The truth about the 2006 Seatle Playoff Game

[J-DOG]

We lost that game because we ran plays that kept their linebackers in the play, which was one of their strengths, instead of attacking their decimated secondary. We were simply out-coached. Stupid, stubborn Bill Parcells lost that game for us.

Agree completely.
Parcells was gun shy after Romo was a turnover machine in the prior game against the Lions in a home loss.
To be so conservative might have been acceptable if we were considered the favorite going into that game but we were not. We were the underdog in a road game. Throw in the fact that they had Pete Hunter off the street starting for them in the secondary...it seemed Parcells was more concerned about keeping the game close then trying to actually win it.
A year later and you could hear several players say essentially that Parcells was so conservative that a lot of games came down to the last 2 minutes before it was decided.
When that happens...anyone can win the game...even the inferior team.
Parcells really helped increase the talent level on this team by upgrading our scouting dept and his philosophy in free agency but his on the field coaching was not that impressive to me. Halftime adjustments were not noticable with Parcells calling the shots.

 

[links18]

Its not the "reason we lost," but even after the dropped snap, we had them backed-up on their goal line and if we stop them, we can get the ball back in excellent field position with plenty of time to win the game, but Roy got caught out of position and S. Alexander busted through the line for like a 20 yard gain: game over.

 

[coach316]

. I make a valid point.

There is absolutely NO validity in your point at all

 

[Yakuza Rich]

We lost that game because we ran plays that kept their linebackers in the play, which was one of their strengths, instead of attacking their decimated secondary. We were simply out-coached. Stupid, stubborn Bill Parcells lost that game for us.

Oh Dallas attacked the secondary alright, using the Parcells preferred way of attacking a Cover 2 by sending the wide receivers deep up the sidelines quite often. That's one way of beating the Cover 2 as it can stretch the field and open things up for the running game, one of the reasons why Julius had a good day. Problem is the offense needed to put the final nail on the coffin and didn't because of the gameplan. Parcells uses that gameplan because he wants to control the ball. The problem with controlling the ball is that you tend to never get games out of reach. Plus, running Owens deep up the sidelines most of the time is not a strength of his as he seems to be a receiver that has to set up going deep by connecting on short and intermediate stuff first.

It's not that Dallas didn't attack the secondary, it's that Parcells refused to change the way he attacked the secondary. Although a big part of that was Parcells worried about Romo in his first playoff start as well, on the road.

As far as Roy goes, it's preposterous to say that Roy was the problem in the Seattle game because he simply wasn't. Stevens' passes came off just about every except Roy. Of course Roy got blamed for the TD in which he was doing his responsibility of covering the wide receiver over the top who ran a fade route down the sidelines. And of course Holmgren knew that Zimmer was going to sit back in a lazy Cover 2 and if he could get the WR to Roy out of the play, Stevens could beat Bradie up the seam. TE's can be covered by LB's, the Free Safety and corners too.





YAKUZA

 

[Rampage]

Romo,Roy,Terry whoever it doesn't matter. we lost the game as a team. if you're gonna blame anybody blame parcells for having our starting qb hold for feild goals and extra points.

 

[LeonDixson]

Oh Dallas attacked the secondary alright, using the Parcells preferred way of attacking a Cover 2 by sending the wide receivers deep up the sidelines quite often. That's one way of beating the Cover 2 as it can stretch the field and open things up for the running game, one of the reasons why Julius had a good day. Problem is the offense needed to put the final nail on the coffin and didn't because of the gameplan. Parcells uses that gameplan because he wants to control the ball. The problem with controlling the ball is that you tend to never get games out of reach. Plus, running Owens deep up the sidelines most of the time is not a strength of his as he seems to be a receiver that has to set up going deep by connecting on short and intermediate stuff first.

It's not that Dallas didn't attack the secondary, it's that Parcells refused to change the way he attacked the secondary. Although a big part of that was Parcells worried about Romo in his first playoff start as well, on the road.

