For The TO Fans... A Highlight Video

[khiladi]

When Dallas is forced into a 3rd and long, and Romo throws it to TO on fly-patterns of all patterns, it's TOs fault for Garrett putting them in unmanageable situations?

 

[Hostile]

Everything and nothing are TOs fault. But TO is no longer here and though this was a Cowboys thread it no longer is.

Moved.

 

[Doomsday101]

When Dallas is forced into a 3rd and long, and Romo throws it to TO on fly-patterns of all patterns, it's TOs fault for Garrett putting them in unmanageable situations?

I never said it was TO fault and you don't know what call came off the bench either. You see a fly pattern are you silly enough to think that there is only 1 option is within that paticular play? You see the end result so that is what is called? Unbelieveable. It is like the crud you talk about of how Norv called the slant to Harper vs SF and what a great play. It was a great play and there was another option on the play which was a fly rout which was the 1st option which was why Irvin swapped sides with Harper. It was not until Aikman got to the line and made the call that it would be the slant. Irvin himself said that and kicked himself because had he not switched with Harper the play would have been his.

 

[khiladi]

The idea that the main problem of this offense was TO, that Garrett was being forced by TO to throw him the ball, has no evidence whatsoever to support it. The very game Romo got injured in, Arizona, it was Barber who was at the receiving end of most passes, catching 11. He also touched the ball 17 times rushing. If it weren't for the miraculous TD by Barber, the reality of the sad performance by the offense could not have been denied. That short pass made the offense look a little better than it actually was. Patience had nothing to do with them losing the ball-game. Garrett's inept offensive coaching why they lost games. Even in a game with Barber the main target, Romo was getting killed in the pocket. Hell, the protection for Romo was horrible the whole game, and Garrett still went pass 3 times in over-time. But it's TOs fault for not being able to catch a ball on a 3rd and 17 on a deep pass play that the defense is going to play coverage against.... But count that in the statistics for forcing balls to TO...

 

[DallasEast]

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/2008Week4WashingtonatDallas.png

 

[ScipioCowboy]

"Because I never made the assertion that you've attributed to me, my point remains: You're either lying or you're egregiously mistaken. So which is it?"You did make the assertion that the reason the offense failed was because Garrett was trying to appease TO.

So, once again, you admit I never made the assertions you attributed to me here. I'll ask once more, were you lying or egregiously mistaken?

the reality is, you failed in your argument, totally ignoring every single fact that contradicts your point, from TOP,

Actually, I was quite successful in my argument, evidenced by your inability to rebut it and your refusal to acknowledge that I've already responded to and refuted each of your points. For instance, I quashed your TOP point here.

to the amount of times Witten was thrown the ball,

And I disproved your Witten assertion here.

Miles Austin was on the field and was at the receiving end of passes, whether complete or incomplete,

And I addressed this issue here.

the amount of times Crayton was targetted

And I refuted this point and clarified your misunderstanding regarding passes caught vs. passes targeted here.

the fact that Garrett is a pass happy coach and so on... Again, it is what it is... Your argument that Garrett was trying to appease TO fails...Further, I know the difference and that is why I pointed out to you the fact way before you even mentioned it. You brought up the passes thrown to Miles Austin catching 2 balls on the last drive against the Commanders, as if this proved we neglected him. You made the same remark with regards to Witten on that last drive and I specifically said that doesn't prove anything, because it doesn't show how many times they were targetted. That is when I went on to demonstrate how many times they were targetted in drives that TO wasn't. You also ignored the times we threw to Crayton, coupled by the fact of how many he caught.

Incorrect. Once again, I addressed this point here.

Now do you get it? I've been ahead of you since the very beginning in brining up these stats.

Now, if you could just determine how to discern and use stats appropriately, you might be able to offer a cogent argument.

Regardless, my initial argument in this thread still stands because it's based on a holistic appraisal and comparison of the games in question. Your argument has failed because it's based on a handful of cherry picked plays and drives that offer nothing in the way of substance.

However, I must concede some amount of pleasure in watching you chase your tail.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Were you one of those riding Adam's jock when he was analyzing plays and demanding evidence to prove that Roy wasn't at fault for missed tackles and blown coverages? Or were you calling Adam, Roy's agent?

