NFP: Did Haslett Make the Right Call in the Final Minutes?

[Rymanofthenorth]

And when was the last time an undrafted rookie FA kicker went 6-6 for God's Sake?

Or a center/QB combo leave the ball bouncing around in the backfield 4-5 times and not once have it bounce to a defender?

The Skins were paddling upstream against the universe on Monday Night.

Add to that that they apparently smeared Vaseline on their hands prior to grabbing said paddle, and you get a loss we'll be shaking our heads over for many years.

yeah, it hurts more because we had so many opportunities lol

 

[burgold]

If it works the coach is a genius. If it doesn't he's an idiot.

A universal truth of sports which continues to apply to the 2011 Redskins.

That's what I was going to say. It didn't work so it wasn't the right call.

I do think that calling the same play several times in a row is probably not the best idea. Still, Hall should not have got suckered esp. knowing he didn't have deep help.

Poor call. Worse execution.

 

[servumtuum]

That's what I was going to say. It didn't work so it wasn't the right call.

I do think that calling the same play several times in a row is probably not the best idea. Still, Hall should not have got suckered esp. knowing he didn't have deep help.

Poor call. Worse execution.

The statement in bold is astute, burgold. When multiple things are wrong or go wrong with a particular play there is an almost synergistic effect not only in terms of its influence on the flow of the game but also in how intensely the image of it burns its way into the minds of the observers with an emotional investment in the outcome-we fans.

It's rather like a negative highlight reel-the more spectacular the failure the more difficult it is to forget.

 

[Ax]

Well, if you're gonna hang Hall, make sure it's a multiple hanging. Kyle, and the O's failure to get in the endzone, especially after getting the turnover at the 10, and Rocca's fumbled hold, along with Danny Smith's failure to teach them all what to do in such a situation, were no less costly than the Haslett/Hall debacle.

 

[Elephant]

Well, if you're gonna hang Hall, make sure it's a multiple hanging. Kyle, and the O's failure to get in the endzone, especially after getting the turnover at the 10, and Rocca's fumbled hold, along with Danny Smith's failure to teach them all what to do in such a situation, were no less costly than the Haslett/Hall debacle.

I think Kyle's play calling is more to blame for the loss than that one play with Hall.

 

[Ax]

I think Kyle's play calling is more to blame for the loss than that one play with Hall.

Yeah, if I remember right, it was #1 on my jeers list.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Yeah, if I remember right, it was #1 on my jeers list.

Yeah, but playcalling is a chicken & the egg argument - were the play calls bad, or were the plays brilliant, but Grossman failed to see the open receiver or didn't get the throw off in time? Some of the playcalls were bad - the silly pitch to Moss jumps immediately to mind - but some of the other plays, we don't really know what broke down without coach's film.

 

[Elephant]

Yeah, but playcalling is a chicken & the egg argument - were the play calls bad, or were the plays brilliant, but Grossman failed to see the open receiver or didn't get the throw off in time? Some of the playcalls were bad - the silly pitch to Moss jumps immediately to mind - but some of the other plays, we don't really know what broke down without coach's film.

I agree there was probably break down on plays that were probably the right call and at least one that worked which was brilliant. I think the play call to toss Hightower the screen on the 1st and goal from the one was a great call. I fully expected to see Hightower pound it through. It was the perfect play call to get him the TD and catch everyone completely off guard.

However, I feel the willingness to abandon the run after the TD was a terrible direction for us to go and it seems typical of Kyle.

 

[servumtuum]

I agree there was probably break down on plays that were probably the right call and at least one that worked which was brilliant. I think the play call to toss Hightower the screen on the 1st and goal from the one was a great call. I fully expected to see Hightower pound it through. It was the perfect play call to get him the TD and catch everyone completely off guard.

However, I feel the willingness to abandon the run after the TD was a terrible direction for us to go and it seems typical of Kyle.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a much heavier use of the running game against the Rams. Reason? The Cowbums have one of the best run Ds in the league and, as has been mentioned, the Rams one of the worst. I suspect Kyle is taking more of a situational rather than system philosophy approach-attempting to go with what ought to work given a team's propensities and apparent weaknesses. I think it's entirely plausible that the reason we didn't run much aginst Dallas was because their run D is so good and it was likely anticipated that we would have limited success at best. I'll be interested to see if my guess on this has merit-which, of course, will be determined by how we scheme against the Rams.

