Why does after every loss, it comes down to an argument between Dak and the defense as to who is most responsible? Did we lose to the Lions because the defense gave up 44 points (a very lucid and sound argument) or because we couldn't move the ball to score TDs and had to rely on Aubrey field goals (an equally compelling argument). Why can't it be both? In this last game, it was indeed both. You can also throw in the poor kick coverage as well. Dak played a pretty good game - overall - however, the fact remains that our offensive drives stalled far too much in this game which is why Aubrey had to kick 4 FGs beyond 50 yards. It's not like we were stalling in the red zone.
I blame much of that on the fact that we couldn't complement our passing game with a competent rushing attack. And when we did pass, we had one receiver in Pickens who decided that he didn't want to play in this game; and two tackles that allowed more defenders to run by them than a turnstile in a New York subway. And then there is the defense who for much of the season has demonstrated that they couldn't hold Ball State or UMass under 30 points.
It's called complimentary football. Had we had a running game sufficient to keep the Lions's defense from teeing off against our QB on passing downs that would have resulted in longer drives and perhaps more opportunities in the red zone to score TDs. The longer drives in turn would have resulted in more time of possession thereby reducing the number of drives that Detroit had and given our defense a rest. When you get the ball around the 35 yard-line and only advance it 20 yards before Aubrey makes the long FG, that doesn't give our defense much time to catch their breath.
All in all, it was a bad and disappointing outcome. The scheduling probably had some impact as well having to have played their 4th game in 18 days. Given the uphill challenge they have to almost essentially win out, the dam was going to break at some point.
