Saw the Cowboys/Packers Dez non catch game on NFL network

[ConstantReboot]

The Cowboys were so close to making the Super Bowl the following year. All they needed to do was keep DeMarco Murray. But they figured anyone could run behind their great offensive line. The next season, that decision backfired—the running game fell apart, and so did their season.

Stephen Jones just keeps making the same mistakes his dad did. When it matters most, they always let the team and their fans down.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Time will tell, but we have seen players like Jaylon, Carter, Clark not improve with more experience.

Yeah but all three of those guys suffered some bad injuries in college as well. Especially Jaylen. That was horrific.

 

[JW82]

Worst late game clock/game management game ever. The QB and HC had no feel for the clock. Even if Dez scores there Rodgers would have easily ran out the clock and scored late.

 

[Cowboyny]

Yeah but all three of those guys suffered some bad injuries in college as well. Especially Jaylen. That was horrific.

I fully understand Jaylon, but the other two were just normal acl's if I remember. It is kind of a trait either you have it or you don't.

The UCLA linebacker (Swesinger-drafted by Browns) was my favorite player in this year's draft, cause he had elite instincts; always saw him beat the blockers to a spot cause of his reaction skills. A reason why I was so concerned with Alabama's Campbell, where many have said he was a tick slow in reacting. In the NFL, one false step, you lose on the play.

 

[Bamx]

Jeanty is similar to a Barry/Saqaun, with homerun abilities every time they touch the football. Hampton just doesn't have those same abilities and why he wasn't considered an elite prospect.

NFL was different in the 90's, where teams valued the RB position. Emmitt should of been drafted higher, but if I remember Thomas career was hit with injury.

The point was that being drafted sooner and being a higher rated prospect in the draft doesn't always mean a better career will follow. By the logic that was mentioned regarding draft and prospect rank Thomas would have had the better football career.

 

[Cowboyny]

The point was that being drafted sooner and being a higher rated prospect in the draft doesn't always mean a better career will follow. By the logic that was mentioned regarding draft and prospect rank Thomas would have had the better football career.

Being put in the right situation matters, just look at Saquan with the Giants and now with the Eagles. Emmitt ran behind one of the best OL's in the history of the league, his career could of been far different he he was drafted by the Jets.

 

[Bamx]

Being put in the right situation matters, just look at Saquan with the Giants and now with the Eagles. Emmitt ran behind one of the best OL's in the history of the league, his career could of been far different he he was drafted by the Jets.

That could be applied to any player in the league. My point is that draft and prospect rank regardless of other outcomes don't always equal a better career.
If you want to make the argument for other reasons that's fine, but those weren't mentioned during the first post.

 

[MarcusRock]

You can claim whatever you want. It proves zilch. I’ve responded to the rule with actual explanations multiple times in the past in plenty of threads.

You however, respond with nothing substantive.

‘It wasn’t a catch according to the rule! You see, because the rule says it wasn’t. If it was a catch according to the rule, the refs wouldn’t have overturned it!’

Talk about a circular “argument”.

You've responded with your explanations. Ones that get you what you want. Same as the other self-deluders. Never quoting the rules, never posting official or former official explanations (because you can't otherwise they ruin your case). I have. Before I knew you existed here and after. So I speak on what I've already written here. If anyone is interested in the facts, I can re-post all that to show how the mechanics of the rule worked back then. No one's interested because they know what it shows. YOU know. So all you and other "we wuz robbed" victims have is to try to pervert the rules with, "No, this is how they worked" in conflict with how they actually read or the interpretation of those who actually wrote them, but can't actually articulate how. Fascinating stuff.

Not that the media is the end, all, be all, but does any major media outlet agree with what any of you contend; that the NFL messed up its own rules and lied about it? Post it. You can't because it doesn't exist. "But, but the NFL paid them off to keep it all quiet!" Great stance when you can't explain black and white rules. Just claim dark forces that you also can't prove. Lol.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I fully understand Jaylon, but the other two were just normal acl's if I remember. It is kind of a trait either you have it or you don't.

The UCLA linebacker (Swesinger-drafted by Browns) was my favorite player in this year's draft, cause he had elite instincts; always saw him beat the blockers to a spot cause of his reaction skills. A reason why I was so concerned with Alabama's Campbell, where many have said he was a tick slow in reacting. In the NFL, one false step, you lose on the play.

