Bledsoe Admits We Played For The FG To Make It 13-0...

[CaptainAmerica]

...didn't see this posted but the text below is from Mick's column today. Pretty disgusting to know for a fact that we played for a FG that only made the score 13-0!! I said at the time, I hate a 13 point lead. It is almost a sign that your team is going to fool around and lose by one point. Parcells' conservative, fail to go for the jugglar, style of coaching cost us a chance to put the Skins away last night. :mad:

Here is the text...
************************************************** ********

How about first-and-10 at the Washington 17 early in the fourth quarter? But Larry Allen gets called for holding, and while leading 10-0 and the Redskins showing not one iota of offensive life, the Cowboys decide to run some clock and play for a field goal. So they run Tyson Thompson on three consecutive draws, taking the clock from 8:35 left to play down to 6:39 when Cortez kicked his second field goal, this one 41 yards for a 13-0 lead.
But there is a saying in the NFL, that the more field goals you kick the closer you are to getting beat.
"We were in a good rhythm offensively, and then get that hold, and the way our defense was playing to that point, it was let's not take a chance, run it, kick the field goal and go up two touchdowns," Bledsoe said.
************************************************** ********

Duh..."two touchdowns"!! Maybe they forgot that a team scoring a TD gets to kick an extra point!

[btcutter]

...didn't see this posted but the text below is from Mick's column today. Pretty disgusting to know for a fact that we played for a FG that only made the score 13-0!! I said at the time, I hate a 13 point lead. It is almost a sign that your team is going to fool around and lose by one point. Parcells' conservative, fail to go for the jugglar, style of coaching cost us a chance to put the Skins away last night. :mad:

Here is the text...
************************************************** ********

How about first-and-10 at the Washington 17 early in the fourth quarter? But Larry Allen gets called for holding, and while leading 10-0 and the Redskins showing not one iota of offensive life, the Cowboys decide to run some clock and play for a field goal. So they run Tyson Thompson on three consecutive draws, taking the clock from 8:35 left to play down to 6:39 when Cortez kicked his second field goal, this one 41 yards for a 13-0 lead.
But there is a saying in the NFL, that the more field goals you kick the closer you are to getting beat.
"We were in a good rhythm offensively, and then get that hold, and the way our defense was playing to that point, it was let's not take a chance, run it, kick the field goal and go up two touchdowns," Bledsoe said.
************************************************** ********

Duh..."two touchdowns"!! Maybe they forgot that a team scoring a TD gets to kick an extra point!


Look at it from a HC perspective. Your D is playing lights out and allowed 0 points for 55 min. Opposing O is sucking air, can't put a single drive together for 55 min to even attempt a FG. Hey, 13 points lead with less then 5 min to go is sitting pretty (esp with Parcells OLD record of 77-0 when leading by 13+ in 4th quarter).
Sure, we could have taken a chance to TD and possible INT. But, there isn't a HC that would take the % play like BP. It's common sense. I bet most fans thought the game was over then too. Of course, **** happens!

[RCowboyFan]

Look at it from a HC perspective. Your D is playing lights out and allowed 0 points for 55 min. Opposing O is sucking air, can't put a single drive together for 55 min to even attempt a FG. Hey, 13 points lead with less then 5 min to go is sitting pretty (esp with Parcells OLD record of 77-0 when leading by 13+ in 4th quarter).
Sure, we could have taken a chance to TD and possible INT. But, there isn't a HC that would take the % play like BP. It's common sense. I bet most fans thought the game was over then too. Of course, **** happens!

Well thats true in a way. But I was commenting to me buddy, look, Offense will just dink and dunk and play it safe.

And I did leave expected Cowboys win obviously, but then all hell breaks loose. You have to say, those were just freak plays and partly due to offense playing it safe and partly due to Defense also playing it safe last few minutes.

As usual, like the saying goes most of the time, Prevent Defense only gets you to prevent a win. It happens so many times, but you see most teams still doing that anyway.

[Portland Fanatic]

You ALWAYS go for the touchdown...if you fail, THEN you put up 3. We were playing to only put up 3...that's BS!

[CaptainAmerica]

Look at it from a HC perspective. Your D is playing lights out and allowed 0 points for 55 min. Opposing O is sucking air, can't put a single drive together for 55 min to even attempt a FG. Hey, 13 points lead with less then 5 min to go is sitting pretty (esp with Parcells OLD record of 77-0 when leading by 13+ in 4th quarter).
Sure, we could have taken a chance to TD and possible INT. But, there isn't a HC that would take the % play like BP. It's common sense. I bet most fans thought the game was over then too. Of course, **** happens!

Oh, I know the other side. It's just I would have felt better if it would have put us up by 10 points as crazy as that sounds. There is something about a 6 or 13 point lead in the 4th quarter of a game that sends the message..."We will lose this game!"

I actually believe it's a sub-conscious message that only appears on those two point differentials! :)

[btcutter]

Oh, I know the other side. It's just I would have felt better if it would have put us up by 10 points as crazy as that sounds. There is something about a 6 or 13 point lead in the 4th quarter of a game that sends the message..."We will lose this game!"

I actually believe it's a sub-conscious message that only appears on those two point differentials! :)


Ok, imagin if Bledsoe threw an INT. Guess what this board is going to say? Should have played it safe, go for the FG, make it a two score game and let the Incredible D stop them..........when you lose, there's always hindsight.

[Hiero]

Bill made the right move playing it conservative, their offense had done absolutely zero all night, who would expect them to score 14 points in 3 minutes. the real tragedy is that Glenn got stuck guarding the fastest guy on their team, which is a huge mismatch. All bill/zimmer had to do was make a small adjustment which would have saved us the game. If Newman was on moss he definitely wouldnt have gotten burned twice, probably not even once.

[Doomsday101]

Ok, imagin if Bledsoe threw an INT. Guess what this board is going to say? Should have played it safe, go for the FG, make it a two score game and let the Incredible D stop them..........when you lose, there's always hindsight.

Exactly and to top it off the TV does not show everything so while people are saying one thing they don't have a clue as to what Bledsoe was seeing. We talked around here last week he has to throw it away when it is not there but now when he does he gets ripped? Bledsoe holds on to the ball to long? He didn't last night yet still completed a high percentage of his passes. I don't think Drew played a perfect game by any means but he played well enough for this team to win but mistakes down the stretch was our down fall

[NorTex]

I fully supported the approach to make sure we came away with 3 points. At 13-0, the way our defense was playing, I would have bet my house that we had that game in the bag.

There was no way in heck they were going to score TWO tds on our defense...sometimes its better to be lucky than good...the skins were lucky!

[Jimz31]

Once again.....

The "play not to lose" philosophy has reared it's ugly head again.

Anybody still want to doubt that we are NOT playing a "Play to win" philosophy?

[btcutter]

Vegas would have given you 20-1 odds that we win at that point. Who wouldn't have taken that bet at that point in time. You got to play the %.

[btcutter]

Once again.....

