Todd Bowles is a fucking fraud

[Kress]

Tony Dungy said it best



I literally screaming at tv when it happened

Except not really. They were at their 45. A "just" 15 yarder down the middle still puts them in FG range. Same outcome.

A sack ends the game.

Yes, Gay is money from 57.

[Doctor]

As would I, but they would've clocked it with a lot more time left anyway. Probably not the final play and they still get closer.
With a sack, it's a final play. No "hoping their guy misses". You put it on our guys to get the job done, not their guys to fail. That's what winners do. I liked the call. Shame it was miscommunicated.

[Tnbandwagoner]

How many DC's succeed with only half of their team on the field at any given time?

Who was he missing when he called a zero blitz and left a deserving MVP candidate in Cooper Kupp one on one against a safety, while trying to hold the other team out of field goal range with under a minute and no time outs.

Not just under a minute - under thirty seconds, 28 to be exact. There’s never been a more incompetent, negligent playcall in the history of the NFL. He might as well have said, “Here you go, Stafford, my Christmas gift to you.”

[Doctor]

Since when is sending our two speedy, all-star LBs after the QB resulting in a sack or even better a poor throw that could be picked a "bad call"?

Since when did this fan base become such pussies?

[Snake]

Typical sunshine pumper BS from doctor.

Communication failures fall on coaching.

[Doctor]

Typical sunshine pumper BS from doctor.

Communication failures fall on coaching.

Oh totally. I have no problem with blaming the coaches for the communication miscues today. That's where my beef is. Not this "why are we blitzing??" bs. The call was right. The execution was shit. The poor communication was shit. And that's on the coaching.

[mdb1958]

Tony Dungy said it best



I literally screaming at tv when it happened

Except not really. They were at their 45. A "just" 15 yarder down the middle still puts them in FG range. Same outcome.

A sack ends the game.

Same play effort that allowed the 20 yarder also allowed the 44 yarder.

[Backside]

Blitzing the CB guarding Kupp definitely doesn’t feel like it was the right call.

[CantonJester]

Typical sunshine pumper BS from doctor.

Communication failures fall on coaching.

Oh totally. I have no problem with blaming the coaches for the communication miscues today. That's where my beef is. Not this "why are we blitzing??" bs. The call was right. The execution was shit. The poor communication was shit. And that's on the coaching.

The call was not right. They were playing for OT by kicking the PAT. That means two extra deep DBs over the top who do nothing but track the deep ball. This miscommunication nonsense is actually a red herring to coverup for the asstastic decision to blitz. This defense was not gassed the way the Bills and Chiefs’ Ds were last night.

[Doctor]

Some of y'all acting like they were on their 20. They are at the 45 with 43 seconds left and full go. Even "playing for overtime" you need to defend against the FG. The best defense is a sack.

[nybf]

Some of y'all acting like they were on their 20. They are at the 45 with 43 seconds left and full go. Even "playing for overtime" you need to defend against the FG. The best defense is a sack.

No one is arguing against the best defense being a sack.

Everyone is arguing against the best defense being "let the triple crown WR be wide open where ever the fuck he wants"

[Doctor]

Yes, because leaving him open was the call. The play played out exactly as it was called. You right. Just awful.

[bucarican]

If you are going to Blitz make sure you account for the best player on the field, pretty easy.

[Cheb]

Yes, because leaving him open was the call. The play played out exactly as it was called. You right. Just awful.

We blitzed the corner who was assigned to cover him, and apparently didn't do a good job of communication in the secondary about handing off the coverage, so he was singled against a safety with no help.

Winfield is good, but that's a real shitty assignment for any safety in the NFL, especially when the guy you are covering is the best wideout in the NFL.

Bowles' cardinal sin is he doesn't play matchups. That was the biggest matchup of the game on its biggest play, and we completely overlooked it.

[Snake]

Yes, because leaving him open was the call. The play played out exactly as it was called. You right. Just awful.

We blitzed the corner who was assigned to cover him, and apparently didn't do a good job of communication in the secondary about handing off the coverage, so he was singled against a safety with no help.

