Interesting playoff rushing stat

[Stash]

You know, as a horrible side note to this thread, I truly believe that if Reeves gets hired in 2010 maybe the team doesn't spiral out of control that year, and more importantly I think Garrett could have learned a ton from him.

I firmly believe it was Garrett that sabotaged that deal with Jerry coming up with the 'timeclock' excuse. He saw it as a threat to his ascendancy to HC. But he would be such a better coach today if he had spent a few years working with Reeves, who is one of the best to ever walk the sidelines.

Another lost opportunity for this circus.

I completely agree with you. Once again, an individual's wants and needs come at the detriment of the franchise.

 

[Sarge]

It's not just about running - it's about running and controlling the clock to keep your defense OFF the field .

 

[IrishAnto]

You got it half right, anyway. You gotta stop the other guys' passing, too. Hence the losing.

He can't pass if he doesn't have the ball.

 

[Picksix]

Dallas had 4 drives start inside the opponents 5 yard line. 2 teams had 3 such possession and 2 teams had 2 such possession. A handful had 1 and many others had none.

The team had 9 drives start inside the opponents redzone. 2 more than any other team.

The team was helped out greatly by the defense and special teams.

I see what you're saying, but you're talking about an additional 2 drives out 73. Even with that, they're average scoring drive was 56 yards, which was tied for 15th. We were 7th in number of scoring drives. So we may have had a couple more that started closer than other, but we also scored on a lot of drives that were farther away. Half the teams that scored more times than we did had a shorter drive average. Yes, the offense was getting help from the defense and our special teams, but they were also doing a lot themselves.

 

[visionary]

What does make you win?

good luck getting that one answered
the story changes depending on the post

it is not the GM
it is not the HC
it is not the cor-ordinators
it is not the running game

brady throws for less than 200 and 0 TDs, the pats run for 300 and 5TDs

BUT the "running game has no correlation with winning"

 

[visionary]

In the Seahawks vs. Saints game today:

Seahawks backed up on their own 20 yard line or so
3rd down and 9
They still RUN the ball

Anybody wanna take a guess at what Dallas does in that situation

any time we are 3rd and 5 or more, you know we are passing

 

[Tawney88]

Horse, meet cart. Yes, horse. It's that thing right in front of you.

How many times we gotta get this argument backwards before we see it coming?

If you don't like the topic, ignore it.

Personally I agree with the OPfrom the standpoint we quit running the ball at absolutely the wrong time on several occasions. It made no sense. I disagree when he says we have one of the best backs in the NFL. I'm not so sure Murray is anything special. That being said he and the line did their job when asked. The issue was the morons calling the plays don't have a clue how to manage a game.

 

[visionary]

You can keep believing that if you want to. I've never seen someone defend every single thing that the team does wrong. It's pointless. I bet I couldn't convince you that the Cowboys have been 8-8 for 3 years in a row. I bet I couldn't convince you that our vaunted passing attack and "productive" offense hasn't won us anything in a very long time!!!

cant reason with Garrett groupies

8-8
8-8
8-8

BUT "the arrow is pointed upward"

only in la-la-land is the arrow pointed upward even though you are flat lining

 

[Tawney88]

And that's because it doesn't make you win.

Our offense is productive.

in your mind it's all on the defense right? It doesn't matter if we had stay committed to the run in the Packers game we would have won. It was that dang defense.

 

[visionary]

And that's because it doesn't make you win.

Our offense is productive.

sounds like a "productive offense" does not have any correlation with winning because we are 8-8 despite a productive offense

 

[visionary]

in your mind it's all on the defense right? It doesn't matter if we had stay committed to the run in the Packers game we would have won. It was that dang defense.

"it" is whatever will absolve jerry and jason garrett off blame

whatever they dont have control over is "it"

wait, they have control over the entire roster and team

OK, then lets blame the injuries

 

[foofighters]

You don't need he other team's offense off the field if your own offense scores more points than theirs does each time it has the ball. All you need to do is throw it more effectively than they do. That's it.