I actually don't believe I was even around for that conversation so I missed it. But if he tried as hard to make none of it Roys fault, the way you do with TO, then yes I'd have called him Roy's agent.

 

[khiladi]

"So, once again, you admit I never made the assertions you attributed to me href="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2819152&postcount=222" target="_blank">here. I'll ask once more, were you lying or egregiously mistaken?"This is the best you could come up with. Let me repeat it for you one more time. You asserted that Dallas ignored the run, because they were trying to appeas TO. When I stated you were wrong, I meant your assertion regarding placating TO. You ignored Miles Austin being targetted, the Commanders controlling the TOP, Crayton being targetted more than ever, your bringing up garbage drives where Dallas targetted Miles Austin and Witten scoring a TD, when it was in prevent time. The fact that you cannot comprehend the point doesn't mean IO was lying or egregiously mistaken. It just means you can't comprehend a point.

 

[khiladi]

"Actually, I was quite successful in my argument, evidenced by your inability to rebut it and your refusal to acknowledge that I've already responded to and refuted each of your points. For instance, I quashed your TOP point <a href="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2818802&postcount=208" target="_blank">here"You didn't quash any argument. Your argument was that Dallas ignored the run, because they were TRYING TO APPEASE TO. The most you proved is that Dallas ignored the run. But you can't get that through your mind, what you are establishing is correlation not causation. Everybody in the world knows Garrett didn't run the ball, as I mentioned countless times. The Cowboys have been a pass-happy team in 2007 and 2008, with Garrett as their coach. Were they trying to appease TO then? Garrett passes the ball, because he is a pass-happy coach. Further, your argument that Dallas abandoned the run because they ran the ball 11 times based upon the fact the 'clock-stopping' incompletions is absurd. That doesn't prove anything other than the pass was an incomplete. The fact is, YOUR ARGUMENT IGNORES the whoel first and second half, when the Redskisn totally dominated the TOP, and were up 17-3, before the final drive that resulted in a score. During those drives, Crayton was targetted MORE THAN TO in passes, seven times, and Witten was targetted 5 times, with Witten only being targetted once. Like I said, your analysis are totally flawed.

 

[khiladi]

As far as you arguing about Miules Austin, you originally said that Dallas ignored him because they were trying to placate TO. You also brought up the last drive, where Miles Austin scored a TD in garbage point where TO wasn't even on the receiving end of the majority of balls to try and prove your point. Again, even if we were to ASSUME that you were arguing that Miles Austin could not be used effectively because of them not running the ball, again your logic is flawed. The only thing your establishing is that Miles Austin couldn't be effectively used because Dallas DIDN'T ESTABLISH THE RUN. You would still have to argue that Dallas didn't establish the run because they were trying to placate TO, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN. That is why I brought up the 2nd drive of the first quarter, where the ball went twice to BARBER, and the final pass going to Witten. That drive was a 3 and out, but they didn't ignore Barber. In the second third and out, Dallas went to Barber first, THEN WITTEN, then TO. So they were trying to placate TO by going to Barber once, then passing to Witten. On the next thrid and out, which was the very next drive, they went to TO first, then BARBER FOR THE RUN, THEN WENT TO MILES AUSTIN. How is that TOs fault or placatcing TO, when they went to Barber? You also ignore the first drive of the 3rd quarter, when 3 passes went to TO, and 2 plays were Barber running plays. How can you argue that the Cowboys were trying to placate Owens by abandoning the run, when the score where TO only caught the balls thrown, they mized it in with Barber runs?