The "play not to lose" philosophy has reared it's ugly head again.

Anybody still want to doubt that we are NOT playing a "Play to win" philosophy?

that doesn't quite fly. We were winning and we were going to widen the winning margin. what's wrong with that? if the score was 0-0 then yeah, we played not to lose but the fact was we were winning and beating the Sh#! out of their offense for 55+ min.

[Juke99]

the problem with going for a FG is that it's still a two score game...

A TD in that situation ends the game.

[Portland Fanatic]

Once again.....

The "play not to lose" philosophy has reared it's ugly head again.

Anybody still want to doubt that we are NOT playing a "Play to win" philosophy?

Maybe the hiring of Weis as OC would fix that!!!!!!! Better yet...next year as HC, once BP is done.

[Portland Fanatic]

the problem with going for a FG is that it's still a two score game...

A TD in that situation ends the game.

BINGO...........message to Payton!

[CaptainAmerica]

What we did in that situation was the WRONG thing to do. Want proof? Look at the scoreboard. That's not hind-sight, a lot of us felt it when we played for the FG and saw the score at 13-0.

You telling me you don't feel uneasy in the early to mid 4th quarter and your team is up by 6 or 13 points? I do anytime it happens.

I'm not the coach, but I would have been playing to get the TD in that situation, not a lame FG where 2 possessions by the other team can beat you...as it did!

[ddh33]

I wasn't crazy about it, but I also completely understood it. 13 means they have to get two touchdowns. Until then, they hadn't even got one. And they had a limited amount of time. It's just that afterwards, things fell apart. I was much more annoyed by the playcalling after that last fieldgoal.

[Chocolate Lab]

I agree, CaptainAmerica... I'm glad Jimmy Johnson didn't have this philosophy on a muddy field in San Francisco in 1993 when we had a slim lead late in a slightly important game.

[wileedog]

the problem with going for a FG is that it's still a two score game...

A TD in that situation ends the game.

And an INT returned for a TD puts them right back in it.

Again, the Redskins had not only been held without a TD in this game, they hadn't gotten one last game either. THey were 0 for the season in 7.75 quarters. Risking losing points to make it a 2 TD game with 4 mins left is silliy when playing an offense that except for 2 plays and a scramble has looked utterly inept for 2 straight games.

If that's the Colts over there, by all means throw one into the end zone.

But that ain't the Colts over there.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I fully supported the approach to make sure we came away with 3 points. At 13-0, the way our defense was playing, I would have bet my house that we had that game in the bag.

There was no way in heck they were going to score TWO tds on our defense...sometimes its better to be lucky than good...the skins were lucky!

I thought the same thing. We took the ball over at 12:25 to go and kicked the FG at about 5:50. I remember thinking, woohoo, knocked off almost seven minutes and got the points. I thought the game was in the bag.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I agree, CaptainAmerica... I'm glad Jimmy Johnson didn't have this philosophy on a muddy field in San Francisco in 1993 when we had a slim lead late in a slightly important game.

Totally different situation and you know it. In that game, the 49ers had scored 20 points on us already, the Skins had not scored any and not gotten any closer to the endzone than our 28.

[Chocolate Lab]

But the philosophy is the same. Jimmy went for the jugular in a situation when a lot of coaches would have tried to eat some clock and hope the defense holds. And I think Parcells is one of those guys who would have played it safe.

[Juke99]

And an INT returned for a TD puts them right back in it.

Again, the Redskins had not only been held without a TD in this game, they hadn't gotten one last game either. THey were 0 for the season in 7.75 quarters. Risking losing points to make it a 2 TD game with 4 mins left is silliy when playing an offense that except for 2 plays and a scramble has looked utterly inept for 2 straight games.

If that's the Colts over there, by all means throw one into the end zone.

But that ain't the Colts over there.


I thought the idea of having a veteran QB was that they guy would not make a big mistake at a critical time like that.

So now going for more than a FG would have resulted in an INT being returned for a TD.

Whatever...

BTW, what was the final score?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Parcells has two SBs and Johnson has two SBs. Both have been successful albeit in different ways.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

As for the comments that Parcells is too conservative and doesn't go for the jugular, remember he was 77-0 in similar situations in his career. Obviously, what he does is successful.

[Juke99]

Parcells has two SBs and Johnson has two SBs. Both have been successful albeit in different ways.


Vince Lombardi had two also...if he were around today, running the same exact offense as he did back then, his teams would get nowhere...

I'm not knocking the accomplishments of Parcells. I am questioning whether or not his rigid adherence to his game philosophy will work in 2005.

It might.

It might not.

I think last night's game was a case of it not working.

Hell, even that last pass to Glenn, 3 yard route when ya need 4...Either Glenn didn't run the route deep enough (so much for another veteran) or it was an ultra conservative call. Both cases are extensions of the Parcells philosophy.

Honestly, I have no idea what has happened to Parcells. This isn't the gambler I saw while coaching the Giants.

In fact, he isn't anywhere NEAR as creative as he was when he first took over the team in 2003. We were running out of three wide sets...passing on running downs...vice versa...

Julius had NO room to run last night. Why? Because the Skins are a good defensive team BUT also because we did NOTHING, zilch, nada, to stretch the field a bit.

And the one time we did, on the flea flicker, we scored a TD because the Safety bit on the run...as their entire defense did ALL night.

Just crazy to not take a few deep shots.

Ya know, it's almost as if Parcells was so intent on limiting Bledsoe's mistakes that he hurt the game plan because of it.

[wileedog]

I thought the idea of having a veteran QB was that they guy would not make a big mistake at a critical time like that.
Ah, the agenda rears its ugly head.

Drew is the QB for this decision, and Drew has limitations. Ones that have been screamed to the rafters by everyone and their mother and yet can't seem to figure out why Parcells is not throwing downfield more.

So now going for more than a FG would have resulted in an INT being returned for a TD.



No, the most likely outcome of a 3rd and 15 from that distance against a very good blitzing defense was an incompletion or a short dump pass that's gets nothing. There's a chance they get the first, and a slimmer chance they get the TD.

Weighed against that is the good chance that an immobile Bledsoe gets nailed out of FG range, or a lesser chance of a fumble or turnover.

Weighed against all of that is a Redskin offense who hadn't showed they even know which end zone they were supposed to be going for.

Its simple risk reward. You play the percentages of what will most likely result in a win, not some pride driven need to hammer yet another nail in a coffin already 5 feet under and sinking fast.

BTW, what was the final score?
Why don't you ask Roy Williams?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

[QUOTE=Juke99]Hell, even that last pass to Glenn, 3 yard route when ya need 4...Either Glenn didn't run the route deep enough (so much for another veteran) or it was an ultra conservative call. Both cases are extensions of the Parcells philosophy.

QUOTE]

You aren't actually trying to suggest Parcells told Glenn to run a three yard pattern when we needed four are you? Glenn blew it, pure and simple. Personally, I would have preferred a pass play to Johnson because he would have gotten the first but crap happens.

