Unapologetically Polyanna

[CrownCowboy]

Not really looking forward to watching Brady picking us apart in the flats and to Gronk while we only send 4.

I'd mix it up and send the pressure and hit him as much as I could. This team is no worse that the Kansas City team that throttled them at home last year, even in the depleted state that we are in I believe.

If we get some turnovers and can run the ball, we could be there in the end. If we go out there and just send 4 all day Brady and Gronk and Edelman will kill us. I expect the latter but maybe we'll get a horseshoe up our...........

 

[DogFace]

We'll win. It'll propel us to over 500 until Romo comes back and saves our season. We will be playing at Green Bay twice this year.

 

[Jarv]

We just gotta take the ball away. Harder to do when they're underinflated, sure, but not impossible.

Actually, we should put helium in the air pump and try to get their balls over inflated, heck the courts let Brady go for this and NE fans think its no big deal. Nothing like cheating a cheater.

 

[canters]

This game would sem to be the toughest one on the schedule remaining. Win or lose, the rest of the games are winnable even with Weeden at QB.

With a pass rush, we could go on a winning streak after the NE game easily.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I think we win this week.

It's nice to see everyone around here hasn't given up.

 

[Scotman]

It's nice to see everyone around here hasn't given up.

I can't actually imagine giving up. I've watched too many games in my life where someone won who wasn't supposed to. I've seen every game but two since 89. I haven't missed many since I was born in 66. And every single week, every single game, every single play...I expect my Cowboys to be successful. I expect them to beat the odds and to overcome everyone and everything in front of them.

I won't ever give up.

 

[btcutter]

This is how you lose fantasy football. Glasses too rosy.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think we win this week.

Our offense, Weeden included, has not been the reason that we have lost the last two weeks. While our offense hasn't been stellar, it hasn't been awful. And Weeden has another week of practice behind him as the starting QB.

The problem has been our crumbling, injured and suspended defense. The defense has produced virtually no pass rush. No turnovers. No ability to hold the line at the end of the game. None.

This weekend we will roll two impact players back out onto the field. Two players that will make our DBs that much better. Two players that will help put our offense back out onto the field.

I think we hit a couple of long passes and our running game keeps Brady from eating up 2/3 of the clock.

I think we force a couple of turnovers and our kicker makes 4 or 5 field goals. (The red zone will still be an issue other than a couple of long touchdowns). I see us putting up 26 and holding the Pats to 24.

I know I could be wrong. I just don't care. I choose to believe we will win...every week.

I agree if Defense had played halfway decent I doubt we lose the last 2 games. We are not getting turnovers and we are not tackling worth a damn.

 

[Aven8]

Screw it! I'm a football fan and the best team in the league is coming to our house! Just play well fellas and make it a good game. If we win fantastic, but just play hard and great!

 

[Rockport]

Guess what? You don't get to tell me how to be a fan.

No but we can point out that you are the worst kind of fan.

 

[xwalker]

NFL games come down to passing efficiency differential. I can't see too many universes where I like Weeden v. Belichick better than Brady v. Marinelli. And that's not a knock on us in particular, we're just undermanned right now without Dez and Tony.

Unless we take the ball away at least twice more than they take it from us, I don't see that gap narrowing. We could do it, but nothing they've done so far this season is trending that direction right now.

I think that concept is faulty.

Passing efficiency appears to be a result of winning as much as a cause for winning. If the running game is situationally great and sustains drives and scores TDs, then that helps the team to be ahead on the scoreboard. It is easier for teams that are ahead to pass efficiently. Teams that are ahead tend to be less efficient rushing because they become conservative in the 4th quarter and run the ball when it's obvious that they're going to run the ball.

The stat Rushing Yards just doesn't happen to properly represent the running game's affect on winning. The threat of the run can cause 8 in the box vs 7 which makes passing easier but that does not show up in any commonly available stats.

A defense could play 2 offenses but play 8 in the box against 1 offense and 7 in the box against the other defense. Let's say the both offenses end up with 50 yards rushing. They look identical in terms of rushing stats but the one that did it against 8 men in the box was the better rushing team. That offense's passing game benefited by having 1 less man in coverage because of the threat of the run.