 

[Elephant]

Not sure I agree entirely serv. I believe early on, after a couple of slips by Hightower it appeared Kyle switched things up. 3 of the last 4 plays on the TD were Hightower finding the holes for solid gains. Like I said, that play action screen pass to Hightower was a great call, but it was set up with the run.

I know there is game planning for different teams. I simply believe Kyle is quick to abandon the run altogether if there is not early success. Oh and with a lead, I am not entirely opposed to take a gamble and throw on 1st down when you are deep in your own end of the field to open things up a little, but passing on 80% of the plays called on that final drive we had with a lead is absurd. That sack on 2nd down killed us.

 

[servumtuum]

El, I'd be interested in your take on Kyle Sahanah's responses to questions about thge running game against Dallas that Boone posted. I'm still in inquiry mode and haven't come to any substantial conclusions yet ( I am an inveterate analyst I admit and am very slow to draw conclusions-probably a fault to some extent)

On if the offense got away from the run late in the game:
“I was happy with how the game went. In the third quarter, I think it was five runs and six passes and we were balanced then. In the fourth quarter, the problem was it’s going to get one-sided when you don’t have long drives. We had too many, I don’t know if it was three-and-outs, but it was about four-and out and then we’d pick up a first down. We had very quick drives. We’re happy with how we’ve run the ball this year. There are only six teams that have run the ball more than us, so I think we’ve been fairly balanced. It’s something that we believe in and, when the game dictates [it], it’s what we’ll do.”

On if offensive balance is overrated because of the short passes:
“I don’t think so. I think people look at stats at the end of the game and see that you threw it too much at the end. To me, when you have a one-point lead with seven minutes left, and you’re on your 15 yard line, that is not a time to run out the clock. You need to do whatever you think you can to move the chains. With what the defense was doing at the time, we did what we thought was best to move the chains.”

On the running game against the Cowboys:
“We knew it was going to be a challenge. [The Cowboys] have a very good defense and a very good run defense. When it’s like that, you’re usually just one guy away. There were a couple of times that we had some chances and I think we lost our footing on it. A couple [of plays] just came down to one block and that’s the NFL. You keep hammering away and it’s very rare that you just come out there and there are gaps wide open. When it’s not and you’re going against a good defense you’re going to stick with it and hope you get that crease and it will change your run average for the whole game. We never really got that long one and it really hurts your average.”

On if Rex was supposed to protect the ball on the Redskins final play from scrimmage when he fumbled:
“That’s a position where you obviously don’t want him in. His job is to protect the ball. He broke the pocket and you can tell that he was concerned about it, but he didn’t protect the ball. He has to make sure to keep two hands on it.”

On the team’s red zone performance thus far in the season:
“I think it’s about normal. We had a really good first week and I think our second week versus Arizona – we got down there a bunch, but I think we were two-for-seven, so I was not happy with that at all. Then, this week, it was a little frustrating. We got down there three times. The first time was the most disappointing one because the defense did a hell of a job and got us the ball on the 10 [yard line]. We ran it on first down and got three yards. On second down, we lost two yards and had third-and-nine and you’re not going to get in when you do that. The second time down there, we only had one play. We were on the 18-yard line on third-and-five and took a shot to the end zone and it was the right read. Terrence Austin just stumbled out of the break and we just missed it. The third time down there, we scored. [Tim] Hightower made a hell of a play on third-and-three to get us to the 12-yard line. We had two runs that got us to the one and then we scored. I didn’t think it was a terrible day, but, we have to make sure we get more opportunities to get down there more.”

On how play calling changes in the red zone:
“Third-and-long is tough anywhere on the field. When you get third-and-long down there, it’s twice as tough because the field’s a lot smaller. They can come after you, which does give you more opportunities because you have some more lanes. If they don’t come after you, then there are not a lot of people open. There’s rarely someone open in rhythm. There are just too many people in the end zone with not a lot of eligible [receivers], so it gets tougher the tighter you get down there. That’s why you have to stay out of those third-and-longs anywhere on the field, but especially in the red zone.”

