Smoot Lays the Smack Down (Redskins at Cowboys)

for comparison, and cause it's one of the things I can remember happily about the game, here is one of the ones from MNF. (i can't believe we didn't recover any of these :()

http://instntrply.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RomoAgain2.gif

How would you know what his assignment was? Looked to me like a 0 Blitz, and Kerrigan started to follow the back.. Didn't seem to be in man coverage with the RB..

But I guess we wont ever know.I won't be able to review the game this week and haven't re-watched it. But if it's Cover 0, Kerrigan could have had responsibility for the RB to his side. That being said, it's another reason why Cover 0 is the absolute worst call in this situation. The best pass rushers on this team are the OLBs (or DEs in the even front), in 3-21 & protecting a 1 point lead, why in the hell wouldn't you want them in a postion to "pin their ears back" and get after Romo.

Overall Haslett called a good game, but this play was unquestionably a bad playcall I'm sure he'd like to have back....and if he'd make the same playcall again then it's MS's responsibility to dial him back in these situations.

good article on the 3rd and 21.
One blitz too many for Redskins - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/27/one-blitz-too-many/?page=all#pagebreak)

we have a very good 3rd down team, I think it was a bad call because I would rather have had everyone doing their "normal" duties. It made it seem desparate. That said, it had worked well twice before as the article states, so maybe you go for it in that situation.

I dont doubt that when SS33 reviews the game, he'll see they made the same play call as they did week 1 when Kerrigan made his interception. On that play Kerrigan was supposed to come in on the blitz but noticed the Giants, on 3rd and 11, audible to a rocket screen to the RB. Kerrigan saw that and dropped back into coverage to make the play. On Monday night, it seems he wrongly assumed the same thing would happen.

good article on the 3rd and 21.
One blitz too many for Redskins - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/27/one-blitz-too-many/?page=all#pagebreak)

we have a very good 3rd down team, I think it was a bad call because I would rather have had everyone doing their "normal" duties. It made it seem desparate. That said, it had worked well twice before as the article states, so maybe you go for it in that situation.

But why take such a huge gamble when you are only up by 1 point? If it is any other situation, I can understand the call and the logic of keep doing something that is working.

for comparison, and cause it's one of the things I can remember happily about the game, here is one of the ones from MNF. (i can't believe we didn't recover any of these :()

http://instntrply.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RomoAgain2.gif

If I have any time this weekend I'd really love to stitch together a reel of all of these moments (you know, times when all his pathetic teammates fail the great field general) and set it to the "Benny Hill" theme music.

But why take such a huge gamble when you are only up by 1 point? If it is any other situation, I can understand the call and the logic of keep doing something that is working.

I agree. a lot of that game was lost due to good strategy used at the wrong time. 3rd and 21, you let your D do what it has been doing, it's worked well.

same thing with the 2nd series after our touchdown, since the quick strike didn't work, we should have, imo, gone to a ground game that seemed to be making strides.

Losses just are no fun:(.

I had no problem with blitzing on 3rd and 21, as Shanahan said Romo made a play and got it done. If we had sat back and given him all day to throw, we'd be sitting here wondering why we didn't keep blitzing when it was working so well prior to that.

Sometimes the other team makes a play, you can't win them all.

btw this was Romo's first non TD game in 20 straight

This "you let your D do what it's doing" principle is superseded by the "don't let your opponent know what you are doing" principle. Considering that he called the SAME play twice in a row already, you DO NOT do it a third time. If the opponent knows what you play is, they'll find a way to beat. Not only that, BEATING A cover-0 means BIG PLAY almost every time.

Also, playing prevent USUALLY results in a dumpoff to the back. He could have called an overload blitz to one side, a zone blitz. An all-out cover-0 blitz was NOT necessary.