My meaningless thoughts on the game...

[Clove]

Freeney showed yesterday why sacks are the most overrated stat in football. He is a force to be wreckoned with and he single handily had Dallas' entire offense on the fritz in the first half. Its amazing how last year we thought Adams was the glue to the Oline and this year he has probably been the weakest link.

On the flip side of this, and as I predicted last week, Freeny's continual upfield pursuit of the QB, may have cost them on several drives where the Cowboys diced them up the middle and draw plays that helped the Cowboys get down the field for their 2nd touch down. You can't always rush the passer.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Outside of the Arizona game, the Cowboys have been pretty agressive lately with their blitzing. Their defensive creativity has never been there, but that's the issue either. In fact, they weren't all that creative in the Colts game. But the disguise was much better.

I think people get disguise and "exotic" screwed up. Running a blitz from the slot CB or a ILB blitz or having Ware blitz isn't really exotic. But, it's the ability to make it look like the blitzer is actually going in coverage when he's coming at the QB is a good disguise. If I had my druthers, I'll take a well disguised blitz package over an exotic and creatively schemed blitz package.

It's not a clear cut "execution vs. scheme" theory as a good disguised blitz package is a bit of both. My gripe against Zimmer is that our blitz disguise has been weak every year he's been D-Coordinator. I can't help but think that it's not a personnel issue every single year.

But anyway, if he can disguise the blitz like they've done the past 2 weeks throughout this year, then we'll be onto something.


YAKUZA

I didnt say it was "exotic". I thought it was a more "creative" way to get after Manning from both sides in the Nickel formation. They could have easily blitzed a linebacker up the middle (where he would undoubtly get stuck) and kept Newman back. They also could have opted to blitz Anthony Henry (which they have done more).

Exotic to me means the stuff Little Bill in NE or the Broncos likes to do, 2 defensive lineman, all linebackers and no linemen etc etc. Creative is what I saw last night.

- Mike G.

 

[YosemiteSam]

- My question for the Zimmer supporters is "where's this defense been all year long?" Like I stated a few weeks ago, I think Zimmer is probably around the 16th best defensive coordinator in the NFL. We could do much worse, but we could do better. One of his biggest issues is getting his defense's to disguise their blitz. I saw better disguise of the blitz against Arizona and yesterday was the best job, yet. Keep it up and I'll change my mind on Zimmer. Don't and it will come back to haunt us.

Ok, you mean about the biltz disguise? Or the overall play? I think Dallas' overall play has been very good. It dropped off a bit over the last 4 games, (or 3 before the Cardinals) but early on it was really good except for Watkins play.

Hmm, as for Zimmer. He is far better than 16th best. I think he is much better than that. I think he has a partial excuse with him switching from the 4-3 to a 3-4. There are major differences in how they operate. You have to develop plays differently than you do in other defenses and maybe this has been his problem. A single tweak to a defensive play you might have to play it safe on other things within that play causing it to become more vanilla.

I like what I've been seeing the last two games. I think Ellis' injury is forcing Zimmer to change the defense and forcing him to be more aggressive, because he doesn't have Ellis. As we all see, it creates more problems for the opposing offense, but I suspect it will burn us a few times too. We are a young defense and thats a good thing as it will allow us to learn and adjust quicker.

 

[mwj473]

That has been taken away, no? It's either fair catch or face the consequences. Newman made a bad decision there. IIRC, the rules only state that you can't interfere with the returners ability to catch the punt. If he doesn't signal fair catch, you can kill him the second the ball touches his hands.

This is correct, the halo rule is only in college. The second he touches the ball in the pros, you can drop the hammer, and they did. T-new should have called for a fair catch.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Hmm, as for Zimmer. He is far better than 16th best. I think he is much better than that. I think he has a partial excuse with him switching from the 4-3 to a 3-4. There are major differences in how they operate. You have to develop plays differently than you do in other defenses and maybe this has been his problem. A single tweak to a defensive play you might have to play it safe on other things within that play causing it to become more vanilla.

When Dallas ran the Cover 2 in the Campo era the team's blitz disguise was abysmal. At the time we blamed Campo, the players, etc. Now we have Parcells, better players, an excellent pass rusher in Ware, a new scheme and up until the Cardinals game the blitz disguise was still abysmal.