 

[Elephant]

I thought these 2 particular quotes were interesting:


On if the offense got away from the run late in the game:
“I was happy with how the game went. In the third quarter, I think it was five runs and six passes and we were balanced then. In the fourth quarter, the problem was it’s going to get one-sided when you don’t have long drives. We had too many, I don’t know if it was three-and-outs, but it was about four-and out and then we’d pick up a first down. We had very quick drives. We’re happy with how we’ve run the ball this year. There are only six teams that have run the ball more than us, so I think we’ve been fairly balanced. It’s something that we believe in and, when the game dictates [it], it’s what we’ll do.”

With a lead in the 4th quarter, how can he be happy with quick drives?

That 3rd quarter drive was beautiful and it was obvious the run game had begun to start working. They responded to our TD with a FG and with 14 seconds left in the 3rd quarter, we had our second possession of the 2nd half. This is where I was confused/concerned about the play calling. With 14 seconds left in the 3rd quarter Kyle called a pass play on 1st down that was unsuccessful. Why? Take a shot mentality? We were at the 25, not great field position, but best we'd had since the first drive of the game. Did he think he could get a cheap one? Rex didn't even have a chance to get it going if it was meant to be a quick, unsuspecting strike. Then on 2nd down he takes that strike down the field that was almost intercepted because the play was telegraphed, Ryan knew what was coming there.

We needed to limit their time of possession in the 4th quarter. By running the ball on that play, it sends us into the 4th quarter with a 4 point lead, a 2nd down and a chance to get a good play called on the side lines, not to mention a chance to take a little chunk off the clock.

First series after the TD was 3 passes, all incomplete taking a total of 39 seconds of the clock. With 14:45 on the clock when they get their 1st possession, that essentially gave Dallas the ball to start the 4th quarter instead of taking some time off the clock. Again, a run on that first down with 14 seconds left in the 3rd quarter gives us 2 downs to start the 4th with some time to consider the play call going into the 4th.

The next 2 drives, with a lead we ran the ball 2 times out of 11plays. Again, with the ball deep in our side of the field, I don't have much of a problem throwing to get the ball down field a little. But 2 runs out of 11 plays? 2 Runs out of 14 if you count the series that ended the 3rd and started the 4th? With a lead?


On if offensive balance is overrated because of the short passes:
“I don’t think so. I think people look at stats at the end of the game and see that you threw it too much at the end. To me, when you have a one-point lead with seven minutes left, and you’re on your 15 yard line, that is not a time to run out the clock. You need to do whatever you think you can to move the chains. With what the defense was doing at the time, we did what we thought was best to move the chains.”

I agree here, there is still a lot of time on the clock, but he should still be cognizant of the time on the clock. Pass to get from deep in your side of the field, but you cannot chance a sack on 2nd down once you get to mid-field. If Garrett had thrown the red flag, Dallas would likely have had possession of the ball right there.

To me, Kyle is calling plays as if he still has Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson on his team. You can abandon the run and take shots down the field in risky situation when you have those players on your team. We do not.

 

[servumtuum]

To me, Kyle is calling plays as if he still has Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson on his team. You can abandon the run and take shots down the field in risky situation when you have those players on your team. We do not.

This has occurred to me too, El. I'll be watching to see if indications show up that he (Kyle) might not realize that Rex Grossman is not Matt Schaub.

Hmmm....I'm thinking about doing some digging through Schaubs passing history before and after Kyle's arrival as OC and do some comparisons,

More later...

 

[SirClintonPortis]

It absolutely was not. A rewatch into what the Cowboys did will show that their playcall was SPECIFICALLY designed to get them a big play for them against that blitz.

On the 2nd down, two guys got free. I think Fletch was one and Atogwe was definitely the other. On the 3rd down play, the Cowboys used a tight end to block Atogwe and a RB to block Kerrigan. This basically took both of them out of the play because the have to respect the ability of the TE and RB getting behind them and getting a HUGE gain. Fletch came free, but he was initally caught behind to blocked Redskins. So, with Fletch slowed and Kerrigan and Atogwe neutralized, Romo had some space to roll out to and buy some time.

Against a cover-0, the coverage could NOT be MORE FRIENDLY TO THE QB. Man-on-man with no safety help. Any QB would want that situation every time. Just throw is up and let the receiver make a play. The right call would have been a fake of the all out blitz and then Romo would have NO ONE to go to since two guys are stuck in max protect while the DBs get safety help.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

It absolutely was not. A rewatch into what the Cowboys did will show that their playcall was SPECIFICALLY designed to get them a big play for them against that blitz.

