It's official... I'm off the Romo bandwagon. Can't wait until he's gone.

[Omegasupreme]

It's not unreasonable and not a stretch at all to say that opposing coaches looked at this offense with Romo out, Dez out and no Murray, and said, "Know what, we can afford to be ultra conservative on offense and eliminate mistakes, not give them any turnovers then when we need something, we go get it."

The 2 or 3 really good offenses we faced, blew us out. The rest of them rather they be bad, mediocre or fair to middling, somehow managed to get what they needed when they needed it just about every time, even driving the length of the field on us when needed.

That means your defense sucks. Let's not delude ourselves.

I think it is a stretch and unreasonable unless you were somehow preserving your players. The only time that really happens is when you have a team that clinched a playoff and a position in the playoffs and plays the game without regard for high intensity that would be inherent to any other game in the season. Can you imagine winning in the fourth quarter 14-7 when you could be ahead 31-7 and some flukey mistake allows the other team to win 15-14? At your press conference your answer would be:

A) Well, we knew they were not really an NFL team to worry about so we decided not to score for most of the game. They didn't really win that game, we just kind of let up our advantage at the wrong time.

B) Our game plan was just to make each play unintentional for a first down or a TD. Yes, we called the plays but no we had no intention that they would work.

C)We told our players not to play with their full efforts. Just play at half speed. We will score at the end of the game, when we have predicted that every possible fluke or lucky play that the other team makes will have failed. We will also buy one winning Powerball ticket because we don't really have to rely on probability or cushioning ourselves.

D) The competition committee asked us to keep it close.

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, the idea that teams "took it easy" on our defense is ridiculous IMO.

 

[Doomsday]

we decided not to score

Yeah, the idea that teams "took it easy" on our defense is ridiculous IMO.

That's total strawman. I never said anyone "tried not to score" or "took it easy" What I said was, exactly what happened, most offenses were ultra conservative then when they really needed a score, they had no trouble getting the score they needed. They avoided high risk plays and kept turnovers to a minimum. KNOWING that without Romo, Dez and Murray, our offense has NO teeth.

Meanwhile the really good offenses just blew us out of the park.

 

[peplaw06]

That's total strawman. I never said anyone "tried not to score" or "took it easy"

It's not a strawman... It's an inference and paraphrase of what you are saying.

What I said was, exactly what happened, most offenses were ultra conservative then when they really needed a score, they had no trouble getting the score they needed. They avoided high risk plays and kept turnovers to a minimum. KNOWING that without Romo, Dez and Murray, our offense has NO teeth.

If offenses knew they could just score when they needed to, then why would they have to be ultra conservative? Even if they took some risks and maybe made some big mistakes, "oh well, no big deal, we can just score whenever we need it."

If an offense can just score whenever they want to, they would just always score. No offense ever feels like they don't need to score. But I guess if you're married to this idea that this actually occurred, then it should be easy for you to come up with some actual, you know, examples.

 

[Doomsday]

It's not a strawman... It's an inference and paraphrase of what you are saying.

Incorrect "inference" which actually is, "replace what he said with something we can argue against, rather than what he actually said."

If offenses knew they could just score when they needed to, then why would they have to be ultra conservative? Even if they took some risks and maybe made some big mistakes, "oh well, no big deal, we can just score whenever we need it."

If an offense can just score whenever they want to, they would just always score. No offense ever feels like they don't need to score. But I guess if you're married to this idea that this actually occurred, then it should be easy for you to come up with some actual, you know, examples.

You completely ignore the "conservative" part. The one where they know fully well they won't have to hang 30 on us to win, without Romo, Dez or a credible running game.

BUT.... when needing a 94 yard TD drive, or maybe just 40 yards to kick a game winning FG - somehow they managed to get it. Every. Time.

If offenses knew they could just score when they needed to

That's completely, your fabrication. But what they DO for sure know is, without a credible Dallas offense they can afford to stay ultra conservative and virtually eliminate turnovers thusly, then when needed open it up and get what's needed. And, they did.

 

[peplaw06]

whatevs Dooms. Do what you do.

 

[Doomsday]

whatevs Dooms. Do what you do.

The two competing ideas:

1.) The mindless homeristic, limpwristic one: "Our good defense kept us in GAMES! If only our offense woulda scored moar or at least kept our D off the field moar we coulda been 12-4 again!"

2.) The realistic one: "Our defense sucks, and the offense sucks more so opposing coaches who are conservative creatures naturally, know all of this and so call their offense very conservatively and rope-a-dope us, limiting mistake chances, until it is time for a knockout blow. Then they open it up and get what they need, whatever it is."