I like what I've been seeing the last two games. I think Ellis' injury is forcing Zimmer to change the defense and forcing him to be more aggressive, because he doesn't have Ellis. As we all see, it creates more problems for the opposing offense, but I suspect it will burn us a few times too. We are a young defense and thats a good thing as it will allow us to learn and adjust quicker.

I don't see that at all, but I'll wait to chart the game. I saw about the same amount of blitzes that we've average all year long from the same type of players. The only difference is that it seemed like we would come from the outside more than just straight up the middle.

But the big difference was the timing of the blitz were well done. Re-watch the Jags, Giants, and the second WAS game. It was show the blitz about 3-5 seconds before the ball was snapped and go right up the middle. Leftwich, Brunnell, and Eli were able to make rather simple adjustments and burn them on the blitz.

Now, they did have a few occasions where they showed the blitz a bit too early, but Peyton is about the best in the league at making defenses do that. But for the most part they made it much more difficult for Peyton to decipher who was blitzing and who was dropping back in coverage. I don't see where they were being more aggressive.

The two things Singleton gives us over Ellis is he's better in coverage and for at least yesterday, he was much better against the run. The Colts tried to run to his side and didn't have much success doing so.



YAKUZA

 

[pancakeman]

In Fasano's defense the whistle had been blown, what else is he suppose to do? That play should not of even been reviewable in my opinon.

Exactly. I mean, if they decided he wasn't down, then where exactly were they planning to spot the ball?! The Colts there should not even get the benefit of stopping the game there.

 

[AdamJT13]

1. The Burnett TD - Agreed, he was *touched* by Harrison as he went down. I just think the rule is quite stupid. At no point did Harrison make any effort to bring Burnett down. Bad call, but really a bad rule to begin with as there was no semblence of a tackle or effort to bring Burnett down.

Exactly when did you see contact? I didn't see any frames of the video that clearly showed Burnett making contact with Harrison. Rather, it looked like Roy got between them. Burnett didn't spin and fall until after Roy hit him.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Exactly when did you see contact? I didn't see any frames of the video that clearly showed Burnett making contact with Harrison. Rather, it looked like Roy got between them. Burnett didn't spin and fall until after Roy hit him.

They showed a replay where Burnett's back grazed against Harrison's back. From what I can digest from the rule book, that's "down by contact."

Like I said though, it's a crappy rule. That's not a tackle or even a remote attempt to tackle to bring Burnett down in the turf and quite frankly, that's not football in my book.

Even still, Dungy had all day to throw a red flag and didn't.



YAKUZA

 

[Idgit]

This is correct, the halo rule is only in college. The second he touches the ball in the pros, you can drop the hammer, and they did. T-new should have called for a fair catch.

The hit was still hat-on-hat.

 

[dallasfaniac]

- To Phil Simms' credit, he got the coverage right (unlike Aikman in the Philly game), but I'm not so sure that was Newman's coverage on the TD. Even when you're playing man-to-man, more often than not the defenders are supposed to switch when the receivers run a twist pattern like that, otherwise teams would run those type of routes all day long with great success.

The telling thing is the play just before the TD. Henry plays off about 10 yards on the outside receiver while Newman is up on the line so that nobody gets picked. Moorhead and Wayne cross like on the TD, but Newman stays manned up with Wayne while Henry drops over the top, a LB covering Moorehead when he cuts it at 3 yards. Harrison almost catches down the middle between Davis (who comes over) and Glenn (Williams didn't drop deep enough).

Fast-Forward to the next play. Newman and Henry both man up to the line. Exact same offensive play, but when they cross Newman and Henry should swap or chance a pick. Newman does, Henry doesn't. Davis should be the safety over the top, but on the previous play ran over to help with Harrison, so he is wayyyy out of position on the TD.

It is important to notice, that when they were both lined up at the LOS, they should swap because of a possible pick play. When one is on the line and the other back it is because one is man while the other is covering over the top. At least that's how I look at it. Only they will know what the actual play was.

 

[AdamJT13]

They showed a replay where Burnett's back grazed against Harrison's back. From what I can digest from the rule book, that's "down by contact."

Which angle? I just watched all of the replays again, and I don't see anything clearly showing Harrison and Burnett touching. I see more evidence that Roy was the one who hit Burnett.

 

[mwj473]

The hit was still hat-on-hat.

