What I did notice is this team doesn't give up

[tyke1doe]

Channeling your inner RunDMC?

I speak for myself.

 

[windward]

We lost to Arizona because Kitna was injured and McGee was put in. You said we beat scrubs, I just showed you we did not. And I like you moving the goal post now, so beating Colts wasn't impressive because we didn't blow them out. Haha

Against Peyton Manning, no less.

 

[khiladi]

We lost to Arizona because Kitna was injured and McGee was put in. You said we beat scrubs, I just showed you we did not. And I like you moving the goal post now, so beating Colts wasn't impressive because we didn't blow them out. Haha

So than QB shouldn't always be an excuse this year for being winless, because the Colts had Peyton Manning and we had Kitna..

You know the original reason why you justified 0-7..

Congratulations on finding 1 team we beat that was decent, as if this on any way defies the original claim that we beat scrubs. Washington were scrubs and Detroit were scrubs.. And the Philly team we played were scrubs, who rested their starters and had already clinched the division and we lost to Arizona... Arizona wasn't a good team at all.. But apparently Dallas loss against Arizona to you doesn't count, but the win to Philly in that last game does, though Philly rested everybody.

And Kitna started against Arizona and threw an INT the first drive that was returned for a TD and he played the whole half. And the Cardinals were up 21-10 before the half and McGee played better. But lets just ignore the fact the Cardinals were playing with a guy called John Skelton at QB as well.

You got two games of 'good teams', one of those teams the Goants didn't make the playoffs. And the Colts, because the defense got them 4 TOs, yet the Colts didn't get any and that still were scoring on is at will despite is getting 4 chances via TOs.. Like I said multiple times before, the only reason we want 5-3 that stretch is because we won the TO game on defense, getting 20 in the last 8 games, playing weak teams, while playing safe on offense by running the ball.

That's a record contingent on playing a bunch of scrubs.. There is no changing the goal post, other than on your side with all your various excuses. The goal post is you trying to exaggerate the effects of Garrett's coaching record in 2010, while you keep trying to make all sorts of excuses of his being 0-7 this year without Romo, but with allegedly a much better roster that was a result of Garrett's five year process to finally revamp this team..

But Cassell couldn't win and neither could Weeden, though they won in other places. And teams like the Texans which were as miserable as the Cowboys this year won with back-ups..

 

[mattjames2010]

We beat scrubs.. Washington were scrubs and Detroit were scrubs.. And the Philly team we played were scrubs, who rested their starters and were done and we lost to Arizona... Arizona wasn't a good team at all.. But apparently Dallas loss against Arizona to you doesn't count, but the win to Philly in that last game does, though Philly rested everybody.

You got two games of 'good teams', one of those teams the Goants didn't make the playoffs. And the Colts, because the defense got them 4 TOs, yet the Colts didn't get any and that still were scoring on is at will despite is getting 4 chances via TOs..

That's a record contingent on playing a bunch of scrubs.. There is no changing the goal post.. The goal post is you trying to exaggerate the effects of Garrett's coaching record in 2010, while trying to make all sorts of excuses of his being 0-7 this year without Romo, but allegedly a much better roster that was a result of Garrett's five year process to finally revamp this team..

But Cassell couldn't win and neither could Weeden, though they won in other places. And teams like the Texans which were as miserable as the Cowboys this year won with back-ups..

The Giants weren't a "scrub" team, they had their issues in 2010 with turnovers, but they weren't scrubs. Still, we beat them under Garrett when we lost to them under Phillips, checkmate. The Colts had Peyton Manning, a QB who can overcome turnovers and has in his career. We still beat them. Remember what matters to you? The W. And so, what is impressive to you? Going 8-0 against contenders? More moving the goal post.

And I have completely kept away from Garrett with criticisms, if he was involved in keeping Weeden, he deserves the share of the blame. Unlike you, I don't have an agenda and try to point EVERYTHING on a single coach/player. We had issues during our losing stream, lack of turnovers, defense breaking late in games, Weeden being unable to scan the field or make the deep throws, relying on a QB who was only here for a few weeks before starting, and injuries at key positions. Add all that together, and you lose games.

Look, your "Blame it all on Garrett" spam posts don't hold up under scrutiny.

 

[khiladi]

Against Peyton Manning, no less.

So that brings us back to the point... We beat a team with a HOF QB at the PRIME of his career and we had Kitna, yet we still won..

That means going 0-7 is unjustifiable on us losing our starting QB, because we beat a team with a much superior QB as us. So Weeden and Cassell are now so bad that they can't win one game against much lousier opponents than the Colts, who had Manning in their prime.. Got ya.. Excuses and excuses for coaching..

And all this, we are going to act like Kitna, the human INT reel, is much better than Cassell and Weeden. His stats were basically right there with Cassell and Weeden..

Like I said for the thousandth time in this thread, before I mentioned anything about our opposing teams record, but apparently that's moving the goalpost, we went 5-3 during that spell, not only because of crappy opponents, but because the defense produced multiple TOs, like in the Colts game when The defense produced 4. We also played conservative on defense, running the ball a lot and didn't commit a single TO, which was rare during hat spell.

It's the same formula they were doing this year, trying to rely on the defense to create TOs while being extremely conservative on offense. That's why Jerry and Jason kept yapping about the defense needing to get TOs.

And it didn't work, because it only works with bad teams and even then, it's betting against the odds. This coaching staff tried putting pressure on the defense to win the game, while playing conservative not just on offense. And all this while acknowledging defense was the weaker aspect to their team.

That's the hallmark of incompetent coaching.

