Why try to get cute near the goal line?

[emocomputerjock]

:shakeno:
I'm sorry, but this play called for too many players to play outside their normal positions...Ronnie is NOT A QB and Culpepper is NOT A LINEMAN.

Again, why is it you call these types of plays given the most dire situations? This is not a play with a high percentage of success! It should be in the back of the playbook and reserved for when you just got the ball back via INT and you are up by 7 and at the goal line!

When we are down, give us a bread and butter play that allow for either RB to catch the ball out of the backfield or give Daunte a chance to find an open reciever.

That's the reason the play was designed. You wouldn't expect Ronnie to throw it, and if you covered it he had an option to run it in. The play fell apart though. Bread and butter might have worked, if executed, the trick play might have worked. What ifs aren't going to get a W in the books for last week.

 

[Superself]

That's the reason the play was designed. You wouldn't expect Ronnie to throw it, and if you covered it he had an option to run it in. The play fell apart though. Bread and butter might have worked, if executed, the trick play might have worked. What ifs aren't going to get a W in the books for last week.

I'm not trying to get a W for last week.

My point is that the trick play's chances of being successfully executed is lower than that for a non-trick play. So why do it at that time? Bad choice in that situation. Sure it may catch the defense off guard, but that doesn't matter if it fails more often than a non trick play.

 

[The Aqua Crush]

It was an excellent play. Ronnie is a good passer. He should have thrown the pass sooner to Booker. Maybe he wouldn't have fallen down. He was wide, wide open.

yes well McMike was wide wide open too, but because the play that was called had Brown throwing, seeing booker down he didn't look for another option, hmmm now you think if cpepp had rolled out and saw booker down he could have saw mcmike next? probably. and for those to say no cpepp can't do read progressions....maybe not...point is he's better at it than Ronnie thats for damn sure.

Plain and simple throw play, you use your qb not your RB.

all in all it = a terrible freakin play call. exectued or not.

 

[LoneWulF]

was a bad play, maybe cost us the season. we will see

 

[SQuinn17]

The play was supposed to go differently than what it did - there were at the minimum three identifiable failures by Culpepper, Booker, and Brown on that play. If it goes the way it's supposed to, we tie the game. Obviously that didn't go our way.

dude, u dont even know what the play is!!!!

 

[jdang307]

dude, u dont even know what the play is!!!!

The play has been well documented in the media, with Saban and co chiming in.

 

[LAMiamifan]

Too much can go wrong on such an important play like that... bad call

 

[emocomputerjock]

dude, u dont even know what the play is!!!!

Indeed I do. The information is all over this site, as well as on every news outlet in Miami. I even provided a link that gave a detailed breakdown of the play and what went wrong.

 

[Finole]

Its not just Murlarkey, but a lot of coaches try to force feed nfl fans their "genius" status at the worst times.
I find really confusing why coaches don't go with plays that have higher percentage chance of working when in the red zone.

I understand what you're saying about a higher percentage play. But there ain't a single play in football that is going to succeed if it ain't executed properly.

Personally, I didn't mind the play call. It was the execution I had a problem with. Jeno James totally missed his block allowing his guy to put pressure on Ronnie. Chambers ran the wrong route. The pass was tipped. And Booker fell down. Other than that, it was executed perfectly!

Blocking and route-running. That's fundamentals.

Let's say we don't run the trick play. Let's say Culpepper passes, and Booker drops it in the endzone. Would that have been acceptable as a failed play?

You see what I'm saying?

Any failed play is going to draw criticism. And when the players don't execute on the field, most plays will fail. Trick play or no trick play.

 

[emocomputerjock]

I understand what you're saying about a higher percentage play. But there ain't a single play in football that is going to succeed if it ain't executed properly.

Personally, I didn't mind the play call. It was the execution I had a problem with. Jeno James totally missed his block allowing his guy to put pressure on Ronnie. Chambers ran the wrong route. The pass was tipped. And Booker fell down. Other than that, it was executed perfectly!

Blocking and route-running. That's fundamentals.

Let's say we don't run the trick play. Let's say Culpepper passes, and Booker drops it in the endzone. Would that have been acceptable as a failed play?

You see what I'm saying?

Any failed play is going to draw criticism. And when the players don't execute on the field, most plays will fail. Trick play or no trick play.

That's what I've been trying to say. A better question, though, would be why were we even in a position where we *needed* a two point conversion just to tie the game? We failed at execution long before the trick play was ever called.

 

[MarinoEqualsGod]

It was an excellent play. Ronnie is a good passer. He should have thrown the pass sooner to Booker. Maybe he wouldn't have fallen down. He was wide, wide open.

Good passer? That is the first pass Ronnie Brown has EVER thrown in a game...that includes pros, college, and high school.

 

[emocomputerjock]

Good passer? That is the first pass Ronnie Brown has EVER thrown in a game...that includes pros, college, and high school.

Someone wasn't watching the preseason I see...

 

[CDNPHIN]

This play sums up that IDIOT Mularkeys entire resume, this is "OUR" future, get used to it, high school plays on national t.v.WHY PUT THE BALL INTO THE HANDS OF A BACK TO TIE THE GAME,INSTEAD OF "THE NEW FRANCHISE Q.B" NICE MOVE MULARKEY, YOU SUCK!!!

 

[emocomputerjock]

This play sums up that IDIOT Mularkeys entire resume, this is "OUR" future, get used to it, high school plays on national t.v.WHY PUT THE BALL INTO THE HANDS OF A BACK TO TIE THE GAME,INSTEAD OF "THE NEW FRANCHISE Q.B" NICE MOVE MULARKEY, YOU SUCK!!!

That's what I've been trying to say. A better question, though, would be why were we even in a position where we *needed* a two point conversion just to tie the game? We failed at execution long before the trick play was ever called.

Still no answer to the question other than blame Mularkey?

 

[RenoFinFan]

Perhaps the coaches were thinking about the 2 point conversion against Buffalo in which Culpepper missed an open Welker and threw into tight coverage resulting in an incompletion.

Similar to why Culpepper only throws 3-5 yard dink passes ever since the coaches tried to let #8 win it against Pitt and the result was 2 picks on 2 passes, one of which was returned for a TD.

Looks to me like the coaches simply don't have confidence in letting Culpepper try and win it...not good news when coaches don't trust the starting QB.