Eagles might move Lane Johnson to LT this weekend

[Bowdown27]

We said against the Giants it was a must win but we lost and giants keep losing. This game is a must win for us. We can't lose another division game and be 2-6 and expect to win the division.

 

[Joe Realist]

Prediction: Cowboys have 1 sack for the game. Eagles have 4

 

[remdak]

Prediction: Cowboys have 1 sack for the game. Eagles have 4

I would love to argue against you, but sadly it will probably end up that way.

 

[casmith07]

No, it should be good news for us. Just like facing the turnstile that is the Seattle Seahawks offensive line. That worked out well.

It did. We held them to field goals. If we can keep the Eagles out of the end zone, I like our chances to at least keep the game close. I won't say win, because our backup quarterback situation stinks out loud.

 

[cowboys2233]

It did. We held them to field goals. If we can keep the Eagles out of the end zone, I like our chances to at least keep the game close. I won't say win, because our backup quarterback situation stinks out loud.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I've moved on from the whole "win-loss" thing, it was making me sad. Now I'm just looking for our defense to dole out big heaping amounts of pain on the rest of the opposing QBs we face this year. They must all pay for Romo. All of them. LOL.

 

[casmith07]

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I've moved on from the whole "win-loss" thing, it was making me sad. Now I'm just looking for our defense to dole out big heaping amounts of pain on the rest of the opposing QBs we face this year. They must all pay for Romo. All of them. LOL.

I am 1000000000000000% on board with this!!

 

[cowboyschmps3]

Hardy can put him right on his rear.

 

[kramskoi]

Wilson was sacked in 30 straight games until he faced the Cowboys.

And this means what exactly? Especially when that "what" means only 13 points for your opponent. If you have 5 sacks on 65 defensive snaps, that only equates to 7% of the total. What is happening on the other 93%? Maybe Seattle went with more protection...maybe the Cowboys decided to blitz less (which is the case so far this year).

 

[DBOY3141]

And this means what exactly? Especially when that "what" means only 13 points for your opponent. If you have 5 sacks on 65 defensive snaps, that only equates to 7% of the total. What is happening on the other 93%? Maybe Seattle went with more protection...maybe the Cowboys decided to blitz less (which is the case so far this year).

Dallas is not good at sacking the QB. All week we had posters say how the Seattle OL was terrible and how Dallas DL would dominate and sack wilson. Didn't happen. Outside of Hardy, Dallas has no one that can put pressure on the QB. Are they a terrible Defense, No. They are not a defense that is going to get a lot of sacks. Hopefully when Gregory gets fully healthy that will change, but as of now, we shouldn't expect this unit to get multiple sacks on the QB.

 

[erod]

Dallas is not good at sacking the QB. All week we had posters say how the Seattle OL was terrible and how Dallas DL would dominate and sack wilson. Didn't happen. Outside of Hardy, Dallas has no one that can put pressure on the QB. Are they a terrible Defense, No. They are not a defense that is going to get a lot of sacks. Hopefully when Gregory gets fully healthy that will change, but as of now, we shouldn't expect this unit to get multiple sacks on the QB.

Yes, Dallas is. But the Cowboys offense has to play its part in it.

You get sacks when teams have to throw because they're behind. Same for turnovers. When a team can just play safe and win ugly against you, you're not going to create much defensively.

When Romo plays, teams have to let loose of their offense. That leads to turnovers, sacks, and other mental mistakes.

 

[Jarv]

I want a fumble recovery from Murray.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Teams are very content to throw short against us. Though in the last couple of weeks, while those teams have avoided sacks, they also haven't put up many points. It's, what? 13 points a game the last couple?

While true, it begs the most maddening question of all.

If you know it, I know it, most of the board knows it and offensive coordinators are executing it - why in the world hasn't our secondary adjusted to short routes? We consistently get beat on rubs and picks and slants -

Which then leads me to this--

If those routes are that unstoppable and teams are putting 8 & 9 in the box on us to force our QB's to beat us - why the hell aren't we running those same routes which are really pretty easy throws for our QB's who are "limited" to say the least.

The whole thing is a vicious, perplexing, frustrating cycle.

 

[erod]

While true, it begs the most maddening question of all.

If you know it, I know it, most of the board knows it and offensive coordinators are executing it - why in the world hasn't our secondary adjusted to short routes? We consistently get beat on rubs and picks and slants -

Which then leads me to this--

If those routes are that unstoppable and teams are putting 8 & 9 in the box on us to force our QB's to beat us - why the hell aren't we running those same routes which are really pretty easy throws for our QB's who are "limited" to say the least.

