We were supposed to use and abuse Seattle secondary

[Rampage]

what happened?

I am asking seriously... because we were supposed to use and abuse other weak or injury riddled secondaries this year and we never did....

was it playcalling?
execution?
opposing team stepped up?

i think it was a combo of playcalling and romo. romo is still the one throwing the ball. they dhould have thrown atleast 7 passes T.O.'s way

 

[AdamJT13]

Whether it was playcalling or our inability to execute the plays that were called, we might never know. But Romo went from having the league's highest percentage of passes thrown more than 20 yards downfield (19.0 percent) to not even attempting one deep pass until the Hail Mary on the final play.

 

[joseephuss]

Cutting Vandrjagt cost Dallas that game. The one thing he did was make Parcells play a little less conservatively. Bill did not trust Vandy to make any kicks, so he pushed the offense a little more than normal. Looks like Bill trusted Martin and went back to his ultra conservative ways.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Cutting Vandrjagt cost Dallas that game. The one thing he did was make Parcells play a little less conservatively. Bill did not trust Vandy to make any kicks, so he pushed the offense a little more than normal. Looks like Bill trusted Martin and went back to his ultra conservative ways.

das jus lootacwis

 

[joseephuss]

das jus lootacwis

You mean this isn't the lootacwis forum?

Yes, far fetched by me. Maybe a little truth in it, but I don't think there is any special reason Dallas went conservative and didn't attack Seattle's weak secondary. It is just Parcell's nature.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

You mean this isn't the lootacwis forum?

Yes, far fetched by me. Maybe a little truth in it, but I don't think there is any special reason Dallas went conservative and didn't attack Seattle's weak secondary. It is just Parcell's nature.

not its beyond lootacwis.....

IF we had Vandy and had no confidence in getting FG we could have gone for TD and got zero... what would be different????

 

[Parche]

This is by far the most disturbing question I've been asking myself since the loss last saturday. I simply can't stop thinking about it.

I was "pro" parcells prior to this game, but after seeing how we never tried to test these corners saturday night, I've changed my opinion on Parcells. He must go.

It is simply unforgivable that we didn't test those corners. Never went deep the whole game, minus the hail mary.

Parcells MO is to "grind every game out", and thats all well and good, especially if you don't have alot of talent on your team, but we were the only team in the playoffs who had two, count em, two 1000 yard recievers, plus a qb who was in the top 5 in pass rating. And we didn't test them???

I simply can't get it out of my head. A loan officer and a hunting guide, and we never tested them????? It is simply unfathomable.

Holmgren went on and on a few days prior to this game saying he was going to run, run, and run some more. Whats he do? 4 of the first 5 plays were passes. Why? Cause we can't get a pass, and Holmgren knew it. It is our weakness, and he tried to exploit it.

Seattle's weakness was thier secondary, and we didn't try to exploit it.

Make sense that Seattle went to the SB last year, and we can't even win a playoff game. Coaching, simple as that.

Agreed

 

[joseephuss]

not its beyond lootacwis.....

IF we had Vandy and had no confidence in getting FG we could have gone for TD and got zero... what would be different????

I wasn't referring to the final play. The main point of the thread was why Dallas did not do better against the Seahawks patchwork secondary. Obvious reason is Parcell's conservative nature. My little comment about Vandy was mostly a joke, but there is a hint of truth in it. Bill said as much that his distrust in the kicker changed his approach to the game.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I wasn't referring to the final play. The main point of the thread was why Dallas did not do better against the Seahawks patchwork secondary. Obvious reason is Parcell's conservative nature. My little comment about Vandy was mostly a joke, but there is a hint of truth in it. Bill said as much that his distrust in the kicker changed his approach to the game.

I see what you mean.... my head is still spinning... not from the fumble... but from STILL banging my head against the wall... head is hard.... only bruising... havent drawn blood YET!!?!??! :bang2:

 

[BulletBob]

I'd say it was conservative play calling.

Lemme ax yuse a quesshen.

You're the OC of the Dallas Cowboys (or the Head Coach). You know you are facing a depleted secondary, featuring Loan Security Officer Ralph "Pete" Hunter.

On the first play from scrimmage, why on earth do you not spread the defense with a 3-4 WR set, and send all 3 WRs on fly patterns, or deep seam routes?