The second one is what happened, all season long this year. With the exception of, the REALLY good offenses we played that just blew us out of the stadium. Their conservatively called plays slashed us to pieces.

26 teams had more snaps against their defense than we did. I do not buy the "tired out late because on the field too much" argument.

This fucking defense sucks. Can't get turnovers, can't get sacks. Can't even harass the QB. Can't disrupt timing or cover the fucking receivers. And can't stop offenses when that offense NEEDS a score.

There is a difference between wanting a score, and needing a score. Every offense wants to score, on every possession. But above all the coaches want to limit mistakes and protect the ball. Call less risky plays. Play field position. Then when we need a 96 yard drive we up the ante, call more aggressive plays, take more chances, and get what we need.

This is how they play you when you have a feckless offense and gutless coaching, and a pissant secondary..

 

[Hoofbite]

Quit arguing guys, we have important shit we still need to figure out. Sheik........we're all ears.

But would you quit him if he shit in your mouth?

 

[lons]

Well thats the odd part: I'm not even mad. I mostly watch games emotionless anymore.

To say I'm disgusted doesn't mean that I'm mad. Just disgusted. Frustrated. I make fun of this team more than anyone I know. I live in CHarlotte and all these idiot Panthers fans are acting like they're a god damned dynasty and can't be stopped. They all bang on me for being a Cowboys fan but I make fun of the team more than they do so its kinda pointless.

I would like to be a "good" fan again. I kinda miss the days of waking up Sunday mornings and counting down the clock. Prepping special meals of the typical brats/nachos/pizza/beer etc. Checking the standings and looking to future matchups, NFCE rival schedules etc. Paying attention to stats and whos' doing what. I miss being a fan.

But this team. Holy fuck this team. It just sucks that out of you. When you finally wake up and realize holy shit it doesn't matter what happens on the field because we've got an owner making money hand over fist regardless and he's having too much fun being the king of the castle that he'll employ an underachieving, undeserving smug smirking fuckwad as head coach because the clapping idiot doesn't have enough self respect to stand for anything.

And Romo, my god he's been the one thing thats kept us from being a 5-11 team on repeat year after year, but even with him we've managed basically only .500 football. And now this guy has some sort of stockholm syndrome towards Garrett that he doesn't realize this incompetent son of a bitch is the reason Romo is going to be remembered as a loveable loser instead of a champion.

Because IMO, Romo yeilds a lot of power. His career is winding down. We have nothing behind him. Take a fucking stand. Go into Jerry's office and say Listen ya fucks, I'm carrying that red headed fuck and I've been doing it since he's been hired. His inability to squeeze a single win without me is what caused me to rush back perhaps a little too early in an unfavorable situation - 2 games in 4 days - thus leading to this season being utterly pissed away. Win one, or two, or three games and I can stay absent a little longer and then come back in time to make a run in this floundering fuckall of a division. I'm not continuing down this road. I'm too old and my body is becoming too brittle. Find me a real god damned coach or I'll retire.

But again, he's saddled with some sort of stockholm syndrome and he by golly likes Garrett so much that he's going to feed into this ignorant undeserving and remarkably disrespectful "you're the next Landry" mantra that I mistakenly thought was only permeated throughout shitty fucking homer forums.

God. Fucking. Damn.

Fuck it... I'm done with him too.

You mean like.... last year? Dude, we lost the best running back we've had since Emitt or MB3 when he was just the closer to another team in the division just after he'd had the season of his career, we lost the best corner on the team before the season, the best wideout we've seen since TO the 1st game, the best QB we've seen since Troy the 2nd game, we had a mental case starting in place of that running back, 2 QB's that were back ups before they were ever drafted, 1 QB that might be a back up... someday, our 2nd string wide out couldn't catch a ball til QB 4 started, we lost the only running back we thought we had mid way through the season to an acl, leaving us with a mental case we picked off seattle and a running back we thought was running on fumes who actually turned out a pretty damn good season once we had no choice, but to use him and the biggest thing we lost Calahan that kept out O line in check was lost to yet a different division foe.

Yeah, this was the worst season since Jimmy took over, but dude, who loses all that and wins anything? Ever. Not to mention our Owner/GM thought it was a great idea to pick up Hardy who turned out a pretty ok season, but nothing we couldn't have done without.

Yeah this was a huge two steps back year. But we were snake bit since the day Dez's catch wasn't a catch to end our playoffs last year. I for one can't really hold that against Romo. No matter what he says.

 

[Midswat]

Yeah well, thats like, your opinion.... man.

 

[peplaw06]

The two competing ideas:

1.) The mindless homeristic, limpwristic one: "Our good defense kept us in GAMES! If only our offense woulda scored moar or at least kept our D off the field moar we coulda been 12-4 again!"

