Matt Cassel was as advertised

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
Who are you responding to?

Anyone whose eyesight is bad enough to think that the ground game was because of Cassel... they ran well in spite of Cassel. The Giants committed significant resources to stopping the run all game long, but they were bullied by the OL and McFadden. Cassel turned in easily the worst performance by a Cowboys QB this year, and it was made even worse by the fact that none of the other QBs had the running game going to help them out.
 

DallasCowboys2080

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,864
Reaction score
2,781
The long pick was horrible. On the out if Williams would have came back to the ball and fight for it, it wouldn't have been a pick. The one across the middle was a great play by the db.

what was said in the advertisement for this guy?

a feast or famine QB?
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,604
Reaction score
9,988
I edited my post I'm posting using my phone and misread your response. I contribute the running game today more on the way McFadden ran the ball and the blocking upfront not the downfield throwing. Simply can't win with a QB who's turning the ball over and a defense that's not forcing any.

You can not win with check down charlie, 3 losses hence the QB change.

I agree, you have to limit the turnovers but there is no doubt the passing game down field opened up the running attack.

We may be doomed with Cassel as well but at least he tries to win.
 

DallasCowboys2080

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,864
Reaction score
2,781
You can not win with check down charlie, 3 losses hence the QB change.

I agree, you have to limit the turnovers but there is no doubt the passing game down field opened up the running attack.

We may be doomed with Cassel as well but at least he tries to win.

what gets me is hearing people saying that cowboys should trade Cassel for Ryan Mallett.
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,604
Reaction score
9,988
Anyone whose eyesight is bad enough to think that the ground game was because of Cassel... they ran well in spite of Cassel. The Giants committed significant resources to stopping the run all game long, but they were bullied by the OL and McFadden. Cassel turned in easily the worst performance by a Cowboys QB this year, and it was made even worse by the fact that none of the other QBs had the running game going to help them out.

So magically they started playing well in the run game after a QB change, with a QB passing down field?

You need to get your eyes checked and your brain diagnosed.

I do not defend Cassel making poor decisions but it certainly opened up the running opportunities today.

Have you missed why people were calling for Weeden's replacement?
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,176
Reaction score
39,427
You can not win with check down charlie, 3 losses hence the QB change.

I agree, you have to limit the turnovers but there is no doubt the passing game down field opened up the running attack.

We may be doomed with Cassel as well but at least he tries to win.

I agree you can't win checking down all day but I still believe the running game would've been effective with a few more conservative throws. McFadden was pushing the pile on many of his runs. Had it not been for a couple of drops by Giant defenders Cassel would've had 5 INT's including another pick-six. On the Cowboys first scoring drive they had a 2nd and 3 and proceeded to throw it on the next two downs leading to a FG. They should've stayed with the running game in that situation.
 

JohnnyTheFox

Achilleslastand
Messages
10,418
Reaction score
20,132
what was said in the advertisement for this guy?

a feast or famine QB?

Heck if I know, I didn't see a advertisement for Cassel. Was it on TV or something. One pick was his fault, the other 2 the DB, just made a play and the other Williams ran a horrible route.
 

lostar2009

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,996
Reaction score
3,562
Cassel should've had 5 INT's in the game the Giants missed on a pick-six in the first half and dropped another sure INT that Cassel threw directly to the defender.

Yeah this team is doom. Seattle isn't going to play around.
 

DallasCowboys2080

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,864
Reaction score
2,781
Heck if I know, I didn't see a advertisement for Cassel. Was it on TV or something. One pick was his fault, the other 2 the DB, just made a play and the other Williams ran a horrible route.

was it a feast or famine advertisement with this guy?

i think i heard around here that he throws picks but sometimes he is magical?
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,604
Reaction score
9,988
I agree you can't win checking down all day but I still believe the running game would've been effective with a few more conservative throws. McFadden was pushing the pile on many of his runs. Had it not been for a couple of drops by Giant defenders Cassel would've had 5 INT's including another pick-six. On the Cowboys first scoring drive they had a 2nd and 3 and proceeded to throw it on the next two downs leading to a FG. They should've stayed with the running game in that situation.

Actually, we can not win at all checking it down all day, hence the QB change.

I agree that Cassel needed to make better decisions on some of those throws but he needs to continue to throw down field and simply be more judicious with his attempts.

It is not magic that the running game was all of a sudden working with a QB that was completing passes down field and failed miserably when we had a QB that could not stretch the field.

If Cassel fails to properly adjudicate the coverage we are doomed regardless, at least he tries to win, just needs to tighten up on his risk taking assessment and on that we agree.
 

