We didn't go down swinging

[Doomsday101]

Barber had 12 runs on 3rd and 6+ ALL year long. He gained 102 yards on them. The "we always run on third and long"'s theory has had it's legs shot out.

You’re not kidding. Anyone who is watching the games should be able to see that Romo was able to covert many big 3rd and long situations which shows how much confidence Bill has in Romo. Hopefully this team can do a better job of not putting Romo in that situation as often as they did this season. It is nice to know that he can do it when he has too.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

not on offense

it wasnt completely the players fault... while I agree that they needed to execute more plays.... they were given predictable plays and we didnt go after the teams weaknesses.... Belichek is a master and its the thing he concentrates on most... yet we let it be.... just try and out-execute everyone.... really bad decision.... opposing teams will makes plays, they will win individual battles especially when they know whats coming

 

[DipChit]

Before the game my thought was that I can deal with the Cowboys losing, but they should be aggressive, attack the Seahawks and give themselves a chance to win. If Romo throws 4 interceptions, fine, but you don't want to finish the game and feel like you left some ammo off the field.

Dont really disagree with everything you said as a whole but in regard to this, I think if he did throw 4 picks and/or got sacked a few times waiting for things to develop deep.. especially if it would've lead to short fields and points for the Hags, then thered be no shortage of people questioning why you approached it that way.

They'd be like.. why didnt you pound it more.. you knew they were trying to protect their secondary at all cost.. the run would've been there for the taking... Romo had been struggling some as of late anyway. Plus it would've helped keep your struggling defense coming into the game off the field, yada yada.

 

[Doomsday101]

Dont really disagree with everything you said as a whole but in regard to this, I think if he did throw 4 picks and/or got sacked a few times waiting for things to develop deep.. especially if it would've lead to short fields and points for the Hags, then thered be no shortage of people questioning why you approached it that way.

They'd be like.. why didnt you pound it more.. you knew they were trying to protect their secondary at all cost.. the run would've been there for the taking... Romo had been struggling some as of late anyway. Plus it would've helped keep your struggling defense coming into the game off the field, yada yada.

I agree and looking at the game the Hawks were keeping safeties over the top on the outside WR and dropping LB's into the deep middle. This helped Jones get over 100 yards rushing and we were able to attack over the tops of the LB. However a fumble by Witten turned into Seahawk points and overall we were a bit sloppy on offense. Holgrem did a good job of forcing Dallas to drive the field instead of giving up cheap points and had the offense been able to sustain drives without making mistakes then chances are the results would have been different. We didn't so now we can sit back and play the blame game

 

[Rampage]

it wasnt completely the players fault... while I agree that they needed to execute more plays.... they were given predictable plays and we didnt go after the teams weaknesses.... Belichek is a master and its the thing he concentrates on most... yet we let it be.... just try and out-execute everyone.... really bad decision.... opposing teams will makes plays, they will win individual battles especially when they know whats coming

wrs played bad. both dropped passes plus terry's fumble. its sad that the guy with the best hands on the team is the #3 wr

 

[WarC]

Dallas with Romo at QB has been coverting 3rd and long, not sure where your getting this run up the middle stuff.

It was just an example, the sort of conservative playcalling that Parcells calls instead of going for the juggular. The whole Seattle game was an indictment against his style of play. It was a game practically begging for airing the ball out, like what we did against Philadelphia a couple of games ago. The Eagles were a highly favored team but we came out swinging, to put it in this thread's terms...

We need to do that more often. I think we are a team whose offensive talent is more oriented to the WCO than it is the ground-and-pound, ball control offense that Parcells seems to love.

This last game should never have come down to a FG.

 

[Doomsday101]

It was just an example, the sort of conservative playcalling that Parcells calls instead of going for the juggular. The whole Seattle game was an indictment against his style of play. It was a game practically begging for airing the ball out, like what we did against Philadelphia a couple of games ago. The Eagles were a highly favored team but we came out swinging, to put it in this thread's terms...

We need to do that more often. I think we are a team whose offensive talent is more oriented to the WCO than it is the ground-and-pound, ball control offense that Parcells seems to love.

This last game should never have come down to a FG.

Dallas was one of the higher scoring teams this past season. Sorry I don't agree with you that we were overly conservative.

 

[gbrittain]

Dallas was one of the higher scoring teams this past season. Sorry I don't agree with you that we were overly conservative.

Last year we were overly conservative, not this year. It still baffles me why Dallas did not even attempt to attack the Seattle secondary. That was conservative and mind blowing all in one.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Last year we were overly conservative, not this year. It still baffles me why Dallas did not even attempt to attack the Seattle secondary. That was conservative and mind blowing all in one.

Because Seattle rolled alot of double coverage to Owens' side and moved their Safeties back, in effect, daring us to run.

- Mike G.

