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

I'm glad Jim Zorn has so much media availability, from his Sunday press conferences to his Monday press conferences to his Monday appearances on Comcast SportsNet to his Tuesday appearances on ESPN 980. But at some point, maybe it'd be better if he stopped talking. Because honestly, the more he discusses his blown replay challenge on that crucial fair catch disaster against the Panthers, the worse he sounds.

"Obviously, the big play of the game was the punt return," CSN's Chick Hernandez said during his weekly Monday sit-down with Zorn. "Randle El goes back there, and Byron Westbrook gets caught getting pushed into Randle El. And I'm watching with B-Mitch, he knows the rule right off the bat, he sees what's going on. What did you see, and on that sideline, did you know the rule immediately?

"Yeah, well, I knew most of the rule," Zorn responded. "But it turns out I didn't know one little phrase, and that was a passive player versus an active player. A player who's just standing there, he can't get pushed into the fair catch. But when two players are running like they're doing, and blocking or trying to not be blocked into the fair catch receiver, the fair catch is off. You can actually hit that guy. And so that's what happened. And I thought it was worth trying to challenge it to see if we could get that ball back, but to no avail."

Most of the rule! Look, I know that poor abused timeout ultimately didn't matter. But if you're the head man of an NFL team, I'm thinking you should probably know even the "one little phrase" part of the old fair catch rule. Because, see, it turns out that, say, a DeAngelo Hall knew the whole dang rule.

"When I was in Atlanta, we actually trained our guys--once you're engaged and the guy fair catches--to run [the opponent] into him," Hall told Larry Michael during the postgame coverage. "That's why [when] everyone was saying, 'Nah, he fair caught...' Nah, I'm over there telling everybody, 'It don't matter, it don't matter, you can push him right into that returner.' And that's the thing. That's why we need to get out the way."

So why, then, did Zorn challenge the call? Because he figured that even if Westbrook was legally blocked into Randle El, maybe the ball glanced off the Carolina player first, right? No. No no no no no. That's not why he challenged it.

"I knew it went off [Westbrook's] foot," Zorn told Hernandez, which nearly caused me to choke on my roasted pumpkin seeds. "I was trying to challenge the reversal of giving our receiver an opportunity to make a fair catch when signaled, no matter where it was on the field. Antwaan had to run up 14 yards to catch this thing, that's how short the punt was. You just don't blame anybody. It was just unfortunate, very unfortunate."

So to be clear, what he thought he was challenging was the reversal of giving his receiver an opportunity to make a fair catch when signaled. And here's what the official said after Zorn threw his challenge flag:

"Washington is challenging the ruling on the field that the ball touched his receiver."

Bzzzzz. Gong. Hsssss. Booooo. Thhhbbbbbbbt. Choose your method of vocal scorn here, but it had best be loud. Because Zorn and the official weren't even in agreement on what he was even challenging arggggghhhhhh /drives remote control through skull

"After reviewing the play, the ball hit the Redskins receiver, No. 34, in the foot," the official said after the review, even though Zorn apparently already knew that. "The ball belongs to Carolina, first down, Washington will be charged with a timeout." For some reason, he mentioned nothing about the reversal of any sort of opportunity.

Look, I couldn't be an NFL head coach, and you couldn't be an NFL head coach, and the guy sitting three seats down from you couldn't be an NFL head coach, and Steve Spurrier couldn't be an NFL head coach. But luckily, only 32 people actually have to serve as NFL head coaches. And maybe each of those 32 fellas should know the whole NFL rulebook, and should have a policy against mystery voodoo replay challenges over gaping voids of ethereal nothingness.

(For the record, Zorn also discussed special teams play during his session with Hernandez. "Our special teams is playing GREAT," he said.)

UK Skins Fan wrote:I can't say that I'd expect a head coach to know the detail of EVERY single rule in the book, but I'd expect the special teams coach to know, and I'd expect Randle El to know. So, either they knew, and didn't say anything. Or they knew, said something, and were ignored. Or Zorn isn't telling the truth about why he challenged. Or he is telling the truth about why he challenged, but the official misunderstood - in which case, why hasn't Zorn shouted that from the rooftops?

