Red Exploitation

[Hostile]

But that's not what we are talking about here. The question is: Who has the edge if the defense doesn't know what play is coming next? Forget about intangibles and acts of God after the ball is snapped and the play is run, who has the edge prior to chaos???

It depends on the two teams involved. If you think the Offense every time, then that is just wrong. I will tell you the 85 Bears Defense had the advantage on every single play. Same with the ravens of 2000 I think. They were simply dominant and the Offenses could not overcome them enough.

The answer is the aggressive team who executes better has the advantage.

 

[CF74]

Well you described Dallas bring in a 2 TE set on the play and how that was a sure running situation yet vs Philly on 1st and goal from the 1 we lined up in a big formation (2 TE) play actioned and threw the TD pass to Phillips so claiming we were telling them the play is false. You may disagree but as long as I have been watching the game the one thing I know for sure is when a play fails people claim it to be play calling and the vast majority of the time that is non sense player have to execute I don't care what play you call if you fail to execute the play will not work by the same token you can come out look the D in the face and say we are going to ram it down your throat and there is nothing you can do about it if you execute it

That play action was spawned from our short yardage failures and I was elated to see Garrett flip the page on the 90's play chart...:laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

I respectfully disagree. Even the 90's Cowboys (Being a dominant team) were stuffed a few times, but in this particular case Dallas and San Diego were relatively equal which levels the playing field.

When you become one dimensional it Narrows the playing field and it gives the defense the advantage. It's like attacking up hill, the odds are against you prior to the snap.

Also the defense was bringing in substitutions, our big old o-line was gassed down there. As far as the Garrett getting cute down there comment, it's irrelevant in this discussion, we are talking about who has the edge. "Getting cute" or being wise would have been spreading it out with a 4 WR set and then running the ball. The element of surprise. Oh and it was 2 yards not one...

One question. Does the fact our Kicker was spraying FG attemtps all over hell play any role in your analysis of the deficiencies of our team? Or the fact that San Diego was the hottest team in the NFL at that point in time?

I guess I don't understand the need to find a scapegoat here and remove credit from the Chargers for simply executing better.

 

[CF74]

It depends on the two teams involved. If you think the Offense every time, then that is just wrong. I will tell you the 85 Bears Defense had the advantage on every single play. Same with the ravens of 2000 I think. They were simply dominant and the Offenses could not overcome them enough.

The answer is the aggressive team who executes better has the advantage.

Here we go again. 85 Bears, 00 Ravens, & don't forget the 90's Cowboys who you said earlier was not a good comparison because they were so dominant.

We are talking about two teams: the Cowboys and the Chargers who are respectively pretty even. Once the defense knew we weren't going to deviate from running the ball they made the necessary adjustments and they had the advantage. I rest my case....

 

[Doomsday101]

That play action was spawned from our short yardage failures and I was elated to see Garrett flip the page on the 90's play chart...:laugh2:

Yeah because it worked, would you fill the same had the LB jumped in front of it?

By the way enjoying the respectful debate.

 

[Hostile]

Here we go again. 85 Bears, 00 Ravens, & don't forget the 90's Cowboys who you said earlier was not a good comparison because they were so dominant.

We are talking about two teams: the Cowboys and the Chargers who are respectively pretty even. Once the defense knew we weren't going to deviate from running the ball they made the necessary adjustments and they had the advantage. I rest my case....

I don't agree.

Again, if we had scored due to any factor, suddenly it was a fantastic play call. You remove all reason by simply focusing on the outcome of a play.

 

[Hostile]

Yeah because it worked, would you fill the same had the LB jumped in front of it?

By the way enjoying the respectful debate.

Very good debate IMO.

 

[CF74]

One question. Does the fact our Kicker was spraying FG attemtps all over hell play any role in your analysis of the deficiencies of our team? Or the fact that San Diego was the hottest team in the NFL at that point in time?

I guess I don't understand the need to find a scapegoat here and remove credit from the Chargers for simply executing better.

It's about taking advantage of opportunities. We blow way to many redzone opportunities. It's not about scapegoats, the point of this discussion is about whether or not the coaches were giving us an edge on a particular series of plays.

Crapping fg kickers is not part of this particular equation here because if you have to rely on your broken kicker in a critical juncture you've missed the mark.

We dethroned NO when they were hot and we could have dethroned the Chargers had we given our team the edge it needed when it was out of gas and getting stuffed down on the goal line...

 

[Hostile]

It's about taking advantage of opportunities. We blow way to many redzone opportunities. It's not about scapegoats, the point of this discussion is about whether or not the coaches were giving us an edge on a particular series of plays.

Crapping fg kickers is not part of this particular equation here because if you have to rely on your broken kicker in a critical juncture you've missed the mark.

We dethroned NO when they were hot and we could have dethroned the Chargers had we given our team the edge it needed when it was out of gas and getting stuffed down on the goal line...

Ah, so this is entirely fantasy football.

I hate to tell you this, but the FG Kicker played a huge role in why we went for it in the first place. Ignoring a fact of the season for the sake of ___________ just doesn't register with me.

I am going to buy a can of Edge shaving gel for the entire team next year so they always have it.

