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

-I'd rather get blown out; instead they play just good enough to break your heart
-Congrats to Garcon
-Should we have gone for 2?
-I'm starting to wonder if trading so much for RGIII was worth it

I just knew our choker D was gonna let Dullass score, even after Murry was dropped back at the 12 yard line...and then of course the O wasn't gonna do anything with the time that was left...this game played out pretty much the same way our season played out...yet another disappointment...

ACW wrote:-I'd rather get blown out; instead they play just good enough to break your heart

Not me. I understand the heartbreak, but a Kansas-City-level effort would have been so much more painful. The team really played a good game today and their hearts were definitely in it. It's just been "that" kind of season for us, and at this point there's not much else to say.

Irn-Bru wrote:

ACW wrote:-I'd rather get blown out; instead they play just good enough to break your heart

Not me. I understand the heartbreak, but a Kansas-City-level effort would have been so much more painful. The team really played a good game today and their hearts were definitely in it. It's just been "that" kind of season for us, and at this point there's not much else to say.

It was good to see MS all passionate the whole game. As frustrated as most of us are with him, at least we can say he hasn't quit.p on these guys.

Big congratulations to Pierre Garcon. And, props again to #46, he always plays hard. I also have to say we have a great kicker. Unfortunately, settling for FG's cost them the game. But, those three players are keepers!

Why DIDN'T we go for 2?

hanburgerheel wrote:Big congratulations to Pierre Garcon. And, props again to #46, he always plays hard. I also have to say we have a great kicker. Unfortunately, settling for FG's cost them the game. But, those three players are keepers!

Also, many thanks to the fans for being so loud, and I'm sure the water boy did a good job too....unfortunately, the rest of the team sucks a$$!!!

I cannot believe in London Fletcher's last home game as a Redskin, the freaking defense could not step it up and STOP A 4TH AND 6!!!

You knew as soon as Romo started limping around that he would pull off the comeback. Honestly, I think that is part of his game - he pretends he's hurt and the defense let's up a bit. Seems like the more "hurt" he is the better he is. At least we will probably have the first pick in the second round and next season cannot be worse. If this season had gone as we all thought and we had a first round pick it would have been in the mid-20s anyway. Grasping at straws, I know.

Romo deserves credit for the good things he does. When a play breaks down he keeps his eyes downfield. He seldom runs. Had he run on that 4th down he would have been tackled short and the game would have ended. He looks off defenders well. He provides a lot of things that I hope our young QB's pick up. Yes, he also implodes quite often and that is always enjoyable to witness.

The thing I HATE about a morning after a loss is watching NFL AM and hearing NOTHING about our good play. It's all Cowboys to them. And they'll certainly say NOTHING about the non-calls for block in the back on the punt return or the hold on 83 on that long run. The league is in danger of losing fans if they don't strengthen the integrity of the officiating. Just a frustrating day after. Life goes on.

ACW wrote:Why DIDN'T we go for 2?

It's easy to look at the final score and say we should have but it was way to early to start chasing that point. Any argument to the contrary is based on final score hindsight.

DarthMonk wrote:

ACW wrote:Why DIDN'T we go for 2?

It's easy to look at the final score and say we should have but it was way to early to start chasing that point. Any argument to the contrary is based on final score hindsight.

I don't know. I said right when it happened. Look at the thread. We have nothing to lose at this point. Might as well go for two when it was early enough in the game and if you don't get it you are still within 3 points difference.

hanburgerheel wrote:Big congratulations to Pierre Garcon. And, props again to #46, he always plays hard. I also have to say we have a great kicker. Unfortunately, settling for FG's cost them the game. But, those three players are keepers!

Dude is a stud. I hate to see an effort like that go wasted in a 3-13 season. You have to give him credit for playing to that level in spite of our record.

I can't believe we didn't go for 2. that was a poor coaching decision, going for just the 1 point made no sense whatsoever!

garcon played a helluva game, 4 quarters of 100% intensity. Hats off to him.
Riley made some really good plays and maybe he played that last play proper, i wish he'd have been a little more in the passing lane.
The refs missed a huge holding call that let Dallas move down the field. The player that replaced Rak was coming on the blind side when he got tackled, landed on the ground with the Dallas defender on top of him, this was the play that Romo rolled to the right and connected downfield for about 15yds and 1st down from around thier 45yd line.

Kilmer72 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

ACW wrote:Why DIDN'T we go for 2?

