khiladi;2819152 said:
Keep trying to avoid the reality...
1. Miles Austin was targetted way more in the Commanders game than in Green Bay. you were wrong.
I asserted Miles Austin was used more effectively in the Green Bay game because Dallas was diligent in its adherence to the run game. This fact is self-evident.
2. The Commanders controlled the TOP by more than 10 minutes. You were wrong.
3. Crayton caught SEVEN balls, so you were wrong again. What this means is that Dallas spread the ball more in the Commanders game then your claiming. Your cherry-picking stats. While they surely didn't target Barber as much in the run against the Commanders, they targetted other members of the offense besides TO in different ways, besides the whole issue of TOP. The argument that the team was taking balls away from TO is absolute hog-wash.
4. Your the one cherry-picking drives. I've broken each quarter down for you. You brought up two drives, one of them garbage time prevent and the other, horrible pla-calling by Garrett, and even then I had already mentioned those drives prior to you even bringing them up. Coupled by the fact you ignored that Dallas scored the very first drive of the second half in five plays, three of those to TO, the other two runs by Barber in which Dallas scored. That play Dallas systematically targetted TO, mixing in the run, and they scored.
5. You ignore the fact that many of Dallas drives against the Commanders, TO wasn't targetted once. They went to Witten, Barber and Miles Austin and in one of those drives, Romo threw a pick trying to get the ball to Austin.
I have several questions I've been dying to ask you:
1) Do you actually know the meaning of the term "cherry-pick"? When a person cherry-picks drives, he only presents those drives that, in his estimation, make his case, and ignores other drives that hurt his position -- this is precisely what you're doing. I, on the other hand, examined the Washington game
in totality, which revealed that Owens was thrown almost twice as many passes as the next closest receiver (Jason Witten). It also showed that Owens was thrown to or handed the ball more times than Witten and Barber combined. These numbers strongly suggest that Owens was being force-fed the ball to the overall detriment of the team -- a conclusion that myself and several others have reached. You might've come to this conclusion as well if you weren't so intent on cherry-picking drives in order to ameliorate the impact of one Terrell Owens.
2) Have you ever tried thinking through your responses rationally rather than simply emoting everywhere? Taking a rational approach to posting will offer a radically different experience for you. I promise! For instance, you'll be able to understand the point your opponent
is actually making rather than the point
you think he's making -- this leads me to question number three:
3) What is it like to argue with a fictitious character who exists only in your mind rather than the poster who's actually engaging you on the message board? On several different occasions, you've accused me of being wrong on arguments that I haven't made; I never denied Crayton had seven receptions, or the Commanders dominated TOP, or Romo threw an interception. In fact, I fit all of these points into the context of my argument, which has been consistent all along: The Cowboys lost to the Commanders because they ran only 11 times, and repeatedly forced the ball to TO. The Cowboys beat the Packers because they were persistent with run, and did
not force the ball to TO -- this enabled them to use Miles Austin effectively. My Austin point did not exist in a vacuum; it was coupled with the point about being tenacious with the ground game.
4) Do you actually read what you write before you press submit?
But keep pandering the argument that they were trying to appease TO, despite all the evidence proving contrary to reality. If this team were trying to appease TO, they would have done exactly what he was criticizing Garrett for doing, and that is not using him in motion and quick slants. If they were trying to appease TO, then why did the offense not change it's philosophy after the Commanders game? Why did they keep doing what they were doing? Why were defenses calling Garrett out for his predictability?
Again, you're arguing a point I haven't made. I never once absolved Garrett from criticism. I'm simply acknowledging that the Cowboys offense can only improve if Garrett is allowed to utilize all his weapons and to be patient with the running game (as he was against Green Bay), and neither would've been possible if Owens had remained on the team.
