Commanders, Bears & Texans

[anava]

I am hopeful that those two losses opened the Cowboys eyes that they cannot win on talent alone and will play with a sense of urgency going forward. They were faced with having their SB dreams dashed by the third week. The only saving grace was they beat Houston and the rest of the SB contenders suffering losses as well. That should motivate them from here on out. I know we will not go undefeated. The rest of the way but I do feel we will have some big winning streaks between losses. And I expect that our biggest competition will have some losses as well, including the rest of the NC East. That will keep us in contention throughout the season. We also have several revenge games that will keep us motivated - Minn, GB, NY, Skins.

I will admit that I do tend to be an optimist.

If they didnt learn from previous SEASONS what makes you think they will learn from previous games? But I do hope there is a light switch that is eventually flipped.

 

[alancdc]

I thought opening night in Washington would be a FG game either way. I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE WE LOST TO THE BEARS. As evidenced Sunday night their OLINE is pathetic.

 

[aikemirv]

With our schedule those two games are going to come into play unless we go on a big win streak. I think you're being optimistic to think those games don't come into play. But I agree at this point the NFC looks weak.

I agree with you. There are a few places I DON'T want to play come January.

Minnesota again

and

Green Bay


I don't think Minn is going to be a concern but Green Bay is!

That said, if we can get to 3-2, which will not be easy, we will be in great position and maybe 1 team with a better record than us IMO.

 

[aikemirv]

I thought opening night in Washington would be a FG game either way. I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE WE LOST TO THE BEARS. As evidenced Sunday night their OLINE is pathetic.

I think what happenned against the Bears is a symtom of the biggest problem with the Cowboys. At times I think they believe their talent is going to win the game for them. We demolished their Oline for the first 2-3 series and we let up, we lost concentration and we lack the killer instinct. It is an attitude problem that they need to get straight to reach their goals.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

We lost to the Bears and Commanders mostly because of Garrett's unwillingness to run the ball in order to keep the opposing defense's honest. Very puzzling vs. the Commanders since we ran the ball quite well against them and we were on the road. The Bears is a little different because we didn't run the ball well and they have a good run defense, but better O-Coordinators don't fall into that trap....Garrett did.

On defense we've played well in 2 of the 3 games. We struggle on defense at home. I know we had a bit of a circus going on in practice that week, but we've struggled at home for quite awhile, even in the Parcells days. People blame the home crowd, but there's no reason why a road team would do *better* on the road than they would at their home stadium where we know it's quiet.

The big thing they need to get down on defense is pre-snap communication. When they look confused on defense pre-snap, it's a big problem. Teams like the Patriots are good at faking that confusion, we're not.

Still, if we are relatively healthy, we stick to the run in a reasonable fashion and the defense communicates well pre-snap, I'll take the team against anybody in the league.








YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I agree with you. There are a few places I DON'T want to play come January.

Minnesota again

and

Green Bay


I don't think Minn is going to be a concern but Green Bay is!

That said, if we can get to 3-2, which will not be easy, we will be in great position and maybe 1 team with a better record than us IMO.

I had Green Bay as my Super Bowl team.

Now I'm not so sure.

I think they have a very good offense and defense and Charles Woodson is flat out amazing. But they have similar issues that we tend to have. Their HC doesn't want to run the ball.

They simply don't have a running game now with Ryan Grant out. The Packers make their money with the short and intermediate passes and their WR's getting the YAC afterwards. But without a running game opposing defenses know what's coming and just keep the WR's in front of them. And because they don't trust the O-Line on deep pass patterns, their offense isn't as good as it was last season.






YR

 

[Idgit]

I disagree.

The Commanders are the only team of the three that is going to be a serious contender when December rolls around.

Commanders have a shot to be there at the end. The Texans are definitely contending this year. That offense is very good, and they get enough pressure up front to beat teams when they get the lead. And they have the running game to put teams to sleep.

Chicago is another matter. Martz puts too much pressure on the QB to win and stay healthy, and that OL is really, really bad.