Last year, Parcells was criticized for throwing on 3rd down against the Steelers, this year is he criticized for not throwing.

I know as fans we do nothing but complain, we all think we can do better, know more than those paid to do the job, but in reality, we don't.

[Juke99]

Ah, the agenda rears its ugly head.

Drew is the QB for this decision, and Drew has limitations. Ones that have been screamed to the rafters by everyone and their mother and yet can't seem to figure out why Parcells is not throwing downfield more.



No, the most likely outcome of a 3rd and 15 from that distance against a very good blitzing defense was an incompletion or a short dump pass that's gets nothing. There's a chance they get the first, and a slimmer chance they get the TD.

Weighed against that is the good chance that an immobile Bledsoe gets nailed out of FG range, or a lesser chance of a fumble or turnover.

Weighed against all of that is a Redskin offense who hadn't showed they even know which end zone they were supposed to be going for.

Its simple risk reward. You play the percentages of what will most likely result in a win, not some pride driven need to hammer yet another nail in a coffin already 5 feet under and sinking fast.


Why don't you ask Roy Williams?


Wow, well done Sherlock. Yep, it's an agenda. You figured it out...a veritable mind reader. Do you also pick winning LOTTO numbers?

You cite one play...the 3rd and 15

One of the reasons we lost is because when you dominate a team to the point of "a coffin already 5 feet under and sinking fast" you should score more than 13 points. And the reason why it was only 13 points, is a ridiculously conservative game plan. And the ridiculously conservative game plan would make much more sense if the QB was a rookie.

[CaptainAmerica]

All this about the Skins not doing anything may be accurate, but it ignores the fact that there were several plays during the game when they went down the field that they ALMOST hit. That is what had me uneasy about it, because needing 2 TDs they would be forced to throw deep which we don't do a good job of defensing. We get beat deep often or we commit the INT and give up the cheap yardage. Go back to the Pats game 2 years ago. That is what beat us in that game. Nothing's changed in 2 years.

If I was an offensive coordinator against Zimmer, my game-plan would call for us to take NUMEROUS shots downfield. As soon as Brunell started doing that last night, (which the 13 point deficit demanded he do), he started having success. EXACTLY what I was afraid would happen, based on the history of our D.

That's why I play for the TD and try and put the game away for good. Just a simple understanding of a weakness in my defense.

[Juke99]

[QUOTE=Juke99]Hell, even that last pass to Glenn, 3 yard route when ya need 4...Either Glenn didn't run the route deep enough (so much for another veteran) or it was an ultra conservative call. Both cases are extensions of the Parcells philosophy.

QUOTE]

You aren't actually trying to suggest Parcells told Glenn to run a three yard pattern when we needed four are you? Glenn blew it, pure and simple. Personally, I would have preferred a pass play to Johnson because he would have gotten the first but crap happens.

Last year, Parcells was criticized for throwing on 3rd down against the Steelers, this year is he criticized for not throwing.

I know as fans we do nothing but complain, we all think we can do better, know more than those paid to do the job, but in reality, we don't.


NO...I am not suggesting that at all...

If you go back and read, you'll see what I was trying to say.

I am saying, we have Glenn here as an extension of Parcells philosophy..veterans don't make rookie mistakes...

That was a rookie mistake.

We saw the same thing last year..to the point that Parcells called the team "Stupid"....and that was probably the oldest team in the NFL.

My point is, Parcells philosophy leaves very little margin for error..and even vetarans make mistakes.

In the long run, maybe the philosohpy will work.

I am only using Parcells own barometer. No matter what you've done in the past, at some point you've got to prove you can still get the job done.

[MichaelWinicki]

I agree, CaptainAmerica... I'm glad Jimmy Johnson didn't have this philosophy on a muddy field in San Francisco in 1993 when we had a slim lead late in a slightly important game.


Bill Parcells will never be a "Jimmy Johnson". ;)

[btcutter]

Good job people. Monday morning QBs. If we had won, BP would have been the greatest, Bledsoe a savior, Cortez not so bad, defense a monster, RW a god etc, etc, etc......hindsight is 20-20. Hell, I've put Henry and Newman on Moss if I had known what I know now. Give me a break........Jimmy this , Jimmy that...fact is he's not here and didn't do squat in Miami....he's not God either and he's lost games as well. Just because he had the triplets sure helps alot.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

If this board had existed in 1993, maybe they would have blamed Jimmy for Leon Lett going after the ball after the blocked FG on US Thanksgiving. After all, he put a stupid player out on the field and we had only scored 14 points that day ;)

[Wolverine]

...didn't see this posted but the text below is from Mick's column today. Pretty disgusting to know for a fact that we played for a FG that only made the score 13-0!! I said at the time, I hate a 13 point lead. It is almost a sign that your team is going to fool around and lose by one point. Parcells' conservative, fail to go for the jugglar, style of coaching cost us a chance to put the Skins away last night. :mad:

Here is the text...
************************************************** ********

How about first-and-10 at the Washington 17 early in the fourth quarter? But Larry Allen gets called for holding, and while leading 10-0 and the Redskins showing not one iota of offensive life, the Cowboys decide to run some clock and play for a field goal. So they run Tyson Thompson on three consecutive draws, taking the clock from 8:35 left to play down to 6:39 when Cortez kicked his second field goal, this one 41 yards for a 13-0 lead.
But there is a saying in the NFL, that the more field goals you kick the closer you are to getting beat.
"We were in a good rhythm offensively, and then get that hold, and the way our defense was playing to that point, it was let's not take a chance, run it, kick the field goal and go up two touchdowns," Bledsoe said.
************************************************** ********

Duh..."two touchdowns"!! Maybe they forgot that a team scoring a TD gets to kick an extra point!




Parcells weak play not to lose coaching will never get us to the Super Bowl. It is obvious that Billichek was the real brains behind BPs success.

[Juke99]

If this board had existed in 1993, maybe they would have blamed Jimmy for Leon Lett going after the ball after the blocked FG on US Thanksgiving. After all, he put a stupid player out on the field and we had only scored 14 points that day ;)


Nah...I'd have blamed Johnson for the fact that it snowed... ;)

[peplaw06]

What do you guys think playing for the FG on 3rd and 15 says to the Redskins?? It's like putting up bulletin board quotes... "You can't score two TDs."

[Jimz31]

WHENEVER you have the QB admitting that they were playing for the FG, you have problems.

What was Aikman's philosophy on FG's? That it was that you were one step closer to getting beat.

Argue with him all that you want....you saw that he was indeed correct last night.

Play to win is the ONLY way to play....otherwise, don't play.

[Cowchips]

You ALWAYS go for the touchdown...if you fail, THEN you put up 3. We were playing to only put up 3...that's BS!

That was not Bledsoe's decision, it came from the sidelines. I agree, I thought it was stupid to run on 3rd and forever. Especially with the horrific performance put in by Julius Jones. Not sure what's wrong with that boy but I say bench him if he can't contribute.