I don't see anyone saying that... And I don't see how, if there was someone saying that, it would be homeristic.

2.) The realistic one: "Our defense sucks, and the offense sucks more

I agree both sides of the ball sucked. You should stop here.

so opposing coaches who are conservative creatures naturally, know all of this and so call their offense very conservatively and rope-a-dope us, limiting mistake chances, until it is time for a knockout blow. Then they open it up and get what they need, whatever it is."

This is where you lose me. I don't think all these close games were simply a product of teams playing conservatively against us.

If you think there were teams with good offenses who played unusually against us, then post some examples, instead of this regurgitating your speculative and conclusory opinions. I mean, you think it's so obvious, let's talk about them.

I think we played a some good offenses who didn't have any trouble scoring on us. And I think we played some struggling offenses who struggled against us. And I've posted that in this thread. But instead of talking specifics, you want to make sweping generalizations. If you want to continue to debate with me, I'm going to need specifics.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Lons... Don't you realize that most of those factors you listed, from letting Murray to and replacing him with an idiot in Randle, to the disaster of a backup QB situation, to backup wideouts like Street who can't play, to Callahan leaving because the head coach hated him, are not bad luck. They're bad management. And players like Scandrick and Dunbar aren't season-changing type players. Every team has injuries like that.

The only real excuse for this year was Romo. And no, you aren't going to win the Superbowl or even probably a playoff game without him. But I think most of us can still appreciate a good coaching job where you get the most out of your team even when it is undermanned at QB, and this coaching staff didn't even come close to doing that. This was the worst division in football and we finished five games behind the winner who got spanked in its first playoff game. That's pathetic and unacceptable.

 

[Doomsday]

This is where you lose me. I don't think all these close games were simply a product of teams playing conservatively against us.

I don't think that's solely the reason either. I think it is most of the reason. The teams we "played close" still somehow managed to get what they needed from us when they needed it, and the really good offenses just blew us out of the water.

I don't see anyone saying that...

It's everywhere you look, if you're looking.

If you think there were teams with good offenses who played unusually against us

No, i never said or even alluded this. The good offenses just did what they do and it worked better against our lousy defense.

I think we played a some good offenses who didn't have any trouble scoring on us. And I think we played some struggling offenses who struggled against us.

"Struggling" offenses who played very conservatively, then somehow were able to get whatever they needed when they needed it. Because our D sucks.

 

[peplaw06]

"Struggling" offenses who played very conservatively, then somehow were able to get whatever they needed when they needed it. Because our D sucks.

If you agree that the offenses that struggled against us were struggling offenses, then how do you know whether they were just playing how they play (aka struggling) or if they had intentionally said "we'll just struggle here because we can against the Cowboys"?

 

[Doomsday]

If you agree that the offenses that struggled against us were struggling offenses, then how do you know whether they were just playing how they play (aka struggling) or if they had intentionally said "we'll just struggle here because we can against the Cowboys"?

Nobody intentionally "struggles." But they DO intentionally play very conservatively so as to protect the ball more, and play more of a field position game when they have seen the other team has zero offensive capability.

Whereas if we had a healthy Romo and a respectable running game, they would be taking more chances and we would be getting some turnovers. Sort of like last year.

 

[Doomsday]

The teams we "played close" still somehow managed to get what they needed from us when they needed it

Of course this could merely be a product of the two minute offenses naturally being more aggressive, and us going to the "prevent" dime package - which history shows really only "prevents" you from stopping two minute offenses.

Defense still sucks though IMO.

 

[Scot]

It looks like the new coach in Cleveland has already decided to move on from Manziel

Welcome to Dallas Johnny Football! lol

Jones will snatch his ass up as soon as he legally can

 

[Doomsday]

It looks like the new coach in Cleveland has already decided to move on from Manziel

Welcome to Dallas Johnny Football! lol

Jones will snatch his ass up as soon as he legally can

I bet so too.

here's a report:

Hue Jackson hiring means Cleveland Browns, Johnny Manziel done

The hiring of Hue Jackson as coach of the Cleveland Browns means the end of Johnny Manziel in Cleveland.

According to a source close to the situation, the topic of Manziel was discussed at length in meetings between Jackson and Browns ownership. In those discussions, Jackson indicated that he would prefer the organization move on from Manziel if he were to become coach, and he was told that would not be a problem.

The Browns agreed to hire Jackson as their new coach on Wednesday.

 

[Scot]

Johnny Football could be wearing the star by weeks end or whenever he's officially released

Maybe we can trade Carr for him. Kill two birds with one stone lol

 

[Omegasupreme]

Maybe we can trade Carr for him. Kill two birds with one stone lol

1877 CARR-4-KID