Grizz: Saints game redux

[ScipioCowboy]

Until the playoffs, of course, when our defense held stout while our passing game floundered. I guess Seattle didn't get the "This is how to beat them" memo, as Bobby Carpenter came up huge, Newman made game-changing plays and our run defense held?

Dallas' defense surrendered 326 yards against Seattle, including 240 passing yards despite a lingering injury to Seattle's best receiver, who was forced to leave the game halfway through the second half.

By comparison, Seattle only averaged 190 passing yards and 311 total yards per game on the season.

Unquestionably, Bobby Carpenter played an excellent game. No one is denying that. I'm questioning the effectiveness of the scheme. I rewatched the Seattle playoff game recently, and was dismayed by how often Ware was forced into coverage at the last second. Even Madden commented on this.

Don't be shallow. Of course they didn't decide to stop executing. They were just incapable. They were in a slump. That doesn't mean they will always be incapable, as shown against Seattle, save for some terrible play from Roy Williams - it just means for four games, they got their ***** handed to them.

So, allow me to clarify. According to you, the players were more than capable for the first 12 games and were suddenly incapable for the last 4 games.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop being shallow when you start using some basic logic.

Indy and Philly experienced similar slumps with their woeful run defense, before they managed to stop the bleeding for the playoff run. Their defensive scheme didn't go from useless, to functional - it remained the same. The players just executed.

Actually, Philly corroborates my argument. Jim Johnson is one of the best defensive coordinators in the game. He "stopped the bleeding" by making a few mid-season adjustments--a skill that has always eluded Mike Zimmer. Good coordinators install modernized schemes that can be adjusted to remedy any problem.

 

[gbrittain]

And that same old antiquated scheme nearly beat Seattle.

Had Romo not dropped that snap on that chip shot field goal, we would have beaten (or at least been in great position) to beat Seattle.

So was Holmgrem just to dumb to figure out our scheme even though Jim Mora Jr, Sean Payton, Rod Marinelli, etc were 'smart enough' to figure it out?

And in a playoff game, no less....

IMO here is the problem. No doubt to much is made of the Saints blowout game in addition to too much being made of the fact Dallas quite possibly beats Seattle in a playoff game if not for a mishandled field goal.

The problem I have is that in the 3rd and 4th years Dallas never showed any signs that they were ready to break out. Dallas did show a glimpse of that in the four game winning steak when they managed to beat Indy and NY. Aside from that four game streak Dallas was pretty much a .500 team. Win one lose one.

In the last two years I came to the conclusion that Parcells was no where near a break through with this team. I would have been super fired up if Dallas had started the season the way it ended and ended the season on a positive note showing some consistency and signs that the corner had been turned. Instead Dallas looked like a team that would go 8-8 or 9-7...again.

We can blame the players all day long but that still puts the onus right back on BP. I have yet to see a coach get fired because the coach dropped passes, fumbled, played bad defense, missed tackles, and etcetera.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

And that same old antiquated scheme nearly beat Seattle.

Had Romo not dropped that snap on that chip shot field goal, we would have beaten (or at least been in great position) to beat Seattle.

So was Holmgrem just to dumb to figure out our scheme even though Jim Mora Jr, Sean Payton, Rod Marinelli, etc were 'smart enough' to figure it out?

And in a playoff game, no less....

"Nearly beat" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

As I've already stated, Dallas surrendered 326 yards to a team that only averaged 311 during the regular season. Furthermore, Seattle averaged 20.9 points per game in the regular season, and scored 21 against Dallas despite injury to their receiving corp. Dallas' defensive performance was certainly improved over the previous four games, but it wasn't great by any stretch.

And Holmgren was "smart enough" to devise a game plan that constantly placed Ware in coverage rather than rushing the passer, which is his strength.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

IMO here is the problem. No doubt to much is made of the Saints blowout game in addition to too much being made of the fact Dallas quite possibly beats Seattle in a playoff game if not for a mishandled field goal.