[irishwaste]

Last night brought back memories of some of the Campo teams, where all we did was kick field goals and run.


Well, our D played good for 3 3/4 quarters at least.

[Juke99]

WHENEVER you have the QB admitting that they were playing for the FG, you have problems.

What was Aikman's philosophy on FG's? That it was that you were one step closer to getting beat.

Argue with him all that you want....you saw that he was indeed correct last night.

Play to win is the ONLY way to play....otherwise, don't play.


Short..to the point...and correct.

Look at the playoffs last year...how was it that the Chargers exited? How was it that the Jets exited?

Both played for a FG at the end of the game...

Bad idea...

AND given that our FG kicker isn't a sure thing...it's even more questionable...

[wileedog]

Wow, well done Sherlock. Yep, it's an agenda. You figured it out...a veritable mind reader. Do you also pick winning LOTTO numbers?

You cite one play...the 3rd and 15

One of the reasons we lost is because when you dominate a team to the point of "a coffin already 5 feet under and sinking fast" you should score more than 13 points. And the reason why it was only 13 points, is a ridiculously conservative game plan. And the ridiculously conservative game plan would make much more sense if the QB was a rookie.

Not that playing against a top 3, blitz happy defense has anything to do with it. Nor having a rookie 6th round pick RT. Nor a QB which everyone and their mother agrees is immobile and holds the ball too long. Nor playing against an anemic offense.

No, its all about not playing a rookie QB.

And BTW, 8, 13, 41, 48, 60, 76..... ;)

[Juke99]

Not that playing against a top 3, blitz happy defense has anything to do with it. Nor having a rookie 6th round pick RT. Nor a QB which everyone and their mother agrees is immobile and holds the ball too long. Nor playing against an anemic offense.

No, its all about not playing a rookie QB.

And BTW, 8, 13, 41, 48, 60, 76..... ;)


They didn't blitz.

Where did I say it was about not playing a rookie QB?

I said, we game planned as if we had a rookie QB playing.

I understand the leash on Bledsoe should be short but for crying out loud, this was ridiculous.

Uh, I promise, if I win...I'll let ya know and I'll share the winnings with ya... :liarliar:

[wileedog]

They didn't blitz.
Which, thankfully, Gibbs sent a note over beforehand and told us he wasn't going to do.

Where did I say it was about not playing a rookie QB?

I said, we game planned as if we had a rookie QB playing.

I understand the leash on Bledsoe should be short but for crying out loud, this was ridiculous.
And we were winning 13-0 before Roy forgot he was a safety not a LB. WHat more do you want?

The gameplan worked. We scored enough to win. We limited mistakes. We didn't let the the really talented, good Redskins on defense beat us and we put the game in the hands of not quite as talented Redskins on offense.

Brunell threw the two best passes he's thrown in probably 4 years, and the rest is history. That doesn't invalidate the strategy.

The 'short leash' still racked up 261 yards passing on a very good defense, and held the ball for 32 minutes. We passed more than we ran. We had several open receivers missed and a key completion called back by a penalty.

This was about execution, not gameplan.

[Juke99]

Which, thankfully, Gibbs sent a note over beforehand and told us he wasn't going to do.


And we were winning 13-0 before Roy forgot he was a safety not a LB. WHat more do you want?

The gameplan worked. We scored enough to win. We limited mistakes. We didn't let the the really talented, good Redskins on defense beat us and we put the game in the hands of not quite as talented Redskins on offense.

Brunell threw the two best passes he's thrown in probably 4 years, and the rest is history. That doesn't invalidate the strategy.

The 'short leash' still racked up 261 yards passing on a very good defense, and held the ball for 32 minutes. We passed more than we ran. We had several open receivers missed and a key completion called back by a penalty.

This was about execution, not gameplan.


We scored enough to win?

If we scored enough to win, then I guess the NFL will change our record to 2-0.

I feel better now.

We're satisfied with an offensive outburst of 13 points.

We won for 55 minutes. A game plan and philosophy that requires perfect execution for 60 minutes, IMO, ain't a good game plan.

Parcells strategy would be great...if this was 1970 and we played in the NFC Central Division.

He was SO much more creative with QC in the first half of 2003 that this almost boggles the mind. Compared to what he did with Ray Lucas when Testaverde went down, this boggles the mind.

That game plan last night was horrendous.

Dominate for 55 minutes and score 13 points.

Something is very wrong there.

[Juke99]

By request:

I think the framework...the philosophy, stinks.

Play mistake free football...that's the mantra.

So, we bring in a mistake prone QB who we game plan around NOT to make mistakes. But in order to accomplish this, the game plan is so conservative, that it's self defeating. I don't like Bledsoe's game BUT I think he's a hell of a lot better than what Parcells is doing with him.

We also bring in vets who do things like run 3 yard routes on 4th and 4.

Plus in NFL 2005....you can play mistake free football for oh, 55 minutes and still lose.

The Skins made three plays last night...the Brunnel run...the two bombs...and they won.

The philosophy stinks...it's suited for the 1970's NFC Central Division.

[Hostile]

By request:

I think the framework...the philosophy, stinks.

Play mistake free football...that's the mantra.

So, we bring in a mistake prone QB who we game plan around NOT to make mistakes. But in order to accomplish this, the game plan is so conservative, that it's self defeating. I don't like Bledsoe's game BUT I think he's a hell of a lot better than what Parcells is doing with him.

We also bring in vets who do things like run 3 yard routes on 4th and 4.

Plus in NFL 2005....you can play mistake free football for oh, 55 minutes and still lose.

The Skins made three plays last night...the Brunnel run...the two bombs...and they won.

The philosophy stinks...it's suited for the 1970's NFC Central Division.Post of the day.

[Juke99]

Post of the day.


You take your Nyquil on the rocks or straight up?

:)

[wileedog]

We scored enough to win?

If we scored enough to win, then I guess the NFL will change our record to 2-0.

I feel better now.

We're satisfied with an offensive outburst of 13 points.

We won for 55 minutes. A game plan and philosophy that requires perfect execution for 60 minutes, IMO, ain't a good game plan.

Parcells strategy would be great...if this was 1970 and we played in the NFC Central Division.

He was SO much more creative with QC in the first half of 2003 that this almost boggles the mind. Compared to what he did with Ray Lucas when Testaverde went down, this boggles the mind.

That game plan last night was horrendous.

Dominate for 55 minutes and score 13 points.

Something is very wrong there.


Who said ANYWHERE that we dominated offensively?

[LaTunaNostra]

So, we bring in a mistake prone QB who we game plan around NOT to make mistakes. But in order to accomplish this, the game plan is so conservative, that it's self defeating. I don't like Bledsoe's game BUT I think he's a hell of a lot better than what Parcells is doing with him.