It’s not the physical. What I mean is when they were suppose to build on their foundation they were out because of injury. I think how you start your career matters

 

[SultanOfSix]

You've responded with your explanations. Ones that get you what you want. Same as the other self-deluders. Never quoting the rules, never posting official or former official explanations (because you can't otherwise they ruin your case). I have. Before I knew you existed here and after. So I speak on what I've already written here. If anyone is interested in the facts, I can re-post all that to show how the mechanics of the rule worked back then. No one's interested because they know what it shows. YOU know. So all you and other "we wuz robbed" victims have is to try to pervert the rules with, "No, this is how they worked" in conflict with how they actually read or the interpretation of those who actually wrote them, but can't actually articulate how. Fascinating stuff.

Not that the media is the end, all, be all, but does any major media outlet agree with what any of you contend; that the NFL messed up its own rules and lied about it? Post it. You can't because it doesn't exist. "But, but the NFL paid them off to keep it all quiet!" Great stance when you can't explain black and white rules. Just claim dark forces that you also can't prove. Lol.

I posted the rules multiple times you clown, and responded to them in the threads where I posted them.

I posted my explanations from reading the rules, understanding the semantics of and the meaning of the terms used and then laid out an argument, presented with practical examples of the facts of the matter associated with receiving and catching the ball, maintaining possession, etc. This is what philosophers do. This is what lawyers do when they defend or prosecute a case.

All you’ve provided is “Durr, the NFL monopoly said the rule was read correctly.” Even though everyone on the field thought it was a reception when it happened, including the official who had the best view of the reception. It was only after the challenge and the rule was “interpreted” that it was overruled.

The media’s opinion (whoever they are) on the matter is irrelevant. You can find plenty of online people who also assert it was a catch.

 

[blueblood70]

Some of my thoughts:

-This may of been the best Cowboy offense we have seen over the last 20 years:

-Elite OL (Leary/Parnell), Elite running game(Murray), very good receiving options (prime Dez, Witten, Beasley and TWilliams) Huge Murray fumble at the end of the 1st half was a big momentum swing.

-Defense was very suspect. Couldn't get any pressure on a injured Rodgers. Rookie Devonta Adams had a huge game as the Cowboy defenders keyed on stopping Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb. Huge 3rd and 15 for a long TD in the 3rd qrt changed the game.

Dez call was total BS as we all know, but it wouldn't of mattered as the defense couldn't get a stop.

Some conclusions based on what I saw compared to this Cowboy Team:

-Our current offense has similar receiving weapons, but the OL/run game is the biggest difference. It makes sense that they made fixing the run game an offseason priority. It is still very much a work in progress.

-Defensively, our current group is far more talented.

Mincey/Selvie and a rookie DLaw were our pass rushers. Hayden/Crawford were our DT's. McClain was out due to injury, saw Hitchens/Carter at backer, Carr/Steling Moore were at corner, Scandrick in the nickel, Wilcox/Heath at Safety.

Remember our DC was Marinelli and Eberflus was our LB coach. Eberflus did a tremendous job was turning around McClain's career at the time, Hitchens was suppose to be a undrafted fa and became a solid starter. Point is, don't discount Eberflus coaching chops.

I don't rewatch games like that but I can remember just about everything from memory that was important you're right the fumble was huge the two missed field goals were huge the mistakes once again not be able to make a stop against Aaron Rodgers was huge because it happened again to Prescott in 2016 but this has always been about more than just the quarterbacks people around here just forget all these plays that wasn't even the Dez no catch it should have never came down to one bad call or non call that fumble those two miss field goals that were huge in the game they were very big and yes defense once again yeah it's always more to it than what people remember people remember the interceptions or a misthrope or a big moment like that with the reverse call but in my opinion it was those other things that lost us the game..

That's why whenever people talk about the romo hold fumble Seattle game.. I know that that moment will be forever ingrained in people's minds and how bad that ball looked like ahead WD40 on it we had a guy holding the football that was all sweaty that shouldn't have in my opinion I don't know why he had quarterbacks holding the football but we were in a big moment he had to hurry up had his arm sweaty ball oiled up look should have never came down of that you know why because the plate before was a first down i've never seen Jason Witten so angry he almost turned purple yelling he was already a red person but he was turning purple..

How they looked at that play and didn't call that a first down II call that a curse that's being snake bitten if that's first in goal at the 1 yard line we're not talking about this play any more.. But again we can come back and wonder if we had scored a touchdown, there does our deep ends let us down once again?

