Sturm's Morning After - Cowboys Defense Can't Stop Rodgers Late

[Angrymesscan]

Prescott maybe just keeps it instead of handing to Elliott, and scores on 2nd and 1. How do we know he doesn't? He did on the very next play.

I'm saying you would have had to specifically call a play on 2nd and one DESIGNED to just get the first down and keep the clocks rolling with a first and goal from the 10, 9, 8 yard line, etc.

Once Prescott breaks free on the RPO keeper, he's getting in the endzone. He's not stopping at the 1.

That is all irrelevant, it was the wrong call.

 

[Angrymesscan]

Which, again, is why I said I am not disputing that some could argue that the pass wasn't the best idea.

I'm just rejecting that the pass cost us the game. We don't know that.

 

[Smitty]

That is all irrelevant

It's not irrelevant to my point.

 

[Angrymesscan]

It's not irrelevant to my point.

So you think it was the right call?

 

[Smitty]

So you think it was the right call?

I don't think it was the best call, but I understand the thinking that you have to score. I'm not really holding it against the playcalling. It's more egregious to me that you can't trust your D not to surrender a TD in under a minute and a half.

 

[Angrymesscan]

I don't think it was the best call, but I understand the thinking that you have to score. I'm not really holding it against the playcalling. It's more egregious to me that you can't trust your D not to surrender a TD in under a minute and a half.

If it wasn't the best call it was the wrong call. It wasn't the worst call, I mean they could have called for a punt, but it was the wrong call.

 

[Smitty]

If it wasn't the best call it was the wrong call. It wasn't the worst call, I mean they could have called for a punt, but it was the wrong call.

Your analogy is stupid.

Obviously there are degrees. Calling a punt is a lot wrong. Calling a pass trying to score.... which is your main objective.... is slightly wrong.

I don't personally think it was that egregious. I am not on here trying to defend the pass as the right decision though, I just don't see the reason to get that worked up about it.

Especially because on the next down they had the opportunity to pick up the first and run the clock out again. And they did in fact run the ball. And then instead of just getting the first, they scored. Because that was the outcome of the running play.

So really the only "right call" in the mind of these second guessers would have been to deliberately get 2-3 yards, and get first and goal from the 8-9 yard line, apparently. And then magically score from there, as if it would have been a sure thing on a fresh set of downs.

I mean, I can't get behind saying that was the only acceptable call. It's way too limited and way too unconventional to tell your players not to score.

 

[Angrymesscan]

Your analogy is stupid.

Obviously there are degrees. Calling a punt is a lot wrong. Calling a pass trying to score.... which is your main objective.... is slightly wrong.

I don't personally think it was that egregious. I am not on here trying to defend the pass as the right decision though, I just don't see the reason to get that worked up about it.

Especially because on the next down they had the opportunity to pick up the first and run the clock out again. And they did in fact run the ball. And then instead of just getting the first, they scored. Because that was the outcome of the running play.

So really the only "right call" in the mind of these second guessers would have been to deliberately get 2-3 yards, and get first and goal from the 8-9 yard line, apparently. And then magically score from there, as if it would have been a sure thing on a fresh set of downs.

I mean, I can't get behind saying that was the only acceptable call. It's way too limited and way too unconventional to tell your players not to score.

You are the only one talking about the outcome of the play (and the play after that) to determine if it was the right or wrong call, that is hindsight. The pass was the wrong call. If they run it and they score, fine. Would the outcome of the game have changed? Probably not, but it was the right call. Throwing a pass there was a stupid, wrong, asinine call.

 

[Smitty]

You are the only one talking about the outcome of the play (and the play after that) to determine if it was the right or wrong call, that is hindsight.

No, I'm not using the later outcomes to say it was the right call or the wrong call. I'm not even really weighing in on whether it was the right call or the wrong call. You seem to be misunderstanding that.

I'm saying that it's proof that the call to pass on second and 1, whether right/smart or wrong/dumb at the time the call was made, did not have the effect of hurting us. We could have achieved on the very next down on third and 1 (and did, when Prescott achieved it by rushing for more than 2 yards) the very thing you were trying to accomplish on second down. It made the second down call moot, even if it was a dumb call on second and 1.