 

[khiladi]

As far as you trying to argue that point of Crayton, Witten and Owens all had the same amount of receptions doesn't prove the point, it is just absurd. The point is the amount of passes thrown to all the other receivers demonstrated that Garrett was trying to attack the Commanders defense THROUGH THE AIR. It establishes not that they were trying to appease TO, but that Garrett went with a pass-happy attack. Your whole argument that it establishes the offense trying to placate TO is about absurd as it gets. You haven't even taken into account the number of times the Cowboys tried to get the ball to Miles Austin. The fact that TO is the primary receiver of the Cowboys offense, means nothing as regards your point. Nor does it take into account the type of passes TO was thrown to and whether or not they were catchble. That is why I went on to demonstrate the times he was thrown to. Throwing fade patterns to TO on third and long, in double coverage is not forcing it to TO, it is relying on TO because your incompetent offensive coordinator put them in unmanageable 3rd and longs. Further, considering many of the incompletes were in shot-gun formation on short routes in press coverage is about as ******** as it gets.

 

[khiladi]

No matter how many times you parrot the notion that you somehow answered the argument, doesn't change the reality that your whole argument is predicated upon an assertion that doesn't stand any logical support, i.e. Dallas abandoned the run to appease TO. As I even brought up the Arizona game, which was an example of horrendous offense, the Cowboys consistently featured Barber in the passing and running game, more so than they ever did, with the exception of miraculous 70 yard play. They didn't target TO and they flat-out sucked offensively. The Cowboys were essentially out of the game and Romo was getting pounded.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

"So, once again, you admit I never made the assertions you attributed to me href="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2819152&postcount=222" target="_blank">here. I'll ask once more, were you lying or egregiously mistaken?"This is the best you could come up with. Let me repeat it for you one more time. You asserted that Dallas ignored the run, because they were trying to appeas TO

This part is correct. However, I made none of the assertions you attributed to me here. So, the question remains -- lying or egregiously mistaken?

Not that I expect an answer.

When I stated you were wrong, I meant your assertion regarding placating TO. You ignored Miles Austin being targetted, the Commanders controlling the TOP, Crayton being targetted more than ever, your bringing up garbage drives where Dallas targetted Miles Austin and Witten scoring a TD, when it was in prevent time. The fact that you cannot comprehend the point doesn't mean IO was lying or egregiously mistaken. It just means you can't comprehend a point.

I did not ignore any of these facts. I addressed them and dismantled your argument here, here, here, and here.

"Actually, I was quite successful in my argument, evidenced by your inability to rebut it and your refusal to acknowledge that I've already responded to and refuted each of your points. For instance, I quashed your TOP point <a href="http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2818802&postcount=208" target="_blank">here"You didn't quash any argument. Your argument was that Dallas ignored the run, because they were TRYING TO APPEASE TO.The most you proved is that Dallas ignored the run. But you can't get that through your mind, what you are establishing is correlation not causation.

Actually, correlation is necessary to prove causation. So, before I can establish causation, I must first prove correlation.

When one player is thrown to or handed the ball more times than the pro bowl tight end and running back combined, it strongly suggests that the coaching staff is trying to appease said player, regardless of whether or not the coaching staff is pass-oriented.

Everybody in the world knows Garrett didn't run the ball, as I mentioned countless times. The Cowboys have been a pass-happy team in 2007 and 2008, with Garrett as their coach. Were they trying to appease TO then?

Probably so. Fortunately, in 2007, TO was still capable of beating press and double coverage on a consistent basis. In 2008, he was not -- hence the problem.

Garrett passes the ball, because he is a pass-happy coach. Further, your argument that Dallas abandoned the run because they ran the ball 11 times based upon the fact the 'clock-stopping' incompletions is absurd. That doesn't prove anything other than the pass was an incomplete.

So, in your opinion, the notion that an incomplete pass stops the clock is absurd?

Wow! I'm speechless.

The fact is, YOUR ARGUMENT IGNORES the whoel first and second half, when the Redskisn totally dominated the TOP, and were up 17-3,

Incorrect. The Commanders never led 17-3. In fact, it was a 17-10 game at halftime and a 17-17 games early in the third quarter. The Cowboys were within one score of the Commanders throughout most of the second half, allowing them ample opportunity to run the ball and even out TOP.

Unfortunately, they were determined to appease one player.

