Shortcomings were clearly on display last night

[kevm3]

Why did this game 'expose' us and not the Steelers, Philly, or other close games we had? The Vikings are a tough defense and tough defenses make offenses look bad.

 

[haleyrules]

lol. Yes, what an exposure....11-1.

 

[Dodger12]

Still don't understand what I meant by mutual exclusivity. Keep parroting yourself blithely though. It is funny.

Protip: I am not the one trying to deduct. That would be you.

 

[Stash]

So who is his replacement?

My fingers are crossed that Green will finally be available as an option.

 

[Idgit]

I chalk a lot of it up to timely penalties, fumbles, and 3 games in 11 days.

I do, too. And that defense that makes you commit penalties, fumble, and generally look like it's tough to execute. We can't blow out everybody.

 

[Idgit]

This place is going to implode when we lose our next game. We''re gonna need to go 18-1 to appease the natives.

Can you imagine the weak links that would have been exposed if we'd have actually *lost* to the Vikes?

 

[black label]

BTW, you all realize the story of this game is that our offense was shut down in the second half and we were going to lose this game except that defense and special teams kept us in it? Thanks to a turnover caused by the kick coverage unit, our offense scored it's only TD of the 2nd half on a gift from the ST.

So you dont have any concerns that we let a putrid offense (one of the worst in the nfl) march tight up the field and score a touchdown in the last 2 minutes of the game?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anti-intellectual I see.

Pro tip: nothing speaks to someone knowing they are losing an argument moreso than relying completely on ad hominem.

Enjoy your ignorance and inability to deduct logically.

 

[Dodger12]

Anti-intellectual I see.

Pro tip: nothing speaks to someone knowing they are losing an argument moreso than relying completely on ad hominem.

Enjoy your ignorance and inability to deduct logically.

Pro tip: Nothing speaks more to someone knowing they are losing an argument then saying stupid non-sense.

 

[Clove]

So you dont have any concerns that we let a putrid offense (one of the worst in the nfl) march tight up the field and score a touchdown in the last 2 minutes of the game?

We gave up 15 points on their turf. Had Dak dove instead of slid, we give up 9 points.

 

[drawandstrike]

So you dont have any concerns that we let a putrid offense (one of the worst in the nfl) march tight up the field and score a touchdown in the last 2 minutes of the game?

The great teams find a way to win the game when their usual game plan has been set on fire.

We have such a team, yes.

 

[drawandstrike]

What defense is our offense supposed to be scared of at this point? We won't play Minnesota again. We've already faced the Ravens.

Yards surrendered, the Cardinals have the best stats but they ain't making the playoffs at 4-6.
The Broncos? We wouldn't see them until the Super Bowl.

Patriots are 14th in the league in defense, the Raiders are an abysmal 29th, 11 spots worse than our own defense in yards surrendered.

Who are we supposed to be scared of? Seattle? You can make that argument, they do have a top ten defense. They rank 7th in yards given up.

Teams in the top 10 we already beat this year: Eagles, Vikings and Ravens. Are we really supposed to be that scared of Seattle?

The Giants defense is only TWO spots ahead of ours. We're ranked 18th in the league in overall defensive stats; the Giants are 16th. Are they really THAT much better, a team we should fear?

The Vikings defense forced us out of our game plan for this season. It took a ST turnover for us to win that game. Who sees that happening again in the next 4 games vs. the Giants, Bucs, Lions and Eagles? I don't.

Seattle has a SHOT at replicating what Minnesota did. I don't see anybody else left on the schedule or in the playoffs that could do it until if/when we face the Broncos in the Super Bowl.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pro tip: Nothing speaks more to someone knowing they are losing an argument then saying stupid non-sense.

Nonsense is not hyphenated and you not understanding a thing does not make it so.

In your own words explain how mutually exclusivity is important in making a deduction. If that is nonsense then explain what is not reasonable.

Then with that knowledge demonstrated, explain how your assertion that the Cowboys got lucky in selecting selecting Prescott deducts Wilson and the other Cowboys coaches' role in developing Prescott.

 

[Dodger12]

Nonsense is not hyphenated and you not understanding a thing does not make it so.

In your own words explain how mutually exclusivity is important in making a deduction. If that is nonsense then explain what is not reasonable.

Then with that knowledge demonstrated, explain how your assertion that the Cowboys got lucky in selecting selecting Prescott deducts Wilson and the other Cowboys coaches' role in developing Prescott.

"Mutually exclusivity?" I think when you want to correct people's grammar that you should come correct with yours. You must mean "mutual exclusivity" or "mutually exclusive."

I'm trying to help you.....you've gone off the reservation.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"Mutually exclusivity?" I think when you want to correct people's grammar that you should come correct with yours. You must mean "mutual exclusivity" or "mutually exclusive."

I'm trying to help you.....you've gone off the reservation.

The suffix -ity is used to create an abstract noun as opposed to a adjective or adverb. "The role mutual exclusive makes" makes no sense as it has no subject in the clause. More ignorance on display by the dodger.

Your name is apt. You are only trying to dodge. Still waiting for you to explain what mutual exclusivity is and the role it should play in deductions.

 

[DoomsDayD]

At least we know (HOPEFULLY) that DEFENSE will be a priority for this team.

 

[Dodger12]

The suffix -ity is used to create an abstract noun as opposed to a adjective or adverb. "The role mutual exclusive makes" makes no sense as it has no subject in the clause. More ignorance on display by the dodger.

Your name is apt. You are only trying to dodge. Still waiting for you to explain what mutual exclusivity is and the role it should play in deductions.

Who said "mutual exclusive?" Not you. It's "mutual exclusivity" or "mutually exclusive." I'm trying to help you man. Stop digging.

And is "an adjective," not "a adjective." The general rule for indefinite articles is to use "a" before consonants and "an" before vowels.

Once again, I'm trying to help you. It makes you look foolish to bring up grammar then be so bad at it professor.

And you can't be serious with your question on a Cowboy's message board. It's absurd. Are you trying to have the thread closed?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who said "mutual exclusive?" Not you. It's "mutual exclusivity" or "mutually exclusive." I'm trying to help you man. Stop digging.

And is "an adjective," not "a adjective." The general rule for indefinite articles is to use "a" before consonants and "an" before vowels.

Once again, I'm trying to help you. It makes you look foolish to bring up grammar then be so bad at it professor.

And you can't be serious with your question on a Cowboy's message board. It's absurd. Are you trying to have the thread closed?

And you are resorting to minutiae entirely. You going to address your deduction or you going to continue to ignore the argument you have no answer for?