It's easy to look at the final score and say we should have but it was way to early to start chasing that point. Any argument to the contrary is based on final score hindsight.

I don't know. I said right when it happened. Look at the thread. We have nothing to lose at this point. Might as well go for two when it was early enough in the game and if you don't get it you are still within 3 points difference.

It would have had us down 2 on a miss.

I also said it right before it didn't happen. "Don't do it. Too early."

The way it unfolded we want the point but it could have unfolded in many different ways. For instance .. Dallas gets FG to go up 4 then a standard 7 puts us up 3 but only 2 if we'd tried for 2 and missed.

Even the way it DID unfold, had we missed our try for 2, Dallas could've tried for 2 at the end to get a 3 point lead.

It was just too early. <----- That's the answer to the question posed:

ACW wrote:Why DIDN'T we go for 2?

My one big question is why didn't Riley, Jr. move over and cover Murray instead of being mesmorized by Romo's dazzling escapabilty?

SCSkinsFan wrote:My one big question is why didn't Riley, Jr. move over and cover Murray instead of being mesmorized by Romo's dazzling escapabilty?

I don't blame Riley... they needed one more pass rusher...

SCSkinsFan wrote:My one big question is why didn't Riley, Jr. move over and cover Murray instead of being mesmorized by Romo's dazzling escapabilty?

Someone with the Coaches' 22 tape or whatever it's called could probably do better but it looked like zone to me and, typically, guys have assignments like "outside 3rd" (of the field) and such. Looked to me like D. Hall left his responsibility and got sucked inside - much like when Romo hit someone at the pylon on opening day a few years back to steal one only, that time, he got bailed out when someone held Orakpo.

It would be interesting to know the defensive call there and the responsibilities. If it's man-to-man it's on Riley all the way.

It doesn't help that our left tackle goes down to the ground either.

Speaking of Orakpo, did anyone notice how many times his got flattened and the olineman was laying on him so he couldn't get up?

On that last play, I would have to see the whole field. Unfortunately, the TV feed always follows the ball, so we can see the rushers (not enough of them rushed), but can't see the receivers run their routes.

However, the Redskins should have scored another FG sometime...and held a bigger lead.

welch wrote:On that last play, I would have to see the whole field. Unfortunately, the TV feed always follows the ball, so we can see the rushers (not enough of them rushed), but can't see the receivers run their routes.

However, the Redskins should have scored another FG sometime...and held a bigger lead.

This ... or maybe one more 1st down.

Then there is the timeout we took on defense while the clock was stopped.

I think the ball was at our 4.

We couldn't even stop a hobble Romo...who is probably out for the season

DarthMonk wrote:

SCSkinsFan wrote:My one big question is why didn't Riley, Jr. move over and cover Murray instead of being mesmorized by Romo's dazzling escapabilty?

Someone with the Coaches' 22 tape or whatever it's called could probably do better but it looked like zone to me and, typically, guys have assignments like "outside 3rd" (of the field) and such. Looked to me like D. Hall left his responsibility and got sucked inside - much like when Romo hit someone at the pylon on opening day a few years back to steal one only, that time, he got bailed out when someone held Orakpo.

It would be interesting to know the defensive call there and the responsibilities. If it's man-to-man it's on Riley all the way.

It doesn't help that our left tackle goes down to the ground either.

That was Roy Williams that caught a TD in exactly the same place. As you said, furtunately the Skins got bailed out on the holding call when the held Orakpo.

And, also true, another pass ruher on his feet instead of being on the ground would have helped.

I'd rather have seen Riley go over and man up on Murray rather than covering his "zone". Zone D's are too easy to pick apart as they leave a lot of holes for a receiver to find the open space and sit down in. Especially when you have someone like Romo that can buy time, extend the play, and find that open man. Manning up on everyone might have forced Romoto try to tun for it. And being hobbled I think someone, even Riley, could have come up and made the stop. Of course hindsight is always 20/20.

It's easy to blame Riley... but the fact is, both ends of that pass were in his area of responsibility, even in a man situation... as soon as Romo came free, Riley was in an untenable situation. Say what you want, Romo was looking pretty mobile on that play.

Romo was just following in a long line of Dallas divas who fake an injury and then are right back out there or never even come out at all. They do it so that if they win, they look gritty and tough, and the announcers swoon over them. And, if they lose, then there is that ready-made excuse.