I agree. Madden and Michaels were going on and on about the excellent playcalling but I just couldn't see it. Realizing facing Greg Williams' D mandates care with the blitz and max protect, and the always present goal of keeping the QB out of third and long, the calls from the get-go seemed not just overly conservative in the ball control sense, (I felt the 100 degree heat was something Bill was trying to keep his D out of as much as possible..yet another factor contributing to the slow grind), but stultifyingly boring.

The retraining of Bledsoe IS necessary, but I too feel it may be robbing him of his greatest strengths. Those bottom-up reads make sense for a guy who is vulnerable up the middle and needs to get the ball out faster, but he seems to be looking short to the exclusion of long more than desirable. Hard to see who's open from the living room, tho.

We also bring in vets who do things like run 3 yard routes on 4th and 4.

I don't think that's fair, Juke. Terry is known as one of the most intelligent route runners in the league, and he is also known for his canny adjustment on routes. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran that route exactly as designed, but something went amiss in the entire pattern or the coverage forced him shallower. I need to watch it again and see what happened. Anyway, if Jason was open as some folks have claimed, that may be an example of the downside of that Bledsoe 'retrain'.
[/QUOTE]

[Juke99]

One other question...

Why, if getting that FG that put us up 13-0 was so important that we ignored trying for more, did we have Tyson Thompson ...an undrafted rookie who had never carried the ball before in an NFL game as our HB while Julius sat on the bench?

Parcells wants to rest Julius this year...

So he rests him at the 8 minute mark in the fourth quarter of a 10-0 game?

That my friends, was over confidence speaking. I think the entire team, Parcells included, took for granted that the game was in the bag. So much so, that Parcells had Thompson in the game.

If the game, in Parcells' mind, was truly on the line...do you think Julius would be on the bench while Thompson played? A Train, on the bench?

Crazy.

[Juke99]

Who said ANYWHERE that we dominated offensively?


I dunno...who said it?

I didn't

Wanna go back and read what I wrote rather than read INTO what I wrote.

I said we dominated for 55 minutes...and scored 13 points. The defense dominated as well...which should help the offense.

The point was, we controlled a game, handily for 55 minutes and lost.

[Dale]

Dominate for 55 minutes and score 13 points.

I think that's part of the problem with last night's game. We never really were dominating the game. We most definitely were dominating the tone and tempo, but neither team was really doing much. We were just doing slightly more. Take away one trick play and we had six points on the board. I realize you can't just take away the trick play -- that it was part of our game plan, our playcalling, etc...but I hope my point isn't lost because of that.

And I think you raised an interesting point in your other post. Parcells, with Thompson in there late in the game, looked like a coach who indeed thought his team was dominating...when we really weren't.

[Juke99]

I agree. Madden and Michaels were going on and on about the excellent playcalling but I just couldn't see it. Realizing facing Greg Williams' D mandates care with the blitz and max protect, and the always present goal of keeping the QB out of third and long, the calls from the get-go seemed not just overly conservative in the ball control sense, (I felt the 100 degree heat was something Bill was trying to keep his D out of as much as possible..yet another factor contributing to the slow grind), but stultifyingly boring.

The retraining of Bledsoe IS necessary, but I too feel it may be robbing him of his greatest strengths. Those bottom-up reads make sense for a guy who is vulnerable up the middle and needs to get the ball out faster, but he seems to be looking short to the exclusion of long more than desirable. Hard to see who's open from the living room, tho.



I don't think that's fair, Juke. Terry is known as one of the most intelligent route runners in the league, and he is also known for his canny adjustment on routes. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran that route exactly as designed, but something went amiss in the entire pattern or the coverage forced him shallower. I need to watch it again and see what happened. Anyway, if Jason was open as some folks have claimed, that may be an example of the downside of that Bledsoe 'retrain'.
[/QUOTE]


LTN...My point about Terry's route is that even a PRO like Terry will make a mistake, if that's what it was...

We can't rely on perfect games.

Parcells goes into every press conference and says stuff like "We made 14 errors today"...well yeah, it's gonna happen..Keyshawn does it all the time...so will Bledsoe...Richie Anderson did it...they all do.

If winning is predicated on better execution than what we showed for 55 minutes, we're in trouble.

Teams don't play perfect ball games...and play makers are the equalizer to mistakes...

That roster last year was Bill's. It was, in his eyes, the quintessential veteran team...and they still made mistakes..to the point that he called them "stupid"...AND there were no play makers to help offset the mistakes.

This year, we have them...we and still, we're playing Mary Schottenheimer football...

As much as I've followed Parcells, I'm sure you know more about him.

Do you EVER recall him being this conservative? It's as if he's become a caricature of himself these past two seasons.

[Hostile]

You take your Nyquil on the rocks or straight up?

:)Straight up.

[Juke99]

I think that's part of the problem with last night's game. We never really were dominating the game. We most definitely were dominating the tone and tempo, but neither team was really doing much. We were just doing slightly more. Take away one trick play and we had six points on the board. I realize you can't just take away the trick play -- that it was part of our game plan, our playcalling, etc...but I hope my point isn't lost because of that.

And I think you raised an interesting point in your other post. Parcells, with Thompson in there late in the game, looked like a coach who indeed thought his team was dominating...when we really weren't.


Dale...until the last few minutes, they hadn't even been inside of our 25 yard line.

And yeah, the Thompson thing blew me away...

Reshard Lee rarely saw the field last year..rightly so..

Thompson was off the roster last week because of mental mistakes he made in the return game...

And there he is, late fourth quarter, out on the field getting his first NFL experience.

That screams about Parcells' mindset at that moment.

[wileedog]

I dunno...who said it?

I didn't

Wanna go back and read what I wrote rather than read INTO what I wrote.

I said we dominated for 55 minutes...and scored 13 points. The defense dominated as well...which should help the offense.

The point was, we controlled a game, handily for 55 minutes and lost.

Because on two plays the secondary blew their coverage, which is my whole point.

You wanna place blame, it goes squarely on the shoulders of the guy whose only job at that point in the game was not to let Santana Moss run by him, and he did it twice in the last 4 minutes of the game.

There's plenty of other blame to go around, but I don't think that 'opening up' a game plan and exposing said 'mistake prone' QB to, well, more mistakes was necessarily the answer, especially when the Redskins hadn't moved the ball worth a damn all night.

I can name you at least 6 makeable plays that should have been made that would have without a doubt iced the game. The team was in a position to win and failed to execute. Period. ANd when all is said and done, that is a coach's job. Put the team in a position to win.

The team was up by (almost) 2 touchdowns with 5 minutes to play. At that point it was about execution, not some mysteriously conservative game plan that included Terry Glenn getting 157 yards recieving, a 36:29 pass:run ratio, 7.3 YPA on passing, a flea-flicker (which somehow gets interpreted as a 'conservative' play around here) and a several missed plays and penalties that would have bumped the stats even further and put the game away.

The coaching staff, for the most part, did its job. The team was in a position to win. The players didn't execute.

