Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by j.. » Fri, 04 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
 writes:


>>>At the point Peete was injured, the Eagles had already blown
>>>the 10 point lead and were trailing by 7, 10-17.  I see no
>>>evidence from what actually happened in the game that Peete's
>>>playing in the second half would have improved the Eagles
>>>chances.

>>Aikman and Dallas had gone three and out on their first possession.
>>Does that mean that you didn't think they would have improved on
>>subsequent possessions?  Just because the Eagles offense struggled
>>for a couple series with Peete, that doesn't mean that they would
>>have continued to struggle the remainder of the game.

>Take a look at the Dallas sacks.  Replace Detmer with Peete,
>and he gets sacked just as well.  The truth is that Detmer wasn't
>to blame for your lack of production, but rather good Dallas
>secondary coverage and a good pass rush, especially by Leon Lett.
>Nothing Peete can do about that.

>>>The Eagles passing offense even with Peete in the game
>>>was already dead.  Peete's passing yardage was coming
>>>from short passes to the backs letting them do the work.
>>>With Peete QBing the Eagles passing offense scored
>>>-6 points in the second quarter counting the results of
>>>turnovers, and played like -10 or even -14.

>>No matter where the Eagles passing yardage was coming from, it was
>>getting the job done.  If Dallas was going to take away the slants
>>and mid-range balls, the Eagles were more than willing to get the
>>ball to Watters and Turner.  It worked early on, and it worked in
>>the fourth quarter as well.

>Well, if it worked in the fourth quarter what are you complaining
>about?

>>>The Eagles used their defense and running game to give
>>>them one last chance, but Eagles coach Rhodes refused to
>>>go on 4th and 1 deep in Dallas territory, Leon Lett
>>>blocking the field goal attempt.  Oddly enough Rhodes had
>>>in the first quarter gone for 4th and 1 from the Cowboy 2,
>>>and Ricky Watters had scored a touchdown.

>>Two entirely different situations.  The first quarter 4th-and-1 was
>>at the Dallas two-yard line.  The result of that play was either
>>going to be an Eagles touchdown, or a Cowboys first down on their own
>>two.  Dallas' offense had gone three-and-out on their first possession,
>>and the home town crowd was loud at that time and would have made it
>>very difficult for the Cowboys.  Either way, it was a good situation
>>for the Eagles and a not so good one for the Cowboys.

>>The second 4th-and-1 with about nine minutes to play was about
>>putting points on the board and getting back into the ball game.

>Being down by six points, you were already in the ball game.  What
>does narrowing the lead to three points do for you?  At best it
>gives you overtime with an inexperienced QB.

>Here's the scenario:

>Kick the field goal:  First you have to make the FG, but it wasn't
>considered to be difficult.  Then you have to make another drive,
>with an inexperienced QB to tie it.  Then you have to make another
>drive in OT with the same Deter to win.

>Go for it:  With only two yards to go, your chances are pretty fair
>of making the first down.  That gives you four cracks to make, what,
>ten yards for a TD?  And you can still kick the FG.
>Even if Philly failed to make it, they are still down by only six and
>have Dallas deep in their own territory.

>If Philly had been moving the ball consistently, then the FG is the way
>to go.  But the way things looked, Rhodes should have made the gamble.

>Playing for the tie isn't usually a bad idea, but Dallas had all the
>advantages going into overtime.  A dominating defense and an experienced
>QB.

>>The Eagles offense had gone, what, forty minutes without scoring?
>>They needed something - anything - to gain some confidence.  And

>Confidence?  You don't think making a critical fourth down play wouldn't
>give them confidence?  Back that up with a TD.

>And wasn't it confidence that Switzer tried to instill in his team
>by going for it last year, and heckled for his actions?

>>putting three points up on the board to draw to within three with
>>plenty of time to play was a good way to do it.  Going for the FG
>>at that point was absolutely the right thing to do.

>Again, you still have to score two more times with an in inexperienced
>QB and an offense that was not producing.

>>>Watters knows how to use the stiff-arm, has decent size
>>>for a running back, and is rarely brought down by the
>>>first tackler.  (See his touchdown run in the first
>>>quarter.)  Sure Watters might have been stuffed, but I've
>>>also seen lots of times in that situation when the back is
>>>able to break through for the touchdown when the defense
>>>goes all-out to try and stop him at the line of scrimmage.

