dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,068
The first possession after the Kearse forced fumble was crying out for an Aikman to Harper moment, not playing it safe.
We don't have an Aikman for that to happen unfortunately
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,804
Reaction score
4,310
Aikman vs San Fran in a conference championship?
No man. Not the same situation.

You lead by 3 with just under 2 minutes left. Opponent with 2 timeouts, you just need a first down to end the game.

YOU RUN THE BALL IF ONLY TO USE CLOCK AND MAKE THEM SPEND THEIR TIMEOUTS.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,804
Reaction score
4,310
Why get cute and try to go win the game with a deep ball to Noah Brown. Sure, Brown had a big day to that point with two touchdown catches, but I don't think I'd want to throw it to Randy Moss at that point in the game.

To me, this is another example of why I never agree with the term "play to win the game" vs. "playing not to lose." I've said it 100 times and I'll say it 100 more. To me, those are the exact same things. You're either playing to win or playing not to lose based on how aggressive you are from time to time. But at that time, it's not about throwing the ball deep to Brown on a 50-50 ball hoping they call pass interference, which they really didn't call much all game long.

Just run the ball again. It doesn't have to be up the middle. It could be something with a stretch play to Tony Pollard where he might get loose and break one. Just keep the clock going and force a timeout. And this is why I can't stand Kellen Moore. Not one post in here about him. He always gets a free pass while Dak gets tossed under the bus.
The Jaguars would've gotten the ball with about 1:00 to play and needing 30-40 yards for the field goal. But everything is different when you have no timeouts. This game was totally on the coaches. When are they going to learn from their mistakes?!
If you're gonna quote Eatman verbatim, source it.

 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,068
No man. Not the same situation.

You lead by 3 with just under 2 minutes left. Opponent with 2 timeouts, you just need a first down to end the game.

YOU RUN THE BALL IF ONLY TO USE CLOCK AND MAKE THEM SPEND THEIR TIMEOUTS.
Douche bag gonna douche bag I guess.

Need some Midol or something Dooms?

It didnt matter if they spent that one last timeout. (By the way they had all 3 when the drive started, not 2 Dooms) They had the same amount of time and same amount of yards needed to get into FG range. They had people wide open against our defense all day. Over the middle, on the sidelines, in the flats, fly routes, crossing routes etc etc. I have no doubt whatsoever that the result would have been the same if they had no timeouts. They'd have simply ran some different route combinations to ensure a guy could run out of bounds, or just had Lawrence hurry and spike the ball.

Yes we needed a first down to END the game. We ran it twice and got zero yards. Them having one timeout or no timeouts had no real impact on the end result. We could have stopped them but didnt. They easily moved the ball downfield into FG range.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,068
If you're gonna quote Eatman verbatim, source it.

The article is trash Dooms.

Eatman is wrong. They were going to get the ball back with SAME amount of time left whether we ran or passed on that play or not.

They COULDNT run out the clock. They tried and got stuffed. They needed a first down.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,804
Reaction score
4,310
They COULDNT run out the clock. They tried and got stuffed. They needed a first down
They throw the little failed bomb to Brown. Then run a no-block draw play. Then a simple counter, no lead block.

We covered this.

You fucking line up with your jumbo package and do double-double, blast them outta there. Three times if need be. Then punt if you don't get the ten.

Give yourself a CHANCE for success.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,068
After the little bomb incomplete to Brown?

Did you read Eatman?
You bet he does. He thinks Dak is A-plus. Otherwise you wouldn't see the amount of trust they have in him.
I wouldn't have thrown it towards Brown on a low % sideline play, like I said in another post it would have made far more sense to me to throw it deep down the middle of the field if they were going to do that.

But throwing the ball was the right decision. They knew our defense couldnt stop them and they were right. I didn't see who else was where on that play but I doubt Brown was the only receiver in the pattern.

And no, there's no way in hell a guy who coached guys like Montana, Favre and Rodgers thinks Prescott even remotely resembles a guy like Aikman.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,589
Reaction score
9,068
They throw the little failed bomb to Brown. Then run a no-block draw play. Then a simple counter, no lead block.

We covered this.

You fucking line up with your jumbo package and do double-double, blast them outta there. Three times if need be. Then punt if you don't get the ten.

Give yourself a CHANCE for success.
16 rush attempts for 35 yards in 2nd half Doomz. Plenty of those were not shotgun run plays.

One timeout didn't lose the game. A defense that can't rush the passer or cover receivers lost the game.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,804
Reaction score
4,310
So, if I hate on a a black QB it makes me a racist? I will have you know I hate on white QB's too. Guess I need to keep my cracker mouth shut on here discussing Dak, don't need my true agenda known!
You're saying this stuff. Writing stuff in that's not even implied in any way.

I'm saying, we only ever hear from you when it's negative about Dak. Never hear one word from you when he kicks ass and does great. You just go silent.

So the agenda is, not being objective at all. Or fair. No matter the reason.
 
Top Bottom