But by all means keep spinning this as all Bill's fault. Because I'm just as sure that if we had followed your advice and Bill had opened the game up and Drew had been sacked multiple times, thrown INTs, fumbled, etc you would all be ripping Bill up for bringing Drew here in the first place. Its a nice no-lose argument for you guys.

THis isn't Drew's fault. Its not Payton fault (I doubt he called the run on 3rd down before the FG anyway), its somewhat Zimmer's fault, its somewhat Bill's fault. BUt the vast majority of the blame goes to the guys on the field who were put in a position to make plays and didn't do it.

[Dale]

Dale...until the last few minutes, they hadn't even been inside of our 25 yard line.

And yeah, the Thompson thing blew me away...

Reshard Lee rarely saw the field last year..rightly so..

Thompson was off the roster last week because of mental mistakes he made in the return game...

And there he is, late fourth quarter, out on the field getting his first NFL experience.

That screams about Parcells' mindset at that moment.

Defensively, I'd agree, we verged on dominant. I guess, though, I was looking at things from the perspective that with a young defense, you just never know. Things can turn on a dime. You don't think you'll give up two quick scores like that, but I certainly wasn't banking on a shutout -- especially after Brunell picked up that long gain.

I think what was so frustrating about that game was that we SHOULD have been dominating. We set the tone. We set the pace. We won the turnover battle. We won the time of possession battle. We ran the ball better. Up until the last few minutes, we passed the ball better. They couldn't move the ball.

...And we had 13 points to show for it. We were dominating on everything but the most important area, the scoreboard. And it came back to bite us.

[DLCassidy]

Because on two plays the secondary blew their coverage, which is my whole point.

You wanna place blame, it goes squarely on the shoulders of the guy whose only job at that point in the game was not to let Santana Moss run by him, and he did it twice in the last 4 minutes of the game.

There's plenty of other blame to go around, but I don't think that 'opening up' a game plan and exposing said 'mistake prone' QB to, well, more mistakes was necessarily the answer, especially when the Redskins hadn't moved the ball worth a damn all night.

I can name you at least 6 makeable plays that should have been made that would have without a doubt iced the game. The team was in a position to win and failed to execute. Period. ANd when all is said and done, that is a coach's job. Put the team in a position to win.

The team was up by (almost) 2 touchdowns with 5 minutes to play. At that point it was about execution, not some mysteriously conservative game plan that included Terry Glenn getting 157 yards recieving, a 36:29 pass:run ratio, 7.3 YPA on passing, a flea-flicker (which somehow gets interpreted as a 'conservative' play around here) and a several missed plays and penalties that would have bumped the stats even further and put the game away.

The coaching staff, for the most part, did its job. The team was in a position to win. The players didn't execute.

But by all means keep spinning this as all Bill's fault. Because I'm just as sure that if we had followed your advice and Bill had opened the game up and Drew had been sacked multiple times, thrown INTs, fumbled, etc you would all be ripping Bill up for bringing Drew here in the first place. Its a nice no-lose argument for you guys.

THis isn't Drew's fault. Its not Payton fault (I doubt he called the run on 3rd down before the FG anyway), its somewhat Zimmer's fault, its somewhat Bill's fault. BUt the vast majority of the blame goes to the guys on the field who were put in a position to make plays and didn't do it.

Nice post.

[Juke99]

Because on two plays the secondary blew their coverage, which is my whole point.

You wanna place blame, it goes squarely on the shoulders of the guy whose only job at that point in the game was not to let Santana Moss run by him, and he did it twice in the last 4 minutes of the game.

There's plenty of other blame to go around, but I don't think that 'opening up' a game plan and exposing said 'mistake prone' QB to, well, more mistakes was necessarily the answer, especially when the Redskins hadn't moved the ball worth a damn all night.

I can name you at least 6 makeable plays that should have been made that would have without a doubt iced the game. The team was in a position to win and failed to execute. Period. ANd when all is said and done, that is a coach's job. Put the team in a position to win.

The team was up by (almost) 2 touchdowns with 5 minutes to play. At that point it was about execution, not some mysteriously conservative game plan that included Terry Glenn getting 157 yards recieving, a 36:29 pass:run ratio, 7.3 YPA on passing, a flea-flicker (which somehow gets interpreted as a 'conservative' play around here) and a several missed plays and penalties that would have bumped the stats even further and put the game away.

The coaching staff, for the most part, did its job. The team was in a position to win. The players didn't execute.

But by all means keep spinning this as all Bill's fault. Because I'm just as sure that if we had followed your advice and Bill had opened the game up and Drew had been sacked multiple times, thrown INTs, fumbled, etc you would all be ripping Bill up for bringing Drew here in the first place. Its a nice no-lose argument for you guys.

THis isn't Drew's fault. Its not Payton fault (I doubt he called the run on 3rd down before the FG anyway), its somewhat Zimmer's fault, its somewhat Bill's fault. BUt the vast majority of the blame goes to the guys on the field who were put in a position to make plays and didn't do it.


I like your LOTTO picks better.

We simply don't agree.

I see it as exactly the opposite.

I see a team that played a far too conservative game...

I see a coach playing for a 41 yd FG toward the end of the game...which is the exact distance Cortez missed from earlier in the game...

I see Thompson in the game at the 8 minute mark in the 4th quarter. I have no idea why. And what do we do with him? Run him inside on three plays. What's his strength? He's possibly the fastest guy on the team.

Etc etc etc...

My point is, the game was called SO close to the vest, that we should NEVER have been in the postion we were at the end.

Did we blow the coverage on those plays? You bet.

But it should never have come down to what it did.

Finally, my point is about constructing a game plan that is SO close to the vest that we could control the game for 55 minutes and lose on, essentially 3 big plays at the end.

When playing so conservatively, there's no margin for error. It's as if the game has to be played perfectly for a win. And btw, that includes the officials. And those two holding calls on Flozell, especially the last one, were awful.

Whatever...

I understand your point, which is well stated.

I simply don't agree.

[LaTunaNostra]

Do you EVER recall him being this conservative? It's as if he's become a caricature of himself these past two seasons.

In some ways he seems like the same old, same old. Control freak. :eek:

But imo there has been much less trust here of his staff, and that plays itself out down to the players.

The extent of the straight jacketing of quarterbacks has surprised me. In the past he seemed more willing to take the bad if the good offset it. It's always a balancing act, but in Dallas it's always felt to me like too much distrust..and I lay that on Bill's relations with his staff more than anything. It's way early to say for sure, but it seems to me Tuna trusted a Dan Henning to do a whole lot more with a Ray Lucas than he seems to trust a Sean Payton to do with a Drew Bledsoe.

Sure, it makes much sense you would straight jacket a Quincy Carter because impulse decisions were his Waterloo, and we all know what Drew's flaws are by now. But I am getting the same feeling this year I had in 03, and that was that by trying to ensure a QB would not lose you a game, you managed to let him lose one.

But then again, Bill's mistrust is continually renewed..in the absence of Jones and then Glenn last year, trying to allow his QB to make something happen, Bill gave too long a leash to Vinny.

