We are in trouble

[Billy Bullocks]

10-6 will not get us a playoff birth. The NFC South is strong and the nfc North is also good. Not to mention the nfc east second plce probably will hav 11 or so wins.



10-6 record will get you packing for next season...We need to win all our remaining games with the exception of maybe one to have a chance.

Hahahahah how is the NFC North good? Green Bay is second place at 4-4, and we hold the tie breaker against them too. Chicago isn't really that good either. But they will probably win the division.

The NFC South is tough, but do you really think Atlanta is going to keep up their surpising perfomance? I see them dropping off. We have the tiebreaker with Tampa.

NFC West and North are each sending 1 team to the playoffs. Then it's up in the air.

 

[hutru01]

You're confusing optimal results, possibilities and necessities. Those things would be nice, but they're NOT necessary for us to make the playoffs. In fact, we can lose to the Commanders AND the Giants, the Giants can lose to the Eagles AND Commanders, and we still can make the playoffs. And we wouldn't need a bunch of help to do it. So all three of the things you listed can NOT take place, and we still could make the playoffs.

Good point.

I should have re-phrased my post and said....For the best chance of making the playoffs, this is what needs to happen.

I realize anything is possible so there really isn't any confusion here. BUT, if neither of those 3 things happen, it is not likely that the Eagles/Commanders/Giants would all lose their remaining games sending us in to the playoffs.

 

[jdnelson103]

Isn't it kind of early to predict whether or not we're still in the race or not? Do we forget that it's not too far fetched that, in two weeks, we could be tied for second place in the division, one game back from the Giants, with six to go?

Is it really that hard to believe that the Giants could lose to Philly and Baltimore, and that we could beat the Commanders. I wouldn't be suprised to see NY go 4-4 over the final eight weeks. Where would they be then? 11-5?

Remember, the only two teams they've played that were worth a crap were Pitt and Dallas. Pitt should have won if it weren't for the safety, and Dallas was playing with backups at a lot of key positions.

It's way to early to think we're comletely out of it.

 

[Rampage]

if we lose 3 games out of the last 7 games were done.

 

[DallasEast]

Isn't it kind of early to predict whether or not we're still in the race or not? Do we forget that it's not too far fetched that, in two weeks, we could be tied for second place in the division, one game back from the Giants, with six to go?

Is it really that hard to believe that the Giants could lose to Philly and Baltimore, and that we could beat the Commanders. I wouldn't be suprised to see NY go 4-4 over the final eight weeks. Where would they be then? 11-5?

Remember, the only two teams they've played that were worth a crap were Pitt and Dallas. Pitt should have won if it weren't for the safety, and Dallas was playing with backups at a lot of key positions.

It's way to early to think we're comletely out of it.

Nothing is a given. If the circumstances are repeated in Game 2 against the Giants AND both teams play at the same level as they did last Sunday, the results would be the same with New York picking up another (now) crucial divisional win over Dallas. Just saying.

 

[AdamJT13]

I realize anything is possible so there really isn't any confusion here. BUT, if neither of those 3 things happen, it is not likely that the Eagles/Commanders/Giants would all lose their remaining games sending us in to the playoffs.

They wouldn't need to lose anywhere close to all of their remaining games. They could even win the majority of their games, and we still could make it. Under the opposite of the scenarios you gave, the Eagles could beat the Giants (twice, even) but lose at Washington and lose at Baltimore, both of which are quite possible or even likely. (Or if the Eagles split with the Giants, they could split at Washington and Baltimore.) Then we could beat the Eagles in Week 17 and make the playoffs ahead of them (and a few other teams) at 10-6.

 

[hutru01]

They wouldn't need to lose anywhere close to all of their remaining games. They could even win the majority of their games, and we still could make it. Under the opposite of the scenarios you gave, the Eagles could beat the Giants (twice, even) but lose at Washington and lose at Baltimore, both of which are quite possible or even likely. (Or if the Eagles split with the Giants, they could split at Washington and Baltimore.) Then we could beat the Eagles in Week 17 and make the playoffs ahead of them (and a few other teams) at 10-6.