>>Yes, Watters might have been stuffed.  Leon Lett did so a few times
>>during the game.  If the Eagles went for it and failed, the offense
>>would have no confidence when they got the ball back.  Not to mention
>>what the Eagles defense would have been thinking when they came onto
>>the field.  If there was only a few minutes remaining, of course the
>>Eagles would have gone for it.  But not with about nine minutes left!

>>>Rhodes has crafted an image as a tough guy, and I have no
>>>doubt that in situations other than football the man is
>>>brave and strong, but not having the guts to go for the
>>>touchdown in that situation is, relative to football,
>>>weak and a major flaw as a coach.  Will Rhodes learn from
>>>his mistake and start to emulate the example of a real
>>>Super Bowl caliber coach like Bill Parcells when he was
>>>with the Giants?  Or will Rhodes and the other NFL coaches
>>>continue to be cowards, disgracing the game, afraid of the
>>>heat Barry Switzer took after he chose to go on fourth down
>>>at Philadelphia last year?  Going on 4th and 1 is the
>>>quintessential play in football, and Rhodes robbed all fans
>>>of the game by not even trying the only serious hope to win.
>>>(Did anyone think Detmer was going to get the Eagles into
>>>the endzone passing the ball on the next drive?)

>>You're clueless.  The Eagles wouldn't have been going for a TD.  They
>>would have been going for a first down on that second 4th-and-1.  Do
>>you understand that?  They still would have had to move the ball the
>>remainder of the way to put it in the endzone.  And that wasn't a
>>given.  They still might have had to settle for a FG and wasted a few
>>minutes while doing so.  And if you didn't see the end of the game,
>>you'd know that Detmer did get the Eagles into scoring position on the
>>next drive.  Had the previous FG attempt not been blocked, the Eagles
>>could have at least tied the game and sent it into overtime with a FG.

>But Dallas had the advantage in overtime.

>>>Rhodes and the Eagles have quite possibly blown their best
>>>opportunity to do some serious damage to the Cowboys chances
>>>this year, and if they don't develop a better QB than Peete
>>>they may never get over the hump to go from pretenders to
>>>contenders.

>>The Eagles still get another shot at the Cowboys at Dallas in five
>>weeks.  It's not a given that Dallas is going to win that one.  After
>>all, the consensus was that the Eagles would win last night.  There
>>are still eleven games remaining and anything can happen.  Peete, 12-5
>>as an Eagles starter, is going to be missed.  Hopefully, Detmer can
>>develop into the player many thought he would be coming out of BYU.

>The only thing that bothers me as a Boys fan is their dismal showing
>against teams that are injured or have their starting QBs out.  I can't
>explain it, but Dallas doesn't seem to fare well when they are supposed
>to beat a fairly strong, albeit injured, team.

That's because they have a shitty coach who can't get his team up for the
games they should win.

I'd like to add another point to your critique of Rhodes..Detmer as it turns
out was on *** street -- he had a concussion.  As a matter of a fact, two
times when they had called time out in the 2nd alf it was because Ty had
forgatten the play.  Perhaps rhods didn't want to take the chance with a fuzzy
QB -- put the points on the board and go from there.  as it turns out, it was
a good strategy except that the kick was blocked -- credit Lett for that --
the Eagles were in FG position at the end of the game so if they had put three
up earlier, it would have been for the tie.

Furthermore, the Eagles did go for a fourth and 2 in the 1st qtr -- and scored
-- at the time Peete was the QB -- the only difference I see is that Rhodes
didn't have the faith that Detmer could pull it off given his state and then
march the team 10 more yds for a score.

Since your so critical of Rhodes -- ask yourself this question.  Who would you
rather have as a coach -- ours or yours.

No need to answer.

See you in a few weeks.

Joe K.

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by John Walk » Fri, 04 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


> writes:

>>The only thing that bothers me as a Boys fan is their dismal showing
>>against teams that are injured or have their starting QBs out.  I can't
>>explain it, but Dallas doesn't seem to fare well when they are supposed
>>to beat a fairly strong, albeit injured, team.

>That's because they have a shitty coach who can't get his team up for the
>games they should win.

What does that say about Ray Rhodes?  Dallas had numerous injuries, and
Philly was supposed to beat Dallas that night.  (They were playing at home,
after all.)

Quote:
>I'd like to add another point to your critique of Rhodes..Detmer as it turns
>out was on *** street -- he had a concussion.  As a matter of a fact, two
>times when they had called time out in the 2nd alf it was because Ty had
>forgatten the play.  Perhaps rhods didn't want to take the chance with a fuzzy
>QB -- put the points on the board and go from there.  as it turns out, it was

Go from where?  Detmer was not only ***y, he stayed ***y long after the
game was over.  So Philly kicks the FG.  You're still down by three.
With a QB with scrambled brains, how is Philly supposed to win?  