And look what he got for it. Mega mistakes.

It's all about Bill's comfort zone with his staff, I think, more than with his players, for whom it trickles down. He will never have the familiarity with this new staff he had with his old one. And that has increased the control, imo.

[Juke99]

LTN..fyi...

On the pass to Glenn.

The DB is 7 yards off..Glenn breaks into his cut after 2 yards...2 1/2 max...the DB was still a good 5 yards away and in a slight back pedal after the first step or two...

Crazy route.

[InmanRoshi]

Because on two plays the secondary blew their coverage, which is my whole point.

You wanna place blame, it goes squarely on the shoulders of the guy whose only job at that point in the game was not to let Santana Moss run by him, and he did it twice in the last 4 minutes of the game.

There's plenty of other blame to go around, but I don't think that 'opening up' a game plan and exposing said 'mistake prone' QB to, well, more mistakes was necessarily the answer, especially when the Redskins hadn't moved the ball worth a damn all night.

I can name you at least 6 makeable plays that should have been made that would have without a doubt iced the game. The team was in a position to win and failed to execute. Period. ANd when all is said and done, that is a coach's job. Put the team in a position to win.

The team was up by (almost) 2 touchdowns with 5 minutes to play. At that point it was about execution, not some mysteriously conservative game plan that included Terry Glenn getting 157 yards recieving, a 36:29 pass:run ratio, 7.3 YPA on passing, a flea-flicker (which somehow gets interpreted as a 'conservative' play around here) and a several missed plays and penalties that would have bumped the stats even further and put the game away.

The coaching staff, for the most part, did its job. The team was in a position to win. The players didn't execute.

But by all means keep spinning this as all Bill's fault. Because I'm just as sure that if we had followed your advice and Bill had opened the game up and Drew had been sacked multiple times, thrown INTs, fumbled, etc you would all be ripping Bill up for bringing Drew here in the first place. Its a nice no-lose argument for you guys.

THis isn't Drew's fault. Its not Payton fault (I doubt he called the run on 3rd down before the FG anyway), its somewhat Zimmer's fault, its somewhat Bill's fault. BUt the vast majority of the blame goes to the guys on the field who were put in a position to make plays and didn't do it.

Pretty much said all there needs to be said. The "architecture" that Parcells is using is a proven one. Its been proven over and over and over again. Its the same one the Steelers are currently using, and they look like the most dominating team in the NFL at this point in the early season.

Parcells put the players in position to win, and they choked it away. A few key players in particular who are too experienced and too well paid to be choking.

[Nors]

I really thought the gameplan was solid till the 4th. Then we got goofy trying to run clock out. Penalties hurt as well - particularly Oline.....

I thought fact Bledsoe had no sacks or Inters was excellent. We were +2 on turnovers. No way we should have lost that one.

Roy can't be in center field in prevent. We MUST address and spend $ on Safety depth.

[wileedog]

I like your LOTTO picks better.

We simply don't agree.

I see it as exactly the opposite.

I see a team that played a far too conservative game...

I see a coach playing for a 41 yd FG toward the end of the game...which is the exact distance Cortez missed from earlier in the game...

I see Thompson in the game at the 8 minute mark in the 4th quarter. I have no idea why. And what do we do with him? Run him inside on three plays. What's his strength? He's possibly the fastest guy on the team.

Etc etc etc...

My point is, the game was called SO close to the vest, that we should NEVER have been in the postion we were at the end.

Did we blow the coverage on those plays? You bet.

But it should never have come down to what it did.

Finally, my point is about constructing a game plan that is SO close to the vest that we could control the game for 55 minutes and lose on, essentially 3 big plays at the end.

When playing so conservatively, there's no margin for error. It's as if the game has to be played perfectly for a win. And btw, that includes the officials. And those two holding calls on Flozell, especially the last one, were awful.

Whatever...

I understand your point, which is well stated.

I simply don't agree.

Actually I thought the first Flozell call was worse, but now I'm just arguing with you for the sake of arguing with you :)

For the record I understand your points too, and as I've said if it were a better offensive team on the other side I would be with you on it all the way.

But hell, I didn't even think Brunell could throw that far anymore....

Neither did Roy probably.

:cool:

[Juke99]

In some ways he seems like the same old, same old. Control freak. :eek:

But imo there has been much less trust here of his staff, and that plays itself out down to the players.

The extent of the straight jacketing of quarterbacks has surprised me. In the past he seemed more willing to take the bad if the good offset it. It's always a balancing act, but in Dallas it's always felt to me like too much distrust..and I lay that on Bill's relations with his staff more than anything. It's way early to say for sure, but it seems to me Tuna trusted a Dan Henning to do a whole lot more with a Ray Lucas than he seems to trust a Sean Payton to do with a Drew Bledsoe.

Sure, it makes much sense you would straight jacket a Quincy Carter because impulse decisions were his Waterloo, and we all know what Drew's flaws are by now. But I am getting the same feeling this year I had in 03, and that was that by trying to ensure a QB would not lose you a game, you managed to let him lose one.

But then again, Bill's mistrust is continually renewed..in the absence of Jones and then Glenn last year, trying to allow his QB to make something happen, Bill gave too long a leash to Vinny.

And look what he got for it. Mega mistakes.

It's all about Bill's comfort zone with his staff, I think, more than with his players, for whom it trickles down. He will never have the familiarity with this new staff he had with his old one. And that has increased the control, imo.

Well said Musie.

In fact, early in 2003, he was pretty creative with QC. I'm just surprised with what I'm seeing.

He's always been a bit of a gambler.

I was at the Monday night Giant game in 2003..I was with a die hard Giant fan, who commented "You are going to feel Parcells' presence in this game" and he was dead accurate about that. The play calling was tremendous that night.

[InmanRoshi]

I really thought the gameplan was solid till the 4th. Then we got goofy trying to run clock out. Penalties hurt as well - particularly Oline.....

I thought fact Bledsoe had no sacks or Inters was excellent. We were +2 on turnovers. No way we should have lost that one.

Roy can't be in center field in prevent. We MUST address and spend $ on Safety depth.

Roy wasn't in centerfield. He was playing a deep half of a 2 deep zone, which every safety in the NFL is askedto do. If he can't do that, then he needs to be moved to linebacker or removed from the field in nickel situations, because it really is the lowest common denominator for what teams need out of a safety in coverage.

[Juke99]

Actually I thought the first Flozell call was worse, but now I'm just arguing with you for the sake of arguing with you :)

For the record I understand your points too, and as I've said if it were a better offensive team on the other side I would be with you on it all the way.

But hell, I didn't even think Brunell could throw that far anymore....

Neither did Roy probably.

:cool:


:p:

I was surprised, early in the game to see that he still had that kinda zip on his passes.

I don't know who he faked out on that run but he was moving about as slow as a turtle..one of the LB"s wiffed on him...that shocked me too.

