Don't be fooled by the miracle win

[BiffWellingtonIII]

We were flat out terrible last night.

Dez Bryant was awful from the start - shooting his mouth off and dropping a huge pass.

Beasley was ineffective on the PR and his fumble was something from a HS game.

The pass rush was non existent and we never blitzed.

Barry Church was a no show and let Beckham convert what should have been a game ending 3rd & 14 - never liked him.

Joe Randle looked slow and like he was going to fumble on every play - DMac was a non factor.
The hole Murray left is massive.

Take the win but going forward , this looks to be the old Cowboys O with Romo throwing 45 times.

Very concerned .

 

[Fletch]

Thanks Biff.

 

[mattjames2010]

Outside of the 3 turnovers, we actually didn't look terrible.

I keep hearing people say there was no pass rush, I saw a pass rush, but I also saw a quick release by Manning to beat it.

 

[Fletch]

You and 90% of Cowboys fans probably said the same thing after last year's first game.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Troll. Biff Wellington Mara III.

 

[pancakeman]

Outside of the 3 turnovers, we actually didn't look terrible.

I keep hearing people say there was no pass rush, I saw a pass rush, but I also saw a quick release by Manning to beat it.

Agree. Manning's always good at getting the ball out. But many of those passes looked pretty bad, which is largely creditable to the pressure. If you're sad about the sack stats, check out the opponent passer rating.

 

[dfense]

Play a bad game and still find a way to win is the mark of a Championship caliber team.

 

[theogt]

Total yards:
DAL - 436
NYG - 289

First Downs:
DAL - 27
NYG - 18

Time of possession:
DAL - 37:10
NYG - 22:50

Sorry, but that's domination.

 

[tyke1doe]

We were flat out terrible last night.

Dez Bryant was awful from the start - shooting his mouth off and dropping a huge pass.

Beasley was ineffective on the PR and his fumble was something from a HS game.

The pass rush was non existent and we never blitzed.

Barry Church was a no show and let Beckham convert what should have been a game ending 3rd & 14 - never liked him.

Joe Randle looked slow and like he was going to fumble on every play - DMac was a non factor.
The hole Murray left is massive.

Take the win but going forward , this looks to be the old Cowboys O with Romo throwing 45 times.

Very concerned .

And yet we won.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
This is what I see:

1. We controlled the clock with the running game. The only difference is we settled for threes instead of sixes.

2. Randy Gregory was getting push from the outside. He rushed Eli Manning into stepping up in the pocket. But we weren't really getting any middle pressure. Unfortunately, RG is out for six weeks. But I am excited about his prospects.

3. The Giants pass rush really couldn't touch Romo.

4. Okay, so we don't have that power runner. Guess what the 49ers of the 90s did? They used the short passing game and screen game as their running game. I saw more use of the running back as a receiver from Dallas in this game than I have in years. I'm glad we're FINALLY utilizing the running back as receiver.

5. We won WITHOUT Dez. Do you know how HUGE a confidence builder that is? We can win without our top receiver IF we play as a team. It's still about the offensive line.

6. I doubt Beasley makes the same mistake again. I noticed on the final game-winning drive, he protected the ball like it was his newborn baby. I interpreted that as him learning from his mistake.

And did I mention we won?

I don't see the worry. This club shot itself in the foot and still limped to a victory - against a division opponent who knows us too well and gives us a difficult time whenever we play them.

I'm encouraged.

 

[tyke1doe]

Outside of the 3 turnovers, we actually didn't look terrible.

I keep hearing people say there was no pass rush, I saw a pass rush, but I also saw a quick release by Manning to beat it.

Too many Cowboys fans buy into this idea that Eli isn't a good NFL quarterback. Don't be fooled. He's not elite on the level of Brady and Rodgers. But if he has a team around him, he can be very good. And he knows us.

He got the ball out quickly, negating our pass rush. Had he held the ball a few seconds longer, Randy Gregory would have had at least two sacks.

 

[mattjames2010]

Total yards:
DAL - 436
NYG - 289

First Downs:
DAL - 27
NYG - 18

Time of possession:
DAL - 37:10
NYG - 22:50

Sorry, but that's domination.

Everywhere other than the scoreboard where it matters.

Something we can build on though. That first drive was perfection up until we didn't get a TD.

 

[sbark]

or did we play down to the level of our opponent?