I'm also saying there is the possibility that a run on second and 1 simply scores on second and 1. We don't know the outcome of a hypothetical run on second and 1. We may call a different type of run than the one Prescott play-actioned away from on second and 1, if we call a run instead of a pass.

The pass was the wrong call. If they run it and they score, fine. Would the outcome of the game have changed? Probably not, but it was the right call. Throwing a pass there was a stupid, wrong, asinine call.

If they run it and score on 2nd and 1, we are actually in about a 3-4 second worse position (ie, 3-4 seconds more time left on the clock for the Packers).

What you are calling the "right call" is because you think, based on the odds, it was the best chance to pick up the first down and run more time off the clock.

You are free to think that. It may well have been.

However, you comparing it to being the same level of wrong as a "punt" is stupid. As I said, there are degrees of calls being good or bad, better or worse.

Calling a pass on second down in this situation probably wasn't the smartest move, I have conceded.

I don't think it was as bad as some are making it out to be, however.

And of course, there's no proof that it actually cost us the game, as I explained above.

 

[Angrymesscan]

No, I'm not using the later outcomes to say it was the right call or the wrong call. I'm not even really weighing in on whether it was the right call or the wrong call. You seem to be misunderstanding that.

I'm saying that it's proof that the call to pass on second and 1, whether right/smart or wrong/dumb at the time the call was made, did not have the effect of hurting us. We could have achieved on the very next down on third and 1 (and did, when Prescott achieved it by rushing for more than 2 yards) the very thing you were trying to accomplish on second down. It made the second down call moot, even if it was a dumb call on second and 1.

I'm also saying there is the possibility that a run on second and 1 simply scores on second and 1. We don't know the outcome of a hypothetical run on second and 1. We may call a different type of run than the one Prescott play-actioned away from on second and 1, if we call a run instead of a pass.



If they run it and score on 2nd and 1, we are actually in about a 3-4 second worse position (ie, 3-4 seconds more time left on the clock for the Packers).

What you are calling the "right call" is because you think, based on the odds, it was the best chance to pick up the first down and run more time off the clock.

You are free to think that. It may well have been.

However, you comparing it to being the same level of wrong as a "punt" is stupid. As I said, there are degrees of calls being good or bad, better or worse.

Calling a pass on second down in this situation probably wasn't the smartest move, I have conceded.

I don't think it was as bad as some are making it out to be, however.

And of course, there's no proof that it actually cost us the game, as I explained above.

So you're not "using the later outcomes to say it was the right call or the wrong call", but... "It made the second down call moot"...

Nor are you "really weighing in on whether it was the right call or the wrong call" but... "What you are calling the "right call" is because you think, based on the odds, it was the best chance to pick up the first down and run more time off the clock."
So... without the next play making it moot, based on the odds the right call was a run. A pass was the WRONG call.
Stick to the facts we had at the time, don't look at what happened after that call, heck don't even look at the result of the play. A run was the right call, end of conversation.
Ask yourself what would have your hero Parcells called? What would he have yelled at his OC if he heard him send in a pass play?

1st down on your own 1 yd. line at the beginning of the game, what do you call? A run. Why? Because it's the right call. But the object of the game is to score, so a 9 route should be almost as good a call right? NO. Anything but a run is the wrong call. You might get lucky and a wrong call might get a good result, but that doesn't make it the right call.

 

[Smitty]

So you're not "using the later outcomes to say it was the right call or the wrong call", but... "It made the second down call moot"...

Yeah. Not sure what you're not following.

It can be the wrong call at the time, but also have had no effect because of later events.

 

[Angrymesscan]

Yeah. Not sure what you're not following.

It can be the wrong call at the time, but also have had no effect because of later events.

So you agree it as the wrong call at the time, thank you.

 

[Smitty]

So you agree it as the wrong call at the time, thank you.

Don't put words in my mouth. I understand that reading and comprehension aren't strong skills for you, so I'll direct you back to a post where I said:

I don't think it was the best call, but I understand the thinking that you have to score. I'm not really holding it against the playcalling. It's more egregious to me that you can't trust your D not to surrender a TD in under a minute and a half.

