

Notice I have pretty much stayed consistent with using the words outcoached and 'clearly' outcoached...I think these are strong words. Outcoaching someone, in my mind, means, preparing, calling the plays, and adjusting enough to win...dispite bad bounces, turnovers, and all the other unplanned mistakes that happen in EVERY football game.

"All I need to know is we won by three against an injured team at home witha 4-0 turnover ratio after giving them the ball with time and time outs."

That's fine, if you believe that's all you need to make that judgement, then there is nothing I can say...we will have to agree to disagree...By the stats, this was a bad game, I just am reluctant to say being outcoached is the cause of it, since there are so many other factors in a football game.

This is KTrain, signing off....it was fun Art (no sarcasm intended)

[Art]

No, KT, I don't pick and choose what coaching is or what it is not. I know precisely. The only confusion here is on your part. Your part where in order to fathom a manner to make Spurrier/Edwards coach better you have to imagine a situation in which they designed a play that caused a fumble or INT as if they designed the play specifically knowing it would cause a fumble or INT.

If such were the case, first, we'd know of it. It would be talked about and snickered over and complimented for weeks. But, it is indeed rare where a turnover comes from defensive design and not simply the mistake of the opposition, no matter how well positioned you are.

You wonder how many times Spurrier/Edwards had their guys in position to make plays and how many times they didn't, and that's an interesting question. We see the obvious, glaring, unforgivable lack of preparation of our team week after week. But, how often do we see them ideally positioned to make a stop and yet fail?

Several times, no question. We've lost games because of specific blown plays despite being in position by Champ, as an example. I mean, if he just shows slight ball awareness against Carolina, we win that game. Despite surrendering over 400 yards to a pretty average offensive team.

The problem though isn't that we're losing a ton of games because we're in position to make plays and we don't. The problem is we're losing a ton of games because guys are blowing assignments due to freelancing -- Lavar against New York, Trotter against Miami, EVERYONE against Tampa -- or by simply being so clueless as to what's coming -- I.E. any particular running back in pass protection you'd care to point to for about 10 weeks -- that you can't help but notice Spurrier's/Edwards' failings above all else.

When those failings are less evident we'll probably start to see different results.

Until they are, we won't.

As for the Tampa game, I'm not sure your point. Gruden so badly outclassed us coaching that it served as a notice just how far we were. Tampa couldn't really just line up offensively and do much to us. So they used design and formation to create mismatch after mismatch and cause repeated confusion that led to our defeat. Surely you aren't TOO going to argue that we weren't outcoached in that game? That was really the first game where you could point to the real difference between Spurrier and a legitimately strong NFL coach.

Again, as I pointed out previously, the Redskins lost a game to the Cardinals in which we had over 400 yards of offense compared to under 200 for them and we never had to punt. No team in the HISTORY of the NFL had lost a game under the set of circumstances in which we lost. They didn't outcoach us in the win.

Same thing with our buddy Spurrier in the Pats game. With the essential and unrelenting point remaining. It's IMPOSSIBLE to characterize as a coaching victory a game in which you're at home, playing a depleted team where you have a 4-0 turnover advantage and yet they not only just fall short with the last possession and time outs, but, they actually out gain you and completely slam the door shut ON YOU to enable the comeback in the first place.

We're not talking about a 20-17 game in which we made them punt four times and we got up and they came back. In such a situation, we are the clear winner in the game and the coaching situation. But when you have EVERY advantage created not by your genius but by simply saying, "Play man" and you can't muster a better outcome than that, then, you lost the coaching battle.

Knowing it's IMPOSSIBLE to say Spurrier won it, you are left with no other conclusion than to say the other guy did. And to do so WHILE losing means something. It either means you have a terrible team but you keep a better team close because of your design and game management or it means you overcome every disadvantage and still have a realistic shot of victory. That we were ALSO a better team than the Pats at that point in the season also factors in, but in a lesser fashion.

Something that also comes into play here is something Bram Weinstein (spelling) said after the Saints game. He was talking about how counter-intuitive our season has been as we've lost games teams just don't normally lose -- i.e. with the turnover advantage and the like. In that conversation he said a very telling observation we've all seen.

It seems as if every time one of our guys makes a mistake -- blown coverage, freelancing, slips and falls, fails to get over in time to block, etc. -- the opposition is right there to take advantage of it. He said further that he knows other teams have to be making mistakes of the same variety too but we never seem to be in position to take advantage of it.