We lost to the Bears and Commanders mostly because of Garrett's unwillingness to run the ball in order to keep the opposing defense's honest. Very puzzling vs. the Commanders since we ran the ball quite well against them and we were on the road. The Bears is a little different because we didn't run the ball well and they have a good run defense, but better O-Coordinators don't fall into that trap....Garrett did.

YR

This isn't at all why we lost either of those games.

The Skins were a decent team playing for keeps, at home, and we had that game won despite the atrocious protection we were getting at RT. Mental errors across the board derailed our offense.

CHI we lost, again, by mental errors and we threw in some turnovers, just for fun. We gave up three or four big plays on defense, made uncharacteristic coverage mistakes, and our offense stalled itself by turning the ball over multiple times. Neither of those are at the feet of the OC.

 

[burmafrd]

We lost to the bears because Wade lost his nerve and stopped trying to panic Cutler. If we had kept it up there is no reason to think we could not have done to him what the Pack did to him on Monday.

 

[alancdc]

NFC is totally up for grabs, and I suspect we will be one of many that has a shot.

 

[Idgit]

We lost to the bears because Wade lost his nerve and stopped trying to panic Cutler. If we had kept it up there is no reason to think we could not have done to him what the Pack did to him on Monday.

The Pack lost to them at home, too.
You're thinking of the Giants.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This isn't at all why we lost either of those games.

The Skins were a decent team playing for keeps, at home, and we had that game won despite the atrocious protection we were getting at RT. Mental errors across the board derailed our offense.

CHI we lost, again, by mental errors and we threw in some turnovers, just for fun. We gave up three or four big plays on defense, made uncharacteristic coverage mistakes, and our offense stalled itself by turning the ball over multiple times. Neither of those are at the feet of the OC.

1. We gained 370+ yards of offense against WAS and scored 7 points. That' is abominably low. Even if Buehler makes the field goal, that's still a ridiculous amount of points for that much yardage.

2. Romo threw 98 passes in the first two games for a ypa of 6.7. His career ypa is 8.1.

3. We were throwing the ball 70% of the time in the first 2 games. And we were down by no more than 7 points for 7 of the 8 first quarters.

4. We ran out of the shot on 3 different occasions, yet we used shotgun on 40% of our 1st and 2nd downs. So basically on 40% of our first and 2nd downs, the opposing defense knew we were passing the ball.

In the Houston game we cut our first and second down shotgun use to 23%. We also ran out of the shotgun on 5 different occasions and threw the ball 54% of the time and balanced out the run-pass ration on first down evenly.

In the Houston game there was a far bigger commitment to stick to the run just so we could keep the defense off balance and not give away what we are doing. And we scored 27 points for it, on the road...and had zero turnovers and zero sacks.





YR

 

[Idgit]

1. We gained 370+ yards of offense against WAS and scored 7 points. That' is abominably low. Even if Buehler makes the field goal, that's still a ridiculous amount of points for that much yardage.

2. Romo threw 98 passes in the first two games for a ypa of 6.7. His career ypa is 8.1.

3. We were throwing the ball 70% of the time in the first 2 games. And we were down by no more than 7 points for 7 of the 8 first quarters.

4. We ran out of the shot on 3 different occasions, yet we used shotgun on 40% of our 1st and 2nd downs. So basically on 40% of our first and 2nd downs, the opposing defense knew we were passing the ball.

In the Houston game we cut our first and second down shotgun use to 23%. We also ran out of the shotgun on 5 different occasions and threw the ball 54% of the time and balanced out the run-pass ration on first down evenly.

In the Houston game there was a far bigger commitment to stick to the run just so we could keep the defense off balance and not give away what we are doing. And we scored 27 points for it, on the road...and had zero turnovers and zero sacks.

YR

We were obviously dumping the ball as quickly as we could in WAS, and it was obviously because we had two backups in the OL and a RT that we couldn't trust. I agree that we had success running against the Skins and should have run more, but its hardly a main reason why we lost. We killed our own drives with penalties and mental errors on multiple occasions. So an offense geared to keeping out of low percentage situations ended up putting up good yardage and then stalling.