Winfield is good, but that's a real shitty assignment for any safety in the NFL, especially when the guy you are covering is the best wideout in the NFL.

Bowles' cardinal sin is he doesn't play matchups. That was the biggest matchup of the game on its biggest play, and we completely overlooked it.

In the modern NFL where mismatches are hunted by smart offenses (the ones you face in the playoffs), that is an egregious and fatal flaw.

I still double Kupp and make anyone else beat me. The Belichick route.

[Monero]

Greg Williams got fired for cover 0 blitz vs the Raiders.

[mdb1958]

Yes, because leaving him open was the call. The play played out exactly as it was called. You right. Just awful.

We blitzed the corner who was assigned to cover him, and apparently didn't do a good job of communication in the secondary about handing off the coverage, so he was singled against a safety with no help.

Winfield is good, but that's a real shitty assignment for any safety in the NFL, especially when the guy you are covering is the best wideout in the NFL.

Bowles' cardinal sin is he doesn't play matchups. That was the biggest matchup of the game on its biggest play, and we completely overlooked it.

Whose defense is it on the field?

[Kress]

Typical sunshine pumper BS from doctor.

Communication failures fall on coaching.

Oh totally. I have no problem with blaming the coaches for the communication miscues today. That's where my beef is. Not this "why are we blitzing??" bs. The call was right. The execution was shit. The poor communication was shit. And that's on the coaching.

In the 59 1/2 minutes prior, how many times did we blitz? (I don't know the number, but a shit ton). How many sacks resulted from them? ( I do know this number: 0).

Now, in the 59 1/2 minutes prior, how much of a day was Cooper f'ing Kupp having? (I don't even want to look at the numbers, and don't need to.)

So yes, very much a correct call to put all your chips on another blitz.

[Snake]

Oh totally. I have no problem with blaming the coaches for the communication miscues today. That's where my beef is. Not this "why are we blitzing??" bs. The call was right. The execution was shit. The poor communication was shit. And that's on the coaching.

In the 59 1/2 minutes prior, how many times did we blitz? (I don't know the number, but a shit ton). How many sacks resulted from them? ( I do know this number: 0).

Now, in the 59 1/2 minutes prior, how much of a day was Cooper f'ing Kupp having? (I don't even want to look at the numbers, and don't need to.)

So yes, very much a correct call to put all your chips on another blitz.

Yeah, Stafford only threw like 80% completions with 12 TDs/1 INTs (numbers made up, but make the point) against the blitz this season…

Here’s the thing, McVay is just too good. He’s calling out blitzes in the headset. He did it for Goff too. It’s a losing proposition.

[Kress]

In the 59 1/2 minutes prior, how many times did we blitz? (I don't know the number, but a shit ton). How many sacks resulted from them? ( I do know this number: 0).

Now, in the 59 1/2 minutes prior, how much of a day was Cooper f'ing Kupp having? (I don't even want to look at the numbers, and don't need to.)

So yes, very much a correct call to put all your chips on another blitz.

Yeah, Stafford only threw like 80% completions with 12 TDs/1 INTs (numbers made up, but make the point) against the blitz this season…

Here’s the thing, McVay is just too good. He’s calling out blitzes in the headset. He did it for Goff too. It’s a losing proposition.

I heard the stats this morning, and that's about right. He completes around 80% against the blitz, and only 60-something % otherwise.

[Doctor]

I like how people assume:
1) if properly executed the blitz still fails
2) Rams would 100% not have gotten into FG range if not for that one call

Bowles calls a soft coverage that still allows for a completion and a game winning FG, everyone here is pitching a fit for "why we didn't pressure Stafford and just "let" him get into FG range".
But lets totally pretend that wouldn't be the case.

[Monero]

I like how people assume:
1) if properly executed the blitz still fails
2) Rams would 100% not have gotten into FG range if not for that one call

Bowles calls a soft coverage that still allows for a completion and a game winning FG, everyone here is pitching a fit for "why we didn't pressure Stafford and just "let" him get into FG range".
But lets totally pretend that wouldn't be the case.