The problem I have is that in the 3rd and 4th years Dallas never showed any signs that they were ready to break out. Dallas did show a glimpse of that in the four game winning steak when they managed to beat Indy and NY. Aside from that four game streak Dallas was pretty much a .500 team. Win one lose one.

In the last two years I came to the conclusion that Parcells was no where near a break through with this team. I would have been super fired up if Dallas had started the season the way it ended and ended the season on a positive note showing some consistency and signs that the corner had been turned. Instead Dallas looked like a team that would go 8-8 or 9-7...again.

We can blame the players all day long but that still puts the onus right back on BP. I have yet to see a coach get fired because the coach dropped passes, fumbled, played bad defense, missed tackles, and etcetera.

Better watch it!

You'll be branded as a "hater".

 

[MichaelWinicki]

"Nearly beat" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

As I've already stated, Dallas surrendered 326 yards to a team that only averaged 311 during the regular season. Furthermore, Seattle averaged 20.9 points per game in the regular season, and scored 21 against Dallas despite injury to their receiving corp. Dallas' defensive performance was certainly improved over the previous four games, but it wasn't great by any stretch.

And Holmgren was "smart enough" to devise a game plan that constantly placed Ware in coverage rather than rushing the passer, which is his strength.

Didn't you get the memo?

That was Ware's fault. He was suppose to rush the passer AND drop into coverage during the same play.

Sadly he had regressed as a player.

 

[superpunk]

Dallas' defense surrendered 326 yards against Seattle, including 240 passing yards despite a lingering injury to Seattle's best receiver, who was forced to leave the game halfway through the second half.

By comparison, Seattle only averaged 190 passing yards and 311 total yards per game on the season.

They performed better than they had been. They had been making every single opposing offense we faced the most effective in the NFL, with unreal passer ratings and high scores. Against Seattle they stepped up, and stopped the bleeding against a good offensive team. It's not that they got back to elite, but they played much better. Antoher game may have provided a further confidence boost, and step in the right direction - BACK to where they were.

So, allow me to clarify. According to you, the players were more than capable for the first 12 games and were suddenly incapable for the last 4 games.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop being shallow when you start using some basic logic.

Basic logic? You mean like the notion that thirty some years of coaching experience between Parcells and Zimmer was rendered irrelevent by a single game against Sean Payton?

Yeah, that's brilliant, and completely bullet-proof.

Players have slumps. They work their way out. If they didn't, we wouldn't have much hope for Romo this year, would we? Yes - a few crucial players began to play terribly where before they had played well. I'm sorry that's more inconcievable to you than "Sean Payton destroyed 30 years of coaching - and did something Bill Bellichick, Charlie Weis, Tom Coughlin etc were incapable of." But I like to stay in the realm of reason.

Actually, Philly corroborates my argument. Jim Johnson is one of the best defensive coordinators in the game. He "stopped the bleeding" by making a few mid-season adjustments--a skill that has always eluded Mike Zimmer. Good coordinators install modernized schemes that can be adjusted to remedy any problem.

What did Philly do different - as you seem so certain Johnson changed up, rather than his players just playing better?

Did he make a substitution? That's certainly a possibility for improved play. We certainly benefitted from a QB substitution.

it seems more directly that you are suggesting he changed his scheme to be more sound against the run, correct?

If you're suggesting that, what made him change before their playoff game with new Orleans, where McCallister went for 140 and the Saints went over 200 yards rushing?

Or did the players just crap the bed and stop their improved execution? Just as our players fell apart, lost their mojo for 4 games, no matter how much we tried to change it up - before rallying themselves to improved play against the Hawks?

Logic's an amazing thing, when you actually use it and don't try to attribute failure to something you can't see or identify. It's execution. It's always execustion. Some coaches can't get players to execute their scheme - maybe that's where Parcells was, and maybe that's why he quit and we let Zimmer go. But the schemes were sound. The schemes worked, if executed properly. The players could not execute them - Payton exposed a few of our players as failures, for one game. Then, they couldn't rebound.