 

[Doomsday101]

Last year we were overly conservative, not this year. It still baffles me why Dallas did not even attempt to attack the Seattle secondary. That was conservative and mind blowing all in one.

They were showing that Seattle would use the safeties over the top on the outside WR so you have over and under coverage. Holngrem was not going to allow Dallas to beat them deep. They also dropped the LB into deep middle zones. That played a big part in why Jones came up with over 100 yards rushing on the game. Dallas was able to attack over the tops or under the LB but we also made too many mistakes to take advantage of the Seahawks defense. I guess we could have just chunked it down field into the double coverage but to me that does not make a lot of sense

 

[sonnyboy]

I guess I'm still not over the loss. What bothers me most about it is we didn't go down swinging. The Seattle secondary was vulnerable, to say the least and we didn't go after them. And in general we weren't aggressive at important points in the game.

Before the game my thought was that I can deal with the Cowboys losing, but they should be aggressive, attack the Seahawks and give themselves a chance to win. If Romo throws 4 interceptions, fine, but you don't want to finish the game and feel like you left some ammo off the field.

A couple of examples that are illustrative of our approach in the game.

On our field goal drive in the 4th quarter, Jones had a six yard run to the Seattle 13, making it 2nd and 4. The score at this time was 17-13. A touchdown puts us up two scores and we very likely win the game, so that has to be given strong consideration. I believe in playing to win, not trying to hang around. 2nd and four is a good time for play-action, but we run Julius and gain three making it 3rd down and if I remember correctly about a foot.

Again, to me, a touchdown is huge here, a field goal is ok, but if you score a touchdown here you probably have a 90% chance to win, because it will take 2 scores to beat you. To me, there are two valid play calls here:

1. quarterback sneak - Romo can practically fall forward and get the first down. It's a conservative call, but a good call, because it's a very high percentage play for a first down when you have a short distance to go and even if you don't get it, you are probably even closer if you want to go on fourth, because you rarely lose yardage on QB sneaks.

2. Play action. It would be a big surprise and you'd have a chance at a touchdown.

Of course we hand off and get nowhere. Now anyone can play the 20/20 hindsight game and say it didn't work, therefore it was a bad play call. My point is that just by looking at the situation beforehand and not knowing what will happen, the handoff was the worst possible play call. If you want to just get the first down, a QB sneak does that and it's very unlikely you'll lose yardage. Any gain of yardage would pretty much get you the first down. If you want to be a little daring, then play action is the way to go. Running to a tail back is conservative and it also allows the defense time to penetrate and blow up the play. Bad call. The worst thing is we ended up kicking a field goal without ever attacking the endzone, when a touchdown pretty much ices the game.

Ok, next situation on our infamous drive, it's 1-10 on the Seattle 11 with Seattle leading 21-20. Again a field goal is good, but I would still be worried because a field goal by Seattle still gives them the game. I would want a touchdown. On first or second down I would have done some play action or a pass of some sort to at least attack the endzone. I know we wanted to run Seattle out of timeouts, but as it turned out they still would have had enough time for a drive. Had the 3rd down pass to Witten happened on second down, we would have had another chance to pick up the first or get a touchdown. Of course we run twice only get to the 8 and come up just short on 3rd down and the rest as they say is history.

Anyway, had to get that off my chest. I don't mind losing, but at least attack the other side and give yourself a chance to put the other team away. I've been a Parcells supporter, but the decisions in this game are making question my faith in him.

I feel your pain. Respectfully disagree with much of what you say here.

This was probably as good a game plan on O and D as this staff has put together this year.


On Offense the plan was to run the ball and throw short/intermediate against what we thought would be a heavy dose of two deep to protect corners.
That's just how it played out.

It worked well. We moved the ball well and Romo didn't have a pick.

Two reasons it did not work as well as we needed it to.
1) OL run blocking. Our OG's in paticular just didn't get it done. With the style they played we should have had more holes. Need to upgrade OL!
2) Turnovers. 3 fumbles. Witten, Glenn and Romo's muff. Can't put it on the turf that many times and expect to win.


I have no problems defensively with the game plan and game day coaching. We held Alexander in check. We got decent pressure on Hasselbach. No sacks but the rush was a factor. Forced two interception and numerous other poor/hurried throws. We seemed to have defenders in position to make plays quite a bit. Three dropped interceptions.

Two reasons it didn't work as well as it needed to.
1) Obviously the three dropped interceptions. Can't do that. Have to catch a couple of those. Isn't it amazing that our guy doesn't throw one bad ball that could have been picked, thier guy throws 5, and we still lose!