As far as Roy goes, it's preposterous to say that Roy was the problem in the Seattle game because he simply wasn't. Stevens' passes came off just about every except Roy. Of course Roy got blamed for the TD in which he was doing his responsibility of covering the wide receiver over the top who ran a fade route down the sidelines. And of course Holmgren knew that Zimmer was going to sit back in a lazy Cover 2 and if he could get the WR to Roy out of the play, Stevens could beat Bradie up the seam. TE's can be covered by LB's, the Free Safety and corners too.
YAKUZA

I don't disagree with your point. But part of Parcells ball control plan included a lot of short passes, which happen to be where the linebackers could help on the play. My point is we needed to throw deep where the CB's and safeties could be isolated with no help from the linebackers. I don't remember us throwing the ball deep that often in that game.

 

[dbair1967]

Everyone remembers Romo droping the ball at the end. The the truth is Roy Williams was owned by Jeremy Stevens that game. Statistics do not lie. Jeremy Stevens had statisticly the best game of his career in the 2006 playoff game. Seatle game plan was to match Jeremy against Roy in passing situations and it worked. Jeremy had 77 yards and 2 touchdowns.

looks like we have a winner!

stupid post of the month!

Congrats!

David

 

[dbair1967]

The ultimate reason we lost that game was terrible coaching and play-calling. When you have the opposing teams' secondary demolished with injuries and we continuosly run the ball - there is a fundamental problem there - a problem that I am VERY comfortable that we have fixed via Garrett.

and thankfully the people responsible for that are now in Miami

David

 

[Seven]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm..........................Beer................

 

[big dog cowboy]

The ultimate reason we lost that game was terrible coaching and play-calling. When you have the opposing teams' secondary demolished with injuries and we continuosly run the ball - there is a fundamental problem there - a problem that I am VERY comfortable that we have fixed via Garrett.

Thank you!

 

[parchy]

The fact that we didn't pick on PETE FRIGGIN HUNTER more than we did still pisses me off more than Romo's bobble.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The ultimate reason we lost that game was terrible coaching and play-calling. When you have the opposing teams' secondary demolished with injuries and we continuosly run the ball - there is a fundamental problem there - a problem that I am VERY comfortable that we have fixed via Garrett.

Yep sir.

They had guys in the secondary who just a couple of weeks prior to that game were Loan Officers and Tour Guides.

Sadly, the Giants' secondary was fairly depleted as well this past year, although not to the same extent as the Seattle Secondary.

 

[JohnL2288]

:horse:

:laugh2:

 

[superpunk]

The ultimate reason we lost that game was terrible coaching and play-calling. When you have the opposing teams' secondary demolished with injuries and we continuosly run the ball - there is a fundamental problem there - a problem that I am VERY comfortable that we have fixed via Garrett.

That sure showed up in the playoff game versus the Giants this season.

Somehow I'm guessing that wasn't Garrett's fault.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Roy had a key INT in that game.

The offense lost the game via Bill.

 

[Kwmike22]

Yes I have posted about Roy several times. Roy has said he is rededicating himself to football. For him to say that means that he was not dedicated enough for football. I am passionate about the cowboys and I know that the fans here are too. It just irritates me for a player that is getting paid millions of dollars they have to rededicated themselves to football.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

There is no doubt in my mind that if the field-goal was made successfully that the Seahawks would have still won. I had no confidence in that defense being able to keep them out of field goal range-- none.

Parcells would have been better served going for it on 4th down and inches.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't disagree with your point. But part of Parcells ball control plan included a lot of short passes, which happen to be where the linebackers could help on the play. My point is we needed to throw deep where the CB's and safeties could be isolated with no help from the linebackers. I don't remember us throwing the ball deep that often in that game.

The gameplan called for long passes, but of course the QB isn't going to throw to guys that are double covered. So then he would properly checkdown to the TE or whatever receiver was underneath. Dallas needed to attack the deep middle which Parcells did, but only until it was way too late.

I think it's something that Garrett learned from after the Bills game. Just because the other team has a bad secondary, doesn't mean that Owens is going to beat them deep. Right after the Bills game, Garrett didn't dare not move Owens around and have him run more crossing and intermediate routes regardless of the secondary.

Like I said earlier, I don't have a problem with Parcells' plan of attack, but he just didn't need to use it all game long.



YAKUZA

 

[Sarge]

I don't have a problem with Parcells' plan of attack, but he just didn't need to use it all game long.
YAKUZA

That's the point.:bang2:

 

[Cali'sFinest]

That wasn't garbage, that was fact.. We didn't attack their secondary nearly enough.. It's true!!

Yep.