It's really quit simple.

 

[superpunk]

Better watch it!

You'll be branded as a "hater".

Didn't you get the memo?

That was Ware's fault. He was suppose to rush the passer AND drop into coverage during the same play.

Sadly he had regressed as a player.

Oh, did you decide to "contribute" to the thread, again? (inasmuch as the piggybacking above can be considered a "contribution", of course.)

It's good to see you putting your skills learned at the "Nors/Heavyhitta School of Ownage" to good use.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Oh, did you decide to "contribute" to the thread, again? (inasmuch as the piggybacking above can be considered a "contribution", of course.)

It's good to see you putting your skills learned at the "Nors/Heavyhitta School of Ownage" to good use.

Considering all we hear out of you is that Parcells was perfect and the players were totally at fault time after time-- this is the best you're going to get.

When I finally detect some sense in your argument you'll get more.

 

[Stash]

They performed better than they had been. They had been making every single opposing offense we faced the most effective in the NFL, with unreal passer ratings and high scores. Against Seattle they stepped up, and stopped the bleeding against a good offensive team. It's not that they got back to elite, but they played much better. Antoher game may have provided a further confidence boost, and step in the right direction - BACK to where they were.


Basic logic? You mean like the notion that thirty some years of coaching experience between Parcells and Zimmer was rendered irrelevent by a single game against Sean Payton?

Yeah, that's brilliant, and completely bullet-proof.

Players have slumps. They work their way out. If they didn't, we wouldn't have much hope for Romo this year, would we? Yes - a few crucial players began to play terribly where before they had played well. I'm sorry that's more inconcievable to you than "Sean Payton destroyed 30 years of coaching - and did something Bill Bellichick, Charlie Weis, Tom Coughlin etc were incapable of." But I like to stay in the realm of reason.



What did Philly do different - as you seem so certain Johnson changed up, rather than his players just playing better?

Did he make a substitution? That's certainly a possibility for improved play. We certainly benefitted from a QB substitution.

it seems more directly that you are suggesting he changed his scheme to be more sound against the run, correct?

If you're suggesting that, what made him change before their playoff game with new Orleans, where McCallister went for 140 and the Saints went over 200 yards rushing?

Or did the players just crap the bed and stop their improved execution? Just as our players fell apart, lost their mojo for 4 games, no matter how much we tried to change it up - before rallying themselves to improved play against the Hawks?

Logic's an amazing thing, when you actually use it and don't try to attribute failure to something you can't see or identify. It's execution. It's always execustion. Some coaches can't get players to execute their scheme - maybe that's where Parcells was, and maybe that's why he quit and we let Zimmer go. But the schemes were sound. The schemes worked, if executed properly. The players could not execute them - Payton exposed a few of our players as failures, for one game. Then, they couldn't rebound.

It's really quit simple.

Actually, you're really quite simple.

Somehow you confuse 'logic' with players suddenly 'forgetting' how to play football and then suddenly 'remembering' again.

Don't talk to anyone else about logic.

Facts show that Payton exposed weaknesses the Cowboys had and gave the rest of the league the blueprint.

The huge collapse can be directly traced to that game.

And a gameplan devised by a coach who knew the team better than Coughlin, Belichick, or any other head coach for that matter.

These players didn't suddenly forget how to play. They were stuck in an archaic scheme stubbornly kept in place by an archaic head coach and a 4-3 coordinator who didn't know any better.

 

[Vintage]

IMO here is the problem. No doubt to much is made of the Saints blowout game in addition to too much being made of the fact Dallas quite possibly beats Seattle in a playoff game if not for a mishandled field goal.

The defense had sucked major *** the previous 4 games. The defense did enough to hold Seattle to 21 points....(and of which, the Glenn 'catch' contributed).