The Bears game, too, we were moving the pass with our passing offense. Blown coverages, picks off of tipped balls, and fumbles by WRs down the field cost us the game.

Against the Texans, we were committed to the run better. We also didn't blow coverages on defense, and we didn't turn the ball over. Both of those things are a lot more important than 'keeping them honest' in the running game, whatever that means, exactly.

 

[burmafrd]

The Pack lost to them at home, too.
You're thinking of the Giants.

Ugh right. Please excuse me while I puke. having to say anything nice about either one makes me sick.

 

[Idgit]

Ugh right. Please excuse me while I puke. having to say anything nice about either one makes me sick.

I got a lot of crap from the MIN and GB fans in my office after we lost, so I remember well going in to work that Monday after the Bears beat the Pack. Thank god we don't have Giants fans anyplace.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

The good thing about our chances of still getting homefield advantage(assuming we keep playing well) is that we kind of control our own destiny in that regard. Every team that we're in competition with for the first round bye (Eagles, Giants, Saints, Packers, Vikings) we get to play and beat to have the tie breaker.

 

[tyke1doe]

The only thing that scares me at this point is ... Jason Garrett.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

We were obviously dumping the ball as quickly as we could in WAS, and it was obviously because we had two backups in the OL and a RT that we couldn't trust. I agree that we had success running against the Skins and should have run more, but its hardly a main reason why we lost. We killed our own drives with penalties and mental errors on multiple occasions. So an offense geared to keeping out of low percentage situations ended up putting up good yardage and then stalling.

Yes, but if we run the ball a bit more then we can come up with a big play on offense, particularly off of play action. Big plays mean less drives with a lot of plays and less chance to screw up with a penalty.

Penalties have zero correlation statistically to winning football games. I know people try to claim otherwise, but until they can back it up statistically they are just spitballing stuff that's untrue.

We lost because the offense wasn't good enough and we neglected the run which made it tougher for us to hit a big play in the passing game.

The Bears game, too, we were moving the pass with our passing offense. Blown coverages, picks off of tipped balls, and fumbles by WRs down the field cost us the game.

The Roy fumble the game was pretty much out of reach. And all of those turnovers came on.....passing plays.

Against the Texans, we were committed to the run better. We also didn't blow coverages on defense, and we didn't turn the ball over. Both of those things are a lot more important than 'keeping them honest' in the running game, whatever that means, exactly.

Yes, they are important. But so is making big plays in the passing game. Which Dallas did in the Texans game. And it was a lot easier to do when you keep the defense honest then when they know you're going to pass.

I've mentioned this before, but every single defensive player and coach I've ever heard talk in the NFL has always said that they need to stop the run. Now I don't think that they are necessarily right, but nor do I feel that they are all completely wrong. There's a reason why they feel this way because if the running game is completely shut down and the opposing team goes to passing the ball, even if they pass it effectively they are still a 1 dimensional team.

We threw the ball *99 times* in the first 2 games and were down by no more than 7 points for 7 out of the 8 quarters of football.

We were on pace to throw the ball 792 times that season and the all time highest amount of attempts were by the Cardinals a few years ago at 670 (and they finished 5-11).

All of our turnovers came on passing plays and most of our penalties on offense came on passing plays. We had a RT that sucks but is a better run blocker than pass protector...yet we threw the ball 48 times that game. Then we get our RT and LG back against the Bears, where the team was within 1 score for most of the game and we threw the ball 51 times.

Throwing the ball that much doesn't equate to winning because usually teams throw the ball that much when they are down and playing catchup. We weren't in catchup mode, yet we still passed like lunatics. The defense also pays the price for staying on the field longer.





YR

 

[Idgit]

Yes, but if we run the ball a bit more then we can come up with a big play on offense, particularly off of play action. Big plays mean less drives with a lot of plays and less chance to screw up with a penalty.

Penalties have zero correlation statistically to winning football games. I know people try to claim otherwise, but until they can back it up statistically they are just spitballing stuff that's untrue.

We lost because the offense wasn't good enough and we neglected the run which made it tougher for us to hit a big play in the passing game.

