MM was very good today

[gimmesix]

3. Call challenge at 4th and 1 at the 20 yard line. I don't know how some of you missed the brilliance here. The plan was to fake a 4th down play, see if the defense will jump offsides as offense rushes to the line, then throw the challenge at 1 second left on play clock. Again, everything to gain nothing to lose situation. Dallas didnt need that time out. It was close enough to review so why NOT try to get Carolina to jump offsides? Well done MM.

This is actually a decent point. We did go up to the line and try to draw them offsides first, then McCarthy threw the challenge flag knowing that he was going to have to burn a timeout anyway. I hadn't thought about that, but it seems pretty obvious now that that's what he was doing on that play. Why just call the timeout when you can challenge the previous play since you're not snapping the ball anyway?

 

[Maxmadden]

Lol it’s not chasing points. It’s more efficient to go for two. .96 points (2 point conversion) versus .94 points (extra point). You guys REALLY have to get a grasp on the math behind these moves.

Carolina SHOULD have went for two as early as they possibly could so they would know what they needed if they were able to claw their way back in the game as it came down to the wire. This is the same damn thing MM did against ATL last year and it was the right thing to do.

It’s all about the math.

It doesn't matter on this board whether you go with the odds or go against them there will always be numbnuts on this board and they are the most vocal.

 

[tyke1doe]

Nah, you play to win. We won.

You do. But those situations had nothing to do with us winning. We basically had to OVERCOME them to win.
Going for two and not making it becomes IRRELEVANT if you win.
As does throwing three interceptions, fumbling the ball before you enter the end zone, turning it over to the other team.
As the saying goes, winning hides many warts.
I'll take the win. Doesn't mean it was a well-coached game by Mike McCarthy.
As I said in another thread, Dak was doing this before MM got here. MM wanted to keep Mike Nolan because of MM's loyalty to Nolan.
Jerry FORCED Mike McCarthy to change defensive coordinators. I have no doubt in my mind that had Jerry not done so, Nolan would still be with the Cowboys talking about it takes a year to learn his system and now he expects his players to excel.
As for Kellen Moore, MM had no decision in that matter. So, the offense is in the hands of KM, NOT MM.
So, please, tell me where his decision-making has won us a game? He's been clueless with clock management, which is his decision.
Other than that, I really don't have a feel for him or how he has made his presence known.
The defense is Quinn's doing; the offense is a veteran Dak Prescott and his relationship with Moore, which even McCarthy acknowledges.
The special teams are Fassel's, if I'm not mistaken.
And the press conferences and announcements are Jerry's domain.
So what is MM's unique stamp on this team?

 

[Maxmadden]

This is where I sit, the call that irked me was declining the penalty. He was much better today than the previous weeks.

All I know is that Garrett would not have this team at 3-1 after these opponents. I trust in MM until I don’t

What are the odds that a team will stop the opposing team on a 3rd and 12. IDK, but they should be pretty good and it shows the players that the coach has faith in them. The return would have been worth the risk. In hindsight 2nd and 23 would have changed the time continuum and changed history. We'll never know.

I can easily see a 2nd down screen picking 15 yards and you have to play another down and stop a 3rd and 8. I think he just wanted to give his defense a good shot to get off the field on one down.

 

[cowboyec]

It wasn't just Diggs. Osa and Gregory both sat. Were they hurt too?

i don't know.
we won.
thats all i need to know.

 

[Tabascocat]

What are the odds that a team will stop the opposing team on a 3rd and 12. IDK, but they should be pretty good and it shows the players that the coach has faith in them. The return would have been worth the risk. In hindsight 2nd and 23 would have changed the time continuum and changed history. We'll never know.

I can easily see a 2nd down screen picking 15 yards and you have to play another down and stop a 3rd and 8. I think he just wanted to give his defense a good shot to get off the field on one down.

I see that side too but I like having their backs to the endzone there, more prone to a mistake and maybe get a cheap defensive TD. It was not a bonehead decision by any means…..

 

[cowboyec]

MM is an idiot. Plain and simple. Its like he has never played the game before.

bull.

 

[Maxmadden]

I see that side too but I like having their backs to the endzone there, more prone to a mistake and maybe get a cheap defensive TD. It was not a bonehead decision by any means…..

