12-4 with Romo?

JoeBoBBY

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
1,691
They just didn't do it colorfully enough for those who think simply that they should have stepped up and just took up the slack.

If we scored 40 points, the Defense was giving up 41. If we scored , 12 points, the Defense was giving up 13. If this years version of the Cowboys got into an OT game...................... we gave up 80 yard TD plays....
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,177
Reaction score
39,427
Here's points allowed by the defense broken down by quarter, if that helps.

1st
2014: 62
2015: 63
2nd
2014: 85
2015: 86
3rd
2014: 58
2015: 56
4th / OT
2014: 123
2015: 132

Of course the reason the games were "on the line" in the 4th quarter was usually that our offense couldn't score. It's basically the same defensive performance as last year's, minus the takeaways that were caused by a schedule full of turnover-prone teams and a lot of double-digit Cowboy leads in 2014.

Our offense scored enough to have the lead or to be tied for the lead in several games and our defense couldn't hold. Even Garrett has made reference to it. Our defense didn't give our offense an opportunity with the ball in 2 OT games. There's no rule that states you have to pad the lead to protect your defense from blowing games in the 4th quarter. When you have the lead or are tied in the final minutes it's up to your defense to do its job and make a stop.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
There's no rule that states you have to pad the lead to protect your defense from blowing games in the 4th quarter.
There's also no significant difference between the two defenses (2014 and 2015), except for the takeaways, which were almost completely the result of the schedule and the superior offense providing it with big leads.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,177
Reaction score
39,427
There's also no significant difference between the two defenses (2014 and 2015), except for the takeaways, which were almost completely the result of the schedule and the superior offense providing it with big leads.

We weren't giving up leads in the 4th quarter last year and the takeaways were part of the reason. Because the offense was so efficient last season the D wasn't exposed as much and the turnovers we forced got the D off the field. The defense spent too much time on the field this year and got worn down.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,782
Reaction score
16,658
12-4 no, but they could have won the div at 9-7 or 10-6, and then get beat in playoffs rd 1 like wash probably will
Just having tony makes the team better, that is for sure. but it doesnt make the team a contender.
Just makes them a playoff team like many others.

The jones boys blew up the 2014 team that was a contender, and that isnt coming back.
They have to now try and build another team that can be a contender.
 

ufcrules1

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,652
Reaction score
3,800
143 QB rating. Only 4 incompletions (really only 3 if not for the BS). 2 TD's, 0 INTs. Yup, nothing special at all in that GB game.

Career numbers Regular Season : 65.3%, 5.7% TD, 2.7% INT, 7.8 YPA, 2.1:1 TD/INT ratio - 97.1 rating
Playoff Numbers: 61.6%, 4.3% TD, 1.1% INT, 7.5 YPA, 4:1 TD/INT ratio, 93 rating.
2014 Playoff Numbers: 68%, 8% TD, 0% INT, 11.3 YPA, 4:0 TD/INT, 125.7 rating.

Overall his playoff numbers aren't far off, and in some areas he is better. In 2014, he was the best QB in the playoffs, just as he was during the regular season.

You left off the win and in games. Go back and add those into the stats and let's see how they look. 2014 was an outlier season for Romo behind an extremely dominant run game and Oline. He literally had all day to throw and due to teams stacking the box to stop the run it gave him favorable matchups on the outside.

Romo threw the ball 19 times against GB...that's it. He really didn't do anything special in that game. 2 tds? Big whoop. It was Rodgers that was unstoppable. 316 yards, 3tds. Romo had 191 yards and 2 tds. You call that special? Please.
 

ufcrules1

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,652
Reaction score
3,800
Go look back on his career year after year. Dallas had some really suck teams who barely got to playoff level. For years the defense would let them down. For years they didn't have a running game. Dallas didn't lose the Giants game in 07 because of Romo. He dropped a perfect pass to Crayton who dropped a probable TD. Garrett took over and they had to completely rebuild the offensive line. Romo, though by no means perfect, has been the most stable force on this team for years. And for a few years he carried them.

Just look at Green Bay right now. They are the 2008-2013 Cowboys in a lot of ways. They're defense is just eh, receivers just eh, running game eh, and it's all on the Superstar Rogers who is looking pretty average right now. I've seen him throw picks in the end zone a couple times this year to lose games because like Romo for years, tried to do too much.

GB is having one of their worst seasons in forever this year and I think a massive reason is not having Jordy Nelson. Adam's sucks, Jones is ok but old and can't get separation, and Cobb is having a really bad year. Also they have virtually no running game and guess what? They are still in the playoffs and had a pretty good record at the end of the season. Rodgers is a huge reason for that.

I have watched Romo his whole career and he played a role in this teams lack of success. Hell in 2012 he literally gave the game away to the Commanders. 3 horrific interceptions all on him against one of the worst pass defenses in the entire league.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
GB is having one of their worst seasons in forever this year and I think a massive reason is not having Jordy Nelson. Adam's sucks, Jones is ok but old and can't get separation, and Cobb is having a really bad year. Also they have virtually no running game and guess what? They are still in the playoffs and had a pretty good record at the end of the season. Rodgers is a huge reason for that.
You're right that who's catching the ball does make a difference. Like Brady did in 2013, and Romo almost did in 2012, Rodgers finished the season outside the league's top 10 passers for the first time in his career. But the "virtually no running game" part is way off, and you didn't mention their defense at all.

NFL Rank
Packers' defense (7th in passer rating)
Packers' run game (12th in rushing yards)
Rodgers (15th in passer rating)

That's just a solid team, one of the leagues' best, but with issues at WR this year.
 

ufcrules1

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,652
Reaction score
3,800
You're right that who's catching the ball does make a difference. Like Brady did in 2013, and Romo almost did in 2012, Rodgers finished the season outside the league's top 10 passers for the first time in his career. But the "virtually no running game" part is way off, and you didn't mention their defense at all.

NFL Rank
Packers' defense (7th in passer rating)
Packers' run game (12th in rushing yards)
Rodgers (15th in passer rating)

That's just a solid team, one of the leagues' best, but with issues at WR this year.

I think many would disagree with you that GB is one of the leagues best. They are underdogs to the Commanders this weekend. Just looking at the stats it may look that way but they have been off big time this whole year. When you watch the games you can clearly tell something isn't right with the team. Rodgers actually looks mortal. Even though he is really suffering with his receivers he still wills the team to some wins. Their run game is schizophrenic, some weeks it does really well and other weeks it is non existent. I think the only reason it is any good at all is due to the fear of Rodgers throwing the ball.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Their run game is schizophrenic, some weeks it does really well and other weeks it is non existent. I think the only reason it is any good at all is due to the fear of Rodgers throwing the ball.
I don't doubt it, but that's not the same as having "virtually no running game." That describes the 30th-ranked Patriots, not the 12th-ranked Packers.

And again, you're ignoring Green Bay's 7th-ranked pass defense.
 

ufcrules1

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,652
Reaction score
3,800
I don't doubt it, but that's not the same as having "virtually no running game." That describes the 30th-ranked Patriots, not the 12th-ranked Packers.

And again, you're ignoring Green Bay's 7th-ranked pass defense.

I was just using a figure of speech. I think a better term would be that they can't count on their running game. I'm not a big stats guy Percy and you are. That is where a big difference of opinion comes in. You just look at stats and say "Well here you go, this is the proof" and I say, those stats are interesting and they do matter, but they don't tell the whole story.
 
Top