So yeah, our defense, while not great, did enough to win that game IMO. But ineffective offense play let us down. So....did Holmgrem just not know how to attack this defense?

Or did our players play better?

The problem I have is that in the 3rd and 4th years Dallas never showed any signs that they were ready to break out. Dallas did show a glimpse of that in the four game winning steak when they managed to beat Indy and NY. Aside from that four game streak Dallas was pretty much a .500 team. Win one lose one.

OK. But no one is branding us a "winner." We've done jack **** since the 90's. Hell, the Commanders have managed a playoff win in the past decade. We haven't.

We can blame the players all day long but that still puts the onus right back on BP. I have yet to see a coach get fired because the coach dropped
passes, fumbled, played bad defense, missed tackles, and etcetera.

And if the players suck, then yeah, Parcells gets blame for that too since he did bring him in. No one has denied that in this thread, to my knowledge. But the players get some credit too. Their suckiness the last 4 games of the season was top-notch.

"Nearly beat" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

As I've already stated, Dallas surrendered 326 yards to a team that only averaged 311 during the regular season. Furthermore, Seattle averaged 20.9 points per game in the regular season, and scored 21 against Dallas despite injury to their receiving corp. Dallas' defensive performance was certainly improved over the previous four games, but it wasn't great by any stretch.

And again, as already stated, it did hold Seattle to 21 points (less, if you ignore the Terry Glenn mishap).

And Holmgren was "smart enough" to devise a game plan that constantly placed Ware in coverage rather than rushing the passer, which is his strength.

Yep. But they only scored 21 points after we allowed the Detroit Lions to score 38 on us the previous game. And Vick had a field day against us.

But our defense didn't surrender much in terms of points. Did Holmgrem lack the coaching smarts to attack us? Or did our players just perform better?

Didn't you get the memo?

That was Ware's fault. He was suppose to rush the passer AND drop into coverage during the same play.

Sadly he had regressed as a player.

There is nothing to address here. As usual, you continue to misquote and put words in my mouth.

Oh joy.

 

[superpunk]

These players didn't suddenly forget how to play. They were stuck in an archaic scheme stubbornly kept in place by an archaic head coach and a 4-3 coordinator who didn't know any better.

And they suddenly got things back together and executed an archaic scheme stubbornly kept in place by an archaic head coach and a 4-3 coordinator who didn't know any better to perform adequately against Seattle.

You're precious when you try to match wits.

Maybe stick to flaming Pheonix-Talon. That seems to be more your speed, buddy.

 

[Vintage]

Actually, you're really quite simple.

Somehow you confuse 'logic' with players suddenly 'forgetting' how to play football and then suddenly 'remembering' again.

Don't talk to anyone else about logic.

Facts show that Payton exposed weaknesses the Cowboys had and gave the rest of the league the blueprint.

The huge collapse can be directly traced to that game.

And a gameplan devised by a coach who knew the team better than Coughlin, Belichick, or any other head coach for that matter.

These players didn't suddenly forget how to play. They were stuck in an archaic scheme stubbornly kept in place by an archaic head coach and a 4-3 coordinator who didn't know any better.

And again, no one is saying they forgot.

Not performing up to standards is one thing. Forgetting is another.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Let's see Seattle averaged 20.9 points per game... and we "held them" to only 21.

Words can't describe the sense of "awe" I now have for our defensive performance during that playoff game...

I'm glad you folks pointed it out to me, I'll be forever grateful.

 

[Stash]

And they suddenly got things back together and executed an archaic scheme stubbornly kept in place by an archaic head coach and a 4-3 coordinator who didn't know any better to perform adequately against Seattle.

You're precious when you try to match wits.

Maybe stick to flaming Pheonix-Talon. That seems to be more your speed, buddy.

Please.

The day I couldn't deal with you two clowns is the day I quit watching the game.

And that miraculous 'rebirth' got them all the way to?

Adequate?

Oh yeah, a loss.

