Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by awp8912:
Originally posted by thl408:
Short hops the throw.
Isn't this just a bad play call here in the redzone, on 3rd and 14?
Might have had a chance with Torrey but the throw itself, to me, was just a throw away (3 defenders quickly converge on AB). Just take the points on 3rd and 14.
Man, just about every single curl route was open if Gabbert anticipates the route. Instead, he tries to throw it off his front foot instead of stepping into it.
You think? At 14 yards in the RZ? I thought it was pretty well defended. But yeah, if he had some great anticipation there it could have had a chance, certainly, assuming they all curl to the right spot and Gabbert threw it correctly. Otherwise it's an INT. He's risk aversive so I had no doubt we were kicking a FG there.
Well-defended, none of the options were particularly great. Really disappointed there were no routes in the endzone. Would've flipped the formation and put a TE over the LT instead of going 4 wide. I would've preferred a post route from the slot, TE running up the seam, a "jerk" crosser underneath, and a back shoulder or a post corner fade (depending on defensive look) if I had my choice in that area of the field. The post and back shoulder fade to the right would draw coverage further upfield for the RB in the flat to be 1 on 1 with an LB as well.
Just didn't like this play-call in general.
The receiver on the bottom had 3 yards of space when he finished his curl. If Gabbert anticipates that, he hits the WR right on the curl, the WR knifes up for a couple of yards: first down.
Gabbert should have read the one DB on that right side. Whenever we have a flat route combined with a curl, one of them have always been wide open when we have the numbers. FS or MLB went to the TE in the middle, flat route froze the DB so the WR only had the deep FS over the top.
[ Edited by Joecool on Oct 6, 2016 at 3:22 PM ]