Did we actually collapse?

[sonnyboy]

I'm worried that Jerry Jones will take the viewpoint that we're a 8-8 team which could have been a 12-4 team.

That's total BS, and will affect the way we approach the off season.

We're not a team which was effected by a few bad bounces. We're simply not a very good team.

I hope management takes the viewpoint that we're a team which went 1-4 over the last 5 games, and proceeds to improve the team from that perspective.

Anything less, and we're in for another playoff-less season.

That's funny, I have the exact opposite fear that I don't want to lead to the same outcome you dread.

I'm affraid the FO won't view the team as good as I do and not make the shorter term aggressive type moves I believe are neccessary to get to the next level.

 

[Eskimo]

Well, Philly had lost 4 out of 5 when they beat us the first time. Then after beating us, they went on to lose 4 out of their next 5.

The Giants had lost 4 in a row the first time they played us, then they went on to lose again at home the next week to a bad team.

Like you said, we did catch Miami and Arizona at bad times, but we were also probably fortunate to play SF and Seattle early, and not to play Buffalo early.

The Philly game was an exception (the first one). However, they were on for that game and not many teams would have beat them that day. We got them on an off-week and they were super-charged. The key for them is turnovers - when they protect the ball they win because of their dominant talent.

The Giants were about to turn it around when they played that game against us even though they were 1-4 in their past 5 games. That is looking in the rear view mirror. They started to do so against GB before they played us when they almost beat the unbeaten Packers with a last minute loss. It just wasn't obvious in the results yet that they had turned their season around. They have since gone on to go 5-1 after they played us.

As far as Buffalo is concerned, they were playing better early but I really believe much of their performance was due to luck as they were creating an unusual number of turnovers early. So I don't really think it would have mattered when we played them. We did play them before Fred Jackson went down and he was a big difference maker for them.

As far as Seattle is concerned, they are a mediocre team. They played at a mediocre level when we played them and stayed mediocre. I don't think we caught them at a particularly bad time. Their defense was healthy as was Marshawn Lynch.

My main point in this post is that we went 1-4 down the stretch but lost to some teams that were playing better than their yearly record suggests. On the surface it looks like we collapsed against mediocre teams but I think those group of teams were playing at about a 11 - 12 win/season level when we actually played them as opposed to their actual record which was about 8-8.

 

[percyhoward]

I got your point Eskimo, but the Giants lost badly to a bad team the week after they beat us. We played Seattle when they'd lost 5 out of 7. They later went on to win 5 out of 6, that's not staying mediocre. Do we beat them if we play them late in the season? Do we beat the 9ers?

 

[AlterEgo]

This is why I really wanted the Giants to be blown away in the playoffs. The last thing I want Jerry's twisted little head to think is that team lost of a Superbowl contender and sit tight this offseason. If the Giants roll to the championship game I can just see Jerry grinning thinking we should lock up Kenyon Coleman to a 5 yr 65 million dollar contract and re-up Dave Campo for another 3 years and call it a good offseason. This nightmare will never end.

 

[SultanOfSix]

If that's the case and one timeout caused irreparable damage to the team's psyche, the team is mentally weak.

There are quite a few mentally weak players - on the defense especially. I don't believe they will be here next year.

 

[Eskimo]

I got your point Eskimo, but the Giants lost badly to a bad team the week after they beat us. We played Seattle when they'd lost 5 out of 7. They later went on to win 5 out of 6, that's not staying mediocre. Do we beat them if we play them late in the season? Do we beat the 9ers?

It is hard to speculate on such things. The 49ers got off to a pretty good start so I wouldn't say they were sluggish and then rolled everyone late.

As far as Seattle, I actually think they played well against us. It just didn't show up well in the results of that game because we were so dominant offensively in that game and they committed a bunch of turnovers.

All this thread about is saying that even though we went 1-4 down the stretch against a bunch of teams that were about 8-8, I don't think the football we were playing was actually that bad.

For sure, we are mediocre. I just don't think we are terrible.

 

[casmith07]

This is why I really wanted the Giants to be blown away in the playoffs. The last thing I want Jerry's twisted little head to think is that team lost of a Superbowl contender and sit tight this offseason. If the Giants roll to the championship game I can just see Jerry grinning thinking we should lock up Kenyon Coleman to a 5 yr 65 million dollar contract and re-up Dave Campo for another 3 years and call it a good offseason. This nightmare will never end.

Campo is all but gone.

 

[dadymat]

yes we collapsed, the timeout in Arizona screwed us and we never recovered.

dumb comment....

 

[NextGenBoys]

We didn't collapse, we simply weren't a very good team to start with. It became evident as the season progressed.

 

[jimmy40]

We didn't reach a particularly high point to collapse from, but ending the years 1-4 sure resembles collapse.

but was only 1 game worse than the 2-3 start.

 

[TheFinisher]

We had the division in our laps and then finished out 1-4, if that's not a collapse I don't know what is.

 

[gmoney112]

I think many of us thought we'd have OL and secondary issues but didn't foresee these units literally destroying any chance we had at being a contender.