The whole thing is a vicious, perplexing, frustrating cycle.

I'll go this far. If the league doesn't get rid of these rubs and picks and it continues to gravitate toward that, my NFL days will soon be over. I'm just not interested in that style of football. It bores me.

 

[xwalker]

While true, it begs the most maddening question of all.

If you know it, I know it, most of the board knows it and offensive coordinators are executing it - why in the world hasn't our secondary adjusted to short routes? We consistently get beat on rubs and picks and slants -

Which then leads me to this--

If those routes are that unstoppable and teams are putting 8 & 9 in the box on us to force our QB's to beat us - why the hell aren't we running those same routes which are really pretty easy throws for our QB's who are "limited" to say the least.

The whole thing is a vicious, perplexing, frustrating cycle.

It's a valid question.

Pick/rub routes work better against some defenses styles than others. I'm not certain if that is part of the reason the Cowboys don't do it more often. They have used them but just not very often.

It seems that the Cowboys defense just has no answer for them. They tried some things to combat them, but it's a difficult problem to solve. I think Claiborne has some limitations that make the issue worse. In past years when they tried having the CBs switch off coverage based on the routes, Claiborne and Scandrick often ended up covering the same receiver with the other receiver not being covered. Scandrick could then be seen yelling at Claiborne and trying to explain the problem to him.

They finally has Claiborne in a zone a few plays against the Seahawks and he didn't screw it up from what I saw; however, IIRC that happened late in the game after the Seahawks had already made some easy 3rd down conversions on the rub plays.

The biggest issue is that the methods that can combat the pick/rub plays can lead to a higher risk of big plays if it's not executed properly.

 

[DandyDon1722]

It's a valid question.

Pick/rub routes work better against some defenses styles than others. I'm not certain if that is part of the reason the Cowboys don't do it more often. They have used them but just not very often.

It seems that the Cowboys defense just has no answer for them. They tried some things to combat them, but it's a difficult problem to solve. I think Claiborne has some limitations that make the issue worse. In past years when they tried having the CBs switch off coverage based on the routes, Claiborne and Scandrick often ended up covering the same receiver with the other receiver not being covered. Scandrick could then be seen yelling at Claiborne and trying to explain the problem to him.

They finally has Claiborne in a zone a few plays against the Seahawks and he didn't screw it up from what I saw; however, IIRC that happened late in the game after the Seahawks had already made some easy 3rd down conversions on the rub plays.

The biggest issue is that the methods that can combat the pick/rub plays can lead to a higher risk of big plays if it's not executed properly.

I'll but that X - but is there any other way to spin it than Mo simply cannot grasp more complex route trees?

Could a player like that ever play for Belichek? I"m not sure - but good enough of us.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Teams are very content to throw short against us. Though in the last couple of weeks, while those teams have avoided sacks, they also haven't put up many points. It's, what? 13 points a game the last couple?

Shhhhh-That's way too many facts in one post you deliquent!

 

[31smackdown]

The Jason Peters injury is definitely a potential game changer. If Lane plays LT, which he has not done since college and some 2nd tier plays RT, there is no way their running game or pass protection are anywhere near as effective. Peters is probably a top 5 OT in this league. I suspect he will try to go, but it will be very unlikely for him not to be very limited or re-aggravate the back trying to push around 300 lb linemen.

 

[CowboyGil]

Teams are very content to throw short against us. Though in the last couple of weeks, while those teams have avoided sacks, they also haven't put up many points. It's, what? 13 points a game the last couple?

Opposing offenses don't have to take chances against us because they know our offense is not going to score a lot of points. They can play more conservative and still win. May explain the lack of take aways as well. Although our opponents have gotten some lucky bounces and plays that were ALMOST turnovers but ruled not. You make your own luck, but it helps for the ball to bounce your way every once in a while as well.

 

[NextGenBoys]

D-line should dominate, which means we should probably expect the opposite

This

 

[JohnsKey19]

The Jason Peters injury is definitely a potential game changer. If Lane plays LT, which he has not done since college and some 2nd tier plays RT, there is no way their running game or pass protection are anywhere near as effective. Peters is probably a top 5 OT in this league. I suspect he will try to go, but it will be very unlikely for him not to be very limited or re-aggravate the back trying to push around 300 lb linemen.

On paper, yes. I can't see how an OL with a muscle injury will play after no practice all week. So again, on paper, a weak OL gets even weaker. We said the same thing about Seattle...