For those who blame injuries

[TheMarathonContinues]

They're closer than the Cowboys are. They're getting it together while the Cowboys are falling apart.

But being "contenders" has nothing to do with it. They're playing well now and the Cowboys are playing like trash.

Why do you keep using the Cowboys v Chargers argument? Are you trying to convince me that the Chargers will win on Thursday? Because trust me....you don't have to. Me and you are probably on the same side on who should win that game. If you're trying to convince me that the Chargers are more of a contender than we are? Once again, no argument there. If you want to convince me that they are a good team......that I can't agree with. They are 4-6 for a reason. Them beating the Bills by 30 is equivalent to beating the 49ers 40-10. Bills are morons. They benched Tyrod Taylor for probably the worst QB in the league.

 

[Stash]

Why do you keep using the Cowboys v Chargers argument? Are you trying to convince me that the Chargers will win on Thursday? Because trust me....you don't have to. Me and you are probably on the same side on who should win that game. If you're trying to convince me that the Chargers are more of a contender than we are? Once again, no argument there. If you want to convince me that they are a good team......that I can't agree with. They are 4-6 for a reason. Them beating the Bills by 30 is equivalent to beating the 49ers 40-10. Bills are morons. They benched Tyrod Taylor for probably the worst QB in the league.

Nope, sounds like we agree much more than any disagreement.

 

[Sydla]

Largely because they played trash teams....we played the Packers, Rams and Eagirls and you think that's equivalent to the Chargers and Cardinals?

No but I have little doubt the team we saw last night and last week would lose to the Cards. And we are going to find out about the Chargers in 4 days.

You seem to hint above that you think we could lose to the Chargers, which kind of undermines your point.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

No but I have little doubt the team we saw last night and last week would lose to the Cards. And we are going to find out about the Chargers in 4 days.

So what does this mean? Because the Cowboys lose to the Chargers that means they are a good team lol?

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Missing Dez isn't a handicap. Its a plus. And yes, I am being serious.

This was last season when we weren't forcing it to Dez though. Big difference. If we use Dez correctly he would be a scoring machine, problem is terrible play design

 

[Gator88]

They got better. Let's don't kid ourselves here. Dak's performance was better than anything I've seen from Romo in the playoffs...not only that but Dak was durable. Romo was a hit away.

I agree, let's not kid ourselves. Dak last year had the best offensive situation for a QB that I've ever seen in the playoffs. The entire offense was more or less healthy, he was playing at home, indoors, against a team with an anemic pass rush, and a secondary full of street free agents because of injuries.

He led the offense to a pretty awful first 2.5 quarters before heating up against prevent defense. Let's take situations into account, the only playoff games that Romo didn't perform better than Dak's performance last year were games where he was under more pressure than Dak was last week against Atlanta.

Before you disagree, remember that Atlanta the following week against GB were 1 touchdown short of matching the same amount of points Dallas put up in just the first half.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

And Hanna and Romo and DMC and DLaw and Crawford and McClain and Scandrick and Church

You are correct. Just threw those guys out of the top of my head.

 

[viman96]

Peters is considered one of the best LT's in the NFL. Jordan Hicks might be the best cover LB in the NFL, as noted by former players. The drop from Sproles to Barner on ST's is huge. Enough of the bull**** that "we lost 3 top players at their position." If you had competent backups and decent players surrounding those "3 best players" we wouldn't be in this position.

Vikings are on their 3rd QB. Commanders are missing half a team. Patriots always deal with injuries. Pats and Vikes made sure those losses didn't hurt by having innovative coaching and NFL-level reserves, as well as actual NFL players starting in other positions. Eagles lose Jordan Hicks, but since they have other good LB's like Kendricks and Bradham, it doesn't hurt them as much, unlike some of the slop we put out there. Their backup LT makes ours look like swiss cheese, so again they can withstand the loss better than us. Those DB's who are JAG's and low would picks for the most part look a lot better than ours, although they not have more talent. Why? Because they coach these players to be ready. I don't know what we do.

Look at their defense in the second half. Why did they get so much pressure on Dak in the second half? Because their coaches adjusted by shifting the focus of attack against our o-line. Their LB's started to sweep out wider, knowing that Dak would be flushed because their line is good enough to hold the one-tech while smashing the 3 and 5, forcing Dak to run for his life---where he would ofter find a speedy, competent Eagle LB waiting to turn him back. They attacked 3 and 5 tech, had pursuing LB's at the second level, and Garrett looked lost, just watching his o-line get the crap beat out of them---sometimes by all Eagle backups---because they put real NFL players to pick up the slack when, or if, starters get hurt. Case in point this year is Cox missing a few games and Allen stepping up.

