Weeden Speaks

[Stash]

Dunbar LOL

The limbo bar gets lower and lower and lower...

 

[Stash]

This team wasn't decimated by injuries and it's revisionist history to suggest otherwise. Especially when you see some of the teams we lost to like the Giants, who also had significant injury problems.

Eventually you guys will realize what a mediocre staff this is. Probably will take you two more years of disappointment before that settles in, I guess.

Some will never get it. They think it's their obligation as fans to lie to themselves and anyone who'll listen that there's nothing wrong with this team and that 20 years of futility is just "bad luck".

 

[Alexander]

The limbo bar gets lower and lower and lower...

If losing a marginal player like Dunbar dooms your season, it was doomed from the time they started training camp.

 

[Stash]

If losing a marginal player like Dunbar dooms your season, it was doomed from the time they started training camp.

But it's a handy excuse for when you continue to disappoint.

"We would have had a great season, if only _______ didn't get hurt..."



It's genius really, if you can get enough suckers to buy it. Hey! Maybe Garrett truly is a genius?

 

[Sydla]

Dunbar was a MASSIVE LOSS.

I mean who was supposed to catch all those dump offs the coaching staff wanted Weeden to make?

 

[Stash]

Dunbar was a MASSIVE LOSS.

I mean who was supposed to catch all those dump offs the coaching staff wanted Weeden to make?

You just watch, this is the year where it all comes together, where we become the first team in NFL history to have perfect attendance for a full NFL season!

No more "bad luck" for us!

Lance Dunbar will become....Iron Man!

 

[CowboyRoy]

I never thought he would hold up for the season, much less be as effective overall as he was. Once they changed things up from zone to man blocking for him, he had a great season. I expected him to be on the sidelines for the vast majority of it.

I'll happily admit I was very wrong on him.

I never thought he would hold up either. But we can see from Murray's season, it happens. Im sure you would be surprised if he did it again based on his history. But I dont think he ran effectively. Certainly in the later part he had more big runs. But even on those longer runs he got caught from behind. That break away speed just isnt there anymore. And his TD totals were not good by any stretch.

So for me, better than I expected or predicted, but he is not the kind of difference maker we need there. Certainly nothing close to what Murray was in his season.

 

[Stash]

I never thought he would hold up either. But we can see from Murray's season, it happens. Im sure you would be surprised if he did it again based on his history. But I dont think he ran effectively. Certainly in the later part he had more big runs. But even on those longer runs he got caught from behind. That break away speed just isnt there anymore. And his TD totals were not good by any stretch.

So for me, better than I expected or predicted, but he is not the kind of difference maker we need there. Certainly nothing close to what Murray was in his season.

No.

I'd very much still like the position to be upgraded. My own pet cat on the offseason wish list is Lamar Miller. He was so underutilized in Miami the coaches should have been arrested. I think that guy, with this line, could lead the league in rushing.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Well they're sure not going to point at 8-8, 8-8, and 8-8 are they? And this 4-12 record setter for futility?

Never happened.

This team wasn't decimated by injuries and it's revisionist history to suggest otherwise. Especially when you see some of the teams we lost to like the Giants, who also had significant injury problems.

Eventually you guys will realize what a mediocre staff this is. Probably will take you two more years of disappointment before that settles in, I guess.

No way..............If they havent figured out Garretts shortcoming after 9 years of him coaching here, there is absolutely no hope what so ever.

Anyone that still thinks Garrett is a good coach simply has blinders on. No other explanation. And if Garrett has ANY shot to be a quality coach in the NFL its not here in Dallas where his legs get cut out from under him. He is 100% NOT the kind of puppet coach we need here in Dallas. We need a Parcells (ouch) TYPE coach that Jones will give more power to and will listen to.

 

[CowboyRoy]

No.

I'd very much still like the position to be upgraded. My own pet cat on the offseason wish list is Lamar Miller. He was so underutilized in Miami the coaches should have been arrested. I think that guy, with this line, could lead the league in rushing.

I would LOVE to see Miller here. Several quality veterans out there in FA.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Again, in those two games, how many points did the opponent score? Right off the bat in the Titans game, Houston recovered a fumble for a TD. Then Ten fumbles on a punt return, Houston recovers at the 11. They also scored off a turnover in the second half.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015122703/2015/REG16/texans@titans#menu=gameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000618729&tab=analyze&recap=fullstory&analyze=playbyplay

Weeden had a TON of help in that game. Something that killed our team this year was the lack of turnovers, it's not surprising that even with Weeden at QB, you win the turnover battle and you win football games.