 

[BiffWellingtonIII]

or did we play down to the level of our opponent?

We weren't prepared.

 

[sbark]

We weren't prepared.

prepare enough to hold OBIII to some 44yards, hold a top 10 offense last year to well under production, force Eli into a West Coast offense mode-from a deep ball game, prepared enough to generate over 400 yds of offense with a Oline essentially playing together for the 1st time this year*
****
Cup is half full....not half empty

 

[zrinkill]

I thought this guy was banned.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Play a bad game and still find a way to win is the mark of a Championship caliber team.

The mark of a championship caliber team is stomping opponents into submission. If you look at the records of the best teams, they have a great record in blowouts (because they blow other teams out and it never happens to them), but much closer to a .500 record in close games. When you let other teams hang around, sometimes they'll beat you.

Teams that accumulate a good record by squeaking out a bunch of close wins are not championship caliber (although anything can happen in the postseason). Teams that are championship caliber lose sometimes, and the games they lose are usually the ones where they don't play well and don't manage to find a way to win.

 

[mattjames2010]

The mark of a championship caliber team is stomping opponents into submission. If you look at the records of the best teams, they have a great record in blowouts (because they blow other teams out and it never happens to them), but much closer to a .500 record in close games. When you let other teams hang around, sometimes they'll beat you.

Teams that accumulate a good record by squeaking out a bunch of close wins are not championship caliber (although anything can happen in the postseason). Teams that are championship caliber lose sometimes, and the games they lose are usually the ones where they don't play well and don't manage to find a way to win.

Really? Because the championship team last year go dominated by the Dolphins last year in the season opener. They also got dominated by the Chiefs.

It happens even to championship teams. So, I don't know who you're looking at.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Really? Because the championship team last year go dominated by the Dolphins last year in the season opener. They also got dominated by the Chiefs.

It happens even to championship teams. So, I don't know who you're looking at.

I didn't say it doesn't happen: okay, I did say "never" when I should have said "rarely". Last year's Patriots were 8-1 in games decided by 14+ points (blowouts). They were 4-3 in games decided by less than 14 points. (If you want to call the 13-point Dolphin loss a blowout, then the numbers change to 8-2 and 4-2). This is exactly what I'm talking about. What marked them as a championship team was those 8 games where they destroyed opponents. When the games got closer, that's when their winning percentage dropped.

Look at the Seahawks from the year before: 7-0 in blowouts, 6-3 in close games. You identify championship caliber teams by the blowouts, not the squeakers.

 

[mattjames2010]

I didn't say it doesn't happen: okay, I did say "never" when I should have said "rarely". Last year's Patriots were 8-1 in games decided by 14+ points (blowouts). They were 4-3 in games decided by less than 14 points. (If you want to call the 13-point Dolphin loss a blowout, then the numbers change to 8-2 and 4-2). This is exactly what I'm talking about. What marked them as a championship team was those 8 games where they destroyed opponents. When the games got closer, that's when their winning percentage dropped.

Look at the Seahawks from the year before: 7-0 in blowouts, 6-3 in close games. You identify championship caliber teams by the blowouts, not the squeakers.

Wrong.

Pittsburgh Steelers won two Superbowls rarely dominating opponents. New York Giants won a Super Bowl with a 9-7 record. The 2012 Baltimore Ravens got to the playoffs playing in TEN close games, and only blew out 2 teams - Giants and Browns.

That's all in the past 10 years. Your judgement on "championship teams" is faulty.

 

[dfense]

The mark of a championship caliber team is stomping opponents into submission. If you look at the records of the best teams, they have a great record in blowouts (because they blow other teams out and it never happens to them), but much closer to a .500 record in close games. When you let other teams hang around, sometimes they'll beat you.

Teams that accumulate a good record by squeaking out a bunch of close wins are not championship caliber (although anything can happen in the postseason). Teams that are championship caliber lose sometimes, and the games they lose are usually the ones where they don't play well and don't manage to find a way to win.

That last sentence completely contradicts the rest of your post.

Nobody said anything about "squeaking out a bunch of close wins". The Cowboys closed out last year's regular season by scoring 40 points several times. But there are going to be games where things don't go as planned, bad bounces, bad luck, even better teams faced. But you find a way to adapt, overcome and win. Dallas beat Seattle pretty good in their own house last year. So Seattle isn't a champion caliber team?

New England got beat 41-14 by the Chiefs last year. It happens