Game 4: Packers @ Cowboys - Sunday, Sept 28 7:20 PM

[da swedish german]

1 hour ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Has to be really easy to lose focus on important aspects of the game as a head coach when you are also calling plays. 

 

That's absolutely an excuse, but probably has alot to do with what's going on with the late game chaos situations.  Some guys just aren't cut out for that as a head coach.  Knowing Biasaca helps with game management items just solidifies my belief he should be canned, too.

 

good post. 

I admit to posting with too much reactionary emotion. lol. matt's clearly not stupid.

but being head honcho and calling plays does seem to be above his ability.  nothing wrong with that. it just needs to be addressed.......that's the awkward part here

[adambr2]

I honestly think Bisaccia being the assistant HC probably makes him a worse ST coordinator. When he was just the ST coordinator, ST did improve from Maurice Drayton. But in the dual role, he’s been a disaster.

If his main gig as Assistant HC is to help manage in-game situations, he’s obviously horrible at that too. If he must be kept, just reduce his role back to ST coordinator. Get a guy for Matt to help him manage the clock and that needs to be his only role with the team. Having that guy be a 65 year old dude who already has to worry about other stuff is just stupid and it’s not working.

[adambr2]

Also, no matter how many things he has to focus on, no one should have had to tell Matt Lafleur at the end of the first half that he was being a moron.

There’s far too much game managing with pride and emotion and not your brain and common sense. Not his first time that you can say that, not even close.

You are a professional NFL head coach. Be better.

[HarryDoyle]

6 hours ago, valpocrewsader said:

I thought the 4 minute offense in that last drive was masterful ... until the bubble screen on 1st & 10 w/ 30 seconds left (that's so LaFleur, and incredibly frustrating) and then the awful checkdown into the flat on the next play (should've just thrown incomplete there).

I know the clock doesn't matter if you score a TD, but the clock does matter if you find yourself in 4th down and need to settle for a FG. Especially with a kicker on the other team known for drilling 60+ FGs.

Well then, if that was his game plan, then why defer the overtime kickoff? I don’t agree with you on his clock management at all. He was awful right from the start. MLF played not to lose there, and that is exactly what happened.

[adambr2]

23 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

Well then, if that was his game plan, then why defer the overtime kickoff? I don’t agree with you on his clock management at all. He was awful right from the start. MLF played not to lose there, and that is exactly what happened.

On the surface, with the new OT rules, deferring in OT makes all the sense in the world - you know what you need. 

But the 10 minute time period adds a wrinkle that makes it a little trickier than that. A very long, slow sustained drive by one team can eat up most of OT.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

On the surface, with the new OT rules, deferring in OT makes all the sense in the world - you know what you need. 

But the 10 minute time period adds a wrinkle that makes it a little trickier than that. A very long, slow sustained drive by one team can eat up most of OT.

The big advantage to me is you are forcing yourself into having 4 plays. If both teams score and there's time for another possession then obviously advantage flips to the other guys, but there's too much that happens before that to really consider that an advantage. 

[adambr2]

7 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The big advantage to me is you are forcing yourself into having 4 plays. If both teams score and there's time for another possession then obviously advantage flips to the other guys, but there's too much that happens before that to really consider that an advantage. 

I’m assuming if two TDs occurs in practice, the second team scoring is going for two every time. I’m definitely not leaving it up to a 3rd possession with no chance to match if I can help it, especially when a 20-25 yard drive puts you in FG range in the modern kicker era.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

3 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I’m assuming if two TDs occurs in practice, the second team scoring is going for two every time. I’m definitely not leaving it up to a 3rd possession with no chance to match if I can help it, especially when a 20-25 yard drive puts you in FG range in the modern kicker era.

I'm not so sure. I think some would, but a tie really isn't a loss, as lame as it is, it's statistically half a win, which is something. Depends on game flow and time left. 

[adambr2]

9 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I'm not so sure. I think some would, but a tie really isn't a loss, as lame as it is, it's statistically half a win, which is something. Depends on game flow and time left. 