I will repeat, if we had scored your entire view of the play call is changed. That is the one big major flaw to your theories here.

 

[CF74]

Yeah because it worked, would you fill the same had the LB jumped in front of it?

By the way enjoying the respectful debate.

1st of all I'm a huge fan of play action. I was screaming for it all year in my living room and at the stadium so to answer your question No. The reason being is because play action is a proven play that gives your team an edge whereas being one dimensional gives the defense the edge.

I want you guys to also understand that even though I'm one of Garrett's biggest critics, I'm also rooting for the guy to figure it out, and for the most part he has. He is showing improvement because he is learning from his mistakes.

Getting stuffed on multiple short yardage situations has made him look to play action more as the season was winding down. There is hope in the Big D...

 

[CF74]

Ah, so this is entirely fantasy football.

I hate to tell you this, but the FG Kicker played a huge role in why we went for it in the first place. Ignoring a fact of the season for the sake of ___________ just doesn't register with me.

I am going to buy a can of Edge shaving gel for the entire team next year so they always have it.

I will repeat, if we had scored your entire view of the play call is changed. That is the one big major flaw to your theories here.

No it's about scoring more points than your opponent which results in a W. If you refuse to see the advantage of the element of surprise then that is your problem Captain. You've already stated your mind is closed so I'm just throwing horse **** on a chalk board for the hell of it...

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

No it's about scoring more points than your opponent which results in a W. If you refuse to see the advantage of the element of surprise then that is your problem Captain. You've already stated your mind is closed so I'm just throwing horse **** on a chalk board for the hell of it...

Yeah, I don't think Hos can get off his high horse long enough to see your point. While you both have a point, I think yours has more merit. Although there is truth to what Hos, Dooms and others have said too.

 

[CF74]

I don't agree.

Again, if we had scored due to any factor, suddenly it was a fantastic play call. You remove all reason by simply focusing on the outcome of a play.

You are ignoring the fact that we tried it again on several other short yardage situations and it failed, again. I believe after this type of series of plays failed on 3 separate occasions that the concept was scrapped and we began to see play action on the goal line...

 

[Hostile]

No it's about scoring more points than your opponent which results in a W. If you refuse to see the advantage of the element of surprise then that is your problem Captain. You've already stated your mind is closed so I'm just throwing horse **** on a chalk board for the hell of it...

LMAO

Element of surprise. Have you ever stopped to wonder then why every play isn't a trick play if surprise is so vital?

 

[CF74]

LMAO

Element of surprise. Have you ever stopped to wonder then why every play isn't a trick play if surprise is so vital?

Not every play, just when 4 plays are called in a sequence. One of them at the very least should be disguised...

 

[Hostile]

Not every play, just when 4 plays are called in a sequence. One of them at the very least should be disguised...

The debate is yours. If we had scored the play call was genius because we didn't knuckle under, got punched in the mouth and punched back.

You know it, I know it, and anyone being honest knows it. Therefore ranting at play calls based solely upon outcome is myopic.

 

[CF74]

You are ignoring the fact that we tried it again on several other short yardage situations and it failed, again. I believe after this type of series of plays failed on 3 separate occasions that the concept was scrapped and we began to see play action on the goal line...

The debate is yours. If we had scored the play call was genius because we didn't knuckle under, got punched in the mouth and punched back.

You know it, I know it, and anyone being honest knows it. Therefore ranting at play calls based solely upon outcome is myopic.

It failed on three other separate short yardage occasions...

I'm not interested in winning a debate. I'm interested is diagnosing one of 3 break downs with this offense and having sound discussions about it with fellow fans.

 

[Hostile]

It failed on three other separate short yardage occasions...

I'm not interested in winning a debate. I'm interested is diagnosing one of 3 break downs with this offense and having sound discussions about it with fellow fans.

I will send Jason Garrett a message to never, ever again in his life call a running play on short yardage. Hopefully that will make you happy. I think it's part of football, but you are convinced it is a bad play call. Hence we should never do it again. Risk a pick 6 or an incompletion before running the ball in short yardage.

When we don't run it in short yardage make sure you defend it as outstanding play calling, regardless of the outcome of the play.

 

[CF74]

I will send Jason Garrett a message to never, ever again in his life call a running play on short yardage. Hopefully that will make you happy. I think it's part of football, but you are convinced it is a bad play call. Hence we should never do it again. Risk a pick 6 or an incompletion before running the ball in short yardage.

When we don't run it in short yardage make sure you defend it as outstanding play calling, regardless of the outcome of the play.

Correction: If you are going to run the ball 4 times in a row in short yardage situations it would be wise to disguise one of them, especially the last one. Perhaps spreading them out with a 3 or 4 wr set and a single back...

 

[Cover 2]

In short?

Our offensive line needs to succeed at doing their job, and EVERYTHING else will fall into place.

That has been our downfall every. single. season. for the past three seasons. And when you can't block up front, it doesnt matter WHAT play you call.

That being said, Garrett needs to find a better balance of trying to out strategize, and going right at them. I would also like to see more designed deep routes like we saw against NO and Philly, but again with poor blocking, you're not going to call too many of those.

Who needs to be replaced on the o-line?