2) Bad calls. Yes it happens. Contrary to what that SOB spin doctoring head of officials would like to have you believe. Three! Three fantom defensive holding calls on two consecutive Seattle scoring drives. All three on third down stops!
I can live with the PI on Newman that should have only been a five yard defensive holding(uncatchable ball). I can live with the Witten first down reversal on the bad angle review, since I myself thought he was short. What I can't take are those 3 holding calls. They're the reason we are no longer playing.

 

[gbrittain]

They were showing that Seattle would use the safeties over the top on the outside WR so you have over and under coverage. Holngrem was not going to allow Dallas to beat them deep. They also dropped the LB into deep middle zones. That played a big part in why Jones came up with over 100 yards rushing on the game. Dallas was able to attack over the tops or under the LB but we also made too many mistakes to take advantage of the Seahawks defense. I guess we could have just chunked it down field into the double coverage but to me that does not make a lot of sense

I hear what you are saying, but teams beat us deep all the time when we know it was a passing down. You can roll coverages all day long, but still they were guys who had no business being on the field.

I think you still test them. If they prove you wrong, they prove you wrong.

If it were so easy to do I wish Dallas had tried to do that say against Detroit. I would much rather put the game on Aveon Cason shoulders than Kitna, Williams, and Furrey knowing good and well how prone we are to the big pass play.

 

[gbrittain]

Because Seattle rolled alot of double coverage to Owens' side and moved their Safeties back, in effect, daring us to run.

- Mike G.

I wish we would have dared a few teams to run...like say maybe Detroit.

 

[StarAmongStars]

i dont think romo is agood sneaker, who knows maybe he is, but hes small and cant push a pile, Bledsoe porbably could do it, not romo, maybe if we put drew in there to throw a wrinkle maybe we could have caught them off guard or somethin

With Bledsoe we would have shredded Seattles depleted secondary and the game likely wouldn't have come down a game winning field goal attempt.

The decision to go with a struggling young QB and not start Bledsoe against Seattle in our first huge game in a decade will haunt this franchise for years to come.

 

[DipChit]

I hear what you are saying, but teams beat us deep all the time when we know it was a passing down. You can roll coverages all day long, but still they were guys who had no business being on the field.

I think you still test them. If they prove you wrong, they prove you wrong.

If it were so easy to do I wish Dallas had tried to do that say against Detroit. I would much rather put the game on Aveon Cason shoulders than Kitna, Williams, and Furrey knowing good and well how prone we are to the big pass play.

Well we didnt get beat deep against them.. partly because they always had short fields to work with. And 3 of the TD passes were just based on their own great execution. Perfectly thrown balls put where only their guys could get them.

Great offensive execution wasnt something we'd been specializing in ourselves down the stretch as evidenced by the number of balls (lack thereof) TO and Glenn had been catching the last month... we just didnt pay much attention because the D was even worse. Not to say we shouldnt have taken a few shots.

 

[gbrittain]

Well we didnt get beat deep against them.. partly because they always had short fields to work with. And 3 of the TD passes were just based on their own great execution. Perfectly thrown balls put where only their guys could get them.

Great offensive execution wasnt something we'd been specializing in ourselves down the stretch as evidenced by the number of balls (lack thereof) TO and Glenn had been catching the last month... we just didnt pay much attention because the D was even worse. Not to say we shouldnt have taken a few shots.

That is all I am saying. Seattle's top three corners playing had a grand total of 10 starts amongst the three of them the whole season.

 

[superpunk]

Question for any and all who make the a statement like "The playcalling was too conservative, we should have taken some shots."

Why does this get pinned on the coaching staff? Romo was back there often standing around looking for the deep action, and he could never take advantage of it. We saw replays of players open downfield, specifically Terry housing everyone on the play Romo put the ball high and behind TO on. Tony was standing there, often late in the season, looking more and more like Drew Bledsoe, holding the ball waiting for something he never pulled the trigger on.

So, why the blanket "We were too conservative - we should have attacked their street free agents" as blame strictly on the coaching staff. To my eyes, it looked like the attacking plays were there, Tony just wasn't executing.

 

[gbrittain]

Question for any and all who make the a statement like "The playcalling was too conservative, we should have taken some shots."

Why does this get pinned on the coaching staff? Romo was back there often standing around looking for the deep action, and he could never take advantage of it. We saw replays of players open downfield, specifically Terry housing everyone on the play Romo put the ball high and behind TO on. Tony was standing there, often late in the season, looking more and more like Drew Bledsoe, holding the ball waiting for something he never pulled the trigger on.

So, why the blanket "We were too conservative - we should have attacked their street free agents" as blame strictly on the coaching staff. To my eyes, it looked like the attacking plays were there, Tony just wasn't executing.

I would not say we were conservative on offense. Eventhough I do not like the fact that Dallas did not take their chances downfield.

Maybe you are right...maybe it is Romo's fault. I have to admit there is a possibility you are right.

I keep hearing player execution as the reason BP has been average at best during his stint in Dallas. Maybe so.

