"Dallas can't cover the entire field."

[VACowboy]

Ok...

I've heard at least a half dozen "experts" say this and cite it as a reason for predicting a Seattle win. What the hell does it mean and why can't the Cowboys do it while everyone else evidently does?

 

[SupermanXx]

I guess it takes more than shutting down the #1 offense 2 weeks in a row for some *******s to tip their hat

in the words of Nick Van Exel of the Dallas Mavericks during their 2003 Western Conference Finals berth, "F 'em"

 

[VACowboy]

I really don't know what it means and I'm curious. Which part of the field can't the Cowboys defend and why is it impossible for them?

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

I guess it takes more than shutting down the #1 offense 2 weeks in a row for some *******s to tip their hat.

What I find funny is two things:

First: When media people pick Seattle to beat us they follow it up with "...because they're the #1 offense in the NFL". They make no mention that the only reason Seattle is the best offense in the NFL is because Dallas knocked off the NFL's former best offenses to pave the way for Seattle to have the distinction.

Second: All we hear is that Dallas can't cover the whole field. Hello!!!! Seattle just lost their starting free safety - and the guy who calls their defensive plays - to a stupid bar fight. They lost their signal caller and the only guy on their defense that can cover with grit. So who can't cover who? And the fact that his stupidity has been nothing but a distraction for Seattle is easily overlooked when it may be the mai reason they lose to Dallas.

**

 

[baj1dallas]

Face it guys, there's no way the Cowboys can keep Seattle from going backwards.


That's just too much field to cover.

 

[JDSmith]

Face it guys, there's no way the Cowboys can keep Seattle from going backwards.


That's just too much field to cover.

It's true, our coverage behind the offense is pretty woeful. We hardly ever get a guy more than 5 or 6 yards behind the LoS, everything after that is just open field. Frankly, if we have to cover the whole thing I think we need more players.

 

[Ashwynn]

It's true, our coverage behind the offense is pretty woeful. We hardly ever get a guy more than 5 or 6 yards behind the LoS, everything after that is just open field. Frankly, if we have to cover the whole thing I think we need more players.

I have to agree. But then I was very impressed with Newmans speed in the Philly game, I think if Brunell started running backwards for a huge .....would that be a gain or a loss, in any event, even with the head start, Newman could catch Brunell in their endzone for the safety.

What a joke....Well I guess if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best every single week. Az better get cranking if they are gunna be the best offense next week.

 

[Hoov]

i think our wr's and TE beter than theirs

I think Bledsoe better than hasselback

I think our secondary better than theirs

I think our pass rush better than theirs

And so why doesnt the article talk about Seattle cant cover the whole field ??

If anyone should be worried about stopping a passing attack it should be seattle worried about stopping us.

 

[TheHustler]

It's true, our coverage behind the offense is pretty woeful. We hardly ever get a guy more than 5 or 6 yards behind the LoS, everything after that is just open field. Frankly, if we have to cover the whole thing I think we need more players.

Yep, 100 yards x 50(?) yards = 500 square yards. That's a LOT of field to cover.

 

[doomsday_II]

Ok...

I've heard at least a half dozen "experts" say this and cite it as a reason for predicting a Seattle win. What the hell does it mean and why can't the Cowboys do it while everyone else evidently does?

Because on MNF Dallas gets burned on two long plays and in the Oakland game the first Moss reception. For some reason, those three plays have stuck in the media's head that we can't cover the field. Those plays are looking more and more like an abberation than a trend so let the media keep yapping it up. It can only help our cause if everyone else is misinformed.

 

[Jarv]

We have Pile now !

 

[The Fonz]

We have Pile now !

u mean Gomer Pyle

 

[big dog cowboy]

You don't have to cover the entire field now that Ware is figuring out how to get to the QB.

 

[lspain1]

We have Pile now !

This thread seems to have a large Pile as well.

 

[StateCollegeCowboy]

Yep, 100 yards x 50(?) yards = 500 square yards. That's a LOT of field to cover.

I think the field is 60 yards wide.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

I think the field is 60 yards wide.

53 yds from side line to side line,, 100 yds from goal line to goal line

 

[kiheikiwi]

Play 8-men in the box, stop, or at least contain Alexander, and force Hasselback to throw. Our secondary against their back up receivers, we win.Both their starting receivers are out, so make them throw.
Shut down their running game, turn loose the hounds (ware and co.) and thats all she wrote.

 

[Hoffa]

I think they mean like on that play late in the 2nd half when Shockey was WIDE OPEN.. we always seem to give up plays like that at the worst times.

 

[VirusX]

Mark it, Big game for witten!

 

[silverbear]

Ok...

I've heard at least a half dozen "experts" say this and cite it as a reason for predicting a Seattle win. What the hell does it mean and why can't the Cowboys do it while everyone else evidently does?

Good thing they don't need to cover the whole field, just the parts where there are Seahawks...