Other positive contributions to winning can end up causing a better passing efficiency. Teams can get ahead with Special Teams scores or turnovers. Again, it is easier to pass efficiently for the team that is ahead on the scoreboard while the team that is behind has to take chances in the passing game as he game progresses.

The Atlanta game is a great example. Atlanta gashed the Cowboys with the run. In the 2nd half I saw the Cowboys DEs holding up their pass rush looking for the run because Atlanta had made several big runs in the spot vacated by the DEs rushing up-field in the 1st half. Obviously, less pass rush makes it easier to pass.

 

[Idgit]

I think that concept is faulty.

Passing efficiency appears to be a result of winning as much as a cause for winning. If the running game is situationally great and sustains drives and scores TDs, then that helps the team to be ahead on the scoreboard. It is easier for teams that are ahead to pass efficiently. Teams that are ahead tend to be less efficient rushing because they become conservative in the 4th quarter and run the ball when it's obvious that they're going to run the ball.

The stat Rushing Yards just doesn't happen to properly represent the running game's affect on winning. The threat of the run can cause 8 in the box vs 7 which makes passing easier but that does not show up in any commonly available stats.

A defense could play 2 offenses but play 8 in the box against 1 offense and 7 in the box against the other defense. Let's say the both offenses end up with 50 yards rushing. They look identical in terms of rushing stats but the one that did it against 8 men in the box was the better rushing team. That offense's passing game benefited by having 1 less man in coverage because of the threat of the run.

Other positive contributions to winning can end up causing a better passing efficiency. Teams can get ahead with Special Teams scores or turnovers. Again, it is easier to pass efficiently for the team that is ahead on the scoreboard while the team that is behind has to take chances in the passing game as he game progresses.

The Atlanta game is a great example. Atlanta gashed the Cowboys with the run. In the 2nd half I saw the Cowboys DEs holding up their pass rush looking for the run because Atlanta had made several big runs in the spot vacated by the DEs rushing up-field in the 1st half. Obviously, less pass rush makes it easier to pass.

You might be getting hung up on what causes a team to pass efficiently. Does it really matter if it's how many men in the box v. you just have a great QB? Statistically speaking, it doesn't. And nobody would dispute that turnovers and ST or defensive scores also have a very high correlation to winning. They're just less predictable, so it's not something you're as likely to count on or try to develop like QB efficiency is.

The same with the stats about rushing effectiveness not having a significant correlation to winning. I wouldn't be surprised (in fact, I'd expect it) to unpack that rushing data and find out that teams that use the rushing game to stay in higher percentage downs and distances do tend to win more often. Given how volatile rushing yardage is (with most runs going for relatively few yards and then big runs periodically broken off), I can easily see that correlation getting washed out in the aggregated data. Either way, as I always have to reiterate in the debate on this topic, the running game is very important for getting teams into situations where they can pass effectively. What's at question is whether you have to be good at the running game to get into those situations, or if you can just be committed to it and call the plays well and still be successful. And that's where I come down on the latter side.

In the Atlanta game, if you've already had success throwing, and can also move the ball on the field, then it's a nice advantage that you don't have to risk many inefficient passing plays at that point in the game. You've gotten the lead through your passing efficiency differential, and you can just protect it through your play calling. If our defense has to stop the run before it can stop the pass, then that's obviously a benefit that makes passing easier, too. But that proves the rule and doesn't undermine it. That's kind of the point.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I can't actually imagine giving up. I've watched too many games in my life where someone won who wasn't supposed to. I've seen every game but two since 89. I haven't missed many since I was born in 66. And every single week, every single game, every single play...I expect my Cowboys to be successful. I expect them to beat the odds and to overcome everyone and everything in front of them.

I won't ever give up.

That Commanders game when Washington was undefeated in 1991 (11/24/1991) and Aikman was put out of the game (I don't remember why, I just remember he was.) We went in there, ruined their perfect season and shocked everyone. I always think of that game as a huge turning point for the franchise's return to glory...on to the playoffs that year, and back-to-back Super Bowls in the next two.

One other unexpected victory (there are many, these are just on top of my head...) 2009 vs. the Saints in the Superdome. (12/19/2009) "Experts" acted like the Cowboys needn't bother to show up. The Saints were 13-0 when we got there, and would eventually win (read: be gifted. thank you, Katrina) Super Bowl 44. But their streak ended that night. Our boys came to play...with an attitude. The Saints didn't win another regular season game, they finished 13-3 after we shocked them silly.

