RLflutie7 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The more I think about the game, the more I think deferring to the second half was a mistake. You win the coin toss, you have a passing team with a weak defense and you don't play to your strength. I don't get that. The defense did come through I understand it's a ploy to get the defense motivated and it could have worked. But Whisenhunt put the Cardinals on their heals the whole first half by doing it. Chris Carter made a great point. The Cards defense was on the field for 11 minutes in the first quarter and he thought they didn't have enough left at the end of the game. And I think he was right. And they got things going on offense when they went to all passing. Why not take the ball and let Kurt Warner do his thing, get a quick score and put the Steelers on their heels. If you are grounded in numbers, which most coaches are, you don't make the decisions the Cards made. Numbers say take the ball, score, take time off the clock and DON"T try to make it a one possession game. The Cards are a scoring machine and you need to try to get the Steelers into a shootout. You can't play grind it out ball with the Steelers and win.
zow2 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I thought when it happened that it was dumb for the Cards to defer and NOT take the ball. Once the Steelers got it and moved the ball the length of the field for a FG it sorta' set the Cardinals back the whole 1st Qtr. Apparently their plan all along was to defer if they won the toss. This is because Roethlisberger's "nervousness" was well documented in his first SuperBowl and they wanted to try to take advantage of a nervous Ben. Once again, coaches overthink.
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The more I think about the game are you a Bills fan again?
RLflutie7 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 I thought when it happened that it was dumb for the Cards to defer and NOT take the ball. Once the Steelers got it and moved the ball the length of the field for a FG it sorta' set the Cardinals back the whole 1st Qtr.Apparently their plan all along was to defer if they won the toss. This is because Roethlisberger's "nervousness" was well documented in his first SuperBowl and they wanted to try to take advantage of a nervous Ben. Once again, coaches overthink. You are correct sir! Thanks Ken for blowing it.
bluv Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The only way I say coaching lost the game is that they played PASSIVE on that last drive instead of bringing the heat as they used successfully for most of the game to keep Ben in check. Honestly though, if the defender hadn't slipped on Holmes big run (#37 I think) and catch this game might have went into overtime anyway!
Lofton80 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 That slip was huge. Not too often a simple down and out goes 55 yards with the game on the line. I was impressed that Tomlin used both his timeouts when they got close to the endzone. Jauron would have held on to the timeout for the inevitable field goal attempt. The only way I say coaching lost the game is that they played PASSIVE on that last drive instead of bringing the heat as they used successfully for most of the game to keep Ben in check. Honestly though, if the defender hadn't slipped on Holmes big run (#37 I think) and catch this game might have went into overtime anyway!
BuffOrange Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Yah when you're the Cardinals you take the ball. I wouldn't go so far as to say they didn't play to their strength, because it's not like they pretended to be a smashmouth team and run on 1st down. I thought Tomlin kicking the FG on the 6 inch line was just as big of an error, especially when you have a QB that big.
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I thought Tomlin kicking the FG on the 6 inch line was just as big of an error, especially when you have a QB that big. I fully agree. All you would have to do is ask yourself what Jauron would have done to decide whether or not that was a pansy ass move.
extrahammer Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I don't think Whisenhunt blew the game, he's a great coach and he did the best he could. Their defense allowed more big plays than Pittsburgh's defense. Going in, I thought the only way Arizona could win is by letting it all out from start to finish. Everyone expected the Steelers to just play defense and run the ball on offense, but the Steelers can play hard ball or fast ball.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The only way I say coaching lost the game is that they played PASSIVE on that last drive instead of bringing the heat as they used successfully for most of the game to keep Ben in check. Honestly though, if the defender hadn't slipped on Holmes big run (#37 I think) and catch this game might have went into overtime anyway! It was #47 Ben Francisco, the strong safety.
Anzaloha Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The more I think about the game, the more I think deferring to the second half was a mistake. You win the coin toss, you have a passing team with a weak defense and you don't play to your strength. I don't get that. The defense did come through I understand it's a ploy to get the defense motivated and it could have worked. But Whisenhunt put the Cardinals on their heals the whole first half by doing it. Chris Carter made a great point. The Cards defense was on the field for 11 minutes in the first quarter and he thought they didn't have enough left at the end of the game. And I think he was right. And they got things going on offense when they went to all passing. Why not take the ball and let Kurt Warner do his thing, get a quick score and put the Steelers on their heels. If you are grounded in numbers, which most coaches are, you don't make the decisions the Cards made. Numbers say take the ball, score, take time off the clock and DON"T try to make it a one possession game. The Cards are a scoring machine and you need to try to get the Steelers into a shootout. You can't play grind it out ball with the Steelers and win. Sounds like a guy who bet the Prop bet that the Cards would get the ball first!