Yeah, I don't know the right answer I can see the value in either call.

 

[Verdict]

Sitting starters on defense and letting the other team make it close was horrible.

That part was a bit puzzling.

 

[ESisback]

All you haters need to sit down. MM had issues the first two weeks, but this week he was on point. 3 vivid examples where many on here just don't get it. Let me mansplain to you.

1. 2 yard conversion at the 1 yard line. So far this year MM is pulling a page from Peterson's first year and championship year with Philly. Be aggressive always and instill 100% confidence in your offense and defense. Dallas had already completed a 4th and 2 in their own territory (be aggressive always there is nothing to lose because there is a 31 in 32 chance you aren't going to win the SB anyway, so why WOULDN'T you play to win all the time?). Kellen opts to pass to TE instead of run Zeke to the left away from the linebackers on a dive play. Dak chooses not to audible out of that pass to the run and pass fails by 1 frame of the camera review. MM made the right call. Dallas needs to believe they can get 1 yard anywhere at anytime.

2. Second 2 point conversion try. This is SIMPLE. You have nothing to gain by losing this point and everything to gain. In these situations you always go for it.

3. Call challenge at 4th and 1 at the 20 yard line. I don't know how some of you missed the brilliance here. The plan was to fake a 4th down play, see if the defense will jump offsides as offense rushes to the line, then throw the challenge at 1 second left on play clock. Again, everything to gain nothing to lose situation. Dallas didnt need that time out. It was close enough to review so why NOT try to get Carolina to jump offsides? Well done MM.

MM was on point today.

But how could he POSSIBLY be right about ANYTHING? He’s overweight! Fat guys are stupid! No willpower, common sense, logic or knowledge! Nothing! Useless!

 

[ESisback]

That part was a bit puzzling.

I’ve heard Diggs was hurting.

 

[Zman5]

It wasn't just Diggs. Osa and Gregory both sat. Were they hurt too?

Gregory said he hurt his oblique in a interview with Jane Slater.

 

[Clove]

It's fun jumping on coaches and trashing everything they do. That's the American way. I'm a MM believer myself.

 

[Pantone282C]

 

[JD_KaPow]

First, you DO NOT chase points that early. We should have kicked the extra point. We didn't and we didn't convert.
That put us behind at half-time. Fortunately, we had a monster third quarter, thus making the extra point irrelevant. But, ordinarily speaking, you kick the extra point in that case.

Absolutely not. If they give you the ball at the one, you should always go for 2 (barring obvious late game situations).

Second, the other 2 point conversion try was unnecessary because if you don't make it, you, again, are in the position of chasing points. You only go for two when you need the two to tie the game.

The other 2-point conversion attempt was also correct. The benefit of a 13-point lead over a 12-point lead is tiny that late in the game. But the benefit of a 14-point lead over a 13- or 12-point lead is huge.

That's what the Panthers were thinking at 36-21. They would have had to go for two if they had closed the gap at 36-28. Then the next score makes it 36-34. If they go for it before then and fail to convert, it's a three score game instead of a two score game.

The Panthers erred by not going for 2 when they reached 36-27. There were four and a half minutes left. Kicking the XP leaves them 8 points back, meaning they don't know if they are one or two scores behind, which makes it impossible for them to know how to manage the kickoffs and the clock. By going for 2 there, they would know whether they needed one possession or two possessions, allowing them to make more informed decisions.

 

[tyke1doe]

Absolutely not. If they give you the ball at the one, you should always go for 2 (barring obvious late game situations).The other 2-point conversion attempt was also correct. The benefit of a 13-point lead over a 12-point lead is tiny that late in the game. But the benefit of a 14-point lead over a 13- or 12-point lead is huge.

The first two points I'm not going to argue because they proved to be irrelevant. The Cowboys were able to overcome them by outscoring the Panthers in the third quarter. I still hold that it was the wrong decision because it put us behind going in at half time when we didn't have to be. That is the only thing we can prove. Hence, based on a situation where it is more favorable to be tied or ahead than behind, I think this settles this argument.

The Panthers erred by not going for 2 when they reached 36-27. There were four and a half minutes left. Kicking the XP leaves them 8 points back, meaning they don't know if they are one or two scores behind, which makes it impossible for them to know how to manage the kickoffs and the clock. By going for 2 there, they would know whether they needed one possession or two possessions, allowing them to make more informed decisions.

