We didn't go down swinging

[Bob Sacamano]

we didn't go down swinging

I'm #1 with a bullet!

I'm going downtown....DOWNtown

 

[WarC]

Question for any and all who make the a statement like "The playcalling was too conservative, we should have taken some shots."

Why does this get pinned on the coaching staff? Romo was back there often standing around looking for the deep action, and he could never take advantage of it. We saw replays of players open downfield, specifically Terry housing everyone on the play Romo put the ball high and behind TO on. Tony was standing there, often late in the season, looking more and more like Drew Bledsoe, holding the ball waiting for something he never pulled the trigger on.

So, why the blanket "We were too conservative - we should have attacked their street free agents" as blame strictly on the coaching staff. To my eyes, it looked like the attacking plays were there, Tony just wasn't executing.

Thats true, there were many plays in that game where I saw TO open for a catch but Romo was already eyeing who he wanted.

 

[dboyz]

I feel your pain. Respectfully disagree with much of what you say here.

This was probably as good a game plan on O and D as this staff has put together this year.


On Offense the plan was to run the ball and throw short/intermediate against what we thought would be a heavy dose of two deep to protect corners.
That's just how it played out.

It worked well. We moved the ball well and Romo didn't have a pick.

Two reasons it did not work as well as we needed it to.
1) OL run blocking. Our OG's in paticular just didn't get it done. With the style they played we should have had more holes. Need to upgrade OL!
2) Turnovers. 3 fumbles. Witten, Glenn and Romo's muff. Can't put it on the turf that many times and expect to win.


I have no problems defensively with the game plan and game day coaching. We held Alexander in check. We got decent pressure on Hasselbach. No sacks but the rush was a factor. Forced two interception and numerous other poor/hurried throws. We seemed to have defenders in position to make plays quite a bit. Three dropped interceptions.

Two reasons it didn't work as well as it needed to.
1) Obviously the three dropped interceptions. Can't do that. Have to catch a couple of those. Isn't it amazing that our guy doesn't throw one bad ball that could have been picked, thier guy throws 5, and we still lose!

2) Bad calls. Yes it happens. Contrary to what that SOB spin doctoring head of officials would like to have you believe. Three! Three fantom defensive holding calls on two consecutive Seattle scoring drives. All three on third down stops!
I can live with the PI on Newman that should have only been a five yard defensive holding(uncatchable ball). I can live with the Witten first down reversal on the bad angle review, since I myself thought he was short. What I can't take are those 3 holding calls. They're the reason we are no longer playing.

I agree with some of what you said. A game plan of running and short to intermediate passes is ok. A couple of things I didn't like were not very many short passes to TO, who can break tackles and make something happen. I would also have run a lot of 3 WR's, spread them out, and attacked them. Whether or not they play 2 safeties back they can be attacked when you spread them out.

We ran some five wide, which is fine, but when we weren't in that, we were pretty much in a conventional alignment. I would have liked to see more single setback, 1 TE, 3 WR sets. That way, you have the option to run if you want and also have a matchup with one of your receivers against a guy who was on the street a week before. Why not attack them where they are vulnerable.

My biggest beef is that in spite of all the things that went wrong that you mentioned, the fumbles, etc., we had a couple opportunities to put away the game in the 4th quarter, and we really didn't even try. We played conservative.

Dr. Z was asked about the Dallas game in his Mailbag and said:

"If I were Dallas, down on the Hawks' 11, I'd have pulled every trick out of the bag to get seven on the board and end the game right there, never mind milking the clock. That means throwing your pass or running your bootleg, or anything unexpected on first, not third down when it's expected. Even so, they came one replay and re-spotted ball away from a victory. And I really don't like to get on people when they're feeling so low, emotionally."

He probably overstates it a bit, but I generally agree. Dallas was down in the redzone twice in the 4th quarter, and basically attacked the end zone one time, which got us to the 1.5. We should have tried to put the game away rather than just let the other team hang around.

 

[dboyz]

Question for any and all who make the a statement like "The playcalling was too conservative, we should have taken some shots."

Why does this get pinned on the coaching staff? Romo was back there often standing around looking for the deep action, and he could never take advantage of it. We saw replays of players open downfield, specifically Terry housing everyone on the play Romo put the ball high and behind TO on. Tony was standing there, often late in the season, looking more and more like Drew Bledsoe, holding the ball waiting for something he never pulled the trigger on.

So, why the blanket "We were too conservative - we should have attacked their street free agents" as blame strictly on the coaching staff. To my eyes, it looked like the attacking plays were there, Tony just wasn't executing.

