CoCo
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,603
- Reaction score
- 187
Mixed emotions really about who why and how I feel about that game.
Certainly the D is incredibly embarrassed by those two long runs to end the game. But is it possible that had we made those tackles Baltimore's O might have still been able to control the ball (in less dramatic fashion) and run out the clock?
I haven't checked TOP but we asked a lot of our defense for 3/4 of that game by our offense's repeated 3 and outs. I know I was very worried that our D was wearing down. I think their 1st TD was indicative of just that. You can't keep going back to the well time after time and expect to dodge all the bullets.
I said this throughout the game Saturday night, but I have total confidence in our offense's ability to be stymied repeatedly throughout a game but get the TD we need when its crunch time no mater how far we have to go. And they proved me right Saturday night. Our O, for the most part, stepped up in crunch time. And give credit too that it was against one of the league's best defenses.
But how do I feel about our offense for the first 3 quarters? Well, obviously concerned. Infuriated? No. 1) Again, the Baltimore D is not swiss cheese. 2) I think our game plan was to be cautious on O and avoid turnovers that could fuel their otherwise mediocre offense. In retrospect we were cautious to a fault and that cautiousness may have even fueled complacency.
You can point to Romo's two INT's but I would suggest those were also somewhat conservative in that they were deep balls that worst case would be equivalent to a punt (*sigh* I know that comment will upset some people from the days of QC).
Back to the D. They certainly kept us in the game for 3 quarters if they ultimately failed in dramatic fashion at the end. Our pass rush IMO wasn't quite up to the standards of recent weeks however as the game wore on. I wonder too if part of that wasn't an approach that said we will beat this team provided we don't beat ourselves.
I think we played this game (not the defense per se) for too long with a "prevent defense" mentality that says we're going to play the odds that they can't beat us without dumb mistakes on our part. So we played down to them in an effort to avoid something freakish happening. In the end, both ultimately happened with obviously disasterous results.
Lastly, I think Romo's back was impacting his performance and Baltimore had the D to make that really count against us. Not an excuse cause everyone has someone hurt and you have to be able to win despite it. I just think it was truly somewhat a factor.
Certainly the D is incredibly embarrassed by those two long runs to end the game. But is it possible that had we made those tackles Baltimore's O might have still been able to control the ball (in less dramatic fashion) and run out the clock?
I haven't checked TOP but we asked a lot of our defense for 3/4 of that game by our offense's repeated 3 and outs. I know I was very worried that our D was wearing down. I think their 1st TD was indicative of just that. You can't keep going back to the well time after time and expect to dodge all the bullets.
I said this throughout the game Saturday night, but I have total confidence in our offense's ability to be stymied repeatedly throughout a game but get the TD we need when its crunch time no mater how far we have to go. And they proved me right Saturday night. Our O, for the most part, stepped up in crunch time. And give credit too that it was against one of the league's best defenses.
But how do I feel about our offense for the first 3 quarters? Well, obviously concerned. Infuriated? No. 1) Again, the Baltimore D is not swiss cheese. 2) I think our game plan was to be cautious on O and avoid turnovers that could fuel their otherwise mediocre offense. In retrospect we were cautious to a fault and that cautiousness may have even fueled complacency.
You can point to Romo's two INT's but I would suggest those were also somewhat conservative in that they were deep balls that worst case would be equivalent to a punt (*sigh* I know that comment will upset some people from the days of QC).
Back to the D. They certainly kept us in the game for 3 quarters if they ultimately failed in dramatic fashion at the end. Our pass rush IMO wasn't quite up to the standards of recent weeks however as the game wore on. I wonder too if part of that wasn't an approach that said we will beat this team provided we don't beat ourselves.
I think we played this game (not the defense per se) for too long with a "prevent defense" mentality that says we're going to play the odds that they can't beat us without dumb mistakes on our part. So we played down to them in an effort to avoid something freakish happening. In the end, both ultimately happened with obviously disasterous results.
Lastly, I think Romo's back was impacting his performance and Baltimore had the D to make that really count against us. Not an excuse cause everyone has someone hurt and you have to be able to win despite it. I just think it was truly somewhat a factor.