This is so comical

So, you have no answer? "3-options" is not an answer. *WHY* was it a *GOOD* design?

Lay of the weed son, the three options on the play is a reason why it was a good play design because defense couldn't focus on 1 player ,a run to Zeke, which is why i said Dak shouldve pulled and ran toss to Beasely. Wake the freak up.
 
Beasley is not a RB... he has no business running the option

Either get a another 3rd down RB or scrap that nonsense
Why do we have Austin? He should be back there...
 
Looks as if you're the one whining, I'm laughing all you. The design gave the an 3 option to get a 1st , a good setup. Now what's funny is you who sees that because it was stopped , it wasn't a good design. Typical thinking by an average joe

Except the recent discussion has gone beyond the fact that Elliott got stuffed and the fact that if you watch the play, it didn't fool the Texans. They had the QB and Beasley covered. You claimed the option was "wide open" when in fact it wasn't. Could Beasley have made a play and gotten the first down?

Maybe. Possibly. But that's a far cry from basically claiming the play design had the Texans fooled and that Beasley could have crawled to the first down market because it was so "wide open".
 
Except the recent discussion has gone beyond the fact that Elliott got stuffed and the fact that if you watch the play, it didn't fool the Texans. They had the QB and Beasley covered. You claimed the option was "wide open" when in fact it wasn't. Could Beasley have made a play and gotten the first down?

Maybe. Possibly. But that's a far cry from basically claiming the play design had the Texans fooled and that Beasley could have crawled to the first down market because it was so "wide open".

Again great play design . Thought you weren't invested. Sure you're Ok? You spent all morning whining ,bi***, and complain....lol
 
Again great play design . Thought you weren't invested. Sure you're Ok? You spent all morning whining ,bi***, and complain....lol

Should I be surprised you missing the point?
 
A contest between Dre11 and Idgit to be the very last Cowboys fan to realize our coaching staff isn't good enough.
And you won the contest of the biggest whiner...lol
 
Yes it was because everyone knew Zeke was 90% getting it. and the option was open.
When the boss tells you he doesn't want you running, and you don't have a fat contract, what do you do with it?
 
When the boss tells you he doesn't want you running, and you don't have a fat contract, what do you do with it?

This isn't true, he ran last night. Stephen said he doesn't like it, but I don't feel they shut it down. I think that's exaggerated
 
Line up in the I formation and pound the damn ball. stop with the cute **** you need 1 damn yard.
 
This isn't true, he ran last night. Stephen said he doesn't like it, but I don't feel they shut it down. I think that's exaggerated
Tell that to Stephen. He's the boss now.
 
Lay of the weed son, the three options on the play is a reason why it was a good play design because defense couldn't focus on 1 player ,a run to Zeke, which is why i said Dak shouldve pulled and ran toss to Beasely. Wake the freak up.

Poorly executed play. If Dak pulls the ball, the D-Line was engaged with Zeke. Now all Dak has to do is draw the DB and make a play off of his reaction. Good play design, poor execution. If he would pitch the ball to Beasley, he (Beasley) could run to the edge, and make a play. Austin is faster, which would cause more hesitation on the DB's behalf, thus Dak cutting up or pitching. If it does not work, at least they did something different.
 
Lay of the weed son, the three options on the play is a reason why it was a good play design because defense couldn't focus on 1 player ,a run to Zeke, which is why i said Dak shouldve pulled and ran toss to Beasely. Wake the freak up.

That is not a reason. Pass plays have options, that doesn't mean they are good design. RPOs have options, that doesn't mean they are good design.

What about the design makes it good? If you can't answer, then please be quiet.
 
Poorly executed play. If Dak pulls the ball, the D-Line was engaged with Zeke. Now all Dak has to do is draw the DB and make a play off of his reaction. Good play design, poor execution. If he would pitch the ball to Beasley, he (Beasley) could run to the edge, and make a play. Austin is faster, which would cause more hesitation on the DB's behalf, thus Dak cutting up or pitching. If it does not work, at least they did something different.

Exactly, I'm trying to teach these whiners
 
Poorly executed play. If Dak pulls the ball, the D-Line was engaged with Zeke. Now all Dak has to do is draw the DB and make a play off of his reaction. Good play design, poor execution. If he would pitch the ball to Beasley, he (Beasley) could run to the edge, and make a play. Austin is faster, which would cause more hesitation on the DB's behalf, thus Dak cutting up or pitching. If it does not work, at least they did something different.

That's not exactly accurate. The DB is going for Beasley. There was a LB standing there that was responsible for Dak.

So if Dak keeps the ball, that LB likely forces him to pitch it to Beasley. The DB is going after Beasley, so at that point, it would then be up to Beasley to make a play on the DB.
 
That is not a reason. Pass plays have options, that doesn't mean they are good design. RPOs have options, that doesn't mean they are good design.

What about the design makes it good? If you can't answer, then please be quiet.

Again lay off the weed. Learn what a play design is, then get back to me. Plays are designed to create option for qbs to make plays successful. Oh and I got your quiet.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,015
Messages
14,506,776
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top