The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Think I LIKE loosing to the pukes? So you were blessed w the company of many puke fans vs 2 skins fans? Who cheered moré? Who hid in the hallway ascared? Ya the head "chef" F dallas we coulda shoulda on to the WILL DO

Last night was a tough loss for sure.

Everyone keeps throwing up that 3 and 21 but don't forget other stuff that happened in the game.

What about the blotched hold for the field goal that was a big screw up. Dallas would have then needed a Td instead of a field goal.

What about all the luck Dallas had with recovering the bad snaps? like 4 of them I think.

Romo getting the ball knocked out from behind and bouncing right into a cowboy.

Sometimes a little luck on your side helps

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Think I LIKE loosing to the pukes? So you were blessed w the company of many puke fans vs 2 skins fans? Who cheered moré? Who hid in the hallway ascared? Ya the head "chef" F dallas we coulda shoulda on to the WILL DO

God... I miss English.

Jameson on the rocks

DarthMonk wrote:Concerning 3rd an 21:

Hall did not play it well.

Having said that, I'd had a few beers and right before the play said to my bud "If we hold them they'll punt."

Now, ask yourself, if Dallas could have picked our defensive call, what would they have wanted? I'll tell you - an all-out blitz.

Wrong call for the situation. Rush 3 to 5 guys and everyone else plays at normal depth and keeps it in front of them. They punt and we have a chance to ice with a 1st down on offense.

I'm not saying we should have played like that on the drive but on that play we should have.

I am not blaming the loss on this play.

DarthMonk

If Dallas would have gained 10-15 yards on third down, what makes you think that they would have punted.

On their own 30, Dallas gaining 10 yards would have put them on thier own 40. Romo was having plenty of time to pass all night long without the all out blitz, picking 15 yards plus on third down was a likely scenario. Even having said that, I personally would have ratherd we take our chances with a disguised blitz, but I have to agree with Randy in Austin, had we sacked Romo on that 3rd down, Haslett would have been a genius. If they would have picked up 15 on third, went for it on 4th, folks would be complaining that he should have did the all out blitz because our other blitzes weren't working. For me, the question should be why didn't the all out blitz work. I haven't seen the tape again, but I hear that Kerrigan pulled up and had flat responsibility. With Romo rolling out to Kerrigan side, that was not a good assignment for a beast like him. The all out blitz call was not the problem - it was the way it was executed. I read in one article that Linebackers were choosing the wrong gaps. It is said it takes 3 years to learn the Pittsburgh style defense as well as getting the right personnel - this is year two - I am fine with the call - we just need to get better at what we do and bring in more guys like Jarvis Jenkins and hope that they do not get hurt when we bring them in.

Red_One43 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Concerning 3rd an 21:

Hall did not play it well.

Having said that, I'd had a few beers and right before the play said to my bud "If we hold them they'll punt."

Now, ask yourself, if Dallas could have picked our defensive call, what would they have wanted? I'll tell you - an all-out blitz.

Wrong call for the situation. Rush 3 to 5 guys and everyone else plays at normal depth and keeps it in front of them. They punt and we have a chance to ice with a 1st down on offense.

I'm not saying we should have played like that on the drive but on that play we should have.

I am not blaming the loss on this play.

DarthMonk

If Dallas would have gained 10-15 yards on third down, what makes you think that they would have punted.

Field position, time left, their time-outs left, and our ineptitude on our previous 3 series not to mention the crowd and Rex.

I only think they wouldn't have punted if they had 4th and very short.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Concerning 3rd an 21:

Hall did not play it well.

Having said that, I'd had a few beers and right before the play said to my bud "If we hold them they'll punt."

Now, ask yourself, if Dallas could have picked our defensive call, what would they have wanted? I'll tell you - an all-out blitz.

Wrong call for the situation. Rush 3 to 5 guys and everyone else plays at normal depth and keeps it in front of them. They punt and we have a chance to ice with a 1st down on offense.

I'm not saying we should have played like that on the drive but on that play we should have.

I am not blaming the loss on this play.

DarthMonk

If Dallas would have gained 10-15 yards on third down, what makes you think that they would have punted.

Field position, time left, their time-outs left, and our ineptitude on our previous 3 series not to mention the crowd and Rex.

I only think they wouldn't have punted if they had 4th and very short.

DarthMonk

No no no. Dallas was definately in 4 down mode. They were going to go for it earlier but changed their mind. Hall is supposed to perform like the elite corner that he thinks he is. I'm not in total agreement with the play call but if Haslett thought one of the highest paid corners in the league was going to have a one-on-one matchup then he'll take it.