We didn't lose because we didn't have Zeke, Lee, or Smith, but we lost because we had nothing as good as the Eagles besides those three to man up and take over. Add in our coaching staff from 20 years ago, and we have what we have.

The Vikings are 7-2 with Case Freaking Keenum. The Eagles are 9-1 without three key players. Those two teams prepared; ours did not.

I never said we lost because of the players. I only said the drop off was more significant and not as easily to overcome for Dallas than it was for Philly. Peters is still a top rated LT but he is not considered the best by many like Smith is. Losing Zeke is no where near the same as losing Sproles. Get out of here with that junk.

 

[Sydla]

So what does this mean? Because the Cowboys lose to the Chargers that means they are a good team lol?

No it means your argument loses steam. How aren't you grasping this?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I agree, let's not kid ourselves. Dak last year had the best offensive situation for a QB that I've ever seen in the playoffs. The entire offense was more or less healthy, he was playing at home, indoors, against a team with an anemic pass rush, and a secondary full of street free agents because of injuries.

He led the offense to a pretty awful first 2.5 quarters before heating up against prevent defense. Let's take situations into account, the only playoff games that Romo didn't perform better than Dak's performance last year were games where he was under more pressure than Dak was last week against Atlanta.

Before you disagree, remember that Atlanta the following week against GB were 1 touchdown short of matching the same amount of points Dallas put up in just the first half.

So what are you saying? Dak performed well last season because he had help? So did Romo......most of those guys are the same guys Romo had except replace Demarco with Zeke.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

No it means your argument loses steam. How aren't you grasping this?

What in the world do the Chargers have to do with my argument? What is going on here?

 

[Gator88]

So what are you saying? Dak performed well last season because he had help? So did Romo......most of those guys are the same guys Romo had except replace Demarco with Zeke.

That Dak's performance in the playoff game last year wasn't anything special. That defense was worse than any Dallas has had for example.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

That Dak's performance in the playoff game last year wasn't anything special. That defense was worse than any Dallas has had for example.

So what do you consider 24/38 for 302 yards and 3 TDs and a pick? Asking a honest question.....

 

[Gator88]

So what do you consider 24/38 for 302 yards and 3 TDs and a pick? Asking a honest question.....

Against one of the worst defenses ever in the playoffs, and considering a good chunk of that came against a prevent defense? Normally a really good game, drops down to decent.

How would you rate that performance against a worse 2014 Dallas defense?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Against one of the worst defenses ever in the playoffs, and considering a good chunk of that came against a prevent defense? Normally a really good game, drops down to decent.

So your "excuse" is he played against a prevent defense? Packers were playing a prevent defense in the 3rd quarter? And what was Tony's excuse for his performance he had in 2014 against that Packers defense that had mostly the same personnel? Two TD's and 190 passing yards......

 

[Gator88]

So your "excuse" is he played against a prevent defense? Packers were playing a prevent defense in the 3rd quarter? And what was Tony's excuse for his performance he had in 2014 against that Packers defense that had mostly the same personnel? Two TD's and 190 passing yards......

That packers defense was missing their entire secondary in the playoff game last year to injuries and you're also comparing a game in GB in January to a game in Dallas. Romo's sole incompletion in the second half of that game was the Dez overturn.

Are you saying the Packers weren't playing a prevent defense up by more than 2 scores late in the 3rd quarter?

 

[boyzjunkie]

How is it a back pedal? You don't need your best players for dog teams. I give you guys answers and you just ignore it because it doesn't help your narrative.

Because you said You always have caveats. You said if Cox got hurt it would change how they do things. Well, they lost Cox for two games and their defense was still very decent and they went 2-0.

Largely because they have better coaching than we do as well as better depth.

Originally you made no reference to who they were playing. Now you introduce that caveat when you are called on it. That dear sir is back pedaling worthy of our commander in chief.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Because you said You always have caveats. You said if Cox got hurt it would change how they do things. Well, they lost Cox for two games and their defense was still very decent and they went 2-0.

Largely because they have better coaching than we do as well as better depth.

Originally you made no reference to who they were playing. Now you introduce that caveat when you are called on it. That dear sir is back pedaling worthy of our commander in chief.

THeir defense wasn't decent though.