Either way don't all coaches eventually get fired because players do not execute? For all the grief Zimmer takes do you think there is anyone on this board who knows defense better than him?

Does anyone on this board know more about football than Campo?

Those guys know football but evidently they can not get players to execute. I am quite sure Campo nor Zimmer ever said dont cover this guy...just leave him wide open or hey throw an INT now, better yet miss a tackle.

I understand the players are not executing, if we were talking one game here or one disappointing loss there I would be right there with you.

This team has underachieved big time the last two years and more specifically this year. If you contend that we did not underachieve then it begs the question what exactly has BP assembled here...a team that can only go one game over five hundred the last two years in what is an admitted weak conference?

 

[superpunk]

I would not say we were conservative on offense. Eventhough I do not like the fact that Dallas did not take their chances downfield.

Maybe you are right...maybe it is Romo's fault. I have to admit there is a possibility you are right.

I keep hearing player execution as the reason BP has been average at best during his stint in Dallas. Maybe so.

Either way don't all coaches eventually get fired because players do not execute? For all the grief Zimmer takes do you think there is anyone on this board who knows defense better than him?

Does anyone on this board know more about football than Campo?

Those guys know football but evidently they can not get players to execute. I am quite sure Campo nor Zimmer ever said dont cover this guy...just leave him wide open or hey throw an INT now, better yet miss a tackle.

I understand the players are not executing, if we were talking one game here or one disappointing loss there I would be right there with you.

This team has underachieved big time the last two years and more specifically this year. If you contend that we did not underachieve then it begs the question what exactly has BP assembled here...a team that can only go one game over five hundred the last two years in what is an admitted weak conference?

If they have tuned him out, he needs to go. That is a possibility. I think owners keep a close eye on that, and if it were happening, I think Jerry would end the relationship. I don't get that feeling from the players about Bill. That's a tangent though. I was speaking specifically to the criticism of conservativism and not taking shots. IMO, the shots were called, they were being aggressive - but Tony wouldn't pull the trigger. There was clear evidence of that, but still the playcalling and gameplan are criticized rather than the player?

Most of the time I feel that gameplan and playcalling criticism is just lazy-speak for "The players didn't execute." In this case, I know it was. Tony missed a wide open Glenn. He threw short to Witten when a wide open TO broke free in the end zone on a critical third down. That play may have been designed to go to Witten all the way, but you've gotta know the down and distance - Witten and Romo both messed up there - Witten in where he broke it off, Romo in who he chose to throw it to. Then, the players failed to execute a field goal, that was shorter than an extra point. How can any of that be placed at the feet of the coaches?

 

[gbrittain]

If they have tuned him out, he needs to go. That is a possibility. I think owners keep a close eye on that, and if it were happening, I think Jerry would end the relationship. I don't get that feeling from the players about Bill. That's a tangent though. I was speaking specifically to the criticism of conservativism and not taking shots. IMO, the shots were called, they were being aggressive - but Tony wouldn't pull the trigger. There was clear evidence of that, but still the playcalling and gameplan are criticized rather than the player?

Most of the time I feel that gameplan and playcalling criticism is just lazy-speak for "The players didn't execute." In this case, I know it was. Tony missed a wide open Glenn. He threw short to Witten when a wide open TO broke free in the end zone on a critical third down. That play may have been designed to go to Witten all the way, but you've gotta know the down and distance - Witten and Romo both messed up there - Witten in where he broke it off, Romo in who he chose to throw it to. Then, the players failed to execute a field goal, that was shorter than an extra point. How can any of that be placed at the feet of the coaches?

I do not contend that there is any single play in which the coaching staff blew it. Players make mistakes during games and that is well understood. They are accountable.

However, my contention is more big picture. Why are we struggling on the road against a very beat up Seattle secondary? Why did Dallas lose five of its last six? Why can Dallas only win 9 games in a weak NFC two years in a row now. Why has Dallas only looked like a legit team once in the four years he has been here?

I give him credit for a great coaching job his first year. That was outstanding. I dont think anyone here though had illusions of Dallas being one of the top teams in the NFL. The only point in his entire four years here in which I sat back and said "hmm we may be onto something here" was the four game win streak in which we beat Arizona, Indy, Tampa, and New York. That is one stretch in four years for four games and then the rug was pulled out from under us big time.

I can understand people saying "Lets hang onto BP because next year will be different". I do not agree, but I can understand the thought process. It is legitimate IMO and possible.

I do not understand the defense of BP as to how the last four years have panned out. I do not think he has accomplished anything to write home about. I think his performance has been average at best. The two games over five hundred, no division championships, and no playoff wins in a very weak conference speak for themselves.

Would BP have had a record over 8-8 if Dallas played in the AFC the last four years? Maybe, but I doubt it.