After considering all of the above, I am left questioning Zorn's competence, and his current psychological state. And worse than that, I think there's cause to doubt his honesty.

frankcal20 wrote:I am not going to beat him up over this rule. It's not like when McNabb didn't know you could tie.

This was a rule about an Active player who is engaged in the play or one who is not. I'm sure that he will never forget that rule as long as he lives. That one play did not cost us the game. As big of a play as it was, it was not the game winner.

frankcal20 wrote:I am not going to beat him up over this rule. It's not like when McNabb didn't know you could tie.

This was a rule about an Active player who is engaged in the play or one who is not. I'm sure that he will never forget that rule as long as he lives. That one play did not cost us the game. As big of a play as it was, it was not the game winner.

Maybe, just maybe the "bend don't break" (what a ridiculous name!) defense could have held.

RayNAustin wrote:It goes far deeper than this one play, or whether he knew the whole rule or not. This is about a coach that is over his head on many levels.

It took some time to figure this out definitively, but should have been expected. He has no head coaching experience at all .. at any level.

His decisions ... like the stretch play that caused a safety is but one example. The continues repeat of the same red zone tactics are another. His philosophy of "stay medium" might be good for a PGA tour player, but not for NFL football players. I want em boiling over for 60 minutes, and if I see em cooling down, light a fire under them. This is THE ONE issue, if only one could be chosen that depicts this team. They're so "medium" they're almost asleep, and they're getting the tar knocked out of them and don't seem to have an answer for anything.

This team is not without talent. The o-line is certainly in a mess, and even though one might have been able to anticipate injury to aging linemen, it's unfortunate to lose your 2 best ones this early. But that's still no excuse for not making the necessary offensive adjustments, and fielding a competitive team. This offense is simply horrific and digressing, and it all starts with the HC.

frankcal20 wrote:I am not going to beat him up over this rule. It's not like when McNabb didn't know you could tie.

This was a rule about an Active player who is engaged in the play or one who is not. I'm sure that he will never forget that rule as long as he lives. That one play did not cost us the game. As big of a play as it was, it was not the game winner.

DEHog wrote:What I didn't like was he challenged the play...your staff upstairs had plenty of time to see the replays..it never should have been challenged. Than he stood by it saying it was such a big play we had too...no you still had 9 min to go and the could have use the TO

dmwc wrote:

Maybe, just maybe the "bend don't break" (what a ridiculous name!) defense could have held.

And it s because of that statement that Blanche has no clue and needs to roll with Jimmy Z out the door...

SnyderSucks wrote:

dmwc wrote:

Maybe, just maybe the "bend don't break" (what a ridiculous name!) defense could have held.

And it s because of that statement that Blanche has no clue and needs to roll with Jimmy Z out the door...

Yeah, the defense is the problem with this team.

Let's see - last game the defense essentially scored two touchdowns, while the offense scored 3 points. The offense allowed two points on the safety, and the special teams resulted in 8 points. Take away the points lost due to offense and special teams, and the defense outscored the other team. Perhaps they should just play defense the entire game! The only problem on defense right now is Orakpo playing out of position, and that's on Cerrato and Snyder.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:

dmwc wrote:

Maybe, just maybe the "bend don't break" (what a ridiculous name!) defense could have held.

And it s because of that statement that Blanche has no clue and needs to roll with Jimmy Z out the door...

Yeah, the defense is the problem with this team.

Let's see - last game the defense essentially scored two touchdowns, while the offense scored 3 points. The offense allowed two points on the safety, and the special teams resulted in 8 points. Take away the points lost due to offense and special teams, and the defense outscored the other team. Perhaps they should just play defense the entire game! The only problem on defense right now is Orakpo playing out of position, and that's on Cerrato and Snyder.

Look, I don't know why people can't get this. The Defense can win a game too. Seattle, yes I said Seattle has pitched TWO, yes TWO, shutouts this year!

It is a common theme over the last 5 years or so for this D to play great most of the game, but not when it counts! How about keeping the score 17 - 2 or 17 - 12.. Why give up two TDs in the second half AND not get the ball back to the O.

Everyone knows, the D was the only reason they were in the game last Sunday, but is it too much to ask for the relief pitcher not to give up two grand slams after the 7th inning stretch, when the Starting pitcher, pitched a no hitter?

Every unit played in that loss on Sunday, they each had a chance to win it and none of them did.