I have to agree with Fabe on this one, because Dallas almost went on 4th down just minutes later until they called a timeout and rethought it.

I think only a sack, very short gain or incompletion would have stopped Dallas from going on 4th down. I do believe that DarthMonk is right that with all the things he mentioned most coaches would punt with about 4th and say 8 or more yards to go.

Nevertheless, I personally form my fans perspective would rather we had not left at least a safety back there so we could play to DeAngelo's strength (jumping routes) and maybe forced Dez to break off the route because he new the safety was there.

As far as Haslett's call, I am not going to second guess him. We hadn't put much pressure on Romo all game except with the all out blitzes and even if Dallas had punted, it looks unlikely that we would have run for a first down and I shudder to think that about Grossman putting the ball in the air in that situation. No, a sack or even better a pressure INT would have been the thing to get and for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Did anyone see any blatant holds by Dallas. I just don't understand why nobody got through. I understand Kerrigan pulled of fthe rush to cover for screens.

Good article
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7030614

[quote="Red_One43]

Nevertheless, I personally form my fans perspective would rather we had not left at least a safety back there so we could play to DeAngelo's strength (jumping routes) and maybe forced Dez to break off the route because he new the safety was there.

As far as Haslett's call, I am not going to second guess him. We hadn't put much pressure on Romo all game except with the all out blitzes and even if Dallas had punted, it looks unlikely that we would have run for a first down and I shudder to think that about Grossman putting the ball in the air in that situation. No, a sack or even better a pressure INT would have been the thing to get and for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Did anyone see any blatant holds by Dallas. I just don't understand why nobody got through. I understand Kerrigan pulled of fthe rush to cover for screens.[/quote]

With a Safety back the play would have had a chance of working. With out one there was very little chance of success. If you had a safety back, once Romo started rolling right the safety would have sprinted to that side and Romo would have had to make a prefect throw. The results would have most likely been pick, a pd, or just an incomplete pass.

Better yet, Romo wouldn't have signaled to Bryant to forget his stop route and he never would have ran the go.

With a, safety back the odds of winning the game would have dramatically increased. Instead you put Hall in a no win situation, because no one can cover both hals of a field. With a safety there Romo wouldn't have been able to lob the pass to the opposite side of Hall.

Again, I want to stress no one could cover Bryant the way that play unfolded.

[quote="Red_One43]

Nevertheless, I personally form my fans perspective would rather we had not left at least a safety back there so we could play to DeAngelo's strength (jumping routes) and maybe forced Dez to break off the route because he new the safety was there.

As far as Haslett's call, I am not going to second guess him. We hadn't put much pressure on Romo all game except with the all out blitzes and even if Dallas had punted, it looks unlikely that we would have run for a first down and I shudder to think that about Grossman putting the ball in the air in that situation. No, a sack or even better a pressure INT would have been the thing to get and for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Did anyone see any blatant holds by Dallas. I just don't understand why nobody got through. I understand Kerrigan pulled of fthe rush to cover for screens.[/quote]

With a Safety back the play would have had a chance of working. With out one there was very little chance of success. If you had a safety back, once Romo started rolling right the safety would have sprinted to that side and Romo would have had to make a prefect throw. The results would have most likely been pick, a pd, or just an incomplete pass.

Better yet, Romo wouldn't have signaled to Bryant to forget his stop route and he never would have ran the go.

With a, safety back the odds of winning the game would have dramatically increased. Instead you put Hall in a no win situation, because no one can cover both hals of a field. With a safety there Romo wouldn't have been able to lob the pass to the opposite side of Hall.

Again, I want to stress no one could cover Bryant the way that play unfolded.

Red_One43 wrote:I have to agree with Fabe on this one, because Dallas almost went on 4th down just minutes later until they called a timeout and rethought it.

hmmm...could be. You probably meant earlier. Anyway, just an opinion. Going for it on say 4th and 10 would have surprised me.

If I am reading the drive charts properly you guys are referring to 4th an 7 at the REDSKINS 41. That is classic decision-time 4-down territory. They thought they were barely too far away to go. Diff situation on 3rd and 21 at their own 30. Apples and oranges!

Red_One43 wrote:I think only a sack, very short gain or incompletion would have stopped Dallas from going on 4th down. I do believe that DarthMonk is right that with all the things he mentioned most coaches would punt with about 4th and say 8 or more yards to go.

That's for sure.

Red_One43 wrote:Nevertheless, I personally form my fans perspective would rather we had not left at least a safety back there so we could play to DeAngelo's strength (jumping routes) and maybe forced Dez to break off the route because he new the safety was there.

... probably meant had at least a safety. Agreed.