 

[Junglist]

No but we can point out that you are the worst kind of fan.

Because of something I said on the internet? Ok, bud.

 

[Chuck 54]

I think defeating the Patriots the way they are playing right now, without Romo, Dez, Gregory, and possibly others....is IMPOSSIBLE.

I expect Brady to pick us apart; I expect Gronk to score at least 2 TDs; I expect their defense to totally shut down our run game; and I expect LaGarrette Blount to give a few more concussions in the secondary.

However, this is the NFL, and I'll still be watching and hoping because .......... the weirdest things happen on Sundays, and teams that are horrible manage to beat the SB favorites quite often. ON any given Sunday---

 

[xwalker]

You might be getting hung up on what causes a team to pass efficiently. Does it really matter if it's how many men in the box v. you just have a great QB? Statistically speaking, it doesn't.

We don't have the statistics to know that. Plus, it's just a simplistic example to demonstrate a point. There are many other issues that don't show up in the stats. The DEs holding up their rush looking for the run, etc.. are other things like 7 vs 8 in the box that help passing efficiency because of the threat of the run. When defenses adjust to stop the run and keep the rushing yards down, that adjustment does not show up in the stats.

All the correlation theory shows it that you need to be able to pass and defend the pass in the NFL to some extent. It does not show anything about the importance or lack of importance of the running game or other issues like special teams because, as I said previously, success on short yardage and on special teams and success in general of being ahead on the scoreboard all likely lead to improved passing efficiency.

Obviously the bulk of yards are gained in the passing game. The average game is something like 300 yards passing and 100 yards rushing. That alone shows that passing as measured in yards is more likely to "correlate" than rushing. Even if defenses didn't adjust to limit rushing, it still seems obvious that bulk yardage is not the primary goal of rushing. It's situational issues like continuing to stay ahead of the chains where rushing is important. Most likely the team with the strong rushing threat has a higher probability of getting 1st downs; however, you can't really check that with existing stats because as previously discussed there is not really a stat that measures rushing threat. Defenses adjust to limit rushing which prevents using rushing yardage as a true measure of rushing threat. Comparing 3rd downs conversions to total rushing yards will not answer that question, because again rushing yards vary based on how much defenses adjust to limit it at the expense of pass defense.

 

[Idgit]

We don't have the statistics to know that. Plus, it's just a simplistic example to demonstrate a point. There are many other issues that don't show up in the stats. The DEs holding up their rush looking for the run, etc.. are other things like 7 vs 8 in the box that help passing efficiency because of the threat of the run. When defenses adjust to stop the run and keep the rushing yards down, that adjustment does not show up in the stats.

All the correlation theory shows it that you need to be able to pass and defend the pass in the NFL to some extent. It does not show anything about the importance or lack of importance of the running game or other issues like special teams because, as I said previously, success on short yardage and on special teams and success in general of being ahead on the scoreboard all likely lead to improved passing efficiency.

Obviously the bulk of yards are gained in the passing game. The average game is something like 300 yards passing and 100 yards rushing. That alone shows that passing as measured in yards is more likely to "correlate" than rushing. Even if defenses didn't adjust to limit rushing, it still seems obvious that bulk yardage is not the primary goal of rushing. It's situational issues like continuing to stay ahead of the chains where rushing is important. Most likely the team with the strong rushing threat has a higher probability of getting 1st downs; however, you can't really check that with existing stats because as previously discussed there is not really a stat that measures rushing threat. Defenses adjust to limit rushing which prevents using rushing yardage as a true measure of rushing threat. Comparing 3rd downs conversions to total rushing yards will not answer that question, because again rushing yards vary based on how much defenses adjust to limit it at the expense of pass defense.

I don't really disagree with this, but I don't get how you think it speaks against the passing efficiency correlation data. The correlation definitely exists, and everybody accepts that there are multiple factors that affect the correlation. Teams achieve efficiency via different means, and efficiency early tends to make it easier to be efficient later. That doesn't speak against the correlation, it supports it.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson.

 

[Doomsday101]

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson.

whose to says Dallas is the one to get punched in the mouth?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

whose to says Dallas is the one to get punched in the mouth?

I do.