 

[mcnuttz]

As a head coach, you should know your team's weaknesses and strengths.

Do you trust your run game to score more than you trust the defense to stop Rodgers?

It doesn't take an Ivy League education to process this, and yet the genius outsmarts himself yet again.

I get it, the defense sucks. Rodgers would have marched for a TD in at least 8 times out of 10. Why doesn't our HC see what a threat he is? I think it's because he's too frikkin proud to change. This is the way it's done, we do it this way.

ADJUST, damn it! Let's win some frikkin ball games that we have no business winning.

 

[Smitty]

Why doesn't our HC see what a threat he is? I think it's because he's too frikkin proud to change. This is the way it's done, we do it this way.

I don't know that that is pride. I think Garrett is a creature of habit and convention when it comes to certain things. He has some bad habits that he falls back on, and he has some tried and true conventions that he maybe should abandon at times, that he doesn't because it's conventional.

But I don't think it's pride, or arrogance, or whatever. I think he's playing the numbers and doesn't necessarily have the "feel" that some special coaches have to sense when he needs to do something different.

But that's a lot of coaches.

 

[1bigfan13]

As a head coach, you should know your team's weaknesses and strengths.

Do you trust your run game to score more than you trust the defense to stop Rodgers?

It doesn't take an Ivy League education to process this, and yet the genius outsmarts himself yet again.

I get it, the defense sucks. Rodgers would have marched for a TD in at least 8 times out of 10. Why doesn't our HC see what a threat he is? I think it's because he's too frikkin proud to change. This is the way it's done, we do it this way.

ADJUST, damn it! Let's win some frikkin ball games that we have no business winning.

Agreed. The offensive play calling and pace of play that we saw in the 4th quarter of the Packers game should be the permanent standard until we get our defense squared away.

We literally have to play keep away to protect the defense. As you mentioned, it's as simple as using your team's strengths to compensate for the weaknesses.

Is it "sexy" football? Absolutely not.

But playing that way will win you more games.

 

[Smitty]

We literally have to play keep away to protect the defense. As you mentioned, it's as simple as using your team's strengths to compensate for the weaknesses.

It's definitely not that simple. We have had tons of trouble playing line up, smash mouth football this year.

Green Bay has an atrocious run defense. We aren't gonna be able to do that against everyone.

 

[1bigfan13]

It's definitely not that simple. We have had tons of trouble playing line up, smash mouth football this year.

Green Bay has an atrocious run defense. We aren't gonna be able to do that against everyone.

I know it won't work against everyone but it would work against most teams.

 

[mcnuttz]

I don't know that that is pride. I think Garrett is a creature of habit and convention when it comes to certain things. He has some bad habits that he falls back on, and he has some tried and true conventions that he maybe should abandon at times, that he doesn't because it's conventional.

But I don't think it's pride, or arrogance, or whatever. I think he's playing the numbers and doesn't necessarily have the "feel" that some special coaches have to sense when he needs to do something different.

But that's a lot of coaches.

No doubt he's smart, but I do think he's arrogant as hell. Uplifting words and wisodm don't help a unit who just isn't good enough.

If he truly had a good feel for his team, he never would have put his defense in that situation at the end of the game.

If he was a rookie HC you could chalk it up as part of the learning curve, but he's outsmarted himself for too long.

I honestly thought he's make a good walk-around HC, but can now admit that I was wrong.

He's predictable and arrogant.

What's sucks the most is that Dallas has done some pretty damn good drafting the last 5 years.

We've got enough talent that a HC with some balls and gumption could claw his way deep into the playoffs.

 

[Smitty]

I know it won't work against everyone but it would work against most teams.

Well it hasn't really worked against the Giants, Broncos, Cardinals, and Rams so far. The Packers were the first team we really ran it successfully on, in the second half, like we did last year.

The line may be coming together, but it has struggled.

On top of that, you still can't simply say "This is our strength and we can't be stopped." Teams are gonna stop it. They have come out this year determined to not let us run the ball this year like we did last year and you are seeing the result.