That's feasible, I guess we will just have to see.

The playoff scenarios change on a weekly basis, so this discussion is pointless really. :laugh2:

 

[jdnelson103]

Nothing is a given. If the circumstances are repeated in Game 2 against the Giants AND both teams play at the same level as they did last Sunday, the results would be the same with New York picking up another (now) crucial divisional win over Dallas. Just saying.

I disagree. Our defense came to play in the first half of that game. With Romo in there, our defense isn't on the field for 21 of the first 30 minutes, and the Giants average starting field position isn't the thirty freakin' yard line.

When the offense showed it was going to hand the Giants the game, the defense quit/got tired. That's pretty sorry to say also, but it doesn't happen with Romo in there. Not to mention Felix, Kosier, and a healthy Witten.

 

[DallasEast]

I disagree. Our defense came to play in the first half of that game. With Romo in there, our defense isn't on the field for 21 of the first 30 minutes, and the Giants average starting field position isn't the thirty freakin' yard line.

When the offense showed it was going to hand the Giants the game, the defense quit/got tired. That's pretty sorry to say also, but it doesn't happen with Romo in there. Not to mention Felix, Kosier, and a healthy Witten.

Yes, with Romo, but I was speculating on your earlier statement of:

Dallas was playing with backups at a lot of key positions.

If Romo is hurt for game 2 versus the Giants just as he was during game 1, what then?

 

[jdnelson103]

Yes, with Romo, but I was speculating on your earlier statement of:
If Romo is hurt for game 2 versus the Giants just as he was during game 1, what then?

Well, how 'bout we state a little more of the obvious. Everyone knows that if we lose Romo again, we're out of it completely. We're talking about what we can do the rest of the way with our guys healthy.

The Giants, Eagles, and Commanders could lose their starting QB's too, what then?

 

[alancdc]

Hope the Eagles get beat this week cause the Giants are winning the East. If Dallas can somehow win at Washington we are 6-4. We play Seattle and SF and it is reasonable to think that we can win those 2 games. Although, it is tough to see the way we are playing right now that we could reel off 3 straight...But if we can we would then be sitting at 8-4 needing to split the last 4 to get to 10 wins. Another big deal is we have the head to head against 2 teams that are possible fighting for WC spots, as well, in GB AND TB. Anyway, a guy can dream!

 

[DallasEast]

Well, how 'bout we state a little more of the obvious. Everyone knows that if we lose Romo again, we're out of it completely. We're talking about what we can do the rest of the way with our guys healthy.

The Giants, Eagles, and Commanders could lose their starting QB's too, what then?

Perhaps they will make the adjustments necessary to compensate enough to actually win some games that are actually winnable. Case in point: the Rams game was a completely winnable game--even with Brad Johnson behind center. However, we did not make the adjustments necessary to prevent or offset his interceptions during the game.

As a coaching staff, they can't automatically chalk up a loss simply because you don't have your starter(s). That's not how anyone should approach the game of football. With that mentality, there's no reason to even play the game. You play the game to win. The Giants can be beaten without Romo behind center. It would be more difficult to accomplish, but not impossible.

 

[vicjagger]

In 5 of our final 7 games, we play the NFL's #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5 ranked defenses. 3 of those are on the road.

 

[jdnelson103]

Perhaps they will make the adjustments necessary to compensate enough to actually win some games that are actually winnable. Case in point: the Rams game was a completely winnable game--even with Brad Johnson behind center. However, we did not make the adjustments necessary to prevent or offset his interceptions during the game.

As a coaching staff, they can't automatically chalk up a loss simply because you don't have your starter(s). That's not how anyone should approach the game of football. With that mentality, there's no reason to even play the game. You play the game to win. The Giants can be beaten without Romo behind center. It would be more difficult to accomplish, but not impossible.