These are great points. This team had to live and die with the offense driving the length of the field and the QB winning the game at the end. Boy did it look bad when a top flight QB was not calling the shots.

 

[Rockport]

This team wasn't decimated by injuries and it's revisionist history to suggest otherwise. Especially when you see some of the teams we lost to like the Giants, who also had significant injury problems.

Eventually you guys will realize what a mediocre staff this is. Probably will take you two more years of disappointment before that settles in, I guess.

No team had the number of impactful personnel losses than the Cowboys had.

 

[Dhragon]

So when Romo stepped in he was stuck with the Bledsoe offense.
OR
Did the coaches make quick adjustments for the Romo style.
OR
Did Romo freelance.

Parcells >>>>> Garrett. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Parcells, even with his conservative bent, let the offense open up quite a bit more with Romo in the game as opposed to Bledsoe. He knew what Romo was.

I seriously doubt Romo defied Parcells and went rogue (stretched the boundaries I'm sure, but never broke them). Even after his first game where he threw multiple INTs, Bill didn't get overly scared and make him Weeden. He let him be Romo, with some restraints of course (since he preferred 3 yards and a cloud of dust style offense), but still let him play to his strengths for the most part.

Red seems to let each QB play his first game okay. But any mistakes get the screws tightened more and more. Garrett seems to become paralyzed with worry that the QB will lose the game for them and pretty soon the offense only contains a very short, vanilla, conservative game plan. And then the offense dies and we have another Weeden.

 

[Sydla]

No team had the number of impactful personnel losses than the Cowboys had.

Always excuses, I guess.

Honest question. At what point will you finally stop making excuses for Garrett and this staff? Do you need another 8-8 season or does that 12-4 season buy him like 3 more years in your eyes?

 

[Stash]

Always excuses, I guess.

Honest question. At what point will you finally stop making excuses for Garrett and this staff? Do you need another 8-8 season or does that 12-4 season buy him like 3 more years in your eyes?

Dunbar = "impactful"

 

[Plankton]

Maybe. Thing is, on the takeaways, we've got a guy at DC with a long track record of success with turnovers. And we know the emphasis he puts on it. And then we went out and improved the front fairly dramatically in terms of personnel. So I actually am perplexed we weren't more successful.

Now, some of the lack of takeaways comes from teams being able to out score us easily. Some comes from the teams we played taking care of the ball against everybody. But still, there were a lot of games ther a backup QB would have one with just one more pick or one fewer drop or one untimely penalty. It was bizarre.

I think there were two reasons why the defense was so impotent in terms of creating turnovers:

1. Opposing teams knew that they didn't have to take many chances because the Cowboy offense was so bad.
2. The defense, on the whole, didn't play with the same passion, esprit-de-corps, and swarming effort that they did in 2014. This defense didn't get as many hats on the ball, and was not as energetic.

 

[odog422]

I think there were two reasons why the defense was so impotent in terms of creating turnovers:

1. Opposing teams knew that they didn't have to take many chances because the Cowboy offense was so bad.
2. The defense, on the whole, didn't play with the same passion, esprit-de-corps, and swarming effort that they did in 2014. This defense didn't get as many hats on the ball, and was not as energetic.

Totally agree on your second point. We were swarming in 2014 AND guys were actively trying to strip the ball. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

 

[DandyDon1722]

I think Garett's offensive philosophy of our guys beating their guys works when our guys are on the field. It worked at 12-4.

But that's not the reality of the NFL. Those guys simply were never going to be on the field again together due to free agency (Murray) and as we saw injuries (Romo, Dez, etc). We've also been extremely fortunate with the one of our strengths, the offensive line staying healthy. Realistically how long can that last?

Nothing exemplifies scheme over talent more than the simple pick plays on the outside that every team in the league seems to run except us. Marginal receivers get open with these plays so consistently that there are always rumblings that they should somehow be penalized because it's perceived as an unfair competitive advantage.

Yet, if they are even in our playbook they are certainly not a priority. A lot of practice time goes into those plays and we just don't commit to them or we would all be commenting on how we're killing it with picks and rubs. But even more to the point it doesn't take a Tom Brady or Brees or Rodgers or God help us, Brandon Weeden to make those throws.

So we start over again next season with hopefully some quality picks and a few free agents and the offense will work again with Romo but the question that will linger will be if it's sustainable when attrition hits and our guys on the field can no longer beat their guys.