On the 2nd down, two guys got free. I think Fletch was one and Atogwe was definitely the other. On the 3rd down play, the Cowboys used a tight end to block Atogwe and a RB to block Kerrigan. This basically took both of them out of the play because the have to respect the ability of the TE and RB getting behind them and getting a HUGE gain. Fletch came free, but he was initally caught behind to blocked Redskins. So, with Fletch slowed and Kerrigan and Atogwe neutralized, Romo had some space to roll out to and buy some time.

Against a cover-0, the coverage could NOT be MORE FRIENDLY TO THE QB. Man-on-man with no safety help. Any QB would want that situation every time. Just throw is up and let the receiver make a play. The right call would have been a fake of the all out blitz and then Romo would have NO ONE to go to since two guys are stuck in max protect while the DBs get safety help.

Your breakdown of the blocking was right, but the play call by dallas was a quick hitch to Bryant. The cowboys were trying to throw a short pass to counter the blitz. But when the play broke down and Romo rolled out, he bought enough time for Bryant to improvise. Hall looked bad because he was ready for the quick pass, but when Bryant went deep, he was beat.

I personally liked being aggressive rather than passive. It's just sometimes the offense is able to beat the play. It was a high-risk high-reward play. If you rush four and Romo has time and a receiver gets opened because of the time, we criticize Haslett for not being aggressive. The bottom line is that if you don't make the play, you will get criticized no matter what the call is.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Your breakdown of the blocking was right, but the play call by dallas was a quick hitch to Bryant. The cowboys were trying to throw a short pass to counter the blitz. But when the play broke down and Romo rolled out, he bought enough time for Bryant to improvise. Hall looked bad because he was ready for the quick pass, but when Bryant went deep, he was beat.

I personally liked being aggressive rather than passive. It's just sometimes the offense is able to beat the play. It was a high-risk high-reward play. If you rush four and Romo has time and a receiver gets opened because of the time, we criticize Haslett for not being aggressive. The bottom line is that if you don't make the play, you will get criticized no matter what the call is.

It is the coordinator's responsibility to have a sense of whether a play will "fail" or not. In a situation where you opponent has "perfect information", aka your opponent knowing exactly what you are doing, your opponent is always going to win barring them failing to execute(i.e 50 gut and 40 gut on Randy White) or them being unprepared.

The Cowboys freed up the entire right side of the field for Romo to work with. The quick hitch was called in case the blitz WASN'T picked up, imo. If it did get picked up, Romo was to go roll and do a little improvisation and then test that QB-friendly man coverage.

Being aggressive has nothing to do with this. Blache's blitzes were ****ing awful because they always got picked up and then we got burned. I STILL remember that 48 yard screen pass to Derrick Ward. The coverage? A cover-0 of course.

Not only that, but there are other types of blitzes that could have been called, including one in which the blitzers on the right were sent but two others would be dropped back. Romo would have had NO CHANCE had that been what was called. He would have to dump it off to the backup TE or throw it across the field with Fletcher coming with a full head of steam.

 

[Dik Shuttle]

And ANOTHER thing...

I'm going to post what I put on Keim's similar article today - I think it applies & along with the comments y'all are making on the run game, it's an outlook I haven't heard from the fanbase nor the press:

When they ran that play AGAIN, for the third time in a row, I actually yelled out "Hubris" to my TV. I gotta tell ya, I've never yelled that word at anyone or anything, ever. But that's what it was. Hubris. And we payed for it.

I'm having grave misgivings about the whole coaching staff over the treatment of this crucial rivalry game for first place in the division; not about what it meant now - or for the season record, but for what it tells us about who these people are. They are not Redskins.

I firmly believe that a team's legacy is fundamental to it's current character. It doesn't change cyclically with staffs and players. That's one of the reasons a return coach has never won - they fail to understand that element of the equation.​

It's a little dire, I know - newspaper article comments I usually get a little more drastic with...

But I even heard, like the Thurs before Dallas, MShan say that the rivalry wasn't important - only that it's a div. game. WTph?!!!
_______________________________________

And the only thing I was looking forward to after the Dal-bacle was us being an underdog again - especially against our Trap Nemisis, the Rams

But I hear local sprotz guys picking the Skins & we're even off the board where the Rams should be -3 (or us +3 - I can never keep that shti straight.. but u kno whut I mean...)