This point in bold is a really good one, and I do agree.

Re: the penalties stats. I see that fact mentioned all the time, and I'm sure it's accurate in the aggregate. What I don't know if there's a correlation between the types of penalties that get called and winning and losing. Offsides, and roughing calls on defense, for example, are one thing. But there's no getting around statistically what happens to your likelihood of sustaining a drive when you go from 3rd and 3 to third and 8 or third and 13. And however you want to look at it statistically, we had the game winning play turned over on a penalty in WAS.

The Roy fumble the game was pretty much out of reach. And all of those turnovers came on.....passing plays.

The game wasn't out of reach at that point.

And WRs fumbling or tipping balls isn't a good reason to not throw the ball. The OC has to be able to expect his WRs to control the football. Tipped balls is another matter, but I have no idea how turnovers/play compare between running plays and passing plays. But, either way, you have to pass and pass effectively to win in the league right now. That means no turnovers.

Yes, they are important. But so is making big plays in the passing game. Which Dallas did in the Texans game. And it was a lot easier to do when you keep the defense honest then when they know you're going to pass.

Pretty sure the Texans knew we were going to pass against that secondary. It's more likely we were able to run because they knew our passing game would also be effective.

I've mentioned this before, but every single defensive player and coach I've ever heard talk in the NFL has always said that they need to stop the run. Now I don't think that they are necessarily right, but nor do I feel that they are all completely wrong. There's a reason why they feel this way because if the running game is completely shut down and the opposing team goes to passing the ball, even if they pass it effectively they are still a 1 dimensional team.

We threw the ball *99 times* in the first 2 games and were down by no more than 7 points for 7 out of the 8 quarters of football.

We were on pace to throw the ball 792 times that season and the all time highest amount of attempts were by the Cardinals a few years ago at 670 (and they finished 5-11).

All of our turnovers came on passing plays and most of our penalties on offense came on passing plays. We had a RT that sucks but is a better run blocker than pass protector...yet we threw the ball 48 times that game. Then we get our RT and LG back against the Bears, where the team was within 1 score for most of the game and we threw the ball 51 times.

Throwing the ball that much doesn't equate to winning because usually teams throw the ball that much when they are down and playing catchup. We weren't in catchup mode, yet we still passed like lunatics. The defense also pays the price for staying on the field longer.

YR

No doubt: playing defense is easier when a team is one-dimensional. As long as the run is contained, teams can tee off on the QB and shut down the passing game, which is the key to winning the game.

It's not how often you pass, it's how effectively you pass. Does an effective running game help the passing game? Sure. Does that necessarily mean calling more running plays is what's needed? No. We just need to be effective when we do run. That can happen a number of ways, but, either way, it's not necessarily an indictment of the play calling.

And I want to be clear, just because I don't think the problem is play calling, I'm not excusing Garrett for the problems. He's been OC for too long for this inattention to detail, the mental errors, the lack of quality depth on the OL, and the inopportune penalties not to be an indictment of his coordinating.

 

[ringmaster]

Given how mediocre most teams have looked, our schedule doesn't look so tough anymore. Who's the best team left on our schedule? Indianapolis, which is 2-2, got routed by a team we routed and just lost to Jacksonville? Green Bay, which got outplayed and barely squeaked by the Lions at home? New Orleans, which lost to Atlanta and probably should have lost to two 0-4 teams?

Granted, they can say the same things about us, but there is NO team on our schedule that is even playing well right now.

We better look out because now the media will focus on the Cheifs, who is now the only undefeated team left in the NFL and will have to listen to how "great" they are.

 

[ringmaster]

I thought opening night in Washington would be a FG game either way. I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE WE LOST TO THE BEARS. As evidenced Sunday night their OLINE is pathetic.

I agree with that we made Cutler, look like Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning in that game but you have to hand to the Bears in that game because they made sure Cutler got rid of the ball quickly with those 3-step drops the Cowboys had 1 sack from Spencer but there were times where Cutler was being pressured quite a bit too but luck was on their side that day.