Quote:
>a good strategy except that the kick was blocked -- credit Lett for that --
>the Eagles were in FG position at the end of the game so if they had put three
>up earlier, it would have been for the tie.

Great.  Then you can try to win in overtime with a QB that has a concussion.
Dallas still has the advantage.

Quote:
>Furthermore, the Eagles did go for a fourth and 2 in the 1st qtr -- and scored
>-- at the time Peete was the QB -- the only difference I see is that Rhodes
>didn't have the faith that Detmer could pull it off given his state and then
>march the team 10 more yds for a score.
>Since your so critical of Rhodes -- ask yourself this question.  Who would you
>rather have as a coach -- ours or yours.

I am not really that critical of Rhodes.  I am just playing the "bash-em"
role that Philly fans loved to exort in last year.  I think Rhodes' decision
to go for the win was a mistake.  But all coaches make mistakes.  I just find
it ironic that the whole world is making suggestions about my team changing
coaches, and Ray Rhodes somehow can do no wrong.

And I prefere Switzer.  He has the stats, the wins, and the championships.
(And the experience.)

Quote:
>Joe K.


 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by John Walk » Sat, 05 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Since your so critical of Rhodes -- ask yourself this question.  Who would you
>>rather have as a coach -- ours or yours.
>I am not really that critical of Rhodes.  I am just playing the "bash-em"
>role that Philly fans loved to exort in last year.  I think Rhodes' decision
>to go for the win was a mistake.  But all coaches make mistakes.  I just find
>it ironic that the whole world is making suggestions about my team changing
>coaches, and Ray Rhodes somehow can do no wrong.
>And I prefere Switzer.  He has the stats, the wins, and the championships.
>(And the experience.)

I also forgot to mention his 3-1 record against Rhodes.
Quote:
>>Joe K.


 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Jim Henl » Sat, 05 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Perhaps rhods didn't want to take the chance with a fuzzy
>QB -- put the points on the board and go from there.  as it turns out, it was
>a good strategy except that the kick was blocked -- credit Lett for that --
>the Eagles were in FG position at the end of the game so if they had put three
>up earlier, it would have been for the tie.

Really. The fact that his QB was fuzzy makes his decision _stupider_. Does
a fuzzy QB have a better chance of going 12 yards or 80? And where was the
confidence in his defense, which was playing very well the whole second
half? If Phillie had gotten the TD, they could have relied on the defense to
hold the 1 point lead (assuming Lett did not block the PAT). If Phillie had
_not_ gotten the TD they _still_ had the Cowboys backed up in their own
end of the field. Does a fuzzy QB have a better chance of going 50 yards
or 80? No matter how you slice it the decision to kick the FG -- made or
not -- meant giving up a better chance to take the lead for a worse one
down the line. It's just not defensible.

Best,

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The core question, "Who am I?," has been reduced by modern
psychotherapy to "How did I get this way?" --Elizabeth Loftus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Terry M » Sat, 05 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
wrote to All  on 03 Oct 96:

 >> And I prefere Switzer.  He has the stats, the wins, and the
 >> championships. (And the experience.)
 JW>
 JW> I also forgot to mention his 3-1 record against Rhodes.

Not to mention hell of a lot better players.  Let them switch players and then
see what kind of record they have against each other.

... Kansas City Chiefs - 1995 AFC West Champions!

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by John Walk » Sat, 05 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
>wrote to All  on 03 Oct 96:
> >> And I prefere Switzer.  He has the stats, the wins, and the
> >> championships. (And the experience.)
> JW>
> JW> I also forgot to mention his 3-1 record against Rhodes.
>Not to mention hell of a lot better players.  Let them switch players and then
>see what kind of record they have against each other.

Gee, you mean talent has something to do with winning?  The football world
is rife with coaches who had decent seasons with undertalented players.
Big deal.  The coach who can take a very talented team and go to the next level
is something special.  Many, many coaches have taken over-talented
teams and watched the team decline.    Rhodes may be fine for the Eagles, but
that is no guarantee that he could take the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.
But then again, he might.  All I know is, he has never done it before, and I
see no evidence he would necessarily be able to.

