Originally Posted by coogrfan
Wait a second...this wasn't one of those games where the D was constantly faced with defending a short field because the O was turning the ball over. ATL had nine possessions, eight of which began 79 yards or farther
from our EZ.
What did our D do with this superb field position? We forced only two punts for the entire game. The other seven drives ended on points plays for ATL.
I'm sorry, but that's pathetic.
We don't have the Pats O, either.
What we have is a unit with a grossly substandard, patchwork OL; a RB corps that is missing it's best player; and a group of receivers that is lacking in both depth and consistency. Under the circumstances it would be nice if our D would occasionally give Romo and co out a short field via a takeaway or by forcing a punt deep in enemy territory.
[View Full Quote]Fixing the D was the front office's clear priority in this past offseason. Virtually all of the team's resources (FA and the draft) were expended to that end. It is not unreasonable to ask the side of the ball that received the lion's share of the attention (the D) to take up the slack for an offense that had (and still has) clear and obvious deficiencies that had to go unaddressed.
And yet they gave up only 19 points on the road in Atlanta. 90% of us would have taken that in a second if asked before the game.
Yes, the defense could not get the ball back on their last drive, but it should have not come down to that, again. We get two TD's instead of two FG's somewhere before that, it would not have mattered.
Everyone has a plan, until they get hit.
/ Mike Tyson