***Blame defense thread***

[WV Cowboy]

Originally Posted by coogrfan

As far as I'm corncerned the D must bear an equal share of the blame not only for this defeat, but for our poor overall record to date.

Yes, they failed in the last 5 minutes, .. the offense failed the other 55.

Perhaps they were tired, maybe good play-calling, poor tackling. I don't know.

Had we been up 26-16, holding them to a FG (once again) would have been enough.

Maybe the blame should go 80-20 or even 70-30 for offense-defense, but all in all, only giving up one TD can win games.

[coogrfan]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

Yes, they failed in the last 5 minutes, .. the offense failed the other 55.

Perhaps they were tired, maybe good play-calling, poor tackling. I don't know.

Had we been up 26-16, holding them to a FG (once again) would have been enough.

Maybe the blame should go 80-20 or even 70-30 for offense-defense, but all in all, only giving up one TD can win games.

Sorry, not buying it. Within the context of that game the defense was every bit as bad as the offense.

On Sunday night our defense had zero takeaways, failed to force a punt after the 6 minute mark of the second quarter, and allowed eight plays of 20 yards or more. For the game they allowed ATL to drive at least 60 yards on six of nine possessions. In the second half the D allowed 60 yards or more on all four of ATL's 2nd half possessions (during which the Falcs would hold the ball for over 18 minutes); but for a missed fg the Falcons would have scored on all of those possessions.

It was, in a nutshell, a dismal performance.

[WV Cowboy]

Originally Posted by coogrfan

Sorry, not buying it. Within the context of that game the defense was every bit as bad as the offense.

It was, in a nutshell, a dismal performance.

Not sure what you are watching, .. you do know this is the NFL, right?

Like I said, I'm not really a stat guy, .. I like the bottom line, .. so here is a bottom line stat for you.

Atlanta was the only team to be held to less than 20 points and still won the game this past weekend.

Our defense was adequate enough if the offense does it's job.

[coogrfan]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

Not sure what you are watching, .. you do know this is the NFL, right?

Like I said, I'm not really a stat guy, .. I like the bottom line, .. so here is a bottom line stat for you.

Atlanta was the only team to be held to less than 20 points and still won the game this past weekend.

Our defense was adequate enough if the offense does it's job.

Perhaps...or perhaps the O might have scored more if:

• the D hadn't allowed ATL to hold the ball for over 18 minutes in the second qtr;
• the D had managed to force a punt in ATL territory at any point after halftime, thereby giving the O better field position;
• the D had been able to give the O a fighting chance to win the game on the final possession by getting a stop before ATL was able to run the clock down under 30 seconds.

Imho, blaming one side of the ball over the other is missing the forest for the trees. Everything that happens during the course of a game is interrelated.

[WV Cowboy]

Originally Posted by coogrfan

Everything that happens during the course of a game is interrelated.

I agree, and I do blame both, just not 50/50.

And you say the offense would have had a better chance if the 'D' did this this and this.

Both teams had 9 possessions.

We should score more that 13 pts. If not we will lose a lot.

[IrishAnto]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

If my defense holds that offense to one TD, .. I'm looking at my offense as to why we lost.

They have two great WR's, great TE, a good RB and a pretty good QB.

Had the offense showed up and contributed throughout the game, we may have been able to win.

And had the defense generated some turnovers (or hell even one) we may have been able to win.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

I agree, and I do blame both, just not 50/50.

And you say the offense would have had a better chance if the 'D' did this this and this.

Both teams had 9 possessions.

We should score more that 13 pts. If not we will lose a lot.

We had eight true possessions, because our last one started at our own 20 with only 17 seconds left -- not exactly enough time to score, barring a miracle.

Based on the number of possessions, where they started and the average points scored by an average offense against an average defense on those possessions, our offense should have scored 11.8 points. We scored 13. The Falcons should have scored 11.2 points. They scored 19.

[dexternjack]

Sometimes you got to throw out the fancy stats, trends or whatever and look with your eyes, gut and instinct.

Fact of the matter is..our defense played on their heels all game only to surrender the late TD all the while waiting for the offense to do something. At some point our offense has to control the flow of the game and not the opposing offense.

I agree that the defense should get some blame but it is no where near 50/50. We don't have the Bears defense here, they need some offensive help.

[WV Cowboy]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

We had eight true possessions, because our last one started at our own 20 with only 17 seconds left -- not exactly enough time to score, barring a miracle.

Based on the number of possessions, where they started and the average points scored by an average offense against an average defense on those possessions, our offense should have scored 11.8 points. We scored 13. The Falcons should have scored 11.2 points. They scored 19.

Yea, you're right, only 8 true possessions, .. although one started at their 32. If we score 7 there, it sets a different tone.

All of that other stuff is just gibberish to an old school football guy like myself.

All I know is when I look at today's NFL, .. 13 points from your offense won't win many games.

And also in today's NFL, if you hold the other team to less than 20, if you have a decent offense, you should win that game.

The defense can always improve, but if you don't feel that holding the Giants and Falcons offense's to one TD is a good thing, we'll just disagree.

[coogrfan]

Originally Posted by dexternjack

Sometimes you got to throw out the fancy stats, trends or whatever and look with your eyes, gut and instinct.

Fact of the matter is..our defense played on their heels all game only to surrender the late TD all the while waiting for the offense to do something. At some point our offense has to control the flow of the game and not the opposing offense.

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.

Originally Posted by dexternjack

I agree that the defense should get some blame but it is no where near 50/50. We don't have the Bears defense here, they need some offensive help.

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.

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.

[dexternjack]

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.

[coogrfan]

Originally Posted by dexternjack

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.

That's pointless speculation. There's no way to know how the rest of the game plays out if Dallas had scored td's instead of fg's. Maybe Garrett gets more aggressive in his play calling and we wind up either scoring more or turning the ball over; maybe he gets more conservative and we try to hang on to the lead. Who knows?

We do, however, know what did happen: our D got worked. The fact that they held ATL under 20 points is only of signifcance to people who bet the under.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

Yea, you're right, only 8 true possessions, .. although one started at their 32. If we score 7 there, it sets a different tone.

All of that other stuff is just gibberish to an old school football guy like myself.

All I know is when I look at today's NFL, .. 13 points from your offense won't win many games.

And also in today's NFL, if you hold the other team to less than 20, if you have a decent offense, you should win that game.

The defense can always improve, but if you don't feel that holding the Giants and Falcons offense's to one TD is a good thing, we'll just disagree.

I didn't say anything about the Giants game.

I'm talking about the Falcons game, when the Falcons drove the length of the field almost every time they had the ball.

And does the defense get credit for Atlanta missing more relatively short field goals than our previous 47 opponents combined? If Atlanta had made those and scored 25 points instead of 19, would your opinion of the defense's performance change?

[WV Cowboy]

I was not overly impressed with either unit, but I will hang my hat on feeling that 13 points won't win many games in the NFL.

Holding the other team to 19 gives you a chance to win.

Those other two FG's would change things as you say. But we did force them to attempt a FG, .. and didn't allow them to get close enough for a gimme. Their kicker should have made them maybe, but no FG is a sure thing what with the snap, hold, placement, and the kick itself.

Maybe we just aren't good enough to beat ATL.

[coogrfan]

Originally Posted by WV Cowboy

Maybe we just aren't good enough to beat ATL.

I think this is probably the most accurate statement in this entire thread.