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

[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 Commanders on defense beat us and we put the game in the hands of not quite as talented Commanders 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 Commanders on defense beat us and we put the game in the hands of not quite as talented Commanders 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 Commanders 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 Commanders 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 Commanders 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.