Uh no. If they go for two and fail, it's a two-score game instead of the possibility of tying the game with a two-point conversion. All else is irrelevant. If the Cowboys score again, the point is moot because it becomes a two score game anyway.

The best opportunity for it to be a one-score game is if the Panthers score (which they did), kick the extra point (36-28, which they did) then score again and go for two (36-36). If they miss the two point conversion, then it's (36-27), and they need two scores. They did the right thing. They just didn't get the ball back.

 

[ESisback]

Some good points all around! I just find it amusing that some folks describe other teams differently when they win. Opponents usually win because they made the right decision, asserted themselves, had a good game plan, etc., etc. When the Cowboys win, it’s because they got lucky, and/or the opponents made an uncharacteristic error. Some will never just say ‘wow, this team looks good!’

 

[JD_KaPow]

Uh no. If they go for two and fail, it's a two-score game instead of the possibility of tying the game with a two-point conversion.

But none of this makes any sense. If they miss the 2-point conversion, it's a two-score game WHENEVER they miss it. It doesn't matter if they miss it early or late, it's still a 2-score game. The only difference is when you know it.

The best opportunity for it to be a one-score game is if the Panthers score (which they did), kick the extra point (36-28, which they did) then score again and go for two (36-36).

No. The ONLY (not just the "best") way for it to be a one-score game is to make a 2-point conversion. Period. It makes no difference when they make it, the outcome is the same. If they make it, they need one score. If they miss it, they need two. The only difference is that if you go for it early, you know earlier whetehr you need one or two scores and can plan accordingly.

If they miss the two point conversion, then it's (36-27), and they need two scores. They did the right thing. They just didn't get the ball back.

If they kick the XP and then miss the two-point conversion later, it's 36-34 and they need one more possession. Except they probably didn't play for two possessions and so they have no time left for that second possession. The whole point is that if you try it with 4 and a half minutes left, you can adjust your plan based on the knowledge you gain.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Some good points all around! I just find it amusing that some folks describe other teams differently when they win. Opponents usually win because they made the right decision, asserted themselves, had a good game plan, etc., etc. When the Cowboys win, it’s because they got lucky, and/or the opponents made an uncharacteristic error. Some will never just say ‘wow, this team looks good!’

Yeah, it's the same thing with "learning how to win," and "changing the culture," and "winning attitude." What about, they have better players and coaching this year and that's why they're winning? Why do we have to attribute things to the mental health of players instead of just noticing that Diggs and Parsons and Osa and the defensive scheme are better than what we had last year, and our offense is healthier than last year, and we're winning because we have a good team with good players?

 

[tyke1doe]

But none of this makes any sense. If they miss the 2-point conversion, it's a two-score game WHENEVER they miss it. It doesn't matter if they miss it early or late, it's still a 2-score game. The only difference is when you know it.

Sure it does. If you miss it earlier, you have less time to make up the two scores. Games are about time. If time isn't a factor, neither is WHENEVER you go for it.

No. The ONLY (not just the "best") way for it to be a one-score game is to make a 2-point conversion. Period. It makes no difference when they make it, the outcome is the same. If they make it, they need one score. If they miss it, they need two. The only difference is that if you go for it early, you know earlier whetehr you need one or two scores and can plan accordingly.

Again, because time is an issue, you want to go for the two-points when you can tie the score. If you go for it early and miss, it gives you less time if you need two scores. Planning accordingly means waiting until you absolutely must go for the two points to tie the score. I think you basically argued my point.

If they kick the XP and then miss the two-point conversion later, it's 36-34 and they need one more possession.

Uh, yeah. But at least they have an opportunity at games end to tie the game. If they go for two earlier and miss it, it's 36-33 and they have NO TIME to take the lead or tie the game.

Don't you realize you're arguing my point?

Except they probably didn't play for two possessions and so they have no time left for that second possession. The whole point is that if you try it with 4 and a half minutes left, you can adjust your plan based on the knowledge you gain.

Game plans compensate for time too. If you have four minutes left, you don't go for it then because your hope is that your defense stops the opponent, you score and you have time to tie the game. If you go for two with four minutes left and fail, you basically screwed yourself because you now need two scores, and you don't have enough time.