The Thing About Playing Keepaway

[DFWJC]

LOL Matt Cassel threw three picks and had a passer rating of 62.3 LAST October vs the Giants but yeah..."many years"

Ah, should have said with Romo. Thanks for the correction.

 

[CCBoy]

I'm just telling you, that he must have posted that rating at half time or before.
I'm not trying to discredit mark lane. He was probingly being accurate but not at the end of the game.

The official passer rating for the game was 69.4

It's what all the sports sites and the NFL have listed and I just checked it on my Passer Rating calculator.
Just google any passer rating calculator and punch it in.

here's one
http://www.footballguys.com/qbrating.htm

Yesterday, I don't even believe that QB rating was an effective description of what went on for Dak.

Sturm even adds an element not yet discussed:

Oh yes, the stadium. Almost forgot about the stadium. The one where no expense was spared and where opulence lives in every direction. The stadium where on at least three occasions, Cowboys plays were sabotaged by sun in their eyes -- in an indoor stadium. Future generations are going to look at this paragraph and marvel at the possibility an indoor facility could have sun ruining the home team's hopes, but I assure you, future humans, it happened. Why didn't they get curtains to block the sun? You won't believe this -- they have them. They just refuse to use them for Cowboys games. But, Coldplay appreciated not having the sun in their eyes a few weeks back by pulling them shut.

Then add in failed touchdown receptions by Dez Bryant and Cole Beasley that could have won it for Dallas as well.

First game problems, but the overall was good. Except that this team's running game has to be able to extend it's will in the running game. The passing game will be strong through the year...

 

[CaptainCreed]

Ah, should have said with Romo. Thanks for the correction.

Do you think we would have had a chance to win if Dak threw 3 picks yesterday or even 1? Gameplan has to change a bit (let Dak use his legs, get Dez involved in bubble screens/quick crossing routes, Beasley needs to catch wide open TDs) but let the rookie figure it out. Much more promising than the trash we dealt with last year at QB.

 

[DFWJC]

Do you think we would have had a chance to win if Dak threw 3 picks yesterday or even 1? Gameplan has to change a bit (let Dak use his legs, get Dez involved in bubble screens/quick crossing routes, Beasley needs to catch wide open TDs) but let the rookie figure it out. Much more promising than the trash we dealt with last year at QB.

If you've read any of my posts, you know by now I am not down on Dak at all.
I'm very optimistic about his long term chances, actually.

 

[Sydla]

Fair, but I'm not making a final observation on the initial tweet...that guy is hard to find wrong. I don't know the details of the tweet. But it was an indicator at some point, I can bet on that...

No, it was much simpler than that. He quoted a wrong stat. He made a mistake. It happens.

 

[CowboyRoy]

...is that you have to finish drives. Bad defenses get exposed, no matter how long the offense can hold onto the ball. We won TOP 36:43 to 23:17, so we held the Giants to only 9 drives.

But the points we allowed per drive was 2.22, which would have ranked 28th over a full season last year.

Its what some of us feared would happen. Exactly that happened last year. Garrett set the game plan up for "playing not to lose" and we lost. He had Dak on a leash. Got by the goal line and tried to run it in and that did work. And on 3rd time Im sure he told Dak to throw it away if it wasnt totally open and kick the field goal.. Its what we did.

 

[CCBoy]

No, it was much simpler than that. He quoted a wrong stat. He made a mistake. It happens.

Oh, and your degree is in?

Born free...no legs and no arms, see
I was truly born free...
and now I'm third base!

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Oh, and your degree is in?

Born free...no legs and no arms, see
I was truly born free...
and now I'm third base!

You don't need a degree. Just the passer rating calculator.

http://www.primecomputing.com

I wonder where Lane got the number.

 

[CCBoy]

You don't need a degree. Just the passer rating calculator.

http://www.primecomputing.com

I wonder where Lane got the number.

Not my point...and only looking at the presented stat doesn't serve as an after action analysis, much less that resulting report. And that does imply a more sophisticated element to declaring the merit in a single stat....

My point to begin with!

 

[Alexander]

It sure seems like a repeat of the same pattern that this team has been in. They move the ball well up and down the field but fail to score touchdowns, end up settling for field goals, and it ultimately comes back to haunt them in the form of a loss.

I also think that Garrett uses Bailey's accuracy as a crutch. They were actually saying that he was hitting 64 yarders in practice, so 62 would not have been a task. Not to mention two of the FGs were in excess of 55 yards. That is a lot to ask of anyone, but we almost look at it like easy money.

I wonder if he would lose his mind if he had a kicker that wasn't so automatic. That might make him get a little more aggressive.

 

[JDSmith]

Bring your source on passer rating...another rating might be completion percentage....or quarterback rating.

You might want to click on the tweet you are referencing. It had already been deleted by the time I responded. My source is NFL.com.

 

[CCBoy]

You might want to click on the tweet you are referencing. It had already been deleted by the time I responded. My source is NFL.com.

Length for time of the tweet wasn't an initial issue...I'm not even attempting to validate the tweet. It did denote a changed point of observation...and that is how discussion evolves. At least a source is now stated, but I still hold to the point, being churned out of the picture, being, more is meeting the eye than a rating using set guidelines that does not reflect battle field disadvantages when the battle was fought.

 

[JDSmith]

Think a lot of that particular rating evolved around no touchdowns thrown and having to throw away quite a few balls keeping away from sacks?

As to his throws, there also were quite a few missed by receivers or dropped as well...think?

THAT is a discussion.

Not really. The discussion is this - everyone knows you're wrong but you. If your source believed in the stat he wouldn't have deleted the tweet.

 

[percyhoward]

If you cant stuff the run or get your defense off the field, you are doomed. Football 101.

Yep, no matter how much TOP you accumulate offensively.

 

[CCBoy]

Not really. The discussion is this - everyone knows you're wrong but you. If your source believed in the stat he wouldn't have deleted the tweet.

NO, I wasn't wrong and you are arguing with yourself NOW.

Don't like a source, that is on YOU. Don't like a discussion, stay out of it, want to insult, play with yourself.

 

[CCBoy]

Yep, no matter how much TOP you accumulate offensively.

Some of the game plan is working, although...

 

[Sydla]

Oh, and your degree is in?

Born free...no legs and no arms, see
I was truly born free...
and now I'm third base!

Reading comprehension.

I can read that a reporter quoted the wrong stat.

 

[JDSmith]

Length for time of the tweet wasn't an initial issue...I'm not even attempting to validate the tweet. It did denote a changed point of observation...and that is how discussion evolves. At least a source is now stated, but I still hold to the point, being churned out of the picture, being, more is meeting the eye than a rating using set guidelines that does not reflect battle field disadvantages when the battle was fought.

Your source realized his mistake and deleted the tweet, and yet you blindly and obstinately defend it. You quoted a bad source and now you are trying to wax philosophical to misdirect. You are embarrassing yourself. You were wrong, deal with it.

 

[Sydla]

NO, I wasn't wrong and you are arguing with yourself NOW.

Don't like a source, that is on YOU. Don't like a discussion, stay out of it, want to insult, play with yourself.

And away we go into the crazy world of CCBoy.

You were wrong. You questioned people who pointed out that Mark's stat was wrong. When people said it was wrong, you demanded proof. When you got the proof, you now are questioning the validity of the stat pointing out his QB rating was off because he threw no TDs (duh), drops (every QB has drops) and throw aways (every QB has throw aways).

 

[percyhoward]

Some of the game plan is working, although...

I think it works to perfection if we finish drives.