I do believe a middle ground between a cover zero blitz and passive prevent defense exists. Should've just played cover 2, rush 3 or 4. Nothing fancy. Just make tackles and watch the time vanish.

[Doctor]

The reality most Buc fans seem to be denying is that Stafford and the Rams were at midfield and far more likely to get into FG range than not. Period. Call your Cover 2, the outcome is likely the same 99% of the time. Stafford had all day vs the 4 man rush yesterday.

[Snake]

That’s your defense? You’re gonna lose anyways so lose aggressively?

That makes Bowles look even worse.

[Doctor]

I'd rather go out swinging than looking.

Some of y'all acting like the Rams were on their 20 and had rolled over already.

[nybf]

and the Rams were at midfield

You just keep moving them further and further upfield. But the time today is over, they would have started 1st and goal and Bowles called an amazing package that somehow knocked them back 20 yards.

[Nobody]

They're at their 44 with no timeouts and 28 seconds. They need:

* 24 yards to get just a look at a 50 yard FG.

* The actual time to be able to do that.

The time is their biggest enemy. This is simple stuff. You don't blitz a team that is significantly_better_against_the_blitz_than_orthodox_coverage. I mean you don't blitz any team there...but definitely not THIS TEAM.

You rush 3 and drop 8. You press Kupp and reroute him/abuse him at the line of scrimmage and play a shell behind with 4 deep and 4 under all with outside leverage (this protects against Corner routes, 9 routes, Deep Outs). If they want 2 * 12 yard gains in the field of play...great! Its overtime!

Or you play 3 Man Under and you can literally double cover 3 people w/ your under players playing outside leverage!

There are a myriad of ways to concede 24 yards in the field of play to a team without timeouts to basically ensure OT (with no timeouts and 2 plays needed to get into FG range). An NCB blitz...off a tight slot receiver on the right side (right in the QBs post snap sightline!)...against the most prolific WR in the league who has a 4 way-go...against an off and bailing Safety who just so happens to not actually have gotten the call as well. That ain't it.

If I wanted to optimize my prospects to give up a FG, that is probably the highest EPA-giving-up play call (even without the lack of communication) I can think of. Why anyone would try to defend that is impossible to get my brain around. It was a gaffe. A colossal gaffe. A colossal gaffe at the most key moment imaginable. End of story. Its not even about the outcome, its about the process. Run that back 1000 times, doing different coverages and its stone-cold lock that the worst outcomes (in frequency and amplitude) are derived from the play call we put out there.

[Snake]

Nah man, fans don’t know what they’re talking about and the coaches are elite! Elite I say!

[Cheb]

They're at their 44 with no timeouts and 28 seconds. They need:

* 24 yards to get just a look at a 50 yard FG.

* The actual time to be able to do that.

The time is their biggest enemy. This is simple stuff. You don't blitz a team that is significantly_better_against_the_blitz_than_orthodox_coverage. I mean you don't blitz any team there...but definitely not THIS TEAM.

You rush 3 and drop 8. You press Kupp and reroute him/abuse him at the line of scrimmage and play a shell behind with 4 deep and 4 under all with outside leverage (this protects against Corner routes, 9 routes, Deep Outs). If they want 2 * 12 yard gains in the field of play...great! Its overtime!

Or you play 3 Man Under and you can literally double cover 3 people w/ your under players playing outside leverage!

There are a myriad of ways to concede 24 yards in the field of play to a team without timeouts to basically ensure OT (with no timeouts and 2 plays needed to get into FG range). An NCB blitz...off a tight slot receiver on the right side (right in the QBs post snap sightline!)...against the most prolific WR in the league who has a 4 way-go...against an off and bailing Safety who just so happens to not actually have gotten the call as well. That ain't it.

If I wanted to optimize my prospects to give up a FG, that is probably the highest EPA-giving-up play call (even without the lack of communication) I can think of. Why anyone would try to defend that is impossible to get my brain around. It was a gaffe. A colossal gaffe. A colossal gaffe at the most key moment imaginable. End of story. Its not even about the outcome, its about the process. Run that back 1000 times, doing different coverages and its stone-cold lock that the worst outcomes (in frequency and amplitude) are derived from the play call we put out there.