As far as you arguing about Miules Austin, you originally said that Dallas ignored him because they were trying to placate TO. You also brought up the last drive, where Miles Austin scored a TD in garbage point where TO wasn't even on the receiving end of the majority of balls to try and prove your point. Again, even if we were to ASSUME that you were arguing that Miles Austin could not be used effectively because of them not running the ball, again your logic is flawed. The only thing your establishing is that Miles Austin couldn't be effectively used because Dallas DIDN'T ESTABLISH THE RUN. You would still have to argue that Dallas didn't establish the run because they were trying to placate TO, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN. That is why I brought up the 2nd drive of the first quarter, where the ball went twice to BARBER, and the final pass going to Witten. That drive was a 3 and out, but they didn't ignore Barber. In the second third and out, Dallas went to Barber first, THEN WITTEN, then TO. So they were trying to placate TO by going to Barber once, then passing to Witten. On the next thrid and out, which was the very next drive, they went to TO first, then BARBER FOR THE RUN, THEN WENT TO MILES AUSTIN. How is that TOs fault or placatcing TO, when they went to Barber? You also ignore the first drive of the 3rd quarter, when 3 passes went to TO, and 2 plays were Barber running plays. How can you argue that the Cowboys were trying to placate Owens by abandoning the run, when the score where TO only caught the balls thrown, they mized it in with Barber runs?

Because Barber only received 8 carries for the entire game. TO was thrown to or handed the ball over 20 times.

8 < 20

Although you can cherry-pick the handful of drives in which one player may have been given or thrown the ball more often than TO, you won't change the fundamental truth that TO was given twice as many opportunities (passes and carries) with the football than the next closest player.

As far as you trying to argue that point of Crayton, Witten and Owens all had the same amount of receptions doesn't prove the point, it is just absurd.

Once again, you're failing to understand the difference between the number of passes a receiver actually catches and the number of passes that are thrown in his direction.

but that Garrett went with a pass-happy attack. Your whole argument that it establishes the offense trying to placate TO is about absurd as it gets. You haven't even taken into account the number of times the Cowboys tried to get the ball to Miles Austin.

Six times, and 6 < 20.

The fact that TO is the primary receiver of the Cowboys offense, means nothing as regards your point. Nor does it take into account the type of passes TO was thrown to and whether or not they were catchble.

Do you honestly believe TO is the only receiver who must contend with uncatchable passes?

No matter how many times you parrot the notion that you somehow answered the argument, doesn't change the reality that your whole argument is predicated upon an assertion that doesn't stand any logical support.

Actually, my argument has plenty of "logical support," none of which have you even begun to rebut in a substantive way.

 

[khiladi]

Actually, correlation is necessary to prove causation. So, before I can establish causation, I must first prove correlation.

Follow me here... Demonstrating correlation does not prove causation. You have demonstrated a correlation, but that correlation can be a result of many factors. No matter how many times you claim that you 'proved' your point or 'destroyed' my point doesn't change the fact that you have not a single time, demonstratyed causation.

When one player is thrown to or handed the ball more times than the pro bowl tight end and running back combined, it strongly suggests that the coaching staff is trying to appease said player, regardless of whether or not the coaching staff is pass-oriented.

Even if it 'strongly suggests' that they were trying to appease TO for the sake of argument it doesn't prove causation. They could be passing to TO because he is the best receiver on the team. Follow me here.. The fact that Crayton was targetted more in the Commanders game then he was in the Green Bay game also establishes the correlation that Garrett wanted to attack the Commanders via the pass, not the run. The fact that Miles Austin was targetted more in the Commanders game then in the Green Bay establishes the correlation that Garrett wanted to attack the Commanders via the pass, not the run. What you claim as a strong suggest is nothing but your opinion.

Probably so. Fortunately, in 2007, TO was still capable of beating press and double coverage on a consistent basis. In 2008, he was not -- hence the problem.

Again, that is your opinion. But that still does not negate the fact that Garrett is a pass first coach, which your conveniently ignoring. Pass-history of Garrett suggests that he always passes first and games such as Green Bay are exceptions to the rule. The pass-run ratio has always been greater, as far as it concerns Garrett. Unless of course your going to argue that the reason Garrett chose to be a pass first coach in 2007 was because he wanted to appease TO. But then you'd have to explain why Witten caught more balls than TO did last year.

So, in your opinion, the notion that an incomplete pass stops the clock is absurd?

