Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by igtmfo, Sep 4, 2013.
I agree with this
So he cost us the game because he let Romo keep passing, then your claiming in the next instance he should not be running but passing and put the outcome back in Romos hands - after he took all the heat for losing the game to detroit for doing that. I cant agree with that.
How about putting some accountability on Tony or the other players.
The Arizona game could be put on coaching with that FG. I do think it was reported that the ST coach was yelling for TO in that case.
I agree that Belichek generally puts his team in a position to win ballgames, but I have seen a few chinks in his armor the last couple of years. Then again, no one is perfect.
The fidifference is those players overall track record porove their greatness, while Jason Garrett's track record proves a coach that can't get talent to win.
Apples and oranges. It's up to the coach to use the tools he has in the right situations and use them properly.
As for Arizona, he called the timeout. It's on him.
The timeout didn't lose us that game. It's on the kicker to make his kicks.
And nobody wants a HC who doesn't listen to his ST coach in a situation like this. The guy had to call the timeout in that circumstance. Where I blame Garrett is in mismanaging the clock on that drive in the first place. We wasted time for at least another play on that drive, and that might have been the difference between making and missing that kick. That's the job of the OC in that situation, and Garrett was the OC. His players were moving the ball effectively, and he didn't use his time well.
The kicker made his kick, he isn't expected to make it two times in a row.
I blame him for quite a bit in that arizona game. Fact is we shouldn't have lost that game, and it was most certainly on him.
You can make whatever excuses for him that you want, but it won't change that.
You can't have your head coach lose you games and expect to make the playoffs, not in a competitive division.
If you can't expect your kicker to make a kick twice.... then its time to go looking for a new kicker.
I've already said, many times, actually, that I think Garret blew that game.
You still expect your kicker to make his makable kicks. I don't give him a pass just because the first one was called by a timeout.
The one call that still blows my mind was the bungling of the field goal try against AZ
How so? It wasn't even a bungle. His ST coordinator wanted a timeout, and he called one. That's what almost every HC in the league would do under those circumstances.
I think fans are just mad about the outcome in that case.
Like the NO DANNY NO...incident...Landry said he forgot what down it was...
was it that game or another...
Not the timeout, the going for the FG when we still had a down left to get closer and give us a better chance of making the FG when attempted. It's not like we were on 5 yard line.
Yeah. I agree. That was stupid.
And then he does the exact same thing the next year in Baltimore, purposely settling for a 50 yard FG -- this time in a swirling wind -- with almost a minute left and timeouts to get closer. Un-freaking-believable.
If a kicker is so mentally weak that he can be "froze", then you have the wrong kicker. Freezing a kicker is a fallacy. Stats show that most of the time that it is tried, it does not work.
If you think it's easy to kick back to back 49 yard field goals... you're out of your mind. Why don't you check the statistics on field goals from 49 yards out... It's not just about the mentality and pressure, just physically making both field goals... unlikely.
Well, that statement makes more sense than the "he froze the kicker" statement does. At least you are discussing odds instead of a fallacy.
I never said it was easy to kick back to back 49 yard FGs. But whether he does or not is on HIM. Not because of some imagined freeze.
Settling for a 49/50 yarder is a mistake. But, if you're used to seeing false starts and holding on a regular basis, going for more yards is a risk, too. I can see his justification. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. But it did not "cost" them the game. The defense not making a tackle in OT cost them the game.
We don't even know if the first kick would've been blocked had the blockers followed through. They stopped because the TO came in that early - much earlier than the "ice".