Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

I don't know how to judge the game. We played some really good football today and had a couple of chances to hit them when they were down and didn't. The 4th and 1 was a no-brainer for me, we should have went for it.
ST in the game equals TO having half the numbers he had. Plain and simple.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Gmanc711;380016]The one and only coaching call I didnt like was the feild goal of 50 yards. I said before the play started that we should either go for it, or punt it away. Again like you said hindsight is 20/20, but that was one that I really didnt like before and after the fact. I mean, were going to have bad plays/calls every game, so it is what it is. They're a very good football team...that was the type of effort I wanted to see against New England.[/quote]

Well I would disagree, I would much rather see a FG attempt than a punt. But to mean the logical choice is to go for it, because of the attitude I think we should have come in with.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Let me add my 2:

Samuels played the worst of the 5 linemen. Overall, they did enough to win but samuels getting beat really cost us.


Campbell was good, Unfortunately he is never good enough in the clutch. If only he had hit moss in the end zone. It seems like every loss there is an open WR that he misses.


We could've pulled this one out :(

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=hooskins;380014]I'm still struggling with the whole "if ST was back" reasoning. I do think he would have helped the secondary, but I still think it is an excuse. how can a coach let the same player be wide open, and beat us the same way 3 times? If someone can convince me not to be upset at GW, go for it because I am trying damn hard.[/quote]

I am assuming our players are decent and smart, and have the ability to prevent one player beating them multiple times.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Just a thought about ST being out today. Does anyone here really think TO would have scored 4TDs with ST lurking? And without those 4TDs who wins? Maybe its just as simple as that...

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=SCRedskinsFan;380030]Just a thought about ST being out today. Does anyone here really think TO would have scored 4TDs with ST lurking? And without those 4TDs who wins? Maybe its just as simple as that...[/quote]

I don't TO would score 4, but at the same time how come our D cannot adapt to 1 play and player when given 3 chances?

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=hooskins;379985]1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.

2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.[/quote]I agree with point 1. It was early in the game, and getting that first down and perhaps driving for a 14-0 lead would have made a statement at that point.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=jamf;380025]Let me add my 2:

Samuels played the worst of the 5 linemen. Overall, they did enough to win but samuels getting beat really cost us.


Campbell was good, Unfortunately he is never good enough in the clutch. If only he had hit moss in the end zone. It seems like every loss there is an open WR that he misses.


We could've pulled this one out :([/QUOTE]

Agree about Samuels, but they need to give him more help than that, in my opinion. D. Ware is way too good for that.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Gmanc711;380044]Agree about Samuels, but they need to give him more help than that, in my opinion. D. Ware is way too good for that.[/quote]

Yea same here, but at the same time perhaps our receivers might not have been so open if we left one more back. Basically maybe JC needed more options to find someone open.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Chris Samuels is the absolute last of our worries and I mean last.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

You all DO realize that we had 50% backups in our secondary and were playing against one of THE premier wide receivers in the modern era of football?

I hate TO with all my heart and would love nothing more than to see him get drilled into next Tuesday coming across the field, but you can't argue with the guys stats and career. He's climbing the list of all-time TD and his physical skills are tops NFL history.

We had one decent (usually) starting CB in Springs, a backup CB in Smoot, a rookie safety in Landry who's strength isn't coverage and a backup safety in Prioleau.

Yes, they got lit up by Romo and TO. It's pretty damn amazing that it wasn't worse, all things considered.

You take a hodge-podge, banged-up, cobbled-together secondary and ask them to blanket one of the top 5 WRs in the game and I think we got what is to be expected. No amount of scheming is going to make up for just not having the talent to shut TO down.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;379985]1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.

2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.[/QUOTE]

Yeah,not even thinking twice about going for it on 4th and 1 is kinda disturbing.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Also, with under 2:00 in the 4th quarter, down in the redzone, I felt that there was a bit of unnecessary urgency. I thought for sure they would have given the ball to Portis once or twice when they got near the 10 yard line.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=mheisig;380057]You all DO realize that we had 50% backups in our secondary and were playing against one of THE premier wide receivers in the modern era of football?

I hate TO with all my heart and would love nothing more than to see him get drilled into next Tuesday coming across the field, but you can't argue with the guys stats and career. He's climbing the list of all-time TD and his physical skills are tops NFL history.

We had one decent (usually) starting CB in Springs, a backup CB in Smoot, a rookie safety in Landry who's strength isn't coverage and a backup safety in Prioleau.

Yes, they got lit up by Romo and TO. It's pretty damn amazing that it wasn't worse, all things considered.

You take a hodge-podge, banged-up, cobbled-together secondary and ask them to blanket one of the top 5 WRs in the game and I think we got what is to be expected. No amount of scheming is going to make up for just not having the talent to shut TO down.[/quote]

You honestly thought prior to the game, based on our talent, that TO would score 4 TDs(all long bombs)? And three of those being nearly the same exact play? Also when the emphasis from GW was to minimize his production?

I suspect the answer is no.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Gmanc711;380044]Agree about Samuels, but they need to give him more help than that, in my opinion. D. Ware is way too good for that.[/quote]

For me dude, I'd rather take a sack or two and have the offense opened up like it is. The offense looks amazing today. Two turnovers in the red zone? We could easily have had 35 points.