I could see it if it’s basically a walk off decision where they won’t have a chance to answer, late in the season where you have a better idea of what you need and a benefit of a tie outweighs the risk of a loss. Other than that I think 2 will pretty much be default.

[HarryDoyle]

28 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

On the surface, with the new OT rules, deferring in OT makes all the sense in the world - you know what you need. 

But the 10 minute time period adds a wrinkle that makes it a little trickier than that. A very long, slow sustained drive by one team can eat up most of OT.

I understand both sides of the argument. I’m just saying that if you’re going to lolligag down the field like MLF made very clear he was going to do from the start, than you’re better served taking the ball to start. We got the ball with 4:40 on the clock, starting at the 20 yard line, got a four yard gain, and didn’t snap the ball until exactly four minutes left. That’s about 1/7 of time for four yards. I’m not saying go hurry up offense, but maybe go no huddle and call plays that actually go north and south. I really don’t like the 10 minute period either. It just leads to more ties.

[adambr2]

47 minutes ago, HarryDoyle said:

I understand both sides of the argument. I’m just saying that if you’re going to lolligag down the field like MLF made very clear he was going to do from the start, than you’re better served taking the ball to start. We got the ball with 4:40 on the clock, starting at the 20 yard line, got a four yard gain, and didn’t snap the ball until exactly four minutes left. That’s about 1/7 of time for four yards. I’m not saying go hurry up offense, but maybe go no huddle and call plays that actually go north and south. I really don’t like the 10 minute period either. It just leads to more ties.

I know it’s asking a lot, but MLF could also just be better at managing the clock.

I don't think we should have to base our strategic game decisions on our head coaches’ poor clock management skills.

[HarryDoyle]

18 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I know it’s asking a lot, but MLF could also just be better at managing the clock.

I don't think we should have to base our strategic game decisions on our head coaches’ poor clock management skills.

MLF couldn’t manage snake control in Ireland.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The coin toss and choice to defer worked to perfection. We were in position to win the game with a TD that we had plenty of time to score and were driving with relative ease. Why he loitered with about 1:40 left, as if he had to worry about Dallas answering with a TD of their own, is beyond comprehension. It legitimately looked like he did not know the rules, which I guess we'll never know if that was the case.

[homer]

this stings more than the loss to the Browns

[Brian]

? Question ?: Why is everyone on Matt LaFleur's ass when we gave up 40 points?  Haven't seen Hafley's name mentioned much if at all?  Can't give up 40 and expect to win. Packers couldn't stop a parked car yesterday. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

From the two minute warning the Packers were well within Cowboy territory, and picked up 15 yards on a pass to wicks, then let 40 seconds drain off the clock before their next snap.  Another short completion to Doubs, clock still running...then a run by Wilson to the 12 with around 50 seconds left on the clock...runs down to about 30 seconds before the next play, which was that disastrous screen to Golden that was just begging for a blow up fumble.  That forced them to take their last timeout.  To then throw back into that same flat on second down is criminal, although that isnt all of MLF, as I dont think it was the primary read for whatever play that was called.  So some of that is on Love.  Then kind of muddle huddling for 15 seconds almost lost them the game and definitely cost them a chance to win it considering the wasted 2 or so minutes of clock time that happened earlier in the drive.

 

Inside the 15 yard line in that spot, you should be looking for routes into the end zone, but could still work underneath before using your last timeout.  Instead,  and the play you call is a bubble/swing screen that loses yardage, loses a down, and loses your last timeout.  Inexcusable.

[homer]

3 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

From the two minute warning the Packers were well within Cowboy territory, and picked up 15 yards on a pass to wicks, then let 40 seconds drain off the clock before their next snap.  Another short completion to Doubs, clock still running...then a run by Wilson to the 12 with around 50 seconds left on the clock...runs down to about 30 seconds before the next play, which was that disastrous screen to Golden that was just begging for a blow up fumble.  That forced them to take their last timeout.  To then throw back into that same flat on second down is criminal, although that isnt all of MLF, as I dont think it was the primary read for whatever play that was called.  So some of that is on Love.  Then kind of muddle huddling for 15 seconds almost lost them the game and definitely cost them a chance to win it considering the wasted 2 or so minutes of clock time that happened earlier in the drive.