He didn't know it, but he spelled out the single greatest indictment of Spurrier's stay with us to this point. And it's that very lack of coaching that's evident on a nearly weekly basis. And all this comes from the bias of liking Spurrier. Imagine if I didn't. Whew.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

But, you've HIT the nail on the head. If Spurrier hadn't allowed another touchdown -- and then the subsequent possession with time and time outs to possibly tie the game -- and the game had ended 20-10, Spurrier wouldn't have been outcoached. He'd have gotten his guys to make the key stop. That's exactly right. Had Spurrier limited their production and won the game as comfortably as the turnover margin dictated, he'd have won his matchup with Belichek in terms of coaching performance. But he didn't.

Art, you were blatantly stupid enough that I had to post one more time. I'm surprised, but I feel obligated to point out how stupid a comment this is.

KT earlier pointed out that your position implies that if a coach uses a prevent defense late in the game, then he will be outcoached if the other team ends up outgaining him and bringing the score closer at the end. Do you deny that this is a necessary by product of your position? Because in the quote above, you admit that the Spurrier's allowing the touchdown (I'll get to the subsequent possession in a moment) is what causes you to say he was outcoached. Art, coaches coach to win games, first and foremost. This, above everything else, is why it should seem hard to you to make your point. No, it should not be so simple as to say "We turned the ball over 4 times, we won by only 3, we were outgained." Football isn't that simple. Both sides know beforehand there are 60 minutes to play. That's not a variable. At the end of the game, you ARE playing against the clock.

So you say the "key stop" in the outcoaching analysis is allowing a touchdown to a team that is 10 points behind, but with less than 4 minutes left. I'll give you one thing; they let them score too quickly. That's for sure- it would have been nice if more time had been eaten off the clock.

I'll even give you another thing which you (very disappointing to me, I might add) did not mention in this long thread; Spurrier's coaching problems, if we are to blame him for what might be construed as problems with his assistants, were really evident on the kickoff. If you had only seen the way they formed for the onside kick return, I bet it was hard to see on the television, I don't know what they said about it, but it really looked like the Redskins were all prepared for the onside. I told my friend, they are going to kick it deep and pin us. Sure enough, they did. That may have not been as bad if we were able to be successfully get a first down (we did, but the refs blew the call). Important point - we certainly needed one first down, because there was too much time on the clock to simply run the clock down. When to throw and when to run in that situation, I'll let it slide that he threw on second down, and then false starts pushed them back to a throwing situation on third down to get the first - which he DID except for the bad call- so not only did he get them in the right position, but the players made the play and the refs took it from them.

Then we get to punt, and when we finally punt after another false start, the defense stands the patriots up to uphold the win, and as you say, bellicheck perhaps makes some bad calls in this series.

This sounds to you like Spurrier was clearly outcoached. Based on allowing the other team to score with less than 4 minutes left. This is what you said- if they had stopped them on that drive, you would not say that Spurrier was clearly outcoached. As KT pointed out, this is a classic time for the prevent defense. You don't let the other team beat you deep, you let them dink and dunk down the field, and you try to stiffen closer to the endzone to eat as much clock as possible. Then, with close to two minutes left (and this is what was remaining when the Skins got the ball), they are going to have to stop you and get some luck (I can argue they did, in terms of the bad call by the ref) in order to even get a chance at winning. So, the Patriots get the ball back, and they fail to do anything, and Spurrier gets a win.

So, Art concludes that Spurrier was clearly outcoached.

As for giving the ball back, since you said they had to give up a score and give the ball back...

if the last Patriots possession is a requirement for Spurrier to have been outcoached, how is it that Spurrier's call that did get the first down (we are in agreement on this), but got called back by the refs doesn't get him the nod, AT LEAST for not getting "CLEARLY OUTCOACHED" by Bellichick?

Well. This will surely be my last post, because I can’t imagine you saying anything MORE obviously stupid than the “key stop” in the game was the one that got the Patriots within 3 points of a win, given that coaches coach to win games in 60 minutes.

Insult away, my friend. The point is made.

[Art]

Number One,

The point isn't at all made. You continue to make a case that a coach in a 3-point game with a 4 turnover advantage, at home, against an injured team, having been out gained, only wins after surrendering the ball to the opposition with time and time outs somehow outcoached the other guy.

You keep saying you're not saying that. But, you are. There are no ties in coaching. There may be ties in a game. But not in coaching. One guy wins. The other guy loses. If our guy didn't lose, he won. And given the game circumstances, that's not what happened.

Given the game circumstances, had Spurrier managed a multiple point win, you could make a different conclusion than the obvious. But, given the game circumstances, you can't do that. You have to recognize precisely how flawed we were to allow it to come to where we did.

