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

[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 Commanders 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 Commander 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]

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 Commander 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]

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.

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 Commanders 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 Commanders?? 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.