Smoot Lays the Smack Down (Redskins at Cowboys)

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

Can we smackdown posts like this?

How could the third game of the season confirm your prediction that this is a 7-9 team?

Because the sky is falling.
But that's another thread.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Bucket

Man, I wish Kerrigan wouldn't of got caught in empty space on that big 3rd and 21. After re-watching the play a few times.. If Kerrigan actually keeps coming up field, then he hurries Romo into a quicker throw, or even gets a sack.

Instead he starts to back off and play coverage and it gives Romo more time to make the play down field.. I guess he finally showed his "rookie-ness"

Yeah, I think Kerrigan needed to do a better job of keeping contain. It looks to me like that was his job, not covering the back. I think that play is an unfortunate example of Kerrigan's learning curve.

[Hog1]

.............rookie

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

If I had to bet one way or the other I would say we did do it.I can only remember once ever seeing a team penalised for this,and it was us and its been within the last 2 seasons.Also from what I remember it ended up costing us points when had stopped the team on a critical down.Glad we got away with it this time but im sure theyll have an extra ear out for us in future games

Wayyyy back when, we got called for it once. It was when Antonio Pierce was still with the team. It was near the goal line and you could see AP's head moving as he barked out signals. Refs called him on it. It gave the other team a first and goal and they promptly scored.

I remember watching it and thinking "Damn, that was dumb!"

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

If I had to bet one way or the other I would say we did do it.I can only remember once ever seeing a team penalised for this,and it was us and its been within the last 2 seasons.Also from what I remember it ended up costing us points when had stopped the team on a critical down.Glad we got away with it this time but im sure theyll have an extra ear out for us in future games

I guess the NYJ did it too:

[CRedskinsRule]

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 )

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Bucket

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

good article on the 3rd and 21.
One blitz too many for Redskins - Washington Times

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.

[SmootSmack]

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

good article on the 3rd and 21.
One blitz too many for Redskins - Washington Times

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.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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 )

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

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.

[MTK]

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.

[skinsfaninok]

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

[SirClintonPortis]

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.