Beasley Stopped on his route on INT

[Wizarus]

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.

 

[joseephuss]

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

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.

 

[JBS]

what are you talking about? the clock stops on every single completion and gameover is 100% correct in his assessment

 

[Gameover]

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.

And scored more points no doubt!

 

[khiladi]

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

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...

 

[khiladi]

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..

 

[joseephuss]

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.

 

[khiladi]

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.

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...

 

[lqmac1]

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.

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.

 

[ilykdrama]

Different play. On this play, Romo threw into double coverage.This play was from an empty set, so no way he audibled.

Yeah, was watching the wrong play. My bad.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

Are you avaliable for next head coach ?
You sir know more than the current head coach !

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.

you

 

[CyberB0b]

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.

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

 

[joseephuss]

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

How so? If Beasley keeps running, the ball hits him in stride.

 

[CyberB0b]

How so? If Beasley keeps running, the ball hits him in stride.

That dude was sitting on the route. Easy route to undercut. Remember the Revis pick from the Jets game in 2011?


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8222897c/Cowboys-vs-Jets-highlights

6:25

 

[joseephuss]

That dude was sitting on the route. Easy route to undercut. Remember the Revis pick from the Jets game in 2011?


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8222897c/Cowboys-vs-Jets-highlights

6:25

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.

 

[btcutter]

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

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.

 

[btcutter]

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.

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.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

In fairness, it was 2nd and 1. A 1st down there is a pretty big deal.

That would have already been a 1st, had Beasley stretched out, instead of hitting the sideline early on the play before.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

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.

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.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

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.

actually probably a catch, rotate and stay in bounds and head towards mid field