Weeden Speaks

[Rockport]

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

And NONE of them lost a Romo or a Dez. SMH.

 

[Idgit]

Dunbar was not a massive loss. He is a player fat an always be upgraded .

Really? I thought he was our best remaining offensive weapon at the point he went down. He wasn't a superstar, obviously, but he was a mismatch player and somebody we were relying on at that point in the season.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

The defense was good enough to win most games, provided that the offense plays to win. They kept the other team in check until the end. But Garret's philosophy of playing not to lose, and playing for fg's doomed the defense.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Thus the offense doesn't work unless Tony makes something happen. No surprise.

Yep, we had 3 different vet backup QBs and the results were about the same for all of them...........losses.

Our offensive system is one of the most basic in the entire league, its literally the most vanilla scheme I have seen. We simply rely on Romo to match the right play against the right defense and then out execute on the play. There is very little deception, misdirection, innovation, or creativity. Our philosophy is simply to out execute the other team, doesn't matter if they know what the play is. That is all fine and dandy if you have a QB that is basically an on-the-field offensive coordinator, but if you don't it will blow up in your face.

And this is not a rant or me going off on coaches and staff, this is simply an evaluation of our offensive system and why every other QB besides Romo struggles with it to be successful.

 

[Idgit]

The defense was good enough to win most games, provided that the offense plays to win. They kept the other team in check until the end. But Garret's philosophy of playing not to lose, and playing for fg's doomed the defense.

Clearly, they weren't good enough to win most of those games, as we couldn't overcome anybody in all but one game. Sitting at -22 TO differential gets you 4-12, and you don't get to -22 by just turning the ball over a lot. You also have to be pretty good at not taking it away.

We were worst in the league at taking it away, btw. With 11. Carolina had 39.

 

[Dodger12]

And NONE of them lost a Romo or a Dez. SMH.

A little leg work would be nice because I think you're talking out your ***. We already know that teams lost their starting QB's. We also know that teams won with their back-up. I don't think the Cowboys are the only team to lose their starting QB and another skill player like their WR/RB; or an important position like LT, DE or LB.

You're just making a blanket statement.

 

[gmoney112]

Clearly, they weren't good enough to win most of those games, as we couldn't overcome anybody in all but one game. Sitting at -22 TO differential gets you 4-12, and you don't get to -22 by just turning the ball over a lot. You also have to be pretty good at not taking it away.

We were worst in the league at taking it away, btw. With 11. Carolina had 39.

It was a team effort. But, the fact that only one team in the league, a team with the worst off-season I can remember, scored less than us without Tony and Dez is pretty telling.

 

[Rockport]

A little leg work would be nice because I think you're talking out your ***. We already know that teams lost their starting QB's. We also know that teams won with their back-up. I don't think the Cowboys are the only team to lose their starting QB and another skill player like their WR/RB; or an important position like LT, DE or LB.

You're just making a blanket statement.

Show me a team that lost a Romo and a Dez please. You can't so you're the one talking out your ***.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Not sure why this became another stupid bash-Garrett thread, but it's a shame, because it's a good topic.

Weeden's right. It was bad form for Jerry to take those shots at him. And I'm sure he was trying with everything he had to win. He just wasn't good enough. It happens.

And it wasn't just the QB play that did us in. The defense that couldn't get a takeaway could have stepped up and delivered multiple wins during that span, and they failed, too.

Maybe because Weeden said he was not allowed to "freelance" like Romo does and he had to go with the play that was called. I am assuming this was done for all 3 QBs, so then the question is pertinent to one of coaching. I think this is more than a fair question to ask and is not a "stupid bash-Garrett" thread, but a legit question to ask.

If the coaching staff requires all QBs besides Romo to run the play as called and the result is the 31st ranked offense and 1-11 record, you don't think that coaching staff is somewhat responsible for those results and criticism is legitimate? Seriously?

 

[Beast_from_East]

this "incompetent" staff was ONE catch-called-no-catch from being in the NFCCG against a team they had already trounced. we have the worst fans.

You just proved the entire point bro, good job.

With Romo drawing up plays in the dirt and freelancing at the line.....................one play away from NFC Championship Game

Without Romo............team uses multiple QBs and proceeds to lose virtually every game the entire season and is drafting highest position in 27 years.

 

[JPostSam]

"The things that Tony did, as a backup guy you can't really go out there and kind of emulate it and do the same things. He has full freedom at the line of scrimmage, those kind of things, and he's been in this system for a long time. As comfortable as I was in it, I just didn't really have those freedoms to freelance like he does."

hey, weeden: it's not about romo changing plays, it's about romo *making* plays.

not saying you're a bad guy, but you're just not a good quarterback.

 

[Beast_from_East]

It can be said that we were 1 play away from winning 6-7 more games. ......we didn't and we also didn't lose every game either

Coulda, shoulda, woulda..................all means jack.

All that matters is the scoreboard bro, and the scoreboard says........wait for it........wait for it.............1-11 without Romo using 3 different QBs

 

[Idgit]

It was a team effort. But, the fact that only one team in the league, a team with the worst off-season I can remember, scored less than us without Tony and Dez is pretty telling.