 

Inside the 15 yard line in that spot, you should be looking for routes into the end zone, but could still work underneath before using your last timeout.  Instead,  and the play you call is a bubble/swing screen that loses yardage, loses a down, and loses your last timeout.  Inexcusable.

I honestly think MLF was too worried they'd score too soon and Aubrey would kick a 70 yarder to beat them. The alst play that left 1 second on the clock was Love's fault, IMO.

[Fear The Chorizo]

4 minutes ago, Brian said:

? Question ?: Why is everyone on Matt LaFleur's ass when we gave up 40 points?  Haven't seen Hafley's name mentioned much if at all?  Can't give up 40 and expect to win. 

I think the defense has to be blamed, too...but the 2nd quarter sequence that began with the blocked PAT and continued through the end of the 1st half  is what got Dallas rolling in the first place- this game was headed for a blowout, then blocked kick to put Dallas on the board followed by a pair of timid drives, strip sack of Love in a spot many of us called for GB to just run the clock out and get into halftime with a lead....the overall management of the game sucked, and that starts and ends with MLF

[homer]

There are three super aggressive coaches in the NFC Central + Matt LaFleur.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Just now, homer said:

I honestly think MLF was too worried they'd score too soon and Aubrey would kick a 70 yarder to beat them.

I agree, and knowing a TD doesnt bring that into any sort of concern has me thinking MLF didnt fully know the rules

[homer]

10 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I agree, and knowing a TD doesnt bring that into any sort of concern has me thinking MLF didnt fully know the rules

If they kicked a field goal to tie it with 30 seconds left in overtime, Dallas would get the ball back. I think he was too worried about that scenario.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

19 minutes ago, Brian said:

? Question ?: Why is everyone on Matt LaFleur's ass when we gave up 40 points?  Haven't seen Hafley's name mentioned much if at all?  Can't give up 40 and expect to win. Packers couldn't stop a parked car yesterday. 

He was a consistent dope throughout this game and prior when it comes to in-game decisions, so he doesn't get any slack. The defense sucks too. I personally don't get the Hafley love affair; they didn't stop any of the playoff teams they played last year. Arguably the playoff game was their best performance though. I think he's fine, don't think he's some guru.

I still don't pin the last play on Love. Watch it back. Nobody is hustling to the line. They were moving like they were going to spike the ball, which is what I thought they were doing. I respect he had the cajones to toss it into the end zone and give someone a chance. At least somebody wearing green wanted to win the game. Even that 3rd down play, there was enough time to get that off with anybody moving quickly.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, homer said:

If they kicked a FG to tie it with 30 seconds left in OT, Dallas would get the ball back.

Yes, but null and void with a TD, which they looked totally primed to score had they just kept ramming Wilson down their throat. Or at least throw the ball forward. 

I was 90% confident we were going to win that game after Wilson's last rush. They had PLENTY of time to keep running. If you fail, fine, the clock is moving.

[homer]

Just now, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Yes, but null and void with a TD, which they looked totally primed to score had they just kept ramming Wilson down their throat. Or at least throw the ball forward. 

I was 90% confident we were going to win that game after Wilson's last rush. They had PLENTY of time to keep running. If you fail, fine, the clock is moving.

Right. I am saying MLF was too conservative.

[Fear The Chorizo]

8 minutes ago, homer said:

If they kicked a field goal to tie it with 30 seconds left in overtime, Dallas would get the ball back. I think he was too worried about that scenario.

Yes - but that is playing not to lose.  That's how they lost the Cleveland game late, too, leaning on a bad special teams unit.

  Playing to win and being way more efficient with preserving game clock, especially after Dallas was out of timeouts, could've easily been done, and they could've still run the clock down and taken a timeout to kick a tying field goal if was apparent a TD wasnt going to happen