Image: Pollack wasn't too happy with Randle

[ShiningStar]

..We won a playoff game.
Oh, now we're moving the goalposts to Garrett doesn't bully teams enough.
You guys are really, really great.

No what i am saying is that the team last year was powerful enough on offense that they could bully defenses. and it wasnt Garretts playcalling we were relying on. Remember Linehan came in to tell Garrett to stick to the run because Garrett wouldnt, even if it was working for us. Garrett would freak out and go back to teh pass and cost us games.

Kudos on hte playoff win, i take that.

 

[Idgit]

Lots of debate here, but Randle probably and rightfully could have cost himself his starting role here. We're not going to play a primary ball carrier who's careless with the ball and unwilling to change.

 

[dfense]

Well said !!!

Really? No consequences? I didn't see him back in the game, did you?

 

[CATCH17]

As if you know Randle is running where is he supposed to. Cowboys front offense not happy, HC not happy OL not happy with Randle but hey you think he is playing great. Maybe they know something you don't know. I don't think it is my accident Cowboys are not thrilled.

I watch the games on TV. I don't listen to the radio.

 

[erod]

If Michael shows ability soon, I think Randle is effectively done here as anything but a rarely used third back.

You just can't fix stupid.

 

[erod]

I don't think I said the play is without risk.

But playing undermanned it is these kind of risks stretching for 6 that i'm ok with.

On first down from the one yard line? He didn't even know where he was, spinning in the air reaching on his back over his shoulder for God knows what.

On fourth down, that's fine, but not there.

 

[revospeed]

I never saw Garrett or Pollack get that mad over any of Murray's many fumbles last season but they're blowing a gasket over a TD. That tells you a lot about this coaching staff.

 

[erod]

Yeah, this looks like sound football instincts on 1st and goal at the 1. This is the same imbecile that stole cologne and underoos from a department store because he didn't have time to pay.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/incoming/20151005-1444096825-ns_04cowssaints13sp.jpg.ece/BINARY/w940/1444096825-NS_04CowsSaints13SP.jpg

 

[erod]

I never saw Garrett or Pollack get that mad over any of Murray's many fumbles last season but they're blowing a gasket over a TD. That tells you a lot about this coaching staff.

You didn't see it, so it didn't happen. Gotcha.

If you hadn't noticed, Murray is not here anymore.

 

[Doomsday101]

I watch the games on TV. I don't listen to the radio.

I'm sure you do, what you don't know what was the exact call how exactly was Randle to run it? They do know and are not happy with it but because you watch TV you know they are in the wrong and Randle is playing great? wow

 

[revospeed]

You didn't see it, so it didn't happen. Gotcha.

If you hadn't noticed, Murray is not here anymore.

Murray never got benched for a fumble. Randle got benched for scoring a touchdown. I'd say that's proof enough.

With a shaky QB, no matter how close you are, no score is guaranteed. Randle did the right thing because the result was good. Pollack should have been yelling at the offensive line for getting blown off the ball.

 

[Hoov]

No what i am saying is that the team last year was powerful enough on offense that they could bully defenses. and it wasnt Garretts playcalling we were relying on. Remember Linehan came in to tell Garrett to stick to the run because Garrett wouldnt, even if it was working for us. Garrett would freak out and go back to teh pass and cost us games.

Kudos on hte playoff win, i take that.

Wait, is that definitive or an assumption ? I never heard or read that anywhere. Not saying it couldnt be correct, but Im asking because I never herad or read that - except from posters here - which does not count as definitive in my book because many posters make wild assumptions often and write it as if its true. Again, not saying you are doing that, just that I dont know if this was said by anyone other than fans.

 

[ufcrules1]

Randle just isn't worth the headache. I'd say cut him if we hadn't lost Lance to a season ending injury.

Most of the fanbase was saying before the season started that Randle and DMC were not the answer here. The homers didn't want to hear it though. We essentially completely ignored the RB position when the running game is what carried this team to a 12-4 record last year. You can't over estimate how important team chemistry is. But Jerry and Co are so smart and just had to go RBBC with worthless RB's..... even though, we had close to a super bowl caliber team. They spend the money when they shouldn't and then don't spend the money when they should. Unreal how stupid they are.

