disturbing play in the cardinals game

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by reasonable1:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Yeah.

But that's not what we were talking about. The OP's point, which was, this play call against AZ was conservative. That is what we were talking about. LEts stick to that to avoid turning this into an AS thread.

I agree with him as there were no options in the endzone. Compared to the Saints game against VD, which was an example of a more aggressive play call. Crabs went on a fade and VD, well, you know what VD did.

What is your point exactly regarding this play?

Not even close to turning into that...Idk if anything tops that madness...

My point regarding this play is not only was a drawn up well...but the offense actually finished. It is something they really did not do last year at all. It was encouraging to me because 1) they executed in the redzone and 2) Crabtree showed a nose for the endzone. These plays routinely resulted in Akers trotting out onto the field last year...now they're being converted for TDs. Conservative or not...it worked...was well run...and continues the offensive development.

I know. It liked that play. It was sweet.

I said that before as well. The bold is what we were talking about. I guess your point is that this is a moot topic. I can dig it.

Basically. Because at the core...a lot of plays are conservative in nature. The great players bust them for bigger plays. Sometimes the flash isnt necessary when you know you have a distinct advantage. I think you want to conserve your "shot" plays for teams that are stronger on the opposite side of the ball so you have something to counter with during the flow of a game.

This thread is about pissing and moaning.

yeah, because doing exactly what they expect us to do would work so well...

Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
This thread is about pissing and moaning.

For the most part...

yes it is...kinda funny tho...I've read worse b***hing...lol

Originally posted by 49erfaithful49:

Originally posted by saj4423:
That none of them were in the end zone?

exactly, I don't get that at all

I was saying that during the game. What is the purpose of running a play in the red zone and not having a player in the end zone? We got lucky Peterson fell and did not tackle Crabtree. If Peterson did what he was supposed to we would have to go for the 3 pts. Poor play calling on the OC and HC,,,,they got lucky or we got lucky

Headline more intriguing than the clip.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

who was that on the coverage? nasty nate?

I can't...just can't. QB is 18 of 19 with 3 tds. Defense was flat out dominant. They could still be playing and I don't think Arizona would be at 24 points yet.

Originally posted by 49erfaithful49:
spoiler, it ends in a touchdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iKCt9omDteg#t=640s (it should be at the 10:40 mark already)

look at the receivers and tell me if you notice anything.

On the second replay, you can see Manningham heading toward the right side of the goal line. You can't tell if he actually crosses the line, but if he doesn't then he is right on it.

Regardless, the design of the play was for this to be a quick drop back and fire it off. Everyone's hot read was probably to go 2 yards and turn back (except Manningham). Since they all do this, assumption was that their hot read was "on". Seems like this is much ado about nothing. Nothing concerning here. It is just good football.

Originally posted by 49erfaithful49:

Originally posted by saj4423:

That none of them were in the end zone?

exactly, I don't get that at all

Actually, it looked like Manningham might have been in the endzone drawing attention away. He's in the lower right and went off the screen so I really couldn't tell. But I hear your point, and made this comment before, whenever they need 8 yards, they send receivers to do 5 yard patterns. Not only do you have to make the catch, you need to get yards after the catch. So if you have a short slant and have to dive or fall to make the catch, you still come up short. This used to kill me during the Marriucci years.

But anyway, lets take the win, and celebrate being undefeated in our division. I know they haven't played the rams yet, but come on. This will remain intact after week 10.

does anyone else remember when Joe Montana would throw 8 yard slants to Jerry Rice and John Taylor and they would run for 60 yards? Not always a bad thing to throw underneath

Watch this bum dink and dunk his way down the field. Only like, 1or 2 passes down field

There were VD on the left, Crabtree, Williams, and Manningham to the right. All ran short routes except Manningham who went to the corner of the end zone. Looks like it's by design to get the ball out to the receiver quick on short routes for 2 reasons. The Cards will give quick pressure up front which they did. And knowing that the Cards will try to defend the endzone area, we catch the ball outside of it and let the receiver get what they can.

This play may not work again with the same personnel going to Crabtree, because the only guy that can muscle his way into the endzone is most likely Crabtree. The defense will key on that. Not sure that Williams or Manningham can. Maybe they can out quick a defender. Good thing is we can run the same play with different personnel and have success. Like putting in Moss instead of Williams or Delanie instead of Crabtree. Different combo to not give hint of where the ball will go to.

Originally posted by sachie23:

Watch this bum dink and dunk his way down the field. Only like, 1or 2 passes down field

I wish they could attach Lon Simmons play by play to the ast drive. It sent shivers up and down my spine.