2011 Packers (15-1) had the worst defense

[CF74]

Rodgers > Romo

By 20 Million miles, and it's not even that close....

 

[CCBoy]

Yea, he carried a broke team and personal injuries a whole lot better than Romo....yea, for sure, OK, without doubt, yes....

 

[Animosity]

Yea, he carried a broke team and personal injuries a whole lot better than Romo....yea, for sure, OK, without doubt, yes....

Is this sarcasm? Are you somehow trying to imply that a proven loser in this league is somehow better than the best QB in the league right now? Is this a joke?

 

[CCBoy]

Is this sarcasm? Are you somehow trying to imply that a proven loser in this league is somehow better than the best QB in the league right now? Is this a joke?

yep, you never saw the Waltons...and when GrandPa was obviously extending humor on a youthful indecision.

Good thing that one asked first, instead of jumping out and insulting...oh, you did that too and by passed the obvious. Yea, that was classic class as well...(coughing)

I've done little more than support Jerry Jones, Jason Garrett, and Tony Romo this whole off season starting with the last loss of 2013.

Of course, that was followed as well, right?

I bleed blue and have since the team came into existence and I watched the should stars bobbing and weaving on Eddie LeBaron and Don Perkins..You knew that, right?

 

[tyke1doe]

So now the 2014 Cowboys could become the 2011 Packers?

Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

 

[khiladi]

Generally speaking, the idea is to quote things that actually help your argument. What you've quoted here is incomprehensible and only barely related to what we were talking about regarding the fact that turnovers do affect the outcomes of games and that no Garrett supporter ever suggested otherwise.

Why do you blame me for your poor reading comprehension:

The statement 'turnovers don't affect the outcome of a game' is a logical corollary to what the Garrett-homers SAID. What does that mean? What your claiming I said the Garrett-homers said is not what I claimed they said, but the natural corollary to what "they" said.

So who exactly is claiming what? You know exactly what you said in the context of the discussion I provided above and it fits exactly what I stated. Your arguing from a false premise to simply save face.

 

[xwalker]

Is this sarcasm? Are you somehow trying to imply that a proven loser in this league is somehow better than the best QB in the league right now? Is this a joke?

He's probably referencing the 20 million miles comment.

 

[khiladi]

Dallas was not 8th in turnovers, they were 13th with Chicago.

Here's a basic table sorted by turnovers right next to points forced.

Doesn't change the point at all and it's not much a difference between 8 and 13. The difference between the Dallas Cowboys between 2013 and 2012 in temrs of TOs is quite significant. The reality is, if we got one more field goal against a garbage Detroit, despite giving up 280 plus yards to Calvin Johnson, we would have won the game and been in the playoffs. Measuring a defense by yards given up doesn't equate to the whole picture. Hell, Sean Lee gave us an INT a the 7 yard line, which led to a TD on our offense. It was the offense' ineptitude for three quarters that actually led to the game even being close. We should have blown them out.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

Yea, he carried a broke team and personal injuries a whole lot better than Romo....yea, for sure, OK, without doubt, yes....

 

[khiladi]

So there you go Percy. You just convinced yourself our offense was absolutely fantastic. You solve every issue with a statistic but in real life it doesn't work that way. They are only part of the story.

They are nothing but averages across a game.

I could be 8-8, pass 600 yards in our 8 wins and 200 yards in our 8 losses in the same amount of series per game. Yet, our averages across the whole season are nothing short of spectacular, ranking us 5th. But supposedly our offense is all world, even though eight games, we absolutely blew. Then there is the issue of blow-outs. We could score 14 pts in two games in the fourth quarter, like we did in blow-outs against the Bears and Saints, when the defenses were playing soft. That would boost our 'passing efficiency' rating enough to up our rank by scores per drive say .3, which is significant according to that measurement and jump us up a few rankings. And further if you look at the number .3 as an average, saying you get a total of 10 drives, that is a single field goal per every ten drives. Is that telling us much in the scheme of the judgement of an offense in a particular game?

 

[khiladi]

Those packers also have a significant homefield advantage, especially in the winter that benefits them.

We have none of the above going for us to even help our offense.

You mean a nice field that doesn't let cold through, nor ice through, allowing you to throw the ball all over the place doesn't help out an offense?

 

[khiladi]

I would expect this offense to be 5th in points scored considering the amount of turnovers our defense created

The better argument would actually be, I would expect us to have won enough games to get into the play-offs and more if we weren't 23rd in the league at capitalizing off of turnovers.