Red_One43 wrote:As far as Haslett's call, I am not going to second guess him. We hadn't put much pressure on Romo all game except with the all out blitzes and even if Dallas had punted, it looks unlikely that we would have run for a first down and I shudder to think that about Grossman putting the ball in the air in that situation. No, a sack or even better a pressure INT would have been the thing to get and for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Did anyone see any blatant holds by Dallas. I just don't understand why nobody got through. I understand Kerrigan pulled of fthe rush to cover for screens.

I'm typically not a big second guesser of play calls but I maintain it's the look Dallas wanted. Haz: "Tony, whattaya want?" Tony: "How about bringing the house and covering my best guy 1-on-1 on the right half of the field. Thanks for asking (and complying)."

DarthMonk

skinsfan#33 wrote:[quote="Red_One43]Nevertheless, I personally form my fans perspective would rather we had left at least a safety back there so we could play to DeAngelo's strength (jumping routes) and maybe forced Dez to break off the route because he new the safety was there.

As far as Haslett's call, I am not going to second guess him. We hadn't put much pressure on Romo all game except with the all out blitzes and even if Dallas had punted, it looks unlikely that we would have run for a first down and I shudder to think that about Grossman putting the ball in the air in that situation. No, a sack or even better a pressure INT would have been the thing to get and for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Did anyone see any blatant holds by Dallas. I just don't understand why nobody got through. I understand Kerrigan pulled of fthe rush to cover for screens.[/quote]

[quote]With a Safety back the play would have had a chance of working. With out one there was very little chance of success. If you had a safety back, once Romo started rolling right the safety would have sprinted to that side and Romo would have had to make a prefect throw. The results would have most likely been pick, a pd, or just an incomplete pass.

Better yet, Romo wouldn't have signaled to Bryant to forget his stop route and he never would have ran the go.

With a, safety back the odds of winning the game would have dramatically increased. Instead you put Hall in a no win situation, because no one can cover both hals of a field. With a safety there Romo wouldn't have been able to lob the pass to the opposite side of Hall.

Again, I want to stress no one could cover Bryant the way that play unfolded.[/quote]

Greg Cosell of NFL Films who watches more game film than anyone who is not a coach, reviewed the Redskin game as he does all games and said that on all the previous times the all out blitz was called (about 4 times), it good produced results. He also added that the Redskins are probably the most successful team with the all out blitz for this season. He said that he can't say difinitively that the Skins are the best at it, because he hasn't looked at every team regarding that play-by- play. The play doesn't works all the time and the one time it doesn't, the next thing you know, it's a dumb call by Haslett. Well, Mr. Cosell also happened to review the 3rd and 21 and tossed in his viewpoint (ESPN 980 DC local area) and concluded that DeAngelo was beaten on the play.

I have posted Tandler's analysis, Steve Czaban's radio show analysis and now Greg Cosell's analysis - all conclude after watching the play over and over, it was classic D. Hall that got beat. Yet, you want to say over and over that no DB could cover Bryant in that situation when you admit that Dez ran a go. You add that Hall had to cover both halves of the field, but that is simply not true. Hall had man coverage on Bryant - not zone - he was supposed to go where Bryant went, but Romo helped him by retreating to one side of the field, he had to throw on that side. You have produced any support for your opinion. Perhaps, you played DB. Perhaps you coached. How about your analysis blow by blow how the play unfolded and explain how no other DB could have covered Dez on that play.

DarthMonk wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:I have to agree with Fabe on this one, because Dallas almost went on 4th down just minutes later until they called a timeout and rethought it.

hmmm...could be. You probably meant earlier. Anyway, just an opinion. Going for it on say 4th and 10 would have surprised me.

If I am reading the drive charts properly you guys are referring to 4th an 7 at the REDSKINS 41. That is classic decision-time 4-down territory. They thought they were barely too far away to go. Diff situation on 3rd and 21 at their own 30. Apples and oranges!

Both of us are speculating on a gain that could put them in a 4th and short situation. Thus the ball would be somewhere near the 50 with a 4th and short. Not apples and oranges. Since we had no real pass rush all night and rarely even hit him, it is conceivable that they could have picked up a chunk of yardage with the time Romo had to throw.

Red_One43 wrote:As far as Haslett's call, I am not going to second guess him. We hadn't put much pressure on Romo all game except with the all out blitzes and even if Dallas had punted, it looks unlikely that we would have run for a first down and I shudder to think that about Grossman putting the ball in the air in that situation. No, a sack or even better a pressure INT would have been the thing to get and for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Did anyone see any blatant holds by Dallas. I just don't understand why nobody got through. I understand Kerrigan pulled of fthe rush to cover for screens.