Yes I remember these plays I don't want to drag this on but even to Green Bay loss in 2023 it was not the interceptions that killed that game it was the defense it was other factors like a lack of a run game that has been the biggest factor lately and recent losses into playoffs as not being physical in the trenches can't stop the run can't run the football but the two interceptions I've looked at them at least three times they were not on the quarterback they literally one was should have been past interference on cooks he got pulled on twice no call he got leverage and that's why he picked the ball off there was nothing happening anyway they're trying to make plays and then Sadie Lamb was supposed to continue his crosser he doesn't he goes off script thought he was covered too well and he decided to do his own thing and cut the ball upfield and then the ball was already being thrown into quarterback has his mind made up you're gonna blame him for these interceptions and the defense was absolutely horrid the run game was horrid the trenches were horrid the San Francisco game with the 11 penalties on just the offensive line and then we back to the rest again with not getting the ball lined up and going to blame Prescott for not stopping the clock but there was too much in some of those games my head wants to explode when I think about it.

I hate Stephen A Smith but it seems like he's right in the biggest games whatever can go wrong does go wrong we are snake bitten and that's all there is to it I mean just imagine if going back to Demarco Marion he busts through that hole and scores a touchdown or makes it to the 5 yard line this is a whole different game but how does Dan Bailey miss field goals at that time he was probably the best field goal kicker in the league?.

 

[fivetwos]

My only argument with you on this is the rules at the time said two feet down and a football move. Dez shifted the ball to one arm and was reaching toward the goal line when he hit the ground and fumbled. He was trying to score by making a football move. Yes, the officials could have called it incomplete because he lost the ball going to the ground, but since it was ruled complete, I would argue that the evidence was not conclusive concerning the football move to overturn it.

That's been my stance since it happened, but there's no use rehashing it over and over, so I'm going to stop there.

First time I’m saying this, but I knew in real time that it wouldn’t stand as a catch. Literally the only time I’ve ever heaved anything across a room…my phone…before the challenge even happened.

I noticed that he didn’t tuck it away before ball hit the ground. I’m not arguing against what you’re saying. Should have stood.

During the lengthy challenge, I was still pissed over throwing deep on 4th and 2 in the first place. Knew it wouldn’t go our way. Maybe used to losing. Maybe used to getting no breaks (which may or may not have anything to do with Jerry’s “deal with God” for SB30), I don’t know.

Doesn’t bother me much because even if they score on that play/drive, Dallas still wouldn’t have stopped them from getting a FG once they got the ball back. That defense wasn’t good enough and was tremendously aided by a run game that played keep away about as good as you’ll see.

Also….tough to complain about bad officiating after what happened vs Detroit a week earlier.

 

[gtb1943]

I posted the rules multiple times you clown, and responded to them in the threads where I posted them.

I posted my explanations from reading the rules, understanding the semantics of and the meaning of the terms used and then laid out an argument, presented with practical examples of the facts of the matter associated with receiving and catching the ball, maintaining possession, etc. This is what philosophers do. This is what lawyers do when they defend or prosecute a case.

All you’ve provided is “Durr, the NFL monopoly said the rule was read correctly.” Even though everyone on the field thought it was a reception when it happened, including the official who had the best view of the reception. It was only after the challenge and the rule was “interpreted” that it was overruled.

The media’s opinion (whoever they are) on the matter is irrelevant. You can find plenty of online people who also assert it was a catch.

it was a bad rule and badly ruled on
what people like Marcus cannot understand is there is both a letter and a spirit to a rule just like a law
the people who go on and on about the letter of the law are those that abuse it the most

 

[MarcusRock]

The media’s opinion (whoever they are) on the matter is irrelevant. You can find plenty of online people who also assert it was a catch.

You wouldn't be putting on a diversion now, would you? I asked a very simple, specific question. What major media outlet agrees with you and others who say the rule was incorrectly applied in that game? It's a simple exercise that shows support for what you've concluded. Not "online people," major media outlets that agree with these "online people."

I told you you couldn't answer this question (or wouldn't because of its truth).

 

[MarcusRock]

First time I’m saying this, but I knew in real time that it wouldn’t stand as a catch. Literally the only time I’ve ever heaved anything across a room…my phone…before the challenge even happened.

I noticed that he didn’t tuck it away before ball hit the ground. I’m not arguing against what you’re saying. Should have stood.

During the lengthy challenge, I was still pissed over throwing deep on 4th and 2 in the first place. Knew it wouldn’t go our way. Maybe used to losing. Maybe used to getting no breaks (which may or may not have anything to do with Jerry’s “deal with God” for SB30), I don’t know.