Wow! I'm speechless.

Maybe you should learn how to read properly. The full sentence is

Further, your argument that Dallas abandoned the run because they ran the ball 11 times based upon the fact the 'clock-stopping' incompletions is absurd. That doesn't prove anything other than :starspinthe pass was an incomplete.

Every incomplete pass stops the clock. Further, that is why I then went on to explain the whole first half, and how the Commanders controlled the TOP and Dallas made a dedicated attempt to mix in Barber, but he wasn't that effective.

Incorrect. The Commanders never led 17-3. In fact, it was a 17-10 game at halftime and a 17-17 games early in the third quarter. The Cowboys were within one score of the Commanders throughout most of the second half, allowing them ample opportunity to run the ball and even out TOP.

I meant first and second quarter, and I already mentioned this fact countless times. That doesn't change the point, the Commanders were up 17-7, until Dallas scored on a drive where Crayton was targetted approximately 5 times. They dominated the TOP and Dallas made a consistent effort in the first and second quarter to run the ball as well as go to Barber

Unfortunately, they were determined to appease one player.

If they were trying to appease one player than how do you explain the fact that Crayton had more catches in the first and second quarter than TO? To quote myself again:

That is why I brought up the 2nd drive of the first quarter, where the ball went twice to BARBER, and the final pass going to Witten. That drive was a 3 and out, but they didn't ignore Barber. In the second third and out, Dallas went to Barber first, THEN WITTEN, then TO. So they were trying to placate TO by going to Barber once, then passing to Witten. On the next thrid and out, which was the very next drive, they went to TO first, then BARBER FOR THE RUN, THEN WENT TO MILES AUSTIN. How is that TOs fault or placatcing TO, when they went to Barber? You also ignore the first drive of the 3rd quarter, when 3 passes went to TO, and 2 plays were Barber running plays. How can you argue that the Cowboys were trying to placate Owens by abandoning the run, when the score where TO only caught the balls thrown, they mized it in with Barber runs?

How are you trying to placate Owens by going to Miles Austin, Jason Witten and Patrick Crayton? The fact is, there is plenty of drives that demonstrate that Dallas was not appeasing TO, Dallas was trying to attack the Commanders offense via the pass and run.

Because Barber only received 8 carries for the entire game. TO was thrown to or handed the ball over 20 times.

8 < 20

So what? Crayton had 7 catches, Witten had 10 passes, Miles Austin got thrown to plenty of times. TO is the primary receiver for the offense.

Although you can cherry-pick the handful of drives in which one player may have been given or thrown the ball more often than TO, you won't change the fundamental truth that TO was given twice as many opportunities (passes and carries) with the football than the next closest player.

LOL... Cherryy-picking... Your argument is that Dallas abandoned the run to appease TO, yet Garrett was all over the place in his passes. Your arguing that the game-plan is dictated to appease one player, yet that game-plan was a pass-oriented attack.

Once again, you're failing to understand the difference between the number of passes a receiver actually catches and the number of passes that are thrown in his direction.

Six times, and 6 < 20.

Do you honestly believe TO is the only receiver who must contend with uncatchable passes?

And your failing to understand the difference between primary targets and secondary targets, and TO being double-covered and Witten and Crayton, and Miles Austin getting single coverage. When you get double-covered it is obvious that the number oc un-catcheable passes goes up. Even the hardest anti-TO fan has admitted this fact.

Again, your conveniently avoiding the points. Barber was targetted more in the Arizona Cardinals game and the offense was pathetic that game. So was it TOs fault as well?

Actually, my argument has plenty of "logical support," none of which have you even begun to rebut in a substantive way.

Not really... Your argument flat-out sucks. It is simply that the Cowboys abandoned the run to placate TO, ignoring the fact that Miles Austin was thrown to more than ever, Crayton was thrown to more than ever, Witten was thrown to 10 times, so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is Dallas tried to attack Washington through the air and Garrett is a pass-happy coach. There are games one can point out, just like the Green Bay game, such as Arizona here Barber was the primary target. There offense was still pathetic, which demonstrates more so the problem is Garrett than anything else.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Actually it's pretty easy to point out why Witten caught more balls than TO last year and why Crayton caught more passes than TO in the first and second quarter of that game.