I'm typically not a big second guesser of play calls but I maintain it's the look Dallas wanted. Haz: "Tony, whattaya want?" Tony: "How about bringing the house and covering my best guy 1-on-1 on the right half of the field. Thanks for asking (and complying)."

DarthMonk

Bringing the house forced Tony to throw a looping ball into the air, any disciplined corner would have been there. Dez doesn't have the speed to run by Hall and he didn't have time to run around and shake Hall. Tony and Dez used one of the oldest tricks in the book - delay off the line, pump and run by the undisciplined DB. Since bringing the house put an undisciplined corner on Dez then yes, Tony got what he wanted, but you also fail to take this into account. Had we not all out blitzed, we would have had to blitz somebodies and that still would have left Hall covering somebody (DeZ) one on one and Hall was toast all night long. Since Wilson was doing a good job, guess who Romo would have targeted with time?

Though I agree with you that we shouldn't have called the all out blitz (because I would never trust Hall in that situation) I do recognize that we had no pass rush all night long and they just might have had their way anyway. If it wasn't an all out blitz, then the play would not have unfolded that way - so we (including myself) cannot say that a safety would have helped. We don't know what kind of blitzes were options for that play. Bottomline: there was nothing wrong with the call given the game and season history with its usage (see my post with about Greg Cosell) - Hall, a highly paid DB, needs to make that play, plain and simple.
Also, it was stated that guys peeled out of the blitz to early. The play needed to be executed right.

Here's another point with the all out blitz. When Barnes got his interception, Tony was motioning to the receiver that he has to slant toward the goal post. The receiver ran the wrong route, but Barnes didn't and got the interception.

Hall should have known that that was Dallas' plan againt the all out blitz. He should have anticipated that throw. Where else was Romo supposed to go on that play? He only had one option and he knew it would be there because Hall is Hall. Barnes played it right and Hall didn't. That's called execution.

Red_One43 wrote:Here's another point with the all out blitz. When Barnes got his interception, Tony was motioning to the receiver that he has to slant toward the goal post. The receiver ran the wrong route, but Barnes didn't and got the interception.

Hall should have known that that was Dallas' plan againt the all out blitz. He should have anticipated that throw. Where else was Romo supposed to go on that play? He only had one option and he knew it would be there because Hall is Hall. Barnes played it right and Hall didn't. That's called execution.

that's the great thing about this game - it's ALWAYS a lot of things

when you look at all the things the pukes did badly - I mean, they were hopeless - and we did not take advantage of that

you win some, you lose some

there were a lot of other things than that 1 play that decided this game

even if Hall had intercepted the pass - SOMETHING else was going to decide the outcome - it just happened that the game was won by the pukes
could just as easily have been us

I never felt that we were going to win after we could not take advantage of the hopeless plays by their offense

when this group gets it together we'll never let an opportunity like we had last Monday get out of hand - NEVER

SkinsJock wrote:
I never felt that we were going to win after we could not take advantage of the hopeless plays by their offense

and there we have it ........ and our offense too

chiefhog44 wrote:Good article
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7030614

Very good article, chief. Thanks for that.

Umm. . . I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a lot of respect for Hall after reading this article. I also find the mindset of the coaches, Hall, Fletcher and Otagwe (s/p) very reasurring as to where this team's mindset is. Very encouraging to say the least. I except to see a very good response on Sunday.

The Redskins defense is going to be very motivated this Sunday in St Louis, but ....

FACT IS this defense is playing a lot better - what a shame that Jenkins is not available - Landry is back - we are going to have a very good defense on the field for a while

these guys will continue to be very effective got to love the attitude from players & coaches

UNFORTUNATELY - the Redskins offense is not

Hey Red. I said they would have gone for it on 4th and short. 4th and 10 from their 40 would be apples and oranges when you use them considering going for 4th and 7 at OUR 41 to conclude them going for 4th and 10 at THEIR 40.

I think the rest of your post was at someone else.

Again, not blaming loss on that play. Simply saying it was the wrong call for THAT SITUATION.

Also saying DHall played it poorly and that this one play DID NOT cost us the game.

DarthMonk

emoses14 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:Good article
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7030614

Very good article, chief. Thanks for that.

Umm. . . I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a lot of respect for Hall after reading this article. I also find the mindset of the coaches, Hall, Fletcher and Otagwe (s/p) very reasurring as to where this team's mindset is. Very encouraging to say the least. I except to see a very good response on Sunday.

Definitely a good article and I agree very reassuring as to where this team's mindset is. Hall? He is who he is - playmaker with a mouth and lately he has done more mouthing than playmaking.

Off the field, DeAngelo is a great guy, so yes, I do respect him as a person.