From a team that held the eventual Champs to 14 points to 'adequate' is all you've got?

And your assinine theory can't even provide a clue as to why anything - good or bad - happens.

You can keep trying to swipe the mindless broad stroke called 'a slump' over anything resembling a logical argument.

You're making a terrific case here....

 

[superpunk]

Let's see Seattle averaged 20.9 points per game... and we "held them" to only 21.

Words can't describe the sense of "awe" I now have for our defensive performance during that playoff game...

I'm glad you folks pointed it out to me, I'll be forever grateful.

Mikey, if you'd actually read the posts, instead of just making pointless comments addressed to noone in particular, you might have caught this:

They performed better than they had been. They had been making every single opposing offense we faced the most effective in the NFL, with unreal passer ratings and high scores. Against Seattle they stepped up, and stopped the bleeding against a good offensive team. It's not that they got back to elite, but they played much better. Antoher game may have provided a further confidence boost, and step in the right direction - BACK to where they were.v

It's relative, mikey. Surely you can comprehend that?

 

[Stash]

And again, no one is saying they forgot.

Not performing up to standards is one thing. Forgetting is another.

I read you.

It's never actually about what you do say.

It's always about what you don't say.

I guess that way you can never really be wrong.

If nothing else, you're excruciatingly consistant.

 

[Vintage]

Let's see Seattle averaged 20.9 points per game... and we "held them" to only 21.

Words can't describe the sense of "awe" I now have for our defensive performance during that playoff game...

I'm glad you folks pointed it out to me, I'll be forever grateful.

Their offense scored 19.

Unless, you want to blame our defense for the Terry Glenn fumble/safety play.

We scored 20.

We did enough defensively to beat them, which was the point. And no one is saying we did "great" either. Again. Putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that we did enough; it was certainly an improvement over the past 4 weeks of the season.

 

[Stash]

Their offense scored 19.

Unless, you want to blame our defense for the Terry Glenn fumble/safety play.

We scored 20.

We did enough defensively to beat them, which was the point. And no one is saying we did "great" either. Again. Putting words in my mouth. What I did say is that we did enough; it was certainly an improvement over the past 4 weeks of the season.

So the defense went from putrid to just plain lousy?

OK.

Great job Parcells!

 

[gbrittain]

The defense had sucked major *** the previous 4 games. The defense did enough to hold Seattle to 21 points....(and of which, the Glenn 'catch' contributed).

So yeah, our defense, while not great, did enough to win that game IMO. But ineffective offense play let us down. So....did Holmgrem just not know how to attack this defense?

Or did our players play better?


OK. But no one is branding us a "winner." We've done jack **** since the 90's. Hell, the Commanders have managed a playoff win in the past decade. We haven't.




And if the players suck, then yeah, Parcells gets blame for that too since he did bring him in. No one has denied that in this thread, to my knowledge. But the players get some credit too. Their suckiness the last 4 games of the season was top-notch.




And again, as already stated, it did hold Seattle to 21 points (less, if you ignore the Terry Glenn mishap).

Yep. But they only scored 21 points after we allowed the Detroit Lions to score 38 on us the previous game. And Vick had a field day against us.

But our defense didn't surrender much in terms of points. Did Holmgrem lack the coaching smarts to attack us? Or did our players just perform better?






There is nothing to address here. As usual, you continue to misquote and put words in my mouth.

Oh joy.

The bolded portion is the problem and why I was more than happy to see BP ride away in the sunset.

I promise you if Dallas had won the Super Bowl last year Cowboy fans, media and everyone else would be singing BPs praises.

It goes with the territory. His team was average to below average three consecutive years and that was the bottom line.

Like I said earlier if BP had won a Super Bowl and did some major damage in the playoffs the last three years, how hard would we fall on the floor with laughter if someone said Parcells had not done a good job?

 

[burmafrd]

TO blame BP for everything is just as stupid as blaming the players for everything. They all screwed the pooch the last part of the season.