Even if you don't complete a pass, you scare the bejesus out of them. They immediately go into a conservative protect formation. Throw a few more deep patterns and maybe complete some, and guess what?

The ExLax factor kicks in.

The holes open up in the middle of the field for Julius wider than he's ever seen.

Instead, what do we do? Try to establish the run right out of the gate and throw a few short passes. Pretty soon old Ralph looks like Deion out there, and the coaching staff gains confidence in their coverage abilities enough to play a bit more aggressive against the run.

UGH!

 

[DallasDomination]

watched the game 3 times and i always come out thinking the same thing...' How did We even move the ball with that Offensive line?



Just watch the OLine they are pathetic soft fat lards...Columbo is ok and sometimes Flo but rivera and Kosier?:bang2:

 

[texastwister]

Funny thing about the original question -TO got called out by ESPN because one of the last questions someone asked him why they didnt attack the secondary of Seattle and he said something to the fact of I dont know I dont call they plays. ESPN said it was selfish of TO to make statements about questioning why he didnt get the ball more yet as fans of football didnt everyone in America ask the question-Why didnt Dallas attack the depleted secondary of Seattle?
Yet TO is a cancer and trouble maker and some fans dont want him back. Yet as a fan of the Boys I thought TO did a terrific job with the Cowboys this year with the media and behavior. My question is why would TO want to come back to a team that throws 6 passes to their playmakers aginst a make shift secondary?

 

[Beast_from_East]

I'd say it was conservative play calling.

Lemme ax yuse a quesshen.

You're the OC of the Dallas Cowboys (or the Head Coach). You know you are facing a depleted secondary, featuring Loan Security Officer Ralph "Pete" Hunter.

On the first play from scrimmage, why on earth do you not spread the defense with a 3-4 WR set, and send all 3 WRs on fly patterns, or deep seam routes?

Even if you don't complete a pass, you scare the bejesus out of them. They immediately go into a conservative protect formation. Throw a few more deep patterns and maybe complete some, and guess what?

The ExLax factor kicks in.

The holes open up in the middle of the field for Julius wider than he's ever seen.

Instead, what do we do? Try to establish the run right out of the gate and throw a few short passes. Pretty soon old Ralph looks like Deion out there, and the coaching staff gains confidence in their coverage abilities enough to play a bit more aggressive against the run.

UGH!

You are 100% correct. This game should not have been close with freaking Pete Hunter playing bump and run with TO.

Guys, this stuff is pretty basic football 101 here. You attack a team's weakness. If the secondary sucks, you throw 35 times. If the front 7 sucks, you run it 35 times. Only a freaking ****** would actually play to your opponents strenght.

Again guys, why is it so basic for us on here to see, but the coaches dont even have a clue???

 

[the kid 05]

we were supposta attack the hell out of the saints Defense too, DT tackle got suspended, various other "scrubs" and yeah...well we know how that one ended too

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

what happened?

I am asking seriously... because we were supposed to use and abuse other weak or injury riddled secondaries this year and we never did....

was it playcalling?
execution?
opposing team stepped up?

The senior moment lasted the whole game. Parcells seemed confused.
Like Bizarro Planet. Their secondary weak, we not pass to many."

This was football 101. Pass and pass often.
So Parcells went to a JJ ground attack that did not exploit THAT weakness.
No Barber.
T.O. and Glenn each got -- what? -- 40 yards apiece? Nonfeasance.:bang2:

Shame. The Parcells brain trust was in a trance and clueless. A bad combination.

 

[sillycon]

You are 100% correct. This game should not have been close with freaking Pete Hunter playing bump and run with TO.

Guys, this stuff is pretty basic football 101 here. You attack a team's weakness. If the secondary sucks, you throw 35 times. If the front 7 sucks, you run it 35 times. Only a freaking ****** would actually play to your opponents strenght.

Again guys, why is it so basic for us on here to see, but the coaches dont even have a clue???

generally, I'd agree but the problem is that the OL just isn't that good to try to work against an opponent's weakness(es). But yeah, in the Seattle game, it should've been pass, pass, and still more passing since the OL pass protects (relatively)better (plus Romo's mobility also helps in that regard) than its run blocking...