There was one thing I noticed on defence that I liked

Barham!!! I thought he was going to pick that guy up and slam him. Wish the rest of the defense would play with his intensity. Hammer just needs to slow down and not go full speed all thee time.

Same, and I think that will come. I do think they are going to become a physical squad. But, again, it will take time. We just need the offense to not do stupid things like what happened at the end of the first quarter.
 
False, a turnover only counts if you actually secure it. We only forced one turnover. We knocked the ball out 3 other times but didn't come away with it.
I understand what you’re saying, but the fact is they put the ball on the ground because we made them, the ball just bounced in their direction, make no mistake about it. We forced them to put the ball on the ground.
 
False, a turnover only counts if you actually secure it. We only forced one turnover. We knocked the ball out 3 other times but didn't come away with it.
You should be thrilled we did that cause we can do it again down the road, and maybe we get lucky
 
I knew we had below average linebackers, but I thought they would at least understand their gap responsibilities. At least be in the right place when you're getting trucked.
 
Yes, but my point also stands
I’m an old man, I’m just not as elegant, and explaining , people just like to challenge other people’s wording
I do agree...sometimes you can quibble or mince for no real reason.

But....I also think wording can matter. Not that I'm excellent at it either.

But it's a fact we did NOT "force four turnovers". I think in this case the wording is important.

If it were me I would have said .."yep...you are right! NOT "turnovers"".

All good...we can move on.
 
..yep, lady-luck was not giving up NYG fumbles for sure.

But we did create them. Maybe luck changes down the road.
 
I understand that this week, we are going to be calling out the defence, and rightly so with how poor the defence was. Let's be fair and objective here. 1. A horrible defence isn't going to go from record breaking in a bad way to the Doomsday D in one game. That's unrealistic. I already litigated part of the issue from the game in a previous post, so I will not do so here. 2. That load of Ricard and Skatabo is going to be a problem for more teams than us. I'm curious how the Rams handle that, especially sans Myles Garrett.

However, there was ONE thing I noticed on our defence that I liked, and I don't think it's been highlighted by others yet. Consider it a tiny diamond in a whole load of rough, and my attempt at pulling something positive from last night. I noticed that we forced at least 3 fumbles and nearly had a pick or two (with one fumble being recovered). To me, those are decent building blocks. To me, I like that the players were trying to attack the ball. I'd love them to stuff the run in the backfield and focus on that, but, I don't think I saw them attacking the ball last season like I saw last night. I think on another game, more of those fumbles would go our way. I also thought we got a bit unlucky to not pick off the one where Nabers fell. I also thought we were incredibly unlucky with where the ball wound up after Downs clobbered Dart. That's one that, on another night, we probably intercept.

So, while there's rightfully a lot of negativity towards the way the defence looked, I do think they got a little unlucky with some of the bounces on the fumbles/loose balls, and I do want, as a fan, to encourage the team to keep attacking the ball. We don't need them to become the Doomsday D yet. We just need them to attack the ball and get in position to recover the ball when the ball pops loose. And I hope we send more blitzes with Downs. That hit on Dart was beautiful. We need to do that more.
I won't be surprised if reality is, the Giants suck.
 
Well, and I remember that, under Quinn, we kinda relied on takeaways at first to have a chance. The quickest way to improve the D is to force takeaways. Those, more than anything else, will help them to believe that they can become a good unit. To me, they didn't look lost, unlike with Eberflus. They just weren't physical enough, and I think the use of Zone was a bad move. Hopefully we will see more man blitzes. I think that'll play much more adequately to our unit.
They looked pretty lost when receivers were running free unaccounted for.
 
They looked pretty lost when receivers were running free unaccounted for.

I think they'll get that fixed. That's the easiest fix imo. Frankly, I don't understand why we're still running zone. I think we actually have the players for man.
 
I think they'll get that fixed. That's the easiest fix imo. Frankly, I don't understand why we're still running zone. I think we actually have the players for man.
I have no idea why they are so lost playing zone. This is the 3rd DC in a row where we play zone and it turns the secondary into spectators.
 
And no any defense ( Seattle comes to mind or Philadelphia ) would welcome facing the 1950’s Giants with the FB leading the the way for the straight ahead RB .
 
So far, the Cowboys defence DESERVES to be spelled with a ‘C’ - a grade they may even aspire to … but looking pretty distant a reach as of today.
 
I do agree...sometimes you can quibble or mince for no real reason.

But....I also think wording can matter. Not that I'm excellent at it either.

But it's a fact we did NOT "force four turnovers". I think in this case the wording is important.

If it were me I would have said .."yep...you are right! NOT "turnovers"".

All good...we can move on.
OK, we did not force for turnovers
What we did do, is get them to put the ball on the ground four times
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
475,617
Messages
14,627,160
Members
24,220
Latest member
Wineorange
Back
Top