We didn't let the Pats dink and dunk down the field. We let them complete passes of 13, 22, 14, 15, 12 and 7 in order. In 1:24 they went 68 yards. This wasn't classic prevent. This was another example of a team ill-prepared to even execute a classic prevent defense.

You simply aren't the victor in a coaching matchup when you win by three despite a 4 turnover advantage, given how that game played out. There's no need to insult you for this sheer stupidity. You're insulting yourself enough by merely positioning yourself where you have.

[SkinsNumberOne]

No, Art, the point IS actually made. We agree to disagree.

You think that generating a 10 point lead with less than 4 minutes left is not good enough. You have to maintain that 10 point lead for the remaining 4 minutes. In that 4 minutes, if you allow a touchdown, and then there is 2 minutes left on the clock, and then you get a first down that is taken away from you by the REFS, NOT by BELLICHICK (unless you think Bellichick schemed for the refs to rule that incomplete).... and THEN YOU STOP THEM ON THE ENSUING DRIVE... well, you think that means that shows how the team that won was clearly outcoached. Although I note how "clearly" has dropped out of your descriptions of late. Still, there is no insinuation of doubt in your mind it seems, whereas at least I grant that a blind look at the stats may indicate an argument of getting outcoached in a win...

Well. We agree to disagree. You may think that my position is stupid, and I most assuredly think yours is, particularly if you hold dear to your originial assertion that Spurrier was "clearly outcoached" in this game.

Signing off, finally!

[Art]

Number One,

You and KT kept saying clearly outcoached. I didn't. I said Spurrier was outcoached. And, in fact, an example of being clearly outcoached could well encompass the game circumstances we witnessed and led to just a 3 point victory.

Now, I realize you need in some way to create extra statements and sentiment to come off as not totally nuts here, but, beyond that need, it's not all that compelling to others.

It is an impossibility given the game circumstances we saw against the Pats for Spurrier to have the edge coaching. That's not speculation. It's not conjecture. It's uncountered fact. The only counter you have is a heap big plate of imaginary situations that didn't occur. What actually happened is what we're talking about.

If you don't understand how a 3-point win at home against a beaten up team where you are out gained despite having a 4 turnover advantage and you only win after giving them the ball back with time and time outs is not a coaching win, then it's beyond agreeing to disagree guy. You're flat out lost.

You've no conceptual understanding of football. And, while you may think out of the necessity of being in a very bad position in this conversation that my position is dumb, I can live through that with the knowledge that I know yours is. And in the end, that is comfort enough. If I ever express a football opinion that is so completely homeristic and devoid of recognition of simple facts of the game as yours, I will expect you to be very hard on me.

Just don't wait for it to happen, as I've been around a long while without taking such a lost position.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

I will say this...

I hope Parcells outcoaches the Spurrier the same way Belichek did.

GO SKINS!!!!

[Art]

He did in the first Dallas game and beat us despite that same 4-0 turnover advantage. So, please don't hope for a repeat of that. Pray Spurrier has actually taught his backs to pick up the blitz and that he's actually got a game plan in to account for the sort of defense the Cowboys run. Pray that happens instead of the same thing that already has.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Art

He did in the first Dallas game and beat us despite that same 4-0 turnover advantage. So, please don't hope for a repeat of that. Pray Spurrier has actually taught his backs to pick up the blitz and that he's actually got a game plan in to account for the sort of defense the Cowboys run. Pray that happens instead of the same thing that already has.

I think he meant that we would be up by 10 with 3 minutes and 34 seconds left, and then we would surrender a touchdown with 2 minutes on the clock, and then they would get the ball back due to a bad call by a ref, but finally we would stop them (not the clock, mind you, but our defense).

I don't think by "the same way Bellicheck did" he meant "the same way Parcells did in the last game." I might be wrong though.

[KTrainSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Art

He did in the first Dallas game and beat us despite that same 4-0 turnover advantage. So, please don't hope for a repeat of that. Pray Spurrier has actually taught his backs to pick up the blitz and that he's actually got a game plan in to account for the sort of defense the Cowboys run. Pray that happens instead of the same thing that already has.

Art, lighten up.

[Art]

I think I know what he meant. And I'll point out again, that the same situation existed in that Cowboys game save for their injuries and being on the road. We still were outscored, outgained, and beaten in nearly every phase of the game despite a 4-0 turnover advantage. We were the first team in a few hundred games to lose a game despite that.

We almost lost two. I'd much rather see Spurrier actually outcoach Parcells than to repeat what he's already done, and what he did against Belichek.