Played terribly

[Idgit]

In terms of play calling, I don't understand kicking to make it 17-16 or using times i7t when we did

Wasn't the other option at that point 4th and 10? You gotta make it fg-to-win it there, if you can.

I don't for the life of me understand the problem with how we used the timeouts on defense in that situation.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

First timeout was fine bit v when they made first down silly to use second one them in my view.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The way the offence wasnt moving ball to expect a second drive was too much in my view.

Don't understand kicking the FG there? There was plenty of time to get another FG attempt to win it.

 

[Tabascocat]

The way the offence wasnt moving ball to expect a second drive was too much in my view.

Sorry, but with three timeouts and over 3 mins left, kicking the FG was the only option. The defense was holding their own up to that point. I can only imagine Garrett going for it on 4th and not making a first while bypassing the FG. He would have taken a verbal beating from everyone.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

How can you get a verbal beating for trying to win?

 

[EPL0c0]

But hey even with bad play calling, two turnovers ans a couple of bad ref calls, we still almost won.

17th Consecutive game without a 100+yd rusher.

10 of last 17 games did not have a 50+yd rusher.

 

[jnday]

Disagree that the problem was the running game. Had we held onto the ball better, or taken it away, we'd have won with the 37 rushing yards.

You refuse to see the value of a rushing game in this offense. This is not Green Bay or their offense. Without a good rushing game, today's game is the result.

 

[Idgit]

You refuse to see the value of a rushing game in this offense. This is not Green Bay or their offense. Without a good rushing game, today's game is the result.

Actually, I see the value of a rushing game, and I don't overstate it. Today's game was the result of turning the ball over and not taking it away. It had very little to do with the effectiveness of either team's rushing games. It's actually a very good example of of opposite of what you're interpreting it to be.

Had we handled the protection properly in the 3rd quarter series in the red zone--where it looks like it might actually have been the running back missing a protection pickup on the open fade to Dez in the back corner of the end zone, or had Dez not taken his eyes off of the ball and broken that series wide open--very possibly scoring on that play, we'd have very likely won that game. Had we not turned it over twice and not taken it away at all, we'd have very likely won that game.

The reality is--like it usually is--passing ineffectiveness and turnovers on the road cost us a victory today. Instead, people are putting it on our rushing offense, of all things, and our OL and DL performances. I don't know what you guys are thinking, honestly.

 

[kramskoi]

Disagree that the problem was the running game. Had we held onto the ball better, or taken it away, we'd have won with the 37 rushing yards.

Turnover differential makes a difference on the road sure, but if the Cowboys run this year like they did last year then predicitionmachine.com's forecast for a 6-10 season will come to full fruition. This offense is too sloppy and continues to foist on itself too many self-inflicted wounds. The Cowboys ain't sniffing a SuperBowl without a potent ground game AND the will to use it as more of an assault than an abysmal, apathetic afterthought. File it away my friend and remind yourself that I told you so.

 

[kramskoi]

Actually, I see the value of a rushing game, and I don't overstate it. Today's game was the result of turning the ball over and not taking it away. It had very little to do with the effectiveness of either team's rushing games. It's actually a very good example of of opposite of what you're interpreting it to be.

Had we handled the protection properly in the 3rd quarter series in the red zone--where it looks like it might actually have been the running back missing a protection pickup on the open fade to Dez in the back corner of the end zone, or had Dez not taken his eyes off of the ball and broken that series wide open--very possibly scoring on that play, we'd have very likely won that game. Had we not turned it over twice and not taken it away at all, we'd have very likely won that game.

The reality is--like it usually is--passing ineffectiveness and turnovers on the road cost us a victory today. Instead, people are putting it on our rushing offense, of all things, and our OL and DL performances. I don't know what you guys are thinking, honestly.

I don't know how you think actually, because lack of a running game will put this offense on the shoulders of an already battered quarterback with shaky route running by receivers, protection breakdowns and unimaginative play-calling. 49 attempts week one, 42 attempts week two and the consensus is that Romo is hamstrung either by design or disbelief. He played remarkably clean, except for the extremely poor pocket awareness on the strip sack. It looked like 2006 all over again actually. Lethargic and lackadaisical when it should be laconic and lethal, the offense has a penchant for poor starts and Romo's reticence is betrayed by his propensity for the check-down. What years of offensive-line neglect has done for his mechanics and decision-making has to be something approach traumatic stress disorder of a heinous order. I have long since acquiesced to what the Cowboys are not under Garrett, a legitimate contender that doesn't dissolve into the NFL's favorite punch-line by mid-season. Is there hope for something different this year? Maybe, but you know what they say about pigs and lipstick!

 

[jens kuehne]

run game 2013
This season alone he has 111 rushing yards on 32 attempts (3.5 per) in two games. DeMarco Murray
Further evidence against Murray is his running style. It seems he prefers to hit rather then to avoid. Unfortunately, he sometimes “hits” the backsides of his own offensive lineman, and can’t “avoid” getting knocked down
DeMarco Murray plays like a 3rd pick no more no less
Phillip Tanner 1 run 1 fum
Lance Dunbar 1 rec 1 fum
next 8 games all team play better as the boys (1-9 horror scenario I do not want this)
the same procedure as every year miss sophie

jens from leipzig germany

 

[jnday]

Actually, I see the value of a rushing game, and I don't overstate it. Today's game was the result of turning the ball over and not taking it away. It had very little to do with the effectiveness of either team's rushing games. It's actually a very good example of of opposite of what you're interpreting it to be.

Had we handled the protection properly in the 3rd quarter series in the red zone--where it looks like it might actually have been the running back missing a protection pickup on the open fade to Dez in the back corner of the end zone, or had Dez not taken his eyes off of the ball and broken that series wide open--very possibly scoring on that play, we'd have very likely won that game. Had we not turned it over twice and not taken it away at all, we'd have very likely won that game.

The reality is--like it usually is--passing ineffectiveness and turnovers on the road cost us a victory today. Instead, people are putting it on our rushing offense, of all things, and our OL and DL performances. I don't know what you guys are thinking, honestly.

Do you even realize how many more games this team would have won over the last few years with a decent rushing attack? It is easy for a defense when they are facing a one dimensional offense. The Cowboys offense is now limited to a short passing game. They can't run the ball and the defense just keeps the completed passes in front of them. Not really hard to defend.