- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
See, I don't agree, it had a chance, just as much if not more than trying to force it into bracketed coverage of our two outside guys.RamFan503 said:HometownBoy said:I'm not happy with the end result anymore than you are, but at that point I'd rather they get out alive and come out flying on Thursday than risk any of these guys losing valuable growing time to injury trying to reclaim something that's already lost.
He's a Lions fan. But not a troll from another team. Now his DAD probably wasn't any more happy than any of us. Iron is probably more just trying to point something out. I didn't understand the play either and it looked like it was the first read. It was open so Sam threw the ball. I'm guessing of course but it sure looked like the design before the snap. I get what Doc is saying too but it appeared to have virtually no chance of success unless the three cowgirls tripped on their panties. :bign:
We had 2 guys, both of our tight ends, run 5 yard button patterns, pretty close together on the hashes. Nobody was on either one of them. So there were 7 guys, 2 deep safeties sitting on the 10, where we needed to be, 3 backers on the 20, 10 yard off the ball, and 1 guy on each outside receiver.
Sam throws to Cook on the right hash, Kendricks immediately picks a target and starts running towards him, Givens is there for a block. My point is, it is not Sam's fault, it's the play if anything, or why wouldn't you send all 4 guys into deep routes? If both Kendricks and Givens execute their blocks, who knows. We don't have Calvin Johnson.
Cook is the closest thing to it, but we didn't send him to the marker. Quick is our next closest, and I don't think he was in this package. Just leading up to this play, to get to 4th and 20, we had a drop, a sack, and an incomplete, where we did attempt a deep pass. The game sucked. This was NOT a pivotal play in the outcome.