 

[percyhoward]

I think there were two reasons why the defense was so impotent in terms of creating turnovers:

1. Opposing teams knew that they didn't have to take many chances because the Cowboy offense was so bad.
2. The defense, on the whole, didn't play with the same passion, esprit-de-corps, and swarming effort that they did in 2014. This defense didn't get as many hats on the ball, and was not as energetic.

What we missed this year were 1) our 2014 offense, and 2) our 2014 schedule.

As your first point said, our horrible offense played a part. We suffered from not having an offense that allowed us to play with a lead most of the time, forcing the opponent to take more risks which would have led to many more takeaways. Last year, 16 of our defense's 30 takeaways happened when we were leading by 10 points or more. In all other situations in 2014 -- when we weren't leading by at least 10 points -- we only had 14 takeaways. We simply didn't have enough big leads in 2015 to make our opponents take chances.

Cowboys
snaps when leading by 10+ points / takeaways
2014: 376 / 16 (4.3%)
2015: 84 / 3 (3.6%)

all other snaps
2014: 602 / 14 (2.3%)
2015: 851 / 8 (0.9%)

The difference on all the other plays (more "normal" game situations when we weren't up by 10+ points) can almost be completely explained away by the schedule of teams we faced. They didn't turn it over much against us because they didn't turn it over much against anybody. In contrast, the teams we faced last year were turnover machines for the most part.

Games against teams ranked in bottom 10 (and ties) / middle 12 / top 10 in fewest turnovers
2014: 12 / 2 / 2
2015: 4 / 7 / 5

 

[Dodger12]

No team had the number of impactful personnel losses than the Cowboys had.

Is this your opinion or is it based on facts?

Just looking around the internet and found some numbers. I don't know how accurate they are, as I don't have as much knowledge of a lot of other NFL teams but this is interesting. The date of the article is December 10 and the team's record is in parenthesis. Notice the Cowboys are near the bottom in terms of the number of players lost for the year up until the time the article was written:

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2015/12/giants_again_rank_among_nfls_most_injured_teams.html

Players Out for the Season
Ravens (4-8) -- 18
Steelers (7-5) -- 16
Giants (5-7) -- 15Patriots (10-2) -- 15
Jaguars (4-8) -- 12
Cardinals (10-2) -- 12
Bears (5-7) -- 11
Chargers (3-9) -- 11
Saints (4-8) -- 11
Commanders (5-7) -- 11
Bills (6-6) -- 10
Texans (6-6) -- 10
Seahawks (7-5) -- 10
Lions (4-8) -- 10
Jets (7-5) -- 9
49ers (4-8) -- 9
Rams (4-8) -- 8
Colts (6-6) -- 8
Browns (2-10) -- 8
Eagles (5-7) -- 8
Titans (3-9) -- 7
Chiefs (7-5) -- 7
Vikings (8-4) -- 7
Packers (8-4) -- 6
Panthers (12-0) -- 6
Falcons (6-6) -- 6
Bucs (6-6) -- 6
Cowboys (4-8) -- 5
Broncos (10-2) -- 5
Raiders (5-7) -- 5
Dolphins (5-7) -- 3
Browns (2-10) -- 3

Here's a similar article from another source but the rersults and ranking are somewhat similar:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2015/12/18/patsinjuries/uA2hNFvc0TzdNq0m1VthDI/story.html

The most-injured teams in the NFL this year
All 32 NFL teams (with records heading into Week 15). Number on right represents injured days lost.
Ravens (4-9) 165
Giants (6-7) 165
Patriots (11-2) 163
Commanders (6-7) 158
Browns (3-10) 142
Texans (6-7) 138
Jaguars (5-8) 136
Buccaneers (6-7) 136
Bears (5-8) 132
Steelers (8-5) 130
49ers (4-9) 126
Bills (6-7) 119
Jets (8-5) 115
Colts (6-7) 114
Saints (5-8) 110
Chiefs (8-5) 109
Lions (4-9) 107
Eagles (6-7) 103
Raiders (6-7) 102
Chargers (3-10) 100
Seahawks (8-5) 99
Cowboys (4-9) 94
Packers (9-4) 93
Cardinals (11-2) 92
Falcons (6-7) 91
Panthers (13-0) 91
Vikings (8-5) 86
Titans (3-10) 84
Rams (5-8) 81
Broncos (10-3) 67
Bengals (10-3) 67
Dolphins (5-8) 53

Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com