Those two guys actually caught more of the passes thrown their way than TO did. They had less passes their way yet they caught as many, or more, than TO.

If Witten got targeted for 19 passes in a game I'm pretty sure he wouldn't catch just 7 of them, even with the bad passes figured in.


TO is a WONDERFUL reciever. He is absolutely capable of taking over games and has had a brilliant career. The guy, however, doesn't always fight as hard as he should for balls, doesn't always run hard through his routes, and has inconsistent hands that cause him to miss out on more oppurtunities.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

LOL... Cherryy-picking... Your argument is that Dallas abandoned the run to appease TO, yet Garrett was all over the place in his passes. Your arguing that the game-plan is dictated to appease one player, yet that game-plan was a pass-oriented attack.

Incorrect.

Owens was targeted 19 times, and given 2 rushing carries. Witten was targeted 10 times. Crayton was targeted 10 times. Austin was targeted 6 times. Barber was targeted 2 times, and given 8 rushing carries. Felix Jones received no touches of any kind.

Owens was given more opportunities with the football than any 2 other players combined. Such a ball distribution does not constitute being "all over the place." Quite the opposite, actually. It demonstrates a definite bias towards one player -- Terrell Owens -- and, given his inability to get open, it strongly suggests a desire to placate that player.

If they were trying to appease one player than how do you explain the fact that Crayton had more catches in the first and second quarter than TO? To quote myself again:

How are you trying to placate Owens by going to Miles Austin, Jason Witten and Patrick Crayton? The fact is, there is plenty of drives that demonstrate that Dallas was not appeasing TO, Dallas was trying to attack the Commanders offense via the pass and run.

So what? Crayton had 7 catches, Witten had 10 passes, Miles Austin got thrown to plenty of times. TO is the primary receiver for the offense.

Once again, you're failing to understand the difference between the number of passes a receiver actually catches and the number of passes that are thrown in his direction.

Again, that is your opinion. But that still does not negate the fact that Garrett is a pass first coach, which your conveniently ignoring. Pass-history of Garrett suggests that he always passes first and games such as Green Bay are exceptions to the rule. The pass-run ratio has always been greater, as far as it concerns Garrett. Unless of course your going to argue that the reason Garrett chose to be a pass first coach in 2007 was because he wanted to appease TO.

Speaking of correlations, you've drawn a false one. Being pass-first does not automatically correlate to throwing to Owens twice as much as anyone else. An offense can favor the pass while simultaneously having an equitable pass distribution, especially when it features the best tight end in the NFL. Garrett's preference for the pass has no bearing on my argument.

But then you'd have to explain why Witten caught more balls than TO did last year.

Because, at this point in their respective careers, Witten is better than Owens. Period.

And your failing to understand the difference between primary targets and secondary targets, and TO being double-covered and Witten and Crayton, and Miles Austin getting single coverage. When you get double-covered it is obvious that the number oc un-catcheable passes goes up. Even the hardest anti-TO fan has admitted this fact.

If true, this only bolsters my argument. If Garrett and Romo are compelled to throw to TO even though he's not getting open, it again suggests they're trying to appease him.

Follow me here... Demonstrating correlation does not prove causation.

No one asserted otherwise. I merely pointed out that correlation was necessary to prove causation.

You have demonstrated a correlation, but that correlation can be a result of many factors. No matter how many times you claim that you 'proved' your point or 'destroyed' my point doesn't change the fact that you have not a single time, demonstratyed causation.

Speaking of following along, would you mind reposting these instance in which I claimed to have proven anything?

I've stated that the available evidence "strongly suggests" and "supports" my argument, but I've never presented my argument as anything other than my opinion.

Maybe you should learn how to read properly. The full sentence is

Every incomplete pass stops the clock. Further, that is why I then went on to explain the whole first half, and how the Commanders controlled the TOP

Very good. Now, follow along here. If Team A has more incomplete passes and 26 fewer rushing attempts than Team B, which team is more likely to have the TOP advantage?