Bingo.

[13F11B]

I like how people assume:
1) if properly executed the blitz still fails
2) Rams would 100% not have gotten into FG range if not for that one call

Bowles calls a soft coverage that still allows for a completion and a game winning FG, everyone here is pitching a fit for "why we didn't pressure Stafford and just "let" him get into FG range".
But lets totally pretend that wouldn't be the case.

I like how you assume what everyone would say. There is a difference between 'soft coverage' and normal coverage only rushing 4, right? Some people certainly think calling an all-out blitz was a mistake. I am one of them. Had the blitz worked and the Buccaneers won I would be happier, but I still would not have liked that call. Had the Rams still completed a pass to put them in FG range and still made the longer field goal I still would be sad the season is over, but I would have been happier with the call.

Stop complaining that people are making assumptions and then turning around and making your own assumptions.

[13F11B]

They're at their 44 with no timeouts and 28 seconds. They need:

* 24 yards to get just a look at a 50 yard FG.

* The actual time to be able to do that.

The time is their biggest enemy. This is simple stuff. You don't blitz a team that is significantly_better_against_the_blitz_than_orthodox_coverage. I mean you don't blitz any team there...but definitely not THIS TEAM.

You rush 3 and drop 8. You press Kupp and reroute him/abuse him at the line of scrimmage and play a shell behind with 4 deep and 4 under all with outside leverage (this protects against Corner routes, 9 routes, Deep Outs). If they want 2 * 12 yard gains in the field of play...great! Its overtime!

Or you play 3 Man Under and you can literally double cover 3 people w/ your under players playing outside leverage!

There are a myriad of ways to concede 24 yards in the field of play to a team without timeouts to basically ensure OT (with no timeouts and 2 plays needed to get into FG range). An NCB blitz...off a tight slot receiver on the right side (right in the QBs post snap sightline!)...against the most prolific WR in the league who has a 4 way-go...against an off and bailing Safety who just so happens to not actually have gotten the call as well. That ain't it.

If I wanted to optimize my prospects to give up a FG, that is probably the highest EPA-giving-up play call (even without the lack of communication) I can think of. Why anyone would try to defend that is impossible to get my brain around. It was a gaffe. A colossal gaffe. A colossal gaffe at the most key moment imaginable. End of story. Its not even about the outcome, its about the process. Run that back 1000 times, doing different coverages and its stone-cold lock that the worst outcomes (in frequency and amplitude) are derived from the play call we put out there.

Hell, tackling their receivers five yards down the field before the ball was thrown would be better than blitzing. They get 5 yards for holding and still lose the time.

[Doctor]

Okay, I'll concede I thought they had way more time than that. I say it was more of a risk than a gaffe.

Given the play we saw just before and the FGs we've seen Matt Gay make here (58 yards vs the Rams), I still understand the POV that playing soft and intentionally giving something up over the middle is still playing to lose.

We're a no risk it no biscuit team, we live and die by it. It killed us this time. But if we get a sack or better yet disrupt the pass into the air for a turn over for Brady, we're all singing a very different tune today.

[13F11B]

I'd rather go out swinging than looking.

Some of y'all acting like the Rams were on their 20 and had rolled over already.

No, we just think that playing 8 in coverage against Stafford and the Rams was a better play call. It might not have made a difference but playing coverage when the Rams started on the 24 with :42 seconds left might not have let them connect on a 20 yard pass and a 44 yard pass. Sure, they may have had time to get 10 yards 6 times but that would have likely taken more time than they had or the FG attempt would have been significantly longer. Stop pretending giving up two plays for 64 yards because you are choosing to blitz a team that has consistently burned blitzing teams all season made any sense.

[13F11B]

Given the play we saw just before and the FGs we've seen Matt Gay make here (58 yards vs the Rams), I still understand the POV that playing soft and intentionally giving something up over the middle is still playing to lose.

Eight in coverage does not have to be 'soft' coverage. You can play tight coverage with help when you drop 8 guys into coverage. It does not have to be soft coverage.

[Pirate Life]

End of story: