Cowboys Coincidence? Really Bad Playing on Grass

[Fmart322]

The Cowboys are less effective on grass fields. The numbers show it.

 

[xwalker]

Dallas 2022 W-L

On A-Turf: 11-1
On Grass: 1-4

Upon seeing this, the first thing I asked myself was...since we play home games on turf, what if we just look at road games?

Road Games Only
On A-Turf: 3-0
On Grass: 1-4

Later I'll post the 2021 results for turf/grass.

I have a few possible explanations for this crazy disparity. But curious to hear your thoughts first.

I think the kicker was much better on turf...

 

[Bobhaze]

I don’t put a lot stock on last year’s 1-4 record on natural grass. Those were all road games where even the best teams tend to get most of their losses.

In the 2014 the Cowboys were 4-1 on grass. In the regular season, the Cowboys were 4-0 and 0-1 in the playoffs. I know that’s a different team, but I don’t think there’s a big correlation between last year’s record on grass. I think quality of opponen has more to do with it than anything.

 

[Hadenough]

Grass neutralizes speed and the game becomes more physical on natural grass.
Cowboys have had a reputation for being more finesse so thats where they suffer.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Grass games are always on the road. Most teams have a worse record on the road, regardless of playing surface. That's all it is.

 

[Bobhaze]

If the worst teams in the league every year played on grass, we would have a much better record on grass. In other words quality of opponent has as much or more to do with winning or losing than playing surface.

 

[T-RO]

If the worst teams in the league every year played on grass, we would have a much better record on grass. In other words quality of opponent has as much or more to do with winning or losing than playing surface.

Jags and Packers weren't better than Cowboys.

I don't think anyone can sure for sure it's a real factor. Sure might be, though.

 

[noshame]

That's exactly. why I quit years ago.

 

[Motorola]

Jags and Packers weren't better than Cowboys.

I don't think anyone can sure for sure it's a real factor. Sure might be, though.

Cowboys up TWO TOUCHDOWNS at end of 3rd quarter in Green Bay.
Cowboys up by 17 POINTS with 5 minutes left in the third quarter in Jacksonville.
The grass fields of those two opponents had absolutely norhing to do with why Dallas gave away those big 2nd half leads - then lost in overtime.

 

[erod]

Yeah, but Washington, Tennessee, and the Niners had elite quarterbacks.

 

[rambo2]

Rodgers plays on grass and LSD.

 

[rambo2]

Grass neutralizes speed and the game becomes more physical on natural grass.
Cowboys have had a reputation for being more finesse so thats where they suffer.

Travel is more of an issue than the field.

 

[blueblood70]

Jags and Packers weren't better than Cowboys.

I don't think anyone can sure for sure it's a real factor. Sure might be, though.

And the grass had zero to do with any of it...

the Cowboys literally in my opinion were up by 17 and up by 14 in the 4th and had those games under control and things happen..

don't say the defense couldn't play on grass so they gave up a big lead,,

no they got beat, they would have got beat whether it was on turf there was no weather in those two games last time,

I checked and by the way I don't think grass caused Noah brown to have a ball that was thrown right in his hands go through his hands hit him in the chest and creates a pick six to lose the game in overtime it had nothing to do with grass. well road games yes are tougher, the grass is not part of it ,what will be a bigger factor is having to play teams that are used to playing in the cold on frozen grass or snow or constant rain and wind the Cowboys are not used to playing in that and it's supposed to be even but it's not because some teams playing it a lot like Buffalo.

I already said my peace but again I want to reiterate, Being up by 17 and up by 14 points on the road in the fourth quarter on grass those games should have been wins and our record then would have been flipped with two more wins the grass didn't lose us those games. Poor execution and to some degree poor play calling and when you get a lead like that you just can't blow it and lose in overtime.

 

[T-RO]

Travel is more of an issue than the field.

Dallas was 3-0 on the road...when playing on turf. Travel wasn't the issue there.

 

[rambo2]

Dallas was 3-0 on the road...when playing on turf. Travel wasn't the issue there.

Dallas is good. They win a lot period.

 

[T-RO]

Dallas is good. They win a lot period.

The discussion here is about why Dallas was 1-4 when playing on grass.

 

[rambo2]

The discussion here is about why Dallas was 1-4 when playing on grass.

OK continue with it. Why were they 1 and 1 in the playoffs? That was grass wasn't it? Give us some deep thoughts.

 

[T-RO]

Give us some deep thoughts.

I can provide only shallow guesses. It is a small sample size, as I've conceded from the start. Could be just a coincidence.

Dallas defense points allowed:
Artificial Turf: 17.2 points
Grass: 27.2 points

And this
Dak/Cooper interceptions per game:
.66 artificial turf
1.78 grass

My guess is either:
-The impact on team speed
or
-Familiarity/comfort level. Dallas plays on artificial turf *and* conducts most of its practices on artificial turf

 

[big dog cowboy]

Cowboys up TWO TOUCHDOWNS at end of 3rd quarter in Green Bay.
Cowboys up by 17 POINTS with 5 minutes left in the third quarter in Jacksonville.
The grass fields of those two opponents had absolutely nothing to do with why Dallas gave away those big 2nd half leads - then lost in overtime.

Serious truth right there.

 

[T-RO]

In the 2014 the Cowboys were 4-1 on grass.

100% different roster.