Romeo sent a shot across the bow of Pioli

[petegz28]

After hearing all the talk today on radio, etc., as much as a lot of us would have liked to have seen Romeo go for the win in regulation he probably did the best thing for this team and sent a very clear and unmistakable message to Pioli that he will not put a game in Cassel's hands unless he has too.

There are some drawbacks as that same message gets sent to the team as well.

From former players to talking heads they have all basically said that there is no disguising this message. Romeo may have done us a favor and took us a huge step towards getting rid of Cassel.

Couple this with hearing last week from Maas that Romeo says he does not believe in Cassel. This is good news.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by FAX

I think I see your point, Mr. petgz28. 1 play equals 1 potential CasselDisaster. However, if we punt, hold them, then get the ball back at ... say ... our 40, we're talking about requiring at least half a dozen plays which equals 897 potential CasselDisasters or a net savings of 896 total CasselDisasters.

Is that what you mean?

FAX

Well..what I mean is we had the ball in FG range and the clock bearing down on us. Cassel take a shot to win the game and it gets picked or he gets sacked, fumbles, etc., it's game over. Even if the D stops the Saints Cassel now has less than a minute to drive a longer range for even a tying FG.

So, you take it out of his hands, kick the FG and take it to OT and thus remove the clock as your enemy. Cassel may still **** up in OT but at least then the Saints just can't run the clock out as they could have in regulation.

Make sense?

[BossChief]

It makes more sense after your quick edit. That's for sure.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Well..what I mean is we had the ball in FG range and the clock bearing down on us. Cassel take a shot to win the game and it gets picked or he gets sacked, fumbles, etc., it's game over. Even if the D stops the Saints Cassel now has less than a minute to drive a longer range for even a tying FG.

So, you take it out of his hands, kick the FG and take it to OT and thus remove the clock as your enemy. Cassel may still **** up in OT but at least then the Saints just can't run the clock out as they could have in OT.

Make sense?

Yeah ... I think so.

I misunderstood your original post thinking that you were only talking about regulation. Instead, you were comparing regulation vs. OT with the idea that taking the game to OT would relieve some of the pressure from our glorious leader.

In retrospect, taking the game to OT was the right decision, obviously. I mean, we're having great difficulty scoring touchdowns ... especially in the red zone. And you're right ... the more pressure on Cassel (either physical or mental), the worse he seems to play.

But honestly, I'm sort of siding with the notion that Crennel was pulling tactical decisions from his ass crack that Sunday ... particularly late in the game. The 4th and 5 was a significant field position gamble considering our defense had owned the Saints for the last 30 minutes.

In Crennel's defense, however, I don't see how any coach could confidently perform as a game-day tactician when you have a wild card like Cassel at the helm. The good ship Chiefs could slam into the rocks on any given play while he's in the wheelhouse staring at his navel.

FAX

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by milkman

But if I'm Romeo Crennel, would I rather punt the ball away, hope the defense makes one more stop, get it back and put the ball in Cassel's hands for a handful of plays, or would I rather take the chance that he can make one play.

In theory, sure.

But what I'm saying is that a coach who's actually thinking that doesn't put his punt team on the field, then call an absolutely horrendous timeout, and THEN put his QB in to go for it.

If he's actually weighing the pros and cons of "One play vs. a short drive to get us in FG range", there shouldn't be the hesitation and confusion. And if he really had as little faith in Cassel as some would suggest, that's not a spur of the moment decision. You'd know all along that you're not trusting this joker to lead a crucial drive in the final seconds.

But in fairness, it's probably not true to say he had NO idea what he was doing. Funny, but not fair. If I was forced to reconcile his decisions with some actual form of logic, I'd guess that like most defensive coaches he probably wanted to go conservative, punt and play defense, and got talked out of it on the 4th down. Then after the conversion, he still went conservative and played for the FG.

But even that's being generous, so I reject any attempt at reading into it further.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by FAX

Not always. But it's damn close.

If you count DeBerg and Montana as stop-gaps which they kinda were, I guess, that pretty much leaves you with Lenny and Green ... and Elvis, maybe ... although I'd count him, too.

FAX

Elvis wasn't a stopgap, he was just a gap.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Romeo=Herm

So true.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

So, who is going to man up and start the Romines?