Doesn’t bother me much because even if they score on that play/drive, Dallas still wouldn’t have stopped them from getting a FG once they got the ball back. That defense wasn’t good enough and was tremendously aided by a run game that played keep away about as good as you’ll see.

Also….tough to complain about bad officiating after what happened vs Detroit a week earlier.

I knew common sense could be found out there before the thread hit 10 pages. Lol. But a replay official can't let a play stand when you see something that the rule says makes it incomplete (the ball hitting the ground). Mike Pereira on the broadcast said it would be incomplete before it was announced also. Anyone who actually understands how the rule worked knows it can't be gotten out of once you see the ball touch the ground and come out of his possession. That's why all who claim it was wrong try to argue that Dez was upright and not going to the ground because the latter is undeniable.

Agree with you about the defense. They had given up a 90-yard drive in 2 minutes and an 80-yard drive in 4 minutes on back-to-back drives in the second half. Rodgers had 4 minutes after "the play" and was in FG range (the Dallas 28) when they knelt down.

 

[MarcusRock]

it was a bad rule and badly ruled on
what people like Marcus cannot understand is there is both a letter and a spirit to a rule just like a law
the people who go on and on about the letter of the law are those that abuse it the most

The call was right according to both spirit and letter. But you'd need to actually know the rule to see how but your forte is just to fanboi over some past scorching I can't even remember (that's also why you're my favorite, lol).

 

[blueblood70]

I knew common sense could be found out there before the thread hit 10 pages. Lol. But a replay official can't let a play stand when you see something that the rule says makes it incomplete (the ball hitting the ground). Mike Pereira on the broadcast said it would be incomplete before it was announced also. Anyone who actually understands how the rule worked knows it can't be gotten out of once you see the ball touch the ground and come out of his possession. That's why all who claim it was wrong try to argue that Dez was upright and not going to the ground because the latter is undeniable.

Agree with you about the defense. They had given up a 90-yard drive in 2 minutes and an 80-yard drive in 4 minutes on back-to-back drives in the second half. Rodgers had 4 minutes after "the play" and was in FG range (the Dallas 28) when they knelt down.

That's why I never go back to that play on why we lost this game a lot of games you go back and look what happened before that a bad call by a ref or an unusual play should ever cost you the game literally the fumble by murray..

That literally changed the game the momentum the swing was huge you have two missed field goals I mean the defense didn't play well I mean there's so much that went on in this game that pointed to the loss and of course is the only one that's truly remembered because it was a big deal but it never was to me about the no call Dez caught it game I go back to that Seattle game with Romo with the bad hold, the play Before it should have been a first down should have been first in goal that's what I remember I remember Jason Witten pleading that it was a first down and how come they didn't call it a first down I believe they reviewed it I can't remember it but it was definitely a first thing goal situation and the other stuff should have never happened...

 

[SultanOfSix]

You wouldn't be putting on a diversion now, would you? I asked a very simple, specific question. What major media outlet agrees with you and others who say the rule was incorrectly applied in that game? It's a simple exercise that shows support for what you've concluded. Not "online people," major media outlets that agree with these "online people."

I told you you couldn't answer this question (or wouldn't because of its truth).

You're the one who brought up a major media outlet as if that proves anything. The media isn't an authority on this. And even if some person in the media is an authority, just presuming he's right because he's an authority is what's called an argument from authority fallacy. An authority still has to give legitimate reasons as to why his argument holds water outside of personal opinion or bias.

Learn something about logical reasoning.

 

[MarcusRock]

You're the one who brought up a major media outlet as if that proves anything. The media isn't an authority on this. And even if some person in the media is an authority, just presuming he's right because he's an authority is what's called an argument from authority fallacy. An authority still has to give legitimate reasons as to why his argument holds water outside of personal opinion or bias.

Learn something about logical reasoning.

You answer would be no then. Thanks.

And it's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy. As for me, I'm just looking for any non-regular fan support for your supposition. There is none. Like I said.

See you next thread.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You answer would be no then. Thanks.

And it's called an "appeal to authority" fallacy. As for me, I'm just looking for any non-regular fan support for your supposition. There is none. Like I said.

See you next thread.

Why would I need someone else’s opinion on the matter? I made the argument myself which is what people are tasked to do in higher education. Maybe you’ve never received one <shrug>. ‍I’m not here to satisfy your requests for approval as if you’re a teacher giving me a grade.

It’s also called argument from authority. Logical fallacies can have multiple names just like different words can have the same meaning.

It’s “cool” that you know another name. It’s unfortunate that you couldn’t see that you were repeatedly requesting me to indulge in it.