Michael Irvin thinks he knows exactly why the Cowboys lost to the Packers in the playoffs

[black label]

Confirming what I've said all along. I'd extend that to even how they handled Zeke Elliott. It showed the same coward gender fluid safe space mindset.

Our coward coach blinked in the 2nd half of the Detroit game. The season was lost there. And much to the applause of many fans who didn't want to wisk our players getting huwt and stuff.

Coach of the year? Puh-leaze. He should have been fired the day after the playoff loss.

 

[Proof]

Generally, they were one of the healthiest teams all year long. Look at what other teams had to deal with. Dallas got lucky this year.

I don't count the Collins injury because Ron Leary was a significant improvement at RG.

I disagree, and your thoughts on Collins kinda sum up my thoughts on it. It seems like the injuries Dallas suffered this year were discounted by most because they did well in spite of them

"Played better without Dez"

"Tyron? Cmon man that's the best line in the league "

"Leary is better than Collins "

"Scandrick missing time showed what Anthony Brown could do "

"Irving plays better when Lawrence is out"

I mean I get it, and I understand, but that's not health or luck. It's next man up, and for once it paid off.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

No Irvin isn't wrong. You like to cherry pick certain games but for every game you can show I can show the opposite.

This team didn't play to win for 3 weeks. To think that had nothing to do with losing to GB is silly and wrong

To think that not playing in week 17 had to do with losing is silly and wrong.

See how that works?

There isn't a cherry picking. There isn't a method that works better than the other. There's plenty of teams that rest their guys week 17 and go onto win their first playoff matchup and there's also plenty of teams that do play week 17 and win their first matchup. It goes both ways. So for Irvin to state the reason for us losing is because we didn't go hard against the Eagles is wrong whether you choose to accept it or not.

The Cowboys have come out flat in both scenarios. Playing hard week 17 and not playing hard has both yielded divisional round exits.

 

[Idgit]

Had we played all our starters week 17 i'm sure we'd have had a better pass rush or something.

Because they'd have stayed hungry. One of the big things I remember hearing players say after the loss was that they weren't hungry and that they wanted a coach like Belichick instead of a coach like Garrett for that reason.

 

[erod]

I disagree, and your thoughts on Collins kinda sum up my thoughts on it. It seems like the injuries Dallas suffered this year were discounted by most because they did well in spite of them

"Played better without Dez"

"Tyron? Cmon man that's the best line in the league "

"Leary is better than Collins "

"Scandrick missing time showed what Anthony Brown could do "

"Irving plays better when Lawrence is out"

I mean I get it, and I understand, but that's not health or luck. It's next man up, and for once it paid off.

You're only looking in our backyard.

The Packers were DESTROYED by injuries this year. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Seattle....there were a lot of teams that had terrible injury issues.

Did Tyron miss games? No. Scandrick is not that good anyway. Lawrence has never established himself as anything special. Dez has three routes, and played most of the season. Leary is VASTLY better than Collins.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Because they'd have stayed hungry. One of the big things I remember hearing players say after the loss was that they weren't hungry and that they wanted a coach like Belichick instead of a coach like Garrett for that reason.

Definitely saw a lot of full looking players after the game. Not even caring about the outcome. I have never heard any of our players talk about the day to day grind that is the process of getting better. All I hear about is players complaining about not getting paid and waiting for an offseason of partying. Disgusting. And all because we rested injured players and very heavily used RBs week 17.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

i think there was a middle ground here. We could have left Romo, other starters, and McFadden in and still competed. Once we went Sanchez it was throwing in the towel kind of mentality.

I agree with that.

I don't think sitting Elliot was a problem– He played darned well vs. the Packers.

 

[Proof]

You're only looking in our backyard.

The Packers were DESTROYED by injuries this year. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Seattle....there were a lot of teams that had terrible injury issues.

Did Tyron miss games? No. Scandrick is not that good anyway. Lawrence has never established himself as anything special. Dez has three routes, and played most of the season. Leary is VASTLY better than Collins.

of course I'm only looking in our backyard when discussing (and illustrating) the injuries the team dealt with. Seems sensible and kinda like what should be done lol. I also never said they were the most injured team in the league so highlighting a couple of other teams really doesn't move my needle. Obviously Green Bay was VERY depleted, but aside from that I'm not really buying the other teams you listed whatsoever, and not against the list I already made for us.

You are actually proving my point for my by discrediting the guys that were injured for us so flippantly, as if the same thing couldn't be said for nearly every other team. Along with being incorrect about Tyron missing two games.

We were banged up ALL year, just persevered. That deserves praise, not denial.

 

[thechosen1n2]

The Patriots didn't do what the Cowboys did. That's the point.

I was speaking of only the 1st round bye. I dont watch the patriots. I wasnt aware if they played all out week 16 or not. Evidently I spoke to soon, I stand corrected.

 

[thechosen1n2]

I agree with that.

I don't think sitting Elliot was a problem– He played darned well vs. the Packers.

I think the biggest problem was not that we werent "ready". I think the Packers got timely and bogus penalties in their favor. The times we got stops or made big plays early on, a flag went against us on offense and defense.

 

[percyhoward]

You want the defense to perform...but last offseason you're on record saying go offense at 4 because Zeke would have the 'most impact.'

People who loved the Elliott pick got exactly what they wanted -- a RB to lead the league in rushing yards, another great year of offensive TOP, and a defense that didn't have to spend much time on the field.

Why didn't it work? Must be the head coach. You know, the same head coach from last year.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think the biggest problem was not that we werent "ready". I think the Packers got timely and bogus penalties in their favor. The times we got stops or made big plays early on, a flag went against us on offense and defense.

Agreed.

The way the defense was floundering out there at the beginning it was clear they weren't ready. But even the offense... starting off with FG, P, P it wasn't sharp either.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

People who loved the Elliott pick got exactly what they wanted -- a RB to lead the league in rushing yards, another great year of offensive TOP, and a defense that didn't have to spend much time on the field.

Why didn't it work? Must be the head coach. You know, the same head coach from last year.

What's that they say.... Definition of insanity?

 

[TheHerd]

Absolutely maddening. The most important down in football and your best runner, receiver and blocker out of the backfield is on the bench.

To think grown men sat around a table and came to this conclusion as the best approach to take baffles me.

Very well paid grown men.

 

[haleyrules]

Mike talks a lot of baloney. But, he is right about that Eagles game. Garrett should have played to win he has no guts and should have been sacked after the 4-12 season.