View Full Version : If you had to point to 1 Reason!
aikemirv
12-13-2005, 12:41 PM
Why we are 8-5 versus a 11-2 or 10-3 mark what would it be?
To me it is obviously our OLine.
So, when we come to FA this offseason and we have already reupped RW and Witten and prepping to reup Newman the following year, why would we sign Abraham?
I mean, I know he is a great player and would make for a great pash rush, but that is not our deficieny (defense that is, our pash rush could still use some improving no doubt) and would he have gotten us to 11-2 or 10-3?
2 good Olineman for the price of Abraham - if I have my choice I go Oline all the way!
Cowboy from New York
12-13-2005, 12:44 PM
We several of our games due to crappy kickers too.
Portland Fanatic
12-13-2005, 12:47 PM
I have a combination of 3..........
1) A few boneheaded play calls....along with being conservative at the wrong times
2) FG kickers
3) Losing Flo....
OL definitely, but also inexperienced rookies
Lord Sun
12-13-2005, 12:55 PM
3) Offensive inconsistency, mainly due to poor OL / injuries to OL
2) Poor kicking, which we've hopefully solved
1) Late game defensive breakdowns, specifically mental lapses in the secondary and physical inadequacy of pass rush
superpunk
12-13-2005, 01:02 PM
3. Billy Cundiff
2. Jose Cortez
1. Billy Cundiff
aikemirv
12-13-2005, 01:04 PM
How does Cundiff get 3 and 1 . He only missed 1 FG in 1 game. He can't be responsible for 2-3 losses unless u are blaming him for tearing his quad! :laugh2:
silver
12-13-2005, 01:09 PM
cortez
superpunk
12-13-2005, 01:13 PM
How does Cundiff get 3 and 1 . He only missed 1 FG in 1 game. He can't be responsible for 2-3 losses unless u are blaming him for tearing his quad! :laugh2:
Bingo. If he hadn't torn that stupid quad, we wouldn't have had to sign the spaniard. Maybe I should have put "Billy Cundiff's quad."
Howboutdemcowboys31
12-13-2005, 02:46 PM
cundiff
Hiero
12-13-2005, 02:47 PM
Kicking or OL tough choice.
theogt
12-13-2005, 02:49 PM
I have a combination of 3..........
1) A few boneheaded play calls....along with being conservative at the wrong times
2) FG kickers
3) Losing Flo....Bingo. In reverse order.
Hostile
12-13-2005, 02:54 PM
I blame the scoreboard operators. They clearly are putting points in the wrong column and running the clock wrong. We should have more time, but the other team less. It's a conspiracy.
VACowboy
12-13-2005, 02:55 PM
QB pressure, for and against.
conner01
12-13-2005, 03:09 PM
lack of exacution
simple, if we exacute we win, if we don't we lose. the oline has been a problem but it's still the same thing.now tucker and rob may not be capable of exacuting but thats the whole deal
Doomsday101
12-13-2005, 03:12 PM
lack of exacution
simple, if we exacute we win, if we don't we lose. the oline has been a problem but it's still the same thing.now tucker and rob may not be capable of exacuting but thats the whole deal
I agree. I would add the O-line problems as well but for the most part it has been execution we have failed either offensively or defensively late in games that has cost us some wins this season.
joseephuss
12-13-2005, 03:18 PM
If the o-line does its job better, Dallas scores more TDs and doesn't have to rely on the kickers as much. They would also control the clock longer giving the opposing team fewer opportunities.
aikemirv
12-13-2005, 03:22 PM
lack of exacution
simple, if we exacute we win, if we don't we lose. the oline has been a problem but it's still the same thing.now tucker and rob may not be capable of exacuting but thats the whole deal
Well, I was not necessarily pointing to our tackles because we have not run the ball effectively all year and that is more of what I was referring to than pass protection.
We have not run the clock out or sustained a drive at the end of a game that would have turned the tides. For example Washington or Seattle. Obviously, pass protection is the reason we lost to NYG and we missed a kick vs Denver that may have/ or may not have sealed it.
You can point to single plays like missed kicks, but it seems the oportunities we have missed by inefficient line play are the main root of the problem.
aikemirv
12-13-2005, 03:24 PM
If the o-line does its job better, Dallas scores more TDs and doesn't have to rely on the kickers as much. They would also control the clock longer giving the opposing team fewer opportunities.
Yep! :bow:
Danny White
12-13-2005, 03:27 PM
If you had to point to 1 Reason! Why we are 8-5 versus a 11-2 or 10-3 mark what would it be?
You weren't cheering hard enough... shame on YOU!
;)
Typhus
12-13-2005, 03:32 PM
If I have to point to the most crucial area,,, I would say that lossing Henry for that duration cost this team dearly.
The problems along the offesnive line with the loss of Flo and the rookie play of Pettiti can be addressed with help in the blocking schemes, but loosing Henry, arguably our best player on defense, put this defense into a tailspin.
Glenn stepped up to the plate admireably, with the resond that only a savy vet of his ilk can provide,, but Glenn is no Henry,,,, by any s-t-r-e-t-c-h, (sorry),,of the imagination.
joseephuss
12-13-2005, 03:47 PM
If I have to point to the most crucial area,,, I would say that lossing Henry for that duration cost this team dearly.
The problems along the offesnive line with the loss of Flo and the rookie play of Pettiti can be addressed with help in the blocking schemes, but loosing Henry, arguably our best player on defense, put this defense into a tailspin.
Glenn stepped up to the plate admireably, with the resond that only a savy vet of his ilk can provide,, but Glenn is no Henry,,,, by any s-t-r-e-t-c-h, (sorry),,of the imagination.
I don't think Henry would have played better against the Giants than Glenn did. The defense gave up 10 points that game. Henry has played very well for Dallas, but defense wasn't the problem that game.
I am not sure where there was a defensive tailspin. The defense has played well all year with or without Henry. The KC game was the first where I considered that the defense struggled the whole game.
AmericasTeam31
12-13-2005, 03:49 PM
I blame the max protect. When we don't run it we give up some sacks, but the offense is much more potent. As we saw on Sunday...
Juke99
12-13-2005, 03:54 PM
...because we wasted the entire 2004 season on the "Old Bill's Barnstorming Geriatric Football Roster" rather than signing and developing young players.
Eskimo
12-13-2005, 04:05 PM
The most basic reason is that close games over the long haul are won about 50% of the time by your team. We have been in 10 close games and come out 5-5. Over the short-term there will be significant variation (look at Jags this year) but this is what one would expect overall.
Our record is fairly indicative of our overall level of play. Our record will improve when our team improves (OL, kicker, LB, FS).
conner01
12-13-2005, 04:17 PM
i did'nt mean it as the tackles being the p[roblem. rivera has'nt been exacuting,tucker,rob,either center but it's all about exacution. the reason i mentioned the tackles is they may very well just not be able too.for the most part the rest of the team are capable just not always doing it.
superpunk
12-13-2005, 04:51 PM
...because we wasted the entire 2004 season on the "Old Bill's Barnstorming Geriatric Football Roster" rather than signing and developing young players.
I'll second that, although our stupid 10 win season in 2003 is partially to blame for that experiment.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.