I really hate the "should have" arguments when making a point about someone's play. Those using 'should have" as an argument rarely play the "should have" card evenly, even though it's a knife that cuts both ways. Amidst a lot of "should have been a pick six" and Tommy's receivers really bailed him out he "should have" had fewer completions, I thought I'd take a look at the "should haves" that would have benefited Tommy's stat line. These "should haves" are mostly instances where the receivers had their hands on the ball but didn't catch it with a few exceptions.
Exception # 1: 11:50 of the first quarter, Tre Bryant stumbles after catching a screen pass with 4 blockers leading the way. I estimate this "should have" been a 15 yard gain w/o the stumble.
Exception #2: @ 11:04 of the second quarter an unblocked rusher forces Tommy to through the ball away over the head of wide open CC - I conservatively credited that as a "should have" been 18 yard gain, if the OL had picked up the untouched rusher.
Exception #3: 6:14 of the third, a 36 yard TD pass to Newby is called back for a block in the back on CC. Obviously, "should have" been a 36 yd TD
The Other Should haves:
Exception # 1: 11:50 of the first quarter, Tre Bryant stumbles after catching a screen pass with 4 blockers leading the way. I estimate this "should have" been a 15 yard gain w/o the stumble.
Exception #2: @ 11:04 of the second quarter an unblocked rusher forces Tommy to through the ball away over the head of wide open CC - I conservatively credited that as a "should have" been 18 yard gain, if the OL had picked up the untouched rusher.
Exception #3: 6:14 of the third, a 36 yard TD pass to Newby is called back for a block in the back on CC. Obviously, "should have" been a 36 yd TD
The Other Should haves:
- 1:08 of the 2nd #11 drops 7 yd gain
- 10:26 of the 3rd #82 drops 9 yd gain
- 7:33 of the 3rd # 1 drops 18 yd gain
- 6:01 of the 3rd #82 drops 7 yd gain
- 00:20 of the 3rd #87 has 45 yd gain reversed on review