The running game is for short yardage conversions, for getting you into effective downs and distances to keep converting, and for keeping you from passing ineffectively once you've got he lead. Anybody choosing to believe anything else is simply not watching games closely enough or misinterpreting completely what it is that wins them.

You're assuming that our offense will be consistent and productive. Our offense is very potent at times but it's not consistent at all and nothing I would count on. You have to take that also into consideration when game planning. You have to plan for what are well established patterns not isolated incidences.

 

[Idgit]

He can't pass if he doesn't have the ball.

You mean, in a situation where we haven't scored because we were "controlling" things? No thanks. Give me the points and then let's see if we can stop them.

 

[Idgit]

If you don't like the topic, ignore it.

Personally I agree with the OPfrom the standpoint we quit running the ball at absolutely the wrong time on several occasions. It made no sense. I disagree when he says we have one of the best backs in the NFL. I'm not so sure Murray is anything special. That being said he and the line did their job when asked. The issue was the morons calling the plays don't have a clue how to manage a game.

If I don't like the topic, I'll explain why, thanks.

How do you reconcile the productivity of the offense's points per drive this season with your opinion that there are morons without clues calling the plays? Or do you bother to? And how do you then view the performance of a defense that's been historically bad in some key areas that help you win football games?

We were 8-8, after all. It's not the case that everything was awful, all the time. No matter how it's characterized here during playoff game weekends when our fans rouse themselves up enough to throw themselves off emotional cliffs.

 

[Idgit]

in your mind it's all on the defense right? It doesn't matter if we had stay committed to the run in the Packers game we would have won. It was that dang defense.

We were playing them pretty well until the two backup middle linebackers went out, yeah. I think that had a lot more to do with our decision to try to keep scoring than our coach not knowing how to run the ball to put a game away.

That said, we blew an opportunity in the next last series to run time off the clock. No doubt about it, that was a mistake on offense.

The two late picks were bigger problems, and that's what I mean by 'effective passing.'

 

[Idgit]

You're assuming that our offense will be consistent and productive. Our offense is very potent at times but it's not consistent at all and nothing I would count on. You have to take that also into consideration when game planning. You have to plan for what are well established patterns not isolated incidences.

We're consistent enough in terms of points per series. Again, it's our absolutely porous pass defense that usually puts us in positions where we take chances and get beat. We'd see a lot more running and controlled passing if we were playing more often with comfortable leads.

 

[IrishAnto]

You mean, in a situation where we haven't scored because we were "controlling" things? No thanks. Give me the points and then let's see if we can stop them.

Is that you Mickey?

Why would controlling the clock preclude scoring?

 

[foofighters]

We're consistent enough in terms of points per series. Again, it's our absolutely porous pass defense that usually puts us in positions where we take chances and get beat. We'd see a lot more running and controlled passing if we were playing more often with comfortable leads.

And this is the problem. it seems like JG is ok with this. As long as he has a scapegoat, he's good. Why would we adjust our offensive theory to fit what the current state of the team is? Let's just keep things as is...this is the problem with the entire franchise and some of the fanbase has adopted this excuse as well.

We already know our D is horrible so why wouldn't we want to keep them off the field as much as possible? Instead, we're just happy using them as an excuse as to why we lose.

 

[Idgit]

Is that you Mickey?

Why would controlling the clock preclude scoring?

It doesn't preclude it, but it necessarily means you're shying away from the types of plays that actually win games.

Aggressive offenses want to score fast, and score quickly. That's what I want to see. I don't care about balance and only want to run the ball to get into high probability passing situations and to put games away.

Games are won on big plays these days and by staying out of third down situations when you can. That's primarily done by passing the ball and not turning it over.

 

[burmafrd]

when you have what was considered a contender for all time worst NFL Defense the only smart thing to do is to try and keep it off the field as much as possible.