billsfreak Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I would have made the call Arizona did 100 times out of 100. You can't count on scoring and jumping out to a lead on a defense like Pittsburgh's. They really didn't move on them until the middle of the second half.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I ALWAYS want the ball in the 2nd half. If you're losing, you need the ball. If you're winning, it's your chance to put the game further out of reach. After that clusterf**k at the end of the half, how bad would it be to have Pittsburgh get the ball? Sorry, deffering is the way to go. PTR
Dan Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The more I think about the game, the more I think deferring to the second half was a mistake. You win the coin toss, you have a passing team with a weak defense and you don't play to your strength. I don't get that. The defense did come through I understand it's a ploy to get the defense motivated and it could have worked. But Whisenhunt put the Cardinals on their heals the whole first half by doing it. Chris Carter made a great point. The Cards defense was on the field for 11 minutes in the first quarter and he thought they didn't have enough left at the end of the game. And I think he was right. And they got things going on offense when they went to all passing. Why not take the ball and let Kurt Warner do his thing, get a quick score and put the Steelers on their heels. If you are grounded in numbers, which most coaches are, you don't make the decisions the Cards made. Numbers say take the ball, score, take time off the clock and DON"T try to make it a one possession game. The Cards are a scoring machine and you need to try to get the Steelers into a shootout. You can't play grind it out ball with the Steelers and win. There's your problem right there. Stop listening to Carter. Almost every coach in every game this year has deferred when given the chance. Can we please stop this nonsense that deferring the kickoff, means you lose the game.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The only way I say coaching lost the game is that they played PASSIVE on that last drive instead of bringing the heat as they used successfully for most of the game to keep Ben in check. Honestly though, if the defender hadn't slipped on Holmes big run (#37 I think) and catch this game might have went into overtime anyway! I hate the turf in Tampa in SB 25 many Bills players were slipping. Why cant the NFL get this stuff right.
Mickey Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The more I think about the game, the more I think deferring to the second half was a mistake. You win the coin toss, you have a passing team with a weak defense and you don't play to your strength. I don't get that. The defense did come through I understand it's a ploy to get the defense motivated and it could have worked. But Whisenhunt put the Cardinals on their heals the whole first half by doing it. Chris Carter made a great point. The Cards defense was on the field for 11 minutes in the first quarter and he thought they didn't have enough left at the end of the game. And I think he was right. And they got things going on offense when they went to all passing. Why not take the ball and let Kurt Warner do his thing, get a quick score and put the Steelers on their heels. If you are grounded in numbers, which most coaches are, you don't make the decisions the Cards made. Numbers say take the ball, score, take time off the clock and DON"T try to make it a one possession game. The Cards are a scoring machine and you need to try to get the Steelers into a shootout. You can't play grind it out ball with the Steelers and win. It is not a ploy to jazz up the defense's confidence. It is simply a strategy. That first series of the game, you have prepped but without a single clue what the other team has planned. The first series of the second half however can be planned out in the locker room with the benefit of having seen the other team's defensive game plan for an entire half. Really, I see so much discussion here about the kinds of things that are so amorphous and touchy-feely compared to simple discussions of the nuts and the bolts, the x's and the O's. Locker room chemistry, momentum, confidence building, sending a message, inmates running the asylum, etc. etc. matters way less then we think. The Cards lost that game because their QB was fooled by a pass rushing LB who faked a blitz and dropped into coverage instead. It wasn't because Warner wasn't confident or because they didn't have chemistry in the locker room.
stuckincincy Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Warner (#13) had a decent opportunity to grab Harrison's face mask and plant him at the 35. The Cards should have been committing personal fouls all over the place to stop that corridor the Steelers had for #92.
Ramius Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I hate the turf in Tampa in SB 25 many Bills players were slipping. Why cant the NFL get this stuff right. So Tampa transplanted the turf from their old field when they built Raymond James Stadium?
BillsWest Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Nope, Mike Gandy did. His holding penalties killed the Cards. Of course if he didn't, the Steelers would have killed Warner.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Warner's pick-6 at the goal line killed the Cards. Even if they have to settle for 3, they go into the half tied instead of down 10.
Recommended Posts