 

[links18]

Lots of debate here, but Randle probably and rightfully could have cost himself his starting role here. We're not going to play a primary ball carrier who's careless with the ball and unwilling to change.

Well he should, but not sure it happens.

 

[John813]

Murray never got benched for a fumble. Randle got benched for scoring a touchdown. I'd say that's proof enough.

With a shaky QB, no matter how close you are, no score is guaranteed. Randle did the right thing because the result was good. Pollack should have been yelling at the offensive line for getting blown off the ball.

Murray, with all his issues early on with fumbling, was an established threat on the team, and probably got along better with Garrett. As you could tell when Garrett and Romo would hang out with Murray before the Eagles signed him.

Randle on the other hand, hasn't done much in this league, has some off the field issues and didn't listen to the coaches.

There's a big difference between Murray and Randle.

 

[erod]

Murray never got benched for a fumble. Randle got benched for scoring a touchdown. I'd say that's proof enough.

With a shaky QB, no matter how close you are, no score is guaranteed. Randle did the right thing because the result was good. Pollack should have been yelling at the offensive line for getting blown off the ball.

He didn't score a touchdown. The touchdown scored him.

They already told him last week to stop this when the SAME THING HAPPENED.

Then, on first down with four cracks at it, he does a spinning whirl-o-rama with the ball extended with one hand.

That's stupidity on a breathtaking level, and stupid players get you beat almost every time.

 

[ShiningStar]

Wait, is that definitive or an assumption ? I never heard or read that anywhere. Not saying it couldnt be correct, but Im asking because I never herad or read that - except from posters here - which does not count as definitive in my book because many posters make wild assumptions often and write it as if its true. Again, not saying you are doing that, just that I dont know if this was said by anyone other than fans.

i know your not trying to start an argument or point something out

heres the best article that says but doesnt say. Obviously we went from pass happy to keeping the ball on teh ground.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...scott-linehan-to-offensive-coordinator-011515

will the organization come out and say it, no, But after Linehans hiring, using the same RB, and we produce that. Yes that hiring was not based just on Callahan. I wouldnt say 100 percent against Garrett, but all the moves we keep making is to take away anotehr excuse to throw at Garrett. Do i believe Linehan was the best we could have gotten, clearly not. Was it based soley on the detriot, dallas game, just because Linehan ripped us, no. Is it because Garrett and Linehan are buddies. possibly, is it because of the run game. Well for the stat guys, the stats wil do the talking.

 

[revospeed]

He didn't score a touchdown. The touchdown scored him.

They already told him last week to stop this when the SAME THING HAPPENED.

Then, on first down with four cracks at it, he does a spinning whirl-o-rama with the ball extended with one hand.

That's stupidity on a breathtaking level, and stupid players get you beat almost every time.

What does that even mean? Was that supposed to be funny?

He broke the plane of the goal line and with the way Weeden plays and with the line getting manhandled, who knows if they would have scored? If he wouldn't have scored, people would have said that he gave up. Give it a rest. Don't criticize s player for scoring when hardly anyone else on the team seems to want to.

 

[erod]

What does that even mean? Was that supposed to be funny?

He broke the plane of the goal line and with the way Weeden plays and with the line getting manhandled, who knows if they would have scored? If he wouldn't have scored, people would have said that he gave up. Give it a rest. Don't criticize s player for scoring when hardly anyone else on the team seems to want to.

If this really has to be explained to you, I can't help you with football.

 

[revospeed]

If this really has to be explained to you, I can't help you with football.

Has it not been explained to you that you don't take opportunities to score touchdowns for granted? If Randle wouldn't have done that and they end up settling for 3 or turning the ball over, would you still be like, "Whew, I sure am glad that Randle didn't score by putting the ball out there with one hand. That would have been too risky."? Do you have to score with the least amount of risk to satisfy you? What if Weeden fits the ball in a tight window for a TD? Too risky? Better to have thrown the ball away, you have more downs to do it, right?