Team A, of course.

Now, if 12 of Team A's 19 incompletions were to one player, it's a reasonable assertion that Team A's TOP was hindered by its attempt to force the ball to that one player.

Get it?

and Dallas made a dedicated attempt to mix in Barber, but he wasn't that effective.

A grand total of eight rushing attempts does not constitue a "dedicated attempt to mix in Barber."

I meant first and second quarter, and I already mentioned this fact countless times. That doesn't change the point, the Commanders were up 17-7, until Dallas scored on a drive where Crayton was targetted approximately 5 times. They dominated the TOP and Dallas made a consistent effort in the first and second quarter to run the ball as well as go to Barber

Unfortunately for your argument, the game did not end after the first and second quarter. You see, it's fallacy to only consider data that supports your position. It's called cherry-picking, and it invalidates your entire argument.

Not really... Your argument flat-out sucks..

Regardless, it's still superior to your argument -- hence your need to cherry-pick drives and quarters.

 

[khiladi]

There you go again. Your picking and choosing what you want to weight against. Why have you chosen two receivers, instead of four receivers? Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that WE IGNORED THE RUN to appease TO. We DISTRIBUTED THE BALL WAY MORE in the passing game against the Commanders, then we did against the Packers. So how can you argue that the very basis for going away from the running game was because we wanted to go to TO? Further, targetting TO primarily doesn't establish trying to appease TO, because he is the "I" receiver in the Garrett offense. Michael Irvin was the primary target in the Norv offense. Does that mean the Cowboys were trying to appease him?

 

[khiladi]

"Once again, you're failing to understand the difference between the number of passes a receiver actually catches and the number of passes that are thrown in his direction."I am quite aware of the stat and your failing to understand the point, which is the amount of passes thrown the way of Crayton, Miles Austin, and other receivers went up. If your argument is that Dallas ignored the run trying to appease TO, then how do you explain that a significant number of passes that took away from Dallas oppurtunity to run went to receivers besides TO? Like I said, the only thing your demonstrating in the argument is Dallas made a consistent effort to run the ball against Green Bay. What caused Dallas to do this, per your own words, is appeasing TO. Yet, there are a considerable number of factors that show Dallas was attacking Washington differently than they did Green Bay.

 

[khiladi]

"Speaking of correlations, you've drawn a false one. Being pass-first does not automatically correlate to throwing to Owens twice as much as anyone else. An offense can favor the pass while simultaneously having an equitable pass distribution, especially when it features the best tight end in the NFL. Garrett's preference for the pass has no bearing on my argument."I know exactly what I drew up and I'm quite correct. The correlation drawn up is not the amount of passes thrown to TO, which has always been signficant even in 2007, but the fact is your claim that WE ABANDONED THE RUN TO APPEASE TO. You further argued that this abandoning the run is what led to us not being effective in play-calling. So which is now? We should be passing more to Witten then TO, around 20 times, or we should be running more effectively? If it is the latter, than congratulations for informing me that Garrett is an idiot play-caller for abandoning the run. If it is the former, then I'd like to see any team that is successful that has a tight-end as the primary receiver.

 

[khiladi]

And when you stated that Witten is better than TO period, you again made an irrelevant comment that has no bearing on the argument which is: Again, that is your opinion. BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT GARRETT IS A PASS FIRST COACH, which your conveniently ignoring. Pass-history of Garrett suggests that he always passes first and games such as Green Bay are exceptions to the rule. The pass-run ratio has always been greater, as far as it concerns Garrett. UNLESS OF COURSE YOUR GOING TO ARGUE THAT THE REASON GARRETT CHOSE TO BE A PASS FIRST COACH in 2007 WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO APPEASE TO. But then you'd have to explain why Witten caught more balls than TO did last year. The fact of the matter is Witten had over 90 catches last year, and TO had 80 plus, which reveals without question that Garrett has and will always be a pass-happy coach. THAT IS WHY HE IGNORED THE RUN. The fact is, the reason the offfense failed is because teams figured Garrett out and he couldn't adjust. Part of the reason is that he couldn't handle the running game, which was in the hands of Sparano the year prior.