DallasCowboys2080

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,864
Reaction score
2,781
Well then whats the problem?

nothing. as sheeety as a position we are in at our QB position Cassel is unfortunately our best option at this point. We can at least score more than just FGs with him. but i didnt see an official advertisement about the guy. i just wanted to see the official listing. apparently its floating around here somewhere.
 

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
So magically they started playing well in the run game after a QB change, with a QB passing down field?

You need to get your eyes checked and your brain diagnosed.

I do not defend Cassel making poor decisions but it certainly opened up the running opportunities today.

By that absurd logic, the Giants are more afraid of Cassel than Romo since we ran infinitely better today than we did earlier this year against them with both Tony and Dez on the field. The OL and backs just executed better. Please think before you post such silly things.

Cassel had zero effect on the running game. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you. The good news is I can't stop you from closing your eyes and going back to fantasy land or wherever it was you think you watched the game at.
 

Rogerthat12

DWAREZ
Messages
14,604
Reaction score
9,988
By that absurd logic, the Giants are more afraid of Cassel than Romo since we ran infinitely better today than we did earlier this year against them with both Tony and Dez on the field. The OL and backs just executed better. Please think before you post such silly things.

Cassel had zero effect on the running game. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you. The good news is I can't stop you from closing your eyes and going back to fantasy land or wherever it was you think you watched the game at.

Poor logic is assuming that by game one, the running game would be established when the line barely played together. You just built a straw man, more poor logic.

Think before you post anything.

You believe in the magical unicorn and that he somehow entered our RB's and OL, that is pure fantasy, much like your perspective.

Keep riding your magical unicorn but most of us are aware that the running game needed a passing threat to be effective, this game proved as much.

Super Kazuya: it makes sense now!

hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:

ConstantReboot

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,405
Reaction score
10,074
He was pretty mobile and accurate when he got his feet underneath him. He had some pretty decent passes.The problem is that he is too prone to throwing it while out of position, on the run, or off his back foot. He tries to throw into too many tight windows, but doesn't have the arm strength to do it anymore. All 3 of his passes were picked because of his lack of arm strength.

That lame duck throw to Williams was inexcusable. It looked like a punt.

The success of the running game was mainly due to having a guy capable of passing in the NFL, but there is a reason why he was a 3rd string QB in Buffalo. He tends to stare down receivers. His mistakes directly cost us the game, there is no doubt about it. You don't win many games in the NFL giving it up 3 times.

The success of the run game was because Dallas scrapped the RBBC (finally) and gave it to a runningback that was hot. This gave the oline to get into sync. I hope Dallas learned their lesson and not to be too reliant on Randle and see what other backs can do. Randle is nothing more than a change of pace back. He can't handle the workload.
 

Deep_South

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
3,653
I think McFadden won the starting job tonight. Randle can go back to his old job after he's well.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
62,176
Reaction score
39,427
Actually, we can not win at all checking it down all day, hence the QB change.

I agree that Cassel needed to make better decisions on some of those throws but he needs to continue to throw down field and simply be more judicious with his attempts.

It is not magic that the running game was all of a sudden working with a QB that was completing passes down field and failed miserably when we had a QB that could not stretch the field.

If Cassel fails to properly adjudicate the coverage we are doomed regardless, at least he tries to win, just needs to tighten up on his risk taking assessment and on that we agree.

If you go back to the first half of the Atlanta game that was the best the Cowboys have looked all season offensively and Weeden checked down and played it safe on most of his throws. Randle gashed the Falcons for 91 yards in the first half and on 3 different occasions the Cowboys held 14 point leads. The offense proceeded to sputter out in the second half leaving the defense on the field too long. Prior to McFadden taking over today the combination of Randle, Whitehead and Michael only produced 77 rushing yards. We were seeing pretty much what we had been seeing from the running game until McFadden became the workhorse. He was running hard and pushing piles. He pushed the pile for 8-9 yards on one play and 4 yards on another where it appeared he would come up short of the first down on a 3rd and short.

No question the Cowboys have to continue taking some shots down the field but Cassel's history hasn't been to be judicious with his throws which is why he's thrown a number INT's over his career. It's basically pick your poison with the backups the Cowboys are stuck with. If Cassel suffers several turnovers next week it wouldn't totally surprise me if the Cowboys give Kellen Moore a try. He has no regular season experience but if Cassel doesn't show some improvement and continues throwing picks the Cowboys may have no choice but to see what Moore can do. If the losses keep mounting the Cowboys may not be mathematically out of the playoff race when Romo returns but they'll be realistically out of it unless 7-8 wins takes the division.
 

links18

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,322
Reaction score
20,087
You wouldn't believe how many people were telling me that the INT to Williams (picked off at the 1-yard line) was Williams' fault.

Crazy.




YR

Danny White said it was Williams fault on whatever radio broadcast I was forced to listen to in the car.
 
Top