The Outcome of the Packers Game Was Unchangeable?

[jobberone]

I think the only problem with this is you can't say the rest of the game would have flowed the same way time wise. I do agree with the premise that they should have run the ball more. They made a few time management mistakes that in all likelihood cost them the game. But that's an assumption.

 

[17yearsandcounting]

The Packers players couldnt even believe what the Cowboys coaching staff was doing in the second half.

 

[physeter]

The only people that think the GB game was unwinnable are the Garrett homers that cant admit he botched yet another game.

400 teams managed to win games like GB, except Garrett.....................just like no team in NFL history ever lost a home game scoring 48 points, until Garrett pulled it off.

Do you guys realize how many "first time in NFL history XYZ has happened" under Garrett?

And this coaching staff has another year to add more of this records....

 

[Nightman]

In an earlier thread, which has now dropped off the forum's front page, it was stated that the outcome of the Packers game was inevitable based on the defense's inability to slow down Green Bay's offense in the second half. I disagree.

Time between plays will be 40 seconds from the end of a given play until the snap of the ball for the next play, or a 25-second interval after certain administrative stoppages and game delays

Green Bay scored their decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter.

Game situation 1 of 4: (3rd Quarter) Dallas has the ball on 2nd and 5 at the Packer 36 following a DeMarco Murray five yard run. Pass play results in an incompletion. Clock stops. 40 seconds elapses if Dallas elects to run the ball for a 3rd and short or 1st down opportunity.

Game situation 2 of 4: (3rd Quarter) It is 2nd and 10 on the Dallas 15 yard line following a first down pass incompletion. Clock stops. The prospect of a possible 3rd and short play happens if Murray carries the ball and runs an additional 40 seconds off the clock.

Game situation 3 of 4: (4th Quarter) Murray runs five yards on first down to make it 2nd and 5 at the Dallas 25. Clock is running. Dallas elects to pass and Romo is intercepted. While the play was overturned upon review, the clock has been stopped. Another 40 seconds ticks off if Dallas ran the ball on second down.

Game situation 4 of 4: (4th Quarter) With the Cowboys still holding the lead, Dallas elects to pass at their 35-yard line on 2nd and 6 and Romo is intercepted again. If Dallas had run for third and short or better, 40 seconds more slips from the Packers' grasp.

Total probable time which could have been taken off the game clock by running the ball only four more times during the game:

2 minutes 40 seconds.

Again, Green Bay scored the decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter. That's one minute 34 seconds. Executing only four run plays in place of four pass plays, in reasonable down and distance situations, regardless of result minus fumbling, could have changed the outcome of the game in Dallas' favor. Greater time of possession for Dallas would have been the difference in the end.

Why were some observers calling for Garrett to run the ball more during the second half to protect the lead? Good question.

You pick 4 incomplete passes to test your theory. What about all those completed passes that led to 10 second half points. Some of those passes could have been running plays as well and maybe they don't pick up enough yards to get a first down, let alone scoring points. You can't run out the clock for the entire second half.

Dallas had scored on 8 of their first 10 drives and you still want blame the offense and Garrett. The DEFENSE lost the game, it should have never been that close. They let up 5 straight TD scoring drives, totaling over 320 yds and it took less than 15 minutes of game time. Just because Aikman was parroting your thoughts it doesn't make them any more correct.

 

[coult44]

In an earlier thread, which has now dropped off the forum's front page, it was stated that the outcome of the Packers game was inevitable based on the defense's inability to slow down Green Bay's offense in the second half. I disagree.

Time between plays will be 40 seconds from the end of a given play until the snap of the ball for the next play, or a 25-second interval after certain administrative stoppages and game delays

Green Bay scored their decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter.

Game situation 1 of 4: (3rd Quarter) Dallas has the ball on 2nd and 5 at the Packer 36 following a DeMarco Murray five yard run. Pass play results in an incompletion. Clock stops. 40 seconds elapses if Dallas elects to run the ball for a 3rd and short or 1st down opportunity.

Game situation 2 of 4: (3rd Quarter) It is 2nd and 10 on the Dallas 15 yard line following a first down pass incompletion. Clock stops. The prospect of a possible 3rd and short play happens if Murray carries the ball and runs an additional 40 seconds off the clock.

Game situation 3 of 4: (4th Quarter) Murray runs five yards on first down to make it 2nd and 5 at the Dallas 25. Clock is running. Dallas elects to pass and Romo is intercepted. While the play was overturned upon review, the clock has been stopped. Another 40 seconds ticks off if Dallas ran the ball on second down.

Game situation 4 of 4: (4th Quarter) With the Cowboys still holding the lead, Dallas elects to pass at their 35-yard line on 2nd and 6 and Romo is intercepted again. If Dallas had run for third and short or better, 40 seconds more slips from the Packers' grasp.

Total probable time which could have been taken off the game clock by running the ball only four more times during the game:

2 minutes 40 seconds.

Again, Green Bay scored the decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter. That's one minute 34 seconds. Executing only four run plays in place of four pass plays, in reasonable down and distance situations, regardless of result minus fumbling, could have changed the outcome of the game in Dallas' favor. Greater time of possession for Dallas would have been the difference in the end.

Why were some observers calling for Garrett to run the ball more during the second half to protect the lead? Good question.

If we kneel the ball three plays in a row and punt, we win easily...by running the ball JG opend up the door for the inevitable holding penalty.

 

[Zman5]

GB was losing by 20+ points beginning of second half yet they had more run attempts in the second half. That just tells you how clueless JG is when it comes to game management.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

1.) We make zero attempt at ball control.

A. That leaves our defense on field longer which in turn leaves their offense on the field longer and/or gives them more series/plays on offense.

2.) We make almost zero attempt to run the ball.
A. See 1A

This is a band formula. It's hard enough to win in nfl as it is so we are trying to win very game all gung-ho on passing and expecting a bad defense to "defend" more plays/times than it should.

Garrett makes the defense worse than it is by putting on he field linger than it should be.

 

[casmith07]

I haven't given up on Garrett yet. However, the defense had already proven porous before the Packers game. Simply having a 26-3 lead at the half should not make anyone overly confident that a defense with so many holes would guarantee a second half performance equal to the defense's first half effort. This is why, I believe, game commentators and some fans were questioning certain pass play selections during the second half.

Certain? All of them if they weren't Witten on button hooks, Dez on deep curls, or swing passes or screens to Murray.

 

[burmafrd]

The only people that think the GB game was unwinnable are the Garrett homers that cant admit he botched yet another game.

400 teams managed to win games like GB, except Garrett.....................just like no team in NFL history ever lost a home game scoring 48 points, until Garrett pulled it off.

Do you guys realize how many "first time in NFL history XYZ has happened" under Garrett?

The Garrett homers refuse to admit reality. Basically the same mentality as the Romo haters.