Beasley Stopped on his route on INT

Romo will continue to be without blame. He should have never thrown the ball in double coverage, Beasley saw it and stopped like he was suppose to. Or better yet just run the ball on second and 1. 1:30 with 2 timeouts just for a FG is an eternity.
 
Gameover said:
That's why you should run the ball when your defense is that porous. Running the ball takes tics off the clock. If you take enough off, maybe the Cowboys could've escaped with a victory. Romo had 19 incompletions that is a lot of tic stopping. Make 10 of those runs and maybe Romo doesn't have to pull a miracle in the end. It works both ways
Click to expand...

That sounds good, but the clock doesn't stop running for incompletions until the final 5 minutes of the half. The reason to run it more was because they were having good success running the ball. They probably could have burned more clock by gaining more 1st downs with some successful runs and maintaining possession.
 
what are you talking about? the clock stops on every single completion and gameover is 100% correct in his assessment
 
joseephuss said:
That sounds good, but the clock doesn't stop running for incompletions until the final 5 minutes of the half. The reason to run it more was because they were having good success running the ball. They probably could have burned more clock by gaining more 1st downs with some successful runs and maintaining possession.
Click to expand...

And scored more points no doubt!
 
tm1119 said:
He sat down in space because he saw the CB to the outside of him. Obviously I don't know the exact play, but it really didn't seem like the wrong move on Beasley's part. QB and WR have to be on the same page and they weren't
Click to expand...

No he didn't... He hesitated before he saw the second CB... You think he was paying attention to a CB covering another WR... That play was on Beasley...
 
BTW, that route was to the sideline, meaning stop the clock..... Romo threw right at the side-line spot so Beasley could go straight out of bounds..
 
You don't tend to sit down in space in man coverage. You do that mostly in zone coverage. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it looked like man coverage and Beasley got a step on his man.
 
Wizarus said:
Romo will continue to be without blame. He should have never thrown the ball in double coverage, Beasley saw it and stopped like he was suppose to. Or better yet just run the ball on second and 1. 1:30 with 2 timeouts just for a FG is an eternity.
Click to expand...

Really, double coverage when Dallas had another WR running staright dow the sidelines, with the other CB covering him? That CB broke on the ball when he saw Romo throw it... It had nothing to do with duble-coverage...
 
65fastback2plus2 said:
http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...sley-takes-blame-for-final-interception.html/

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***/files/2013/12/NS_15COWSPACK23_34819338-620x522.jpg

didnt see this elsewhere, so if repost, my bad.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was an option play where the corner (Williams) dictates what Beas was suppose to do. The corner came up and Beas stopped as he should have, But Romo didn't pick up on that. So, yea, that and the other INT were %100 on Romo.
 
Are you avaliable for next head coach ?
You sir know more than the current head coach !

Hook'em#11 said:
Shouldn't of even come to that at that point in the game. Should've been Murray with the ball. Running down the clock. Wearing down the defense.

You know, what most teams do with a friggin 23 pt lead at halftime????

Gawwwwwdddd... This one stings.. Damn.
Click to expand...
you
 
lqmac1 said:
Actually, it was an option play where the corner (Williams) dictates what Beas was suppose to do. The corner came up and Beas stopped as he should have, But Romo didn't pick up on that. So, yea, that and the other INT were %100 on Romo.
Click to expand...

Beasley said it was not an option play. Either way, still a terrible pass considering he was double covered.
 
CyberB0b said:
Beasley said it was not an option play. Either way, still a terrible pass considering he was double covered.
Click to expand...

Not sure he was double covered. It's more like man then zone deep. William who intercepted the ball had NO play on Beasley if Beasely continued his route to side line. Beasely would have easily caught the ball and go straight out of bounds.
One defender was trailing Beasely while other was deeper while Beasely was shallow.
 
joseephuss said:
The guy barely made the interception with Beasley stopping on the route. If Beasley continues his route the defender isn't catching that pass. The game in 2011 has no bearing on this play and is pointless to bring up now.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No one was going to undercut Beasely. That's a ridiculous point on the old Jet's game. It WAS going to be an easy pitch catch 1st down and out of bounds.
 
coogrfan said:
In fairness, it was 2nd and 1. A 1st down there is a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...

That would have already been a 1st, had Beasley stretched out, instead of hitting the sideline early on the play before.
 
BlindFaith said:
If there was no built in adjustment to that play then two things, not one are horribly wrong.

1. The play design is awful. But we've seen plenty of that from Garett
2. The QB should have never thrown the ball to begin with knowing that Beasley would be running right into the boundry corner.

And all of this for a potential TWO yard gain? Brilliant.
Click to expand...

1. Bingo. We've got garrett so it is what it is. it sucks

2. Watch most of beasleys catches...he runs mostly out or in routes and on the catch he rotates 180 and goes back the other way. So at the catch he wasnt going to the sideline, he was going to rotate and had back towards the center of the field.
 
btcutter said:
Agreed. No one was going to undercut Beasely. That's a ridiculous point on the old Jet's game. It WAS going to be an easy pitch catch 1st down and out of bounds.
Click to expand...

actually probably a catch, rotate and stay in bounds and head towards mid field
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 4,908 (members: 169, guests: 4,739)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,212
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top