Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by OhSnap, Apr 18, 2014.
That's a very good point.
Hahaha it's like you read a totally different post, I was actually giving credit to the O because they had almost no injuries, no idea what you are talking about.
They did lose Rodgers for 5 games or 1/3rd of the season, probably the best QB in the league, just saying.
Honest question, do you think we are playing for the NFC East championship game in week 17 if Romo's out for 5 games instead of the problems we had at D-line?
Thats okay, we all come here to argue anyway.
By the the time the Packers limped into Cowboys stadium the Packers were missing their starting QB (Rodgers), their starting WR (Cobb), their starting TE (Finley), their starting LT(Bulaga).
They were quite possibly the worst team in the NFL at that stage of the season -- definitely as much of a mess as the Cowboys were.
They won the game and that was the difference in the Cowboys not making the playoffs.
Let's just say the team was "hamstrung" last season
Not that it detracts from the point you are trying to make, but this is not true. They had to beat the Eagles either way.
You sure about that? Had Dallas won the Green Bay game, they still had to beat Philly to win the division.
I actually agree with your post, in this specific context, but is that really relevant? Green Bay was equally devastated by injury that game, but not for the entire season. Dallas' DL injury situation was season-long (three projected starters gone before the season ever started).
Green Bay went through a five-game stretch where they were beat up pretty bad.
Dallas went through a 16-game stretch where they couldn't get effective DL play, which left the rest of the defense completely exposed.
Unlikely, although Dallas came close to handling Philadelphia when they needed to with Orton. Take Romo out of the lineup for five games, and Orton may have been able to safely navigate his was to a couple of three winds.
Conversely, take 3/4 of Green Bay's starting DL out for the entire season, and the role Aaron Rodgers plays is inconsequential.
Without Romo for 5 games, we would be lucky to win 2 at max.
So the answer is no, we would not have been playing for the division title in week 17 if Romo missed 1/3rd of the season like Rogers did.
While we did have almost all of our injuries to the DL, the flip side is that our other units were relatively healthy.
Green Bay lost their starting QB and best WR along with injuries on the defense. That would be the equivalent of us losing Romo and Dez, but the D-line is still relatively healthy.
Which would you prefer? ..................Without Romo and Dez, we would not even be competitive with a complete healthy D line so lets not act like Green Bay wasn't significantly disadvantaged as well.
You've got to be kidding, 6-2 with Rodgers, 2-5-1 with him, need I say more?
Yes we lost Ratliff and Spencer which is half of our starting DL (Crawford was not projected to be a starter) and it did hurt but missing Romo for 8 games would have been a killer, we would have won 5 games at the most.
I totally agree, about Rodgers, actually he lost 8 games, 6-2 with him, 2-5-1 without him.
The difference between us and the Packers is that they had better coaching. When things get bad the best coaches find a way to do things mediocre ones cannot. Our depth problems are directly the result of our GM. So you put that all together and its the difference between making the playoffs and not.
They were practically asking big guys in the stands on gameday to take some defensive snaps it got so bad at one point.
Both would have been equally crushing. Losing Romo and Dez would have made the entire offense ineffective. Losing the DL renders the entire defense helpless. It's a wash. BTW, nowhere in there did I minimize Green Bay's injury situation. My entire point is that just comparing total number of starts lost to injury is misleading.
And I agree, with the exception of the 3-games late when we were absent our starting LBers, the rest of the defense, and the entire offense, was pretty healthy. I still think it wouldn't matter. A strong DL that can get upfield and create havoc for a QB can make the most pedestrian secondary look really good. Conversely, a secondary comprise of Pro-Bowlers can't cover for a bad DL.
You're not getting what I'm saying, obviously.
Rodgers' injury had an 8-game effect on the Packers.
Dallas DL woes has a 16-game effect.
BTW, Crawford was projected to be a starter last season, too. Marinelli and Kiffin had him pencilled in at the 1-tech.
the same lame argument, "hey guys, Dallas has a lot of injuries" no kidding, what team doesnt , oh wait, lets clarify, Dallas DID not have essential players out. IF Crawford is your starter, its only cause everyone else sucks. For anyone else, Spenver who? Yeah, this team can get by without him. Ratliff, decided to play for another team. Not Dallas. So three of your starters or injuries, guess what, non essential. Suck it up boys and girls, your players arent that good. Your coaches failed, for the stats people, go check the stats, and lets face it, as bad as that D was, Dallas got a gift that doesnt happen often, the rest of the division sucked. The difference was Dallas made it to the last game and were a three time loser and Philly just outcoached us, pure and simple. Our mistakes caught up, Eagles fixed theirs as the season went on.
Like i stated, the players didnt give up because of injuries, they gave up for other reasons. Our coaches were not up to par, granted im glad we replaced the ones we did, but Kiffen and company did not stack it up, injuries or not.
I dont want to alarm anyone, but you ll see this with other teams, a player or two goes down and the teams can win. Actually you ll see something too, when their opponents have injuries, those teams strike at the weakness, Dallas just shoots themselves in the foot.. WE didnt lose the GB , and Denver game just on defense alone. Actually we didnt lose the Philly game on defense alone.
A team can lose an essential player, the word being essential, dallas lost some players. Some players. Difference is, they can play on Dallas, on most teams, well, lets just realize on most teams these players wouldnt be there. Except Ratliff, im not really sure if we lost much on the defense side. We just werent prepared and dare i say some players jsut arent that good. NO big revelation.
I get you but an 8 game effect without Rodgers is much worse than a 16 game effect on a half of a DL IMO.
I don't think Crawford was projected as a starter instead of Hatcher? it was Ware, Hatcher, Rattliff and Spencer.