Helman - Kiffin: Carter Was Rotated In 2nd Half, Not Benched

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
122,328
Kiffin: Carter Was Rotated In 2nd Half, Not Benched

Posted 15 hours ago

David Helman DallasCowboys.com Staff Writer


SAN DIEGO – It seemed telling that, following Danny Woodhead’s second receiving touchdown of the afternoon against Dallas, Bruce Carter was pulled from the field.

Carter was assigned the task of covering the diminutive tailback heading into Sunday’s 30-21 loss to the Chargers, but he was quickly replaced by Ernie Sims when Woodhead found paydirt a second time.

“I’ve just got to stay on top. Woodhead got out – he ran a great route, and the ball was placed perfectly,” Carter said. “It was a great throw and catch, but I’ve got to stay on top.”


Many people would call that a benching, but defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is not among them. Kiffin said the Cowboys’ coaching staff rotated players throughout the defense, and Carter’s situation was no different than the rotation of defensive linemen or Orlando Scandrick and Morris Claiborne at cornerback.

“I don’t know that he got benched – it was hot out there,” Kiffin said. “We intend to play some guys – same way with Mo at corner.”

It didn’t seem quite like a rotation in this instance, however, as Sims took over for Carter without much variation shortly after halftime. It wasn’t a memorable day for any of the Cowboys’ linebackers, as the Chargers’ tight ends and running backs combined for 19 receptions for 231 yards and three touchdowns.

Pressed to clarify, Kiffin remained adamant about his original stance.

“I wasn’t keeping track of (individual playing time), to tell you the truth. Ernie was planning on playing some, and it was hot and we rotated some players in there – same with the D-Line,” Kiffin said. “It wasn’t really hot-hot, but it was a little bit warmer than normal. And we were on the field quite a bit, too. It’s not like ‘Wow, this guy got benched’ or something like that. I’m just telling you it wasn’t that.”

Cowboys coach Jason Garrett agreed with that assessment during his postgame press conference.

“Bruce was in and out,” Garrett said. “Throughout the game we had a couple guys that were in and out but I don’t think that it was anything serious.”

Carter, for his part, left questions of playing time up to the coaching staff.

“That’s just up to the coaches. My job as a player is just to go out there and play – just go out there and do the best I can,” he said. “That’s out of my control.”

It’s something to keep an eye on going forward this week. The Cowboys’ defense gets to follow up this performance with a date against an even better quarterback and offense in Peyton Manning and the Broncos.

“It’s tough, but that’s just part of the NFL – there’s no days off and there’s no easy games,” Carter said. “We’ve just got to go back to work on Wednesday.”
---------------------

Yeah, that 77 degrees at kickoff must have been grueling and stuff.
 

UncleMilti

This seemed like a good idea at the time.
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
17,985
Yeah...lets not have any accountability around Dallas.

This team sucks a giant elephant cock.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,505
Yeah...lets not have any accountability around Dallas.

This team sucks a giant elephant cock.
Sounds to me like Carter was benched.

What do you want, a public tongue lashing? Newsflash, that's not gonna happen.

We see a lot more benchings here than we've seen in the past, I don't know why people never want to talk about them.
 

asklesko

Whoa An Active DCCer
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
237
using these linebackers to cover receivers was a bad idea.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,696
When you bench a guy but try to soften the blow by calling it something else and hedging that it's not a consequence of poor play, you are neutering the accountability and defeating the purpose of the action.

Sending a clear message that poor play has consequences drives accountability through the whole team. Pretending you are just rotating players and it's business as usual stifles accountability.

In other words, they are doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,696
using these linebackers to cover receivers was a bad idea.
Yeah. I mean Carter did not have a good game but they left him in an impossible position way too often. Him against Woodhead is asking a lot.

On Woodhead's first TD, he was bunched wide with Gates. Carter and Carr were on that side lined up I guess in man coverage. Carr specifically moved Carter to cover Woodhead. Makes no sense to me. I'd feel way more comfortable with Carter on Gates - Woodhead is way too speedy and shifty for him. It's like we had no plan and were just winging it. On both sides of the ball.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
When you bench a guy but try to soften the blow by calling it something else and hedging that it's not a consequence of poor play, you are neutering the accountability and defeating the purpose of the action.

Sending a clear message that poor play has consequences drives accountability through the whole team. Pretending you are just rotating players and it's business as usual stifles accountability.

In other words, they are doing it wrong.

Don't worry because behind closed doors they are doing and saying all the right things which will be positively reflected in the won-loss column...or something like that.
 

UncleMilti

This seemed like a good idea at the time.
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
17,985
When you bench a guy but try to soften the blow by calling it something else and hedging that it's not a consequence of poor play, you are neutering the accountability and defeating the purpose of the action.

Sending a clear message that poor play has consequences drives accountability through the whole team. Pretending you are just rotating players and it's business as usual stifles accountability.

In other words, they are doing it wrong.
Yeah thanks Geng.....Apparently Schmitty has the extra dark rose glasses on.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,014
Yeah. I mean Carter did not have a good game but they left him in an impossible position way too often. Him against Woodhead is asking a lot.

On Woodhead's first TD, he was bunched wide with Gates. Carter and Carr were on that side lined up I guess in man coverage. Carr specifically moved Carter to cover Woodhead. Makes no sense to me. I'd feel way more comfortable with Carter on Gates - Woodhead is way too speedy and shifty for him. It's like we had no plan and were just winging it. On both sides of the ball.
I said this in the chatter thread when it happened. It made no sense at the time for him to be on Woodhead and it doesn't make any sense now.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,505
When you bench a guy but try to soften the blow by calling it something else and hedging that it's not a consequence of poor play, you are neutering the accountability and defeating the purpose of the action.
I don't agree. I think everyone realizes what it was, they just don't want to throw him under the bus in the media.

The players, and Bruce Carter specifically, know what happened.
 
Top Bottom