It is hard to determine sometimes if it is play calling or execution, so that is a fair point. But my point is that the most egregious examples of being conservative were in the 4th quarter where we didn't try to get in the endzone. If we had succeeded in getting a touchdown one of those times. we likely would have won.

 

[dboyz]

Most of the time I feel that gameplan and playcalling criticism is just lazy-speak for "The players didn't execute." In this case, I know it was. Tony missed a wide open Glenn. He threw short to Witten when a wide open TO broke free in the end zone on a critical third down. That play may have been designed to go to Witten all the way, but you've gotta know the down and distance - Witten and Romo both messed up there - Witten in where he broke it off, Romo in who he chose to throw it to. Then, the players failed to execute a field goal, that was shorter than an extra point. How can any of that be placed at the feet of the coaches?

No quarterback is going to spot the open receiver every time, so you can't just look at still photos and think that because someone was open at that moment, it's all on Tony. As far as that throw to Witten, I don't agree that Romo made a mistake. He threw it to someone who was open at the 1.5 yard line. It looks like he probably had no lane to throw it to TO.

The problem I have is we waited until 3rd down to try to do something. The play worked. We just came up a half yard short. If that play was on second down, then we would still have a good chance to do something. Romo has been pretty good this year down around the goaline on bootlegs and such.

The fact that Romo dropped the snap is certainly not the coaches fault.

 

[superpunk]

we didn't go down swinging

I'm #1 with a bullet!

I'm going downtown....DOWNtown

Know how I know you're gay?

You like Fall-Out Boy.

It is hard to determine sometimes if it is play calling or execution, so that is a fair point. But my point is that the most egregious examples of being conservative were in the 4th quarter where we didn't try to get in the endzone. If we had succeeded in getting a touchdown one of those times. we likely would have won.

I didn't like the call to Barber, but it had been so successful all year long. Alot of times he bounces that. He didn't do it. So that was conservative, I agree.

Alot of people calling for being aggressive hate the call to Glenn in our end zone, though - it was a GREAT aggressive call. The player didn't execute, and instead of a 98 yd TD, we get a safety.

 

[gbrittain]

Know how I know you're gay?

You like Fall-Out Boy.



I didn't like the call to Barber, but it had been so successful all year long. Alot of times he bounces that. He didn't do it. So that was conservative, I agree.

Alot of people calling for being aggressive hate the call to Glenn in our end zone, though - it was a GREAT aggressive call. The player didn't execute, and instead of a 98 yd TD, we get a safety.

You are right, that was a good call. Liked it then, like it in the future. Hopefully next time the player does not screw it up.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Say what you want about the defense... they came to play... Henry was hot, Roy got the INT... Newman was good... Carpenter excited me... we let him loose once in a while and he will be making plays for us for years to come...

We put the Defense in a bad position after the safety... the safety really decided the game IMO...

Even if Romo doesnt fumble that snap... it looked like the D would have given up enough for LONG FG... Brown can hit them 55-60 yards.... it would have been a different kind of heartbreak... we needed 7 on the previous drive where we got a FG...


the above in bold were the deciding factors in the game

When we did not get 7, I knew we were in trouble. I figured we would have to kick the FG, go up 2 and let the Hawks have the rock with over a min left and only needing about 30 yards. I really have no faith Zimmerman would have stopped the Hawks, they probably win on a long FG.

We will never know, but a TD there ended the game and Tuna ran 2 for no gain. When you play for the FG, bad things happen.

 

[dboyz]

I didn't like the call to Barber, but it had been so successful all year long. Alot of times he bounces that. He didn't do it. So that was conservative, I agree.

Alot of people calling for being aggressive hate the call to Glenn in our end zone, though - it was a GREAT aggressive call. The player didn't execute, and instead of a 98 yd TD, we get a safety.

We were conservative both times in the redzone in the 4th quarter. We also had trouble against Philly running the ball into the endzone.

I agree on the Glenn call. It was a very good call. You can't play scared you go and win the game. We were trying to do that there. Problem is, we didn't try to go and win the game in the redzone.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

When we did not get 7, I knew we were in trouble. I figured we would have to kick the FG, go up 2 and let the Hawks have the rock with over a min left and only needing about 30 yards. I really have no faith Zimmerman would have stopped the Hawks, they probably win on a long FG.

We will never know, but a TD there ended the game and Tuna ran 2 for no gain. When you play for the FG, bad things happen.

Yeah..... Steve Young said it best(and I hate Steve Young) but he was commenting on losing one his NFC title games against us... he said "we kicked a FG and you just feel that everytime you kick a FG you are that close to losing" - something to that effect... I agree I would rather TD's