What adjustments could have been made to compensate for the loss of a top 5 qb and your defense falling in to a trap game. It was just a bad game. The coaches made what adjustments they could against the Bucs. We went 1-2 in the three games without Romo, which is pretty much what we thought they'd do.

Maybe we should show a little more appreciation for our starting quarterback. Either that or explain to the Patriots that they should just be compensating a little more. Or tell the Eagles, Giants, Colts, Steelers what fools they are for using first round picks and spending so much money on a position that could be compensated for. There is a reason why the teams without good quarterbacks lose the majority of the time.

 

[DallasEast]

What adjustments could have been made to compensate for the loss of a top 5 qb and your defense falling in to a trap game. It was just a bad game. The coaches made what adjustments they could against the Bucs. We went 1-2 in the three games without Romo, which is pretty much what we thought they'd do.

Maybe we should show a little more appreciation for our starting quarterback. Either that or explain to the Patriots that they should just be compensating a little more. Or tell the Eagles, Giants, Colts, Steelers what fools they are for using first round picks and spending so much money on a position that could be compensated for. There is a reason why the teams without good quarterbacks lose the majority of the time.

Who's not showing enough "appreciation" for Romo??? While I understand that it's very difficult to manufacture wins without your starters (and especially your starting quarterback), I've watched enough NFL football to know that there's no such thing as an automatic loss.

 

[DallasEast]

In 5 of our final 7 games, we play the NFL's #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5 ranked defenses. 3 of those are on the road.

Hey. In five of our last seven games, we'll face the #16, #19 (three tied) and #26 ranked scoring offenses. There's a silver lining in there some where, right? :

 

[jdnelson103]

Who's not showing enough "appreciation" for Romo??? While I understand that it's very difficult to manufacture wins without your starters (and especially your starting quarterback), I've watched enough NFL football to know that there's no such thing as an automatic loss.

Nothing is automatic, which is why I started this conversation with "It's kind of early to predict." All I said was that Dallas is one of only two good teams that the Giants have played, and we were with out a lot of starters. I never said we would win, and I never said we would lose. All I said was the team New York played Sunday is no where near as talented as the team Washington will play in two weeks. The word automatic was in none of my posts.

 

[AdamJT13]

In 5 of our final 7 games, we play the NFL's #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5 ranked defenses. 3 of those are on the road.

We have the No. 9-ranked defense. And we already beat No. 6 (without Romo) and No. 5, and we lost by two points to No. 4.

 

[Rampage]

We have the No. 9-ranked defense. And we already beat No. 6 (without Romo) and No. 5, and we lost by two points to No. 4.

what do we rank in scoring defense?

 

[DallasEast]

Nothing is automatic, which is why I started this conversation with "It's kind of early to predict." All I said was that Dallas is one of only two good teams that the Giants have played, and we were with out a lot of starters. I never said we would win, and I never said we would lose. All I said was the team New York played Sunday is no where near as talented as the team Washington will play in two weeks. The word automatic was in none of my posts.

You're correct. You didn't mention the word 'automatic'. What you have stated was:

Everyone knows that if we lose Romo again, we're out of it completely.

I assume that logic that be equally applied to individual games as it can to the season itself? Let's also assume for a moment that Romo is not available for Washington, or gets hurt in the first quarter and Brooks Bollinger is thrown back into the fire, BUT everyone else is healthy. What then?

It's understood that if Dallas has all its weapons back, we should beat Washinton in two weeks. I think that where we're going to disagree is the premise that Dallas cannot win without ___________ (fill in the blank) starter against Washington should something freaky happens between now and then. I also disagree that should everyone return healthy, that it is a given that they will necessary play in sync for all four quarters during Romo's first game back.

Personally, I agree that our best chances of winning any game is for every starter to be healthy, but for all we know, Romo might re-aggravate his hand injury during the bye week, he may have difficulty getting the ball to Roy Williams, etc., etc. We still need to win that game regardless of the circumstances. That's my point. Leaving work now. Gotta go.