The Flozell calls were pretty awful. But he's a penalty machine.

Time to move on to SF, I guess.

Thanks for an inspired debate...I usually don't get into these on the forum any more.

:)

[MichaelWinicki]

I really thought the gameplan was solid till the 4th. Then we got goofy trying to run clock out. Penalties hurt as well - particularly Oline.....

I thought fact Bledsoe had no sacks or Inters was excellent. We were +2 on turnovers. No way we should have lost that one.

Roy can't be in center field in prevent. We MUST address and spend $ on Safety depth.


Nors last night was the epitome of a "Drew Bledsoe" game that I've witnesses the last 3 years. Yes, it was a little "cleaner" but there we were exchanging FG's for TD's, which is vintage Bledsoe and when the chips were down and your man had the opportunity to become a "legend" in only his 2nd game as the starting QB for the Dallas Cowboys, he came up....



"small."

[Juke99]

Roy wasn't in centerfield. He was playing a deep half of a 2 deep zone, which every safety in the NFL is askedto do. If he can't do that, then he needs to be moved to linebacker or removed from the field in nickel situations, because it really is the lowest common denominator for what teams need out of a safety in coverage.


Yep...if you watch the replay...the aerial shot shows it best...he was in his backpedal from the snap, made his turn at around the right time...maybe a bit stiff in the hips...and Moss just blew right past him. IMO, he's always been an average guy in pass coverage.

[InmanRoshi]

Out of the 7 teams with 2-0 records, 5 of them have less pass attempts at this point than the Cowboys. Teams that are winning don't "open things up". Teams that are losing and have to catch up do. That isn't Bill Parcells, that's the NFL.

Sean Payton didn't call the game any differently than Jon Gruden did when he was leading Buffalo by 13 the 4th quarter on Sunday. Griese had less pass attempts than Bledsoe, and Cadillac had more rushes than Julius. Tampa's defense didn't choke two touchdowns late, so no one is complaing about Gruden playing too conservative.

[Juke99]

Ya know, sports is a funny thing.

Only in sports can we engage in conjecture about whether or not a game plan was too conservative...or whether or not a certain cricital play call was the correct one...when we have the results, right in front of us, in black and white which tells us if it was the right decision or not.

Gruden called a conservative game; they won. Right decision.

Payton called a conservative game; they lost. Wrong decision.

I'm writing this half kiddingly...but really, that's the ultimate barometer.

[silver]

we let them off the hook with those conservative calls. you play to win. that's all i know. that was a chicken chiet call on 3rd and 10. we also need another kicker. why we wouldn't kick a field goal at the half? we don't trust cortez that's why.

[CaptainAmerica]

Good discussion here guys and gals. I've enjoyed this thread and all your input on what was truly a heart-rending loss for such a huge Monday night stage.

Going back a few pages to some of the comments about whether we were dominating the game, I'll use a Parcells boxing match metaphor...

I had the feeling all night we were ahead in the fight on all the cards. Out of the first 11 rounds we had it something like 8 rounds to 3, maybe 9 rounds to 2.
But, and this is a big one, no one had been knocked down and we needed to finish it off. Then we go into the 12th round overconfident that all we have to do is finish the fight and the Skins, not really known for being a knockout fighter, but knowing they need the knockout to win, start swinging for the knockout and BOOM! Two punches out of nowhere land flush on our chins and the Skins walk out of the ring with the belt.

Sickening, truly sickening!

[LPW]

Terry is known as one of the most intelligent route runners in the league, and he is also known for his canny adjustment on routes. I wouldn't be surprised if he ran that route exactly as designed, but something went amiss in the entire pattern or the coverage forced him shallower.
[/QUOTE]

On the radio locker room interview with Terry Glenn, he said that the play was designed to be "sort of pick play" and that the defenders didn't allow it to develop. The failure of this play was mainly due to good coverage by the defense rather than by poor route running.

[LPW]

That was not Bledsoe's decision, it came from the sidelines. I agree, I thought it was stupid to run on 3rd and forever. Especially with the horrific performance put in by Julius Jones. Not sure what's wrong with that boy but I say bench him if he can't contribute.

Julius Jones currently ranks third in rushing in the NFC with 152 yards despite facing two very good rushing defenses. Yea, let's bench him. I think THam is still available if we need an "upgrade". :eek:

[InmanRoshi]

Ya know, sports is a funny thing.

Only in sports can we engage in conjecture about whether or not a game plan was too conservative...or whether or not a certain cricital play call was the correct one...when we have the results, right in front of us, in black and white which tells us if it was the right decision or not.

Gruden called a conservative game; they won. Right decision.

Payton called a conservative game; they lost. Wrong decision.

I'm writing this half kiddingly...but really, that's the ultimate barometer.
We actually played more conservative against San Diego by any measure, but because Aaron Glenn made a play at the end of the game everyone swears we were attacking and aggressive. Aaron Glenn and Roy give up two big plays at the end of this game, and fans swear we were too conservative even though we were much more aggressive on both sides of the ball than we were the week before.

I've yet to see one a fan complain on a messageboard that their team was too aggressive in a loss. Its always too conservative. Even when the team is actually too aggressive and reckless for its own good, the fans will still swear up and down that the team was too conservative.

[Kilyin]

Aside from the Flea flicker I thought the offense was extremely conservative.

[Jimz31]

I've yet to see one a fan complain on a messageboard that their team was too aggressive in a loss. Its always too conservative. Even when the team is actually too aggressive and reckless for its own good, the fans will still swear up and down that the team was too conservative.

Been to a Rams board in the past couple of years?

[InmanRoshi]

The aside from the flea flicker, the longest conventional pass play of the night came 10:30 in the 4th quarter with the Cowboys up 10-0 when Bledsoe hit Glenn down the sideline for 45 yards.

No one ever seems to bring that up.


The Cowboys got another first down and had the ball at the 17 yard line when Larry Allen was called for holding. Ended the drive, had to settle for a field goal.

Another example of how the game could have been iced away if it weren't for a well paid, much hooplad, veteran player choking in the clutch. One example of about 20 where the coaches put the players in position to win, and the players choked it away. Some of our most veteran, well paid and much balleyhooed players at that.

[Derinyar]

The problem is everyone is calling for a more aggressive approach on 1st and 20 deep in opponents territory in a game that has been rather one sided. Yes the stars alligned and the defensive scheme totally collapsed, but I can also understand not trying your luck with the half of the Washington team thats above average and make the half that isn't beat you. They then beat us, thats our fault, but not necessarily the fault of the offense/play calling.

And frankly in this league right now more games are won by playing not to lose then by playing to win. Play a good clean game and wait for the opponents to make the mistake to give you the game. The talent level of teams are too close, from top to bottom, to over come an aggressive but mistake filled game too often. If we had a stronger offensive unit, then go for it more. Right now when our starting WR's are other teams castoffs, and older to boot, and the same can be said for our RB, this is not the time to change what got you to a 10 point lead with 6 minutes left in the game.