Todd Bowles is a fucking fraud

[Doctor]

Forever love Dungy, but I doubt a tweet from one of the worst playoff coaches of all time is really the conversation ender you think it is.

[Pirate Life]

Forever love Dungy, but I doubt a tweet from one of the worst playoff coaches of all time is really the conversation ender you think it is.

Playoffs or no, the man knows defense and that's pretty indisputable. What you do in that situation doesn't change because it's a playoff game. It's offense he's not so hot with. So yes, this should be the end of it.

[nybf]

How can you defend a guy who was known for being defense first and took that defense first mentality to a team with no defense and won a ring with them? He clearly knows nothing about defense!

[Doctor]

Yeah, so Tony would lose to a longer FG instead and we are all happier for it. Got it.

Also, lots of Colt fans would dispute that given one top 10 finish his whole time in Indy... I wouldn't, but they might.

[nybf]

Matt Gay, known for his ability to launch 70 yard FGs right down the middle at RayJay, would have hit from anywhere yesterday.

[Tnbandwagoner]

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

If coaching can't get that done, maybe, just maybe the coaching needs a tweak.

[Tnbandwagoner]

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

This is some Swift-level irony right here. Love it.

[13F11B]

Yeah, so Tony would lose to a longer FG instead and we are all happier for it. Got it.

Also, lots of Colt fans would dispute that given one top 10 finish his whole time in Indy... I wouldn't, but they might.

Yes, we might have lost to a longer field goal. At the same time making the offense use three plays to get there would have given them more of a chance for a miscue, a tipped pass, etc. I won't go so far as to claim what the thread title says. I think Bowles is a good DC but I still think that call was not the right one for the situation.

[Tnbandwagoner]

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.

Which begs the question, how in the hell does someone get paid millions to be the DC of an NFL team and not pay attention to matchups?

[CannonFire]

Get him the fuck out of here. How do you NOT double cover Kupp?

... and on top of that, do a slot blitz on the guy who's covering Kupp.

[Doctor]

Yeah, so Tony would lose to a longer FG instead and we are all happier for it. Got it.

Also, lots of Colt fans would dispute that given one top 10 finish his whole time in Indy... I wouldn't, but they might.

Yes, we might have lost to a longer field goal. At the same time making the offense use three plays to get there would have given them more of a chance for a miscue, a tipped pass, etc. I won't go so far as to claim what the thread title says. I think Bowles is a good DC but I still think that call was not the right one for the situation.

And I'll give you that. There definitely were other ways we could've played that and, yes, there is totally an argument for having gone those ways.
I'm just not on board with this fantasy that playing it differently would have at all (let alone for sure) kept them from making a FG.

It's been our aggressive nature that has given us a "chance of a miscue, a tipped pass, etc" all year. We've lived and died by it, and overall it's worked for us. Yesterday it didn't.

[Snake]

You have to adjust for your opponent. Drive to drive. Week to week. “We’ve always done things this way” has been on many failed ventures tombstones.

You refuse to see this, for whatever reason.

[CantonJester]

Yes, we might have lost to a longer field goal. At the same time making the offense use three plays to get there would have given them more of a chance for a miscue, a tipped pass, etc. I won't go so far as to claim what the thread title says. I think Bowles is a good DC but I still think that call was not the right one for the situation.

And I'll give you that. There definitely were other ways we could've played that and, yes, there is totally an argument for having gone those ways.
I'm just not on board with this fantasy that playing it differently would have at all (let alone for sure) kept them from making a FG.

It's been our aggressive nature that has given us a "chance of a miscue, a tipped pass, etc" all year. We've lived and died by it, and overall it's worked for us. Yesterday it didn't.

FFS dude. All we have is hindsight, but the freakin board erupted (the internet, actually) when the Bucs chose to blitz over sending two extra DBs deep. Again, we were playing for OT when they went for the PAT. The goal here was not to create a turnover. It was to get the game to OT.

It's OK to accept that this board has batted your logic around like a piñata today. Accept your losses and move on.

[Doctor]

We were playing for OT and the belief on the sideline was if we give up 15 yards we lose.

If we're going to lose we're going to do so betting on our players and having them coming up short, not "giving up an easy 15 over the middle and hoping they miss". You know why? Because we have faith in our pass rush stepping up and doing their job more than we do their kicker (who has routinely booted huge kicks on our field) somehow not doing his. And I'm not going to burn our coaches at the stake for that, as disappointed as I am with the result.

[13F11B]

We were playing for OT and the belief on the sideline was if we give up 15 yards we lose.

With the :23 seconds (maybe it was :24) I think giving up 15 yards would have made it a VERY VERY long field goal (ie., 57 yards). I would have been all for the 8 in coverage followed by an all-out blitz if they completed a 15-yard pass and wanted to make one more pass to get it closer. I don't care that Matt Gay made a 58 yarder once before. It would not have been a gimme with the pressure of the game.

[nybf]

Thankfully it's a doctor sucking Bowles' dick all day. If there are any health implications from him going longer than 4 hours, he'll be able to take of it.

[Doctor]

There's plenty to hate about the playcalling and coaching yesterday, particularly from Bowles during the first 59 minutes and even more so from Arians/Lefty. We can discuss those all day.

But miss me with all this bitching over the final play call as if it ruined the season. Or worst still, these cries for Bowles job. Like, seriously?