Given what we know now, I think we might have actually overachieved.

 

[Suave]

When a team has a 7-4 record, with a command on the division lead, and they only win 1 of their next 5 games, I would say that qualifies as a collapse.

We can make all the rationalizations we want, but this team should have won the division. This team was a little over 5 minutes away from burying the Giants. Had they won that game, then the win the following week against the Bucs would have given them the division, I believe. The Cowboys squandered so many opportunities this year. They collapsed.

 

[Future]

When a team has a 7-4 record, with a command on the division lead, and they only win 1 of their next 5 games, I would say that qualifies as a collapse.

We can make all the rationalizations we want, but this team should have won the division. This team was a little over 5 minutes away from burying the Giants. Had they won that game, then the win the following week against the Bucs would have given them the division, I believe. The Cowboys squandered so many opportunities this year. They collapsed.

They collapsed within a lot of games, but quite frankly, if not for the cake schedule they never get to 7-4. It would be more of a collapse if we lost to a bunch of teams worse than us at the end of the season. We did not. Though it pains me to say, the Giants and Eagles were better teams this year.

 

[28 Joker]

Let's see:

34-22 4th quarter lead against the hated New York Giants, in Jerry's Palace, and the Giants come back and win with only 5:41 left in the game. national television...icing on the cake...

1. Newman dropped pick six

2. Terrible Tony Fiammetta "block" on bend-x

3. Horrendous route and technique by Miles Austin

Execute one of the three plays above, and the Cowboys win the division and get the Falcons at home.

4. Blocked FG after made FG (before a timeout)

 

[percyhoward]

For sure, we are mediocre. I just don't think we are terrible.

We ended up just being mediocre, but if we don't get lucky with guys like Bailey and Robinson, and Romo doesn't have the best season of his career, we're closer to terrible.

 

[Eskimo]

We ended up just being mediocre, but if we don't get lucky with guys like Bailey and Robinson, and Romo doesn't have the best season of his career, we're closer to terrible.

Perhaps that is true.

However, Romo is just really good and I'm not convinced he isn't going to put up a better year. If we can fix this OL, I think he can put up an Aaron Rodgers type year in 2012 if we can re-sign Robinson.

 

[jimmy40]

Let's see:

34-22 4th quarter lead against the hated New York Giants, in Jerry's Palace, and the Giants come back and win with only 5:41 left in the game. national television...icing on the cake...

1. Newman dropped pick six

2. Terrible Tony Fiammetta "block" on bend-x

3. Horrendous route and technique by Miles Austin

Execute one of the three plays above, and the Cowboys win the division and get the Falcons at home.

4. Blocked FG after made FG (before a timeout)

let's see. washington misses a field goal to win the game.

 

[28 Joker]

Once again:

If Tony Fiammetta doesn't pitter-patter towards Jason Pierre-Paul and get tossed aside (on his trap block), Felix Jones has an easy first down. The edge was completely sealed off by Free and Austin. If Austin holds his block good enough, there is no telling how far Jones runs on that play.

Plus, the 3rd and 5 play to Austin never happens, because the Cowboys are probably going to keep running the zone bend over and over until the Giants stop it.

John Phillips made that exact trap block on Pierre-Paul at least two times in that game, and he leaked out and executed that block on the play before when Jones gained 5 yards inside. On the other one, Phillips had a decent enough block on Pierre-Paul, so Jones was able to stiff arm Pierre-Paul through the hole and gain 10 yards.

This is the same zone running play that the Eagles used on Dallas to close out the 2010 game, in Dallas. It's the same zone run that the Eagles destroyed Dallas on in Philadelphia this year, again.

 

[bsheeern]

You could look at 100 plays and say what if. Goes either way.

We are a much younger team now on the o-line and in the backfield. I'd expected us to lose some games and win some games based on the inexperience their.

The plus side to that is we were losing close games with a high paid experienced o-line/backfield anyway. So you can atleast understand/expect those things were as with the previous group you expected better results.

We had to know this as fans going in. Doesn't make it anyless frustrating but you can accept it better than before. You can only expect so much from such a young inexperienced group.

The experience they gained this year as a group will hopefully go along way in numerous ways. Garrett now has a solid grasp on what he has and needs with this group.

This year was a necessary learning curve for our roster. Offensively we saw youth and defense we saw age. Garrett's first offseason saw major changes on offense. Barber, R Williams, Gurode, Colombo, Davis, & Gronkowski were all starters 1 season ago. Combined that with Kosier switching sides, an Romo and Dez missing most of 2010, we had some serious changes take place. Over half our offense from 2010 was either replaced moved or coming off a season with over half the games being missed.

This year we will see quite a bit of the same on D. Maybe not 7 changes but we very well could see 5 or so. That will be a major roster overhaul in just 2 seasons. Similiar to what we saw with parcels. You can clearly see that Jerry does give his coaches major control over player personel. Regardless of what most want to believe, Jerry does allow his coaches to have major input into the players/roster they want. It's no coincidence all the changes have coincided with the HC's main expertise.