And your right, our defense wasn't the worst ever or the worst even this year. I've said it multiple times that we weren't even ranked last this year and we were top-half in creating TOs. That is definitely far from the worst ever. We did have very bad individual games, which really skewed the numbers, but we also had games like Philadelphia, when all Dallas needed was a win to get into the play-offs and the defense did it's job. Even though Kelly made it easier by abandoning the run.

And the kicker in that is, we actually lost that game by TOs, yet our offense out-performed the Eagles by over 100 yards passing.

 

[ufcrules1]

They are nothing but averages across a game.

I could be 8-8, pass 600 yards in our 8 wins and 200 yards in our 8 losses in the same amount of series per game. Yet, our averages across the whole season are nothing short of spectacular, ranking us 5th. But supposedly our offense is all world, even though eight games, we absolutely blew. Then there is the issue of blow-outs. We could score 14 pts in two games in the fourth quarter, like we did in blow-outs against the Bears and Saints, when the defenses were playing soft. That would boost our 'passing efficiency' rating enough to up our rank by scores per drive say .3, which is significant according to that measurement and jump us up a few rankings. And further if you look at the number .3 as an average, saying you get a total of 10 drives, that is a single field goal per every ten drives. Is that telling us much in the scheme of the judgement of an offense in a particular game?

I know man, they don't want to hear it though. Stats can be abused a million different ways to "try" and build an argument.

 

[khiladi]

Against Minnesota, we needed last minute heroics. Our offense was getting thwarted by the pathetic Vikings for significant stretches until the end. The defense held enough for the game that we shouldn't have been that situation. Against KC, we called a screen to TW on a flare to the right in the red-zone direct into the teeth of KCs coverage, when Dez bryant had single coverage and no safety help on the left, and Dez yelling to throw it to him
.

 

[khiladi]

The reality is, if your offense is as great as you claim it is... You don't have the offensive switches mid-season to Wade going up into the booth with some speculating Garrett taking over play-calling and then change your OC the very next season. Jerry has already said the reason Linehan was chosen was because of the style of offense, but he also targets, within the offense, his star players. He also said he's innovative. He never mentioned the run actually.

The whole point about not retaining Callahan as play caller was the style of offense he usually coaches, which is West Coast. With Linehan they get to maintain the vertical-based offense without changing the whole philosophy, and add he dimensions they wanted when they removed Garrett. And they new Callahan improved the blocking and running packages and they wanted to continue that.

 

[erod]

Yards given up is a horrible way to rank defenses.

That said, my eyeballs told me Dallas's band of gypsies, tramps, and thieves was the worst in the league last year.

 

[ufcrules1]

So now the 2014 Cowboys could become the 2011 Packers?

Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

What? Did the Cowboys sign Aaron Rodgers, get a new coach and GM?

 

[ufcrules1]

Against Minnesota, we needed last minute heroics. Our offense was getting thwarted by the pathetic Vikings for significant stretches until the end. The defense held enough for the game that we shouldn't have been that situation. Against KC, we called a screen to TW on a flare to the right in the red-zone direct into the teeth of KCs coverage, when Dez bryant had single coverage and no safety help on the left, and Dez yelling to throw it to him
.

You forgot to add that Dez had OWNED flowers all day too. One on one with Flowers right there was a sure touchdown. What does Romo do? Audibles and throws a screen pass to the rookie TW that lost like 5 yards on the play.

 

[CCBoy]

Ironic humor at less than passionate support...

 

[Idgit]

Why do you blame me for your poor reading comprehension:

It's quite true: I'm comprehending nothing of the argument you're making. This sentence, for example:

"the statement 'turnovers don't affect the outcome of a game' is a logical corollary to what the Garrett-homers SAID. What does that mean? What your claiming I said the Garrett-homers said is not what I claimed they said, but the natural corollary to what "they" said."

What? How does that statement correlate to 'what the Garrett-homers SAID' at all? As near as I can tell, you're citing things that are largely unrelated to your original argument, and then trying to tell me they correlate logically when they don't. Though, the vagueness of 'what the Garrett-homers SAID' and the mish-mosh of your own posts from another thread confused things further, I have to admit.

In any event, turnovers do affect the outcomes of games. And nothing any Garrett-supported did to try to explain the errors in your reasoning in that other thread contradicts that as far as I can tell. If I'm still misunderstanding your argument, I apologise, I'm trying my best, but it's difficult with all the floundering and cherry picking involved.