John

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by John Walk » Sun, 06 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>>Perhaps rhods didn't want to take the chance with a fuzzy
>>QB -- put the points on the board and go from there.  as it turns out, it was
>>a good strategy except that the kick was blocked -- credit Lett for that --
>>the Eagles were in FG position at the end of the game so if they had put three
>>up earlier, it would have been for the tie.
>Really. The fact that his QB was fuzzy makes his decision _stupider_. Does
>a fuzzy QB have a better chance of going 12 yards or 80? And where was the
>confidence in his defense, which was playing very well the whole second
>half? If Phillie had gotten the TD, they could have relied on the defense to

I love it, because it was the "no confidence in his defense" argument that
was blasted at Switzer last year.

Quote:
>hold the 1 point lead (assuming Lett did not block the PAT). If Phillie had
>_not_ gotten the TD they _still_ had the Cowboys backed up in their own
>end of the field. Does a fuzzy QB have a better chance of going 50 yards
>or 80? No matter how you slice it the decision to kick the FG -- made or
>not -- meant giving up a better chance to take the lead for a worse one
>down the line. It's just not defensible.

Consider also that they would have had to play the overtime, which makes the
decision even more suspect.
Quote:
>Best,
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>"The core question, "Who am I?," has been reduced by modern
>psychotherapy to "How did I get this way?" --Elizabeth Loftus
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Terry M » Sun, 06 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
wrote to All  on 04 Oct 96:

 JW> Gee, you mean talent has something to do with winning?  The football
 JW> world is rife with coaches who had decent seasons with undertalented
 JW> players. Big deal.  The coach who can take a very talented team and go to
 JW> the next level is something special.  Many, many coaches have taken over-
 JW> talented teams and watched the team decline.    Rhodes may be fine for
 JW> the Eagles, but that is no guarantee that he could take the Cowboys to
 JW> the Super Bowl. But then again, he might.  All I know is, he has never
 JW> done it before, and I see no evidence he would necessarily be able to.

Nor have I see any evidence that Switzer can win in the NFL without a great
team that's already proven it can win and win consistantly.

... Kansas City Chiefs - Super Bowl IV Champions!

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by John Walk » Mon, 07 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
>wrote to All  on 04 Oct 96:
> JW> Gee, you mean talent has something to do with winning?  The football
> JW> world is rife with coaches who had decent seasons with undertalented
> JW> players. Big deal.  The coach who can take a very talented team and go to
> JW> the next level is something special.  Many, many coaches have taken over-
> JW> talented teams and watched the team decline.    Rhodes may be fine for
> JW> the Eagles, but that is no guarantee that he could take the Cowboys to
> JW> the Super Bowl. But then again, he might.  All I know is, he has never
> JW> done it before, and I see no evidence he would necessarily be able to.
>Nor have I see any evidence that Switzer can win in the NFL without a great
>team that's already proven it can win and win consistantly.

Hey, that's good enough for me.   Once you win the Super Bowl, there's little
left to prove.  Are the Cowboys supposed to conquer Mongolia as well?
Quote:
>... Kansas City Chiefs - Super Bowl IV Champions!

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Jason Le » Mon, 07 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:



> > writes:

> >>The only thing that bothers me as a Boys fan is their dismal showing
> >>against teams that are injured or have their starting QBs out.  I can't
> >>explain it, but Dallas doesn't seem to fare well when they are supposed
> >>to beat a fairly strong, albeit injured, team.

> >That's because they have a shitty coach who can't get his team up for the
> >games they should win.

> What does that say about Ray Rhodes?  Dallas had numerous injuries, and
> Philly was supposed to beat Dallas that night.  (They were playing at home,
> after all.)

> >I'd like to add another point to your critique of Rhodes..Detmer as it turns
> >out was on *** street -- he had a concussion.  As a matter of a fact, two
> >times when they had called time out in the 2nd alf it was because Ty had
> >forgatten the play.  Perhaps rhods didn't want to take the chance with a fuzzy
> >QB -- put the points on the board and go from there.  as it turns out, it was

> Go from where?  Detmer was not only ***y, he stayed ***y long after the
> game was over.  So Philly kicks the FG.  You're still down by three.
> With a QB with scrambled brains, how is Philly supposed to win?

> >a good strategy except that the kick was blocked -- credit Lett for that --
> >the Eagles were in FG position at the end of the game so if they had put three
> >up earlier, it would have been for the tie.

> Great.  Then you can try to win in overtime with a QB that has a concussion.
> Dallas still has the advantage.