[Tnbandwagoner]

This is pretty basic: good coaches, when something hasn’t been working all game, don’t blindly try that same thing that has failed all game on the most important play of the season, especially when there’s a vastly more prudent alternate play call. Getting paid millions to make the right call in those situations means you get held accountable when you make a mindless, asinine playcall and it ends the season for the team. If the blitz had been getting home, this would be a different discussion, but it wasn’t - and that makes that call careless and incompetent.

[nybf]

You're right. The final play call that directly led to the loss didn't ruin the season. Just ended it two games prematurely.

Do you use your hands? Or is it just mouth action?

[Babeinbucland]

End of story:

That makes millions of us

[MJW]

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.

I really didn't come here to bury Bowles, but you do realize that having Cooper Kupp one-on-one with a safety is WORSE than what ended Gregg Williams's career, right? I mean, by basically any interpretation?

[Doctor]

Yeah, I may have over played the right call bit. But I don't think we should apologize for believing in Winfield, who took on and won vs Hill in the Super Bowl, while we have TWO free rushers on a rushed Stafford in a loud Ray Jay.

[Snake]

It’s time to give up. Like usual during the Super Bowl, Mahomes was running for his life, he was up against the sideline throwing across his body during the infamous Winfield/Hill PBU. From the 28 yard line and he had to go to the end zone because they were down three touchdowns with four minutes left.

Winfield had a great season. There’s no doubt about it. But he’s definitely better going towards the line of scrimmage than running away from it against elite WRs.

[13F11B]

It’s time to give up. Like usual during the Super Bowl, Mahomes was running for his life, he was up against the sideline throwing across his body during the infamous Winfield/Hill PBU. From the 28 yard line and he had to go to the end zone because they were down three touchdowns with four minutes left.

Winfield had a great season. There’s no doubt about it. But he’s definitely better going towards the line of scrimmage than running away from it against elite WRs.

The key difference is Mahomes was running for his life. His offensive line was broken down. I do not recall Stafford running for his life.

[Doctor]

Which is kind of the point. There were two completely unblocked rushers that were still slow to get there.

I don't care who you are you aren't going to tell me you prefer coverage to QB pressure.

[nybf]

Doesn't your mouth ever get tired?

[BLT]

Doctor dying on the dumbest hill I ever did see

[Buc2]

Which is kind of the point. There were two completely unblocked rushers that were still slow to get there.

I don't care who you are you aren't going to tell me you prefer coverage to QB pressure.

On that particular play in that particular scenario, yes, I'd prefer coverage to QB pressure all day, every day.

The End

[Kress]

Thankfully it's a doctor sucking Bowles' dick all day. If there are any health implications from him going longer than 4 hours, he'll be able to take of it.

The aggressive approach would be to amputate. That's what doctors did in the past - it's what they've always done - and it routinely saves people's lives. There is no need to adjust based on the patient or situation, just do what you've always done and BE AGGRESSIVE!

Somebody pass that man a cleaver.

[Doctor]

Right, let's just bitch and moan and demand our top DC's head over a play that sent two free rushers at the QB because it didn't work.

Y'all so clever, so brave. I only hope I can be like y'all someday.

[Rocker]

[kaimaru]

Some of y'all acting like they were on their 20. They are at the 45 with 43 seconds left and full go.

You keep quoting this like it's correct. Was going to point this out yesterday. They were on their 25 with 38 seconds on the clock. At 43, Stafford got sacked and called a time out.

My opinion is that if you're doing a zero blitz, it should have been that second down. When they completed to Kupp for the first down, they only needed 8 yards! to get into Matt Gay's longest field goal range. They could have had an underneath route negating an all out blitz, and easily made that and more. So no, it's not a knee-jerk reaction for me.

[Kress]

Right, let's just bitch and moan and demand our top DC's head over a play that sent two free rushers at the QB because it didn't work.

There's this saying: "If it's a stupid idea but it works, it probably wasn't that stupid of an idea." I suppose the inverse is also true. "If it's a great idea but it fails miserably, it probably wasn't that great of an idea."

[MJW]

Some of y'all acting like they were on their 20. They are at the 45 with 43 seconds left and full go.

You keep quoting this like it's correct. Was going to point this out yesterday. They were on their 25 with 38 seconds on the clock. At 43, Stafford got sacked and called a time out.

My opinion is that if you're doing a zero blitz, it should have been that second down. When they completed to Kupp for the first down, they only needed 8 yards! to get into Matt Gay's longest field goal range. They could have had an underneath route negating an all out blitz, and easily made that and more. So no, it's not a knee-jerk reaction for me.

I see no reason to zero blitz in that situation, ever. How are you not going to have a safety over the top if going over the top is one of the few ways you can lose the game instantly? Don't worry about the sack. Let him throw underneath. I'll take my chances with Matt Gay from 50. He'd literally been short from 40-something earlier in the game.

Also, Stafford is literally the best QB in the league against the blitz, according to the metrics.

[MJW]

Right, let's just bitch and moan and demand our top DC's head over a play that sent two free rushers at the QB because it didn't work.

There's this saying: "If it's a stupid idea but it works, it probably wasn't that stupid of an idea." I suppose the inverse is also true. "If it's a great idea but it fails miserably, it probably wasn't that great of an idea."

I hate that saying. Occasional good outcomes don't make bad decisions into good decisions. A guy who spends his rent money at the track but wins hasn't made a great decision.

I'd be open to Bowles convincing us that a zero blitz made sense. He's the friggin' DC. But he WOULD have to explain it in some way I'm not seeing, because right now it looks a lot like rent money at the track.