 

[khiladi]

The Giants weren't a "scrub" team, they had their issues in 2010 with turnovers, but they weren't scrubs. Still, we beat them under Garrett when we lost to them under Phillips, checkmate. The Colts had Peyton Manning, a QB who can overcome turnovers and has in his career. We still beat them. Remember what matters to you? The W. And so, what is impressive to you? Going 8-0 against contenders? More moving the goal post.

And I have completely kept away from Garrett with criticisms, if he was involved in keeping Weeden, he deserves the share of the blame. Unlike you, I don't have an agenda and try to point EVERYTHING on a single coach/player. We had issues during our losing stream, lack of turnovers, defense breaking late in games, Weeden being unable to scan the field or make the deep throws, relying on a QB who was only here for a few weeks before starting, and injuries at key positions. Add all that together, and you lose games.

Look, your "Blame it all on Garrett" spam posts don't hold up under scrutiny.

Commanders, scrubs.
Philly, rested starters
Arizona scrubs
Detroit scrubs

So I didn't expect them to go 8-0 that year, just like I don't expect Garrett to go 0-7.. So if Garrett can go 5-3, then there is no excuse for him to lose EVERY game this year without Romo.
Again, do you see how that works? You clearly don't understand what moving the goalposts means..

Woo hoo checkmate..

And Wade had only 1 losing season here and 3 winning.. So over the course of his career, he's better than Garrett, while still having to deal with Garrett's incompetence at calling plays..

Woo hoo... Checkmate again..

 

[Bleu Star]

The team new Romo would be back, there is that.

This is exactly why they didn't give up. They knew when Romo would be back and also knew there was a good chance they would mathematically still be in it when he returned.

 

[Bleu Star]

Our coaches couldn't comprise a strategy to get out of a paper back if I sealed it around them. Garrett, Linehan, Marinelli, Bisaccia . . You name it. Basic thinkers.

 

[mattjames2010]

Commanders, scrubs.
Philly, rested starters
Arizona scrubs
Detroit scrubs

So I didn't expect them to go 8-0 that year, just like I don't expect Garrett to go 0-7.. So if Garrett can go 5-3, then there is no excuse for him to lose EVERY game this year without Romo.
Again, do you see how that works? You clearly don't understand what moving the goalposts means..

Woo hoo checkmate..

And Wade had only 1 losing season here and 3 winning.. So over the course of his career, he's better than Garrett, while still having to deal with Garrett's incompetence at calling plays..

Woo hoo... Checkmate again..

*sigh* you continue to ignore all of what went into our losing streak. You simply just don't want to face it. The biggest crime this offseason was overlooking the backup QB position, I already named everything else that factored into our losses.

And for the last freakin' time, Wade was fired because the team quit on him! There is nothing REMOTELY close to what happened in the Jaguars or Packers games under Garrett. I have never seen a team quit on a coach like that in any sport I've watched.

 

[khiladi]

Our coaches couldn't comprise a strategy to get out of a paper back if I sealed it around them. Garrett, Linehan, Marinelli, Bisaccia . . You name it. Basic thinkers.

They were trying to go back to the 2010 formula, when the defense during that 5-3 stretch produced a whopping 20 TOs, while playing conservative on offense.

That's how ridiculous their strategy was. They were expecting the defense, their weaker half, to win them games, via producing TOs while not even attacking upfront on defense. And they weren't even trying to score to put pressure on opposing offenses to have to keep pace and commit TOs.

That's why you saw Cassell and Weeden dumping the balls off in games. That was all by design.

 

[khiladi]

*sigh* you continue to ignore all of what went into our losing streak. You simply just don't want to face it. The biggest crime this offseason was overlooking the backup QB position, I already named everything else that factored into our losses.

And for the last freakin' time, Wade was fired because the team quit on him! There is nothing REMOTELY close to what happened in the Jaguars or Packers games under Garrett. I have never seen a team quit on a coach like that in any sport I've watched.

I'm not ignoring ALL that went on. Your only excuse is we had Weeden and Cassell as to why we went 0-7. That is what one calls ignoring ALL that went on, particularly COACHING. The Texans had a worse roster than us and won with a backup. Other teams won with a backup. We have for example a much better OL than we did during that 2010 season.

Even when Garrett went 5-3 without Romo, you make an excuse that this isn't precedent that he should have at least one a game or 2, instead of going 0-7. You even try and demonstrate his 'great coaching ability' by bringing up how he beat the Colts, with Manning in his prime, and Kitna at QB but apparently don't see the irony in that with respect to this year. So he can't win with Weeden or Cassell this year against QBs nowhere on the level of Manning in his prime, but when it's convenient 2010 is an example of coaching greatness... Sure buddy.. Your defense isn't producing 4 TOs a game regularly..

And yes, there is something close to what went on with those games during Garrett's tenure, when Garrett lost to the Saints and the Bears, and the defense set the record for futility by Cowboys defense.

We looked worse during those stretches than the Jaguar and Packers games and people were saying Garrett lost the team.

 

[mattjames2010]

I'm not ignoring ALL that went on. Your only excuse is we had Weeden and Cassell as to why we went 0-7. That is what one calls ignoring ALL that went on, particularly COACHING. The Texans has a worse roster than us and won with a backup. Other teams won with a backup.

And yes, there is something close to what went on with those games during Garrett's tenure, when Garrett lost to the Saints and the Bears, and the defense set the record for futility by Cowboys defense.

We looked worse during those stretches than the Jaguar and Packers games and people were saying Garrett lost the team.

Actually, I named numerous reasons for our losses. It was a combination of issues. I'm not going to continue repeating the numerous reasons.

And you're talking about 2013? What a terrible comparison. You are comparing us transitioning from the 3-4 to the 4-3 and losing multiple key players and starting scrubs off the street to