> >Furthermore, the Eagles did go for a fourth and 2 in the 1st qtr -- and scored
> >-- at the time Peete was the QB -- the only difference I see is that Rhodes
> >didn't have the faith that Detmer could pull it off given his state and then
> >march the team 10 more yds for a score.

> >Since your so critical of Rhodes -- ask yourself this question.  Who would you
> >rather have as a coach -- ours or yours.

> I am not really that critical of Rhodes.  I am just playing the "bash-em"
> role that Philly fans loved to exort in last year.  I think Rhodes' decision
> to go for the win was a mistake.  But all coaches make mistakes.  I just find
> it ironic that the whole world is making suggestions about my team changing
> coaches, and Ray Rhodes somehow can do no wrong.

> And I prefere Switzer.  He has the stats, the wins, and the championships.
> (And the experience.)

> >Joe K.

Ray Rhodes took a nobody team and brought them to the second week of the
playoffs. I think he deserves some credit. Having his starting
quarterback injured forced an unexpected situation on him in which no
coach can perform to the best of his abilities. As for the last comment,
Switzer has the wins because he has had the players handed to him.
Rhodes made his team from scratch.
 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Fred Goodw » Mon, 07 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
>wrote to All  on 03 Oct 96:

> >> And I prefere Switzer.  He has the stats, the wins, and the
> >> championships. (And the experience.)
> JW>
> JW> I also forgot to mention his 3-1 record against Rhodes.

>Not to mention hell of a lot better players.  Let them switch players and then
>see what kind of record they have against each other.

When Buddy Ryan was using superior talent to kick the ***out of
Jimmy Johnson's '89-'90 Cowboys teams, did anybody at that time
seriously believe Johnson was the better coach?  With the benefit of
hindsight, the answer now seems obvious.

Give Rhodes a few years, then we can judge.

---
========================================================================


* 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor          Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page *
* Austin, TX  78759          http://SportToday.org/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm *
========================================================================

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Linda Edmonds » Mon, 07 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>I'd like to add another point to your critique of Rhodes..Detmer as it turns
>out was on *** street -- he had a concussion.  As a matter of a fact, two
>times when they had called time out in the 2nd alf it was because Ty had
>forgatten the play.  

If he had a concussion he should not have been playing, even if the
Eagles had to put someone in at QB who had never in his life taken a
snap.  His health was in jeopardy if he couldn't defend himself.
 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Terry M » Tue, 08 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
wrote to All  on 06 Oct 96:

 >> Nor have I see any evidence that Switzer can win in the NFL without a
 >> great team that's already proven it can win and win consistantly.
 JW>
 JW> Hey, that's good enough for me.   Once you win the Super Bowl, there's
 JW> little left to prove.  Are the Cowboys supposed to conquer Mongolia as
 JW> well?

Of course not.  But taking a two-time defending Super Bowl champion back to the
Super Bowl is not a test of greatness, IMO.  At best it proves he's adequate to
win a Super Bowl with a two-time defending Super Bowl champion.

...  Multitasking:  Start download; grab a beer; watch some football.

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by John Walk » Wed, 09 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
>wrote to All  on 06 Oct 96:
> >> Nor have I see any evidence that Switzer can win in the NFL without a
> >> great team that's already proven it can win and win consistantly.
> JW>
> JW> Hey, that's good enough for me.   Once you win the Super Bowl, there's
> JW> little left to prove.  Are the Cowboys supposed to conquer Mongolia as
> JW> well?
>Of course not.  But taking a two-time defending Super Bowl champion back to the
>Super Bowl is not a test of greatness, IMO.  At best it proves he's adequate to
>win a Super Bowl with a two-time defending Super Bowl champion.

Which is pretty adequate.  There have been many coaches who couldn't win the
Super Bowl with Super Bowl talent on their team.
Quote:
>...  Multitasking:  Start download; grab a beer; watch some football.

 
 
 

Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)

Post by Jonathan C. Ensli » Wed, 09 Oct 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


>>Re: _Peete and Rhodes critic (Was Re: Cowboys/Switzer Critics)_, John Walkup
>>wrote to All  on 06 Oct 96:

>> >> Nor have I see any evidence that Switzer can win in the NFL without a
>> >> great team that's already proven it can win and win consistantly.
>> JW>
>> JW> Hey, that's good enough for me.   Once you win the Super Bowl, there's
>> JW> little left to prove.  Are the Cowboys supposed to conquer Mongolia as
>> JW> well?

I think even Tampa could conquer Mongolia.

Jon