There is nothing to protect a returner from hat-on-hat contact. The QB is the only person protected from that. The defender also did not put his head down and spear, so to me it was legal. I hated to see the hit happen to Newman (who should have fair caught it), but it was legal.

 

[Clove]

Which angle? I just watched all of the replays again, and I don't see anything clearly showing Harrison and Burnett touching. I see more evidence that Roy was the one who hit Burnett.

Only the 2 of us saw this then, because the entire world thinks that Burnett touched Harrison.

To me and my eyes, I saw Burnett touch Roy on that play but not Harrison. I don't think the call would've been over turned.

 

[mwj473]

Only the 2 of us saw this then, because the entire world thinks that Burnett touched Harrison.

To me and my eyes, I saw Burnett touch Roy on that play but not Harrison. I don't think the call would've been over turned.

Then i'm the 3rd. I rewatched the game and still don't see the contact. It says a lot to me that this is the best excuse people (Collinsworth) can come up with why they lost.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Which angle? I just watched all of the replays again, and I don't see anything clearly showing Harrison and Burnett touching. I see more evidence that Roy was the one who hit Burnett.

Well, I'll just have to check when I re-watch the game.



YAKUZA

 

[Idgit]

There is nothing to protect a returner from hat-on-hat contact. The QB is the only person protected from that. The defender also did not put his head down and spear, so to me it was legal. I hated to see the hit happen to Newman (who should have fair caught it), but it was legal.

Really? I wondered if that was the case, since nobody had mentioned it, and it was a nasty hit with a helmet.

I don't see how a returner differs from a WR when he's in a vulnerable position trying to catch a ball. Is it because he's got the option of signalling for a fair catch?

 

[AdamJT13]

There is nothing to protect a returner from hat-on-hat contact. The QB is the only person protected from that. The defender also did not put his head down and spear, so to me it was legal. I hated to see the hit happen to Newman (who should have fair caught it), but it was legal.

The quarterback isn't the only person protected. Any player in a "virtually defenseless posture" is protected. Here's the rule --

( g) using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/“hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures (e.g., a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the grasp of a tackler, a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player on the ground at the end of a play). All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet and facemask that are described in the roughing-the-passer rules (see Article 11, subsection 3 below of this Rule 12, Section 2);

I haven't looked at the play again, but if Newman had just caught the punt and was hit helmet-to-helmet, it should have been a penalty -- UNLESS the refs said the Colts player was blocked into Newman.

 

[mwj473]

The quarterback isn't the only person protected. Any player in a "virtually defenseless posture" is protected. Here's the rule --

( g) using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/“hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures (e.g., a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the grasp of a tackler, a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player on the ground at the end of a play). All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet and facemask that are described in the roughing-the-passer rules (see Article 11, subsection 3 below of this Rule 12, Section 2);

I haven't looked at the play again, but if Newman had just caught the punt and was hit helmet-to-helmet, it should have been a penalty -- UNLESS the refs said the Colts player was blocked into Newman.

I stand corrected. They did hit helmet to helmet, but it did not appear to be in a malicious intent. They were both almost standing vertical and neither put there head down, it seemed the sides of their helmets hit each other. Also the defender was trying to fight off a blocker.

 

[AdamJT13]

I stand corrected. They did hit helmet to helmet, but it did not appear to be in a malicious intent. They were both almost standing vertical and neither put there head down, it seemed the sides of their helmets hit each other. Also the defender was trying to fight off a blocker.

The blocker might excuse the penalty, but "no malicious intent" would not. If you even bump a defenseless player facemask-to-facemask (not putting your head down), it's still a penalty.

 

[mwj473]

The blocker might excuse the penalty, but "no malicious intent" would not. If you eevn bump a defenseless player facemask-to-facemask (not putting your head down), it's still a penalty.

If I read the rule you posted correctly, it does leave some grey area in there. It reads to me if you use the helmet almost like weapon (raming, head butt, or spear) it is a penalty. It does not say that any helmet to helmet contact on a defenseless player is a penalty. If that was the case, I would think the rule would clearly say that vs. leaving it up to interpretation. At least that is the way I read the rule, but I'm not an NFL official.

Basically, looking at the play, I don't think the defender did anything wrong. Newman could have avoided all of this with a fair catch.