It's hugely telling. It's more than half of the entire story, in fact. Had we even been league-average, though, at 23 takeaways...how many of those close games do you think we'd have won? Again, we went from 31 in 2014, to 11 last year. The drop off wasn't just at the QB position.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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

 

[Idgit]

Maybe because Weeden said he was not allowed to "freelance" like Romo does and he had to go with the play that was called. I am assuming this was done for all 3 QBs, so then the question is pertinent to one of coaching. I think this is more than a fair question to ask and is not a "stupid bash-Garrett" thread, but a legit question to ask.

If the coaching staff requires all QBs besides Romo to run the play as called and the result is the 31st ranked offense and 1-11 record, you don't think that coaching staff is somewhat responsible for those results and criticism is legitimate? Seriously?

You can drive a truck between having 'full freedoms at the line of scrimmage' and 'what you want Matt Cassell to be able to do after being with the team for 4 weeks' or 'what you want Brandon Weeden to do, ever.' Weeden's comments make it clear that that particular challenge was Linehan's problem, anyway.

The question of whether or not Weeden should have been given more freedom's than he was actually given is legitimate, I'd agree. But that's not what was being concluded here, an we both know it.

 

[gmoney112]

It's hugely telling. It's more than half of the entire story, in fact. Had we even been league-average, though, at 23 takeaways...how many of those close games do you think we'd have won? Again, we went from 31 in 2014, to 11 last year. The drop off wasn't just at the QB position.

Honestly? I don't know. A few. But, was there any point during that stretch where the offense gave you any confidence, whatsoever?

I think most possessions would have ended in a punt, or FG, at best. We couldn't buy our way into the end zone.

It's hard to answer that question. If we had more TO's, and subsequently more points I guess, that doesn't necessarily translate to victories. Other teams played us conservatively for a reason. If we had a lead, they'd played us differently. Could we have stopped it? There's really no way to know.

 

[Beast_from_East]

You can drive a truck between having 'full freedoms at the line of scrimmage' and 'what you want Matt Cassell to be able to do after being with the team for 4 weeks' or 'what you want Brandon Weeden to do, ever.' Weeden's comments make it clear that that particular challenge was Linehan's problem, anyway.

The question of whether or not Weeden should have been given more freedom's than he was actually given is legitimate, I'd agree. But that's not what was being concluded here, an we both know it.

Its not just Weeden, its all 3 QBs that contributed to 1-11.................even Jerry has said he has no explanation for it.

The bottom line is that in the NFL, if you go 1-11 using 3 different QBs, then there is something wrong with your team. Either the scheme, coaching, surrounding talent, play calling, something.

And criticism and questioning of the decisions that were made, the plays that were called, the schemes that were used, and everything else is legitimate and not "bashing". That is the point I am making.

 

[jnday]

Cuz QB's don't win games by themselves and the Cowboys have more problems than backup qb.

Theresa's no other proble that caused more loses than poor backup QB play.

 

[mattjames2010]

And yet we are still to believe that Linehan would still agree to a contract extension in January of 2015 with an owner who was somehow forcing him to keep Weeden?



I'll make you a deal, you give me whatever parameters on that I have to work with and then I'll give you my list.

It has little to do with the remaining paid professionals doing their jobs. Any player who wouldn't doesn't deserve to be in the NFL.



Coupled with plenty of bad decisions and poor coaching. Chalking it up to "unfortunate circumstances" would be ignorant and sounds like something we'd get from Mickey Spagnola.

And yet we are still to believe that Linehan would still agree to a contract extension in January of 2015 with an owner who was somehow forcing him to keep Weeden?

Then don't believe it? I mean, the article had quotes from Linehan alluding to this thoughts. If you want to think otherwise, do so. I'd want you to counter it with something of substance though.

I'll make you a deal, you give me whatever parameters on that I have to work with and then I'll give you my list.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/quarterback/

There is your list (Wasn't hard to find), show me a QB that could have come in and been successful after only 2 weeks of being with the team? This should be funny.

It has little to do with the remaining paid professionals doing their jobs. Any player who wouldn't doesn't deserve to be in the NFL.

Who said they weren't doing their job? You still need talent to produce. What the hell do you guys expect? We're getting to the point of where people have odd expectations and are surprised when they aren't met.

Coupled with plenty of bad decisions and poor coaching. Chalking it up to "unfortunate circumstances" would be ignorant and sounds like something we'd get from Mickey Spagnola.

Please, show me these "bad decisions" throughout the year? Show me these "bad decisions" that were far greater problems than the injuries that plagued us? I keep reading "bad decisions" here with very little examples.

This is not me saying our coaching staff is perfect and was flawless. Give me examples of a team that lost it's star players early in the year and recovered from it. Go!

I'll make you a deal, you give me whatever parameters on that I have to work with and then I'll give you my list.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

So yes or no is this offense to Romo friendly...
Weeden says he didnt have enought time with Linehan

So yes or no did the coaching staff limit you
Weeden says its a give or take and deepens on if you have success with plays given if not you limit yourself.


So Weeden didnt have enough time with Linehan in the system and he limited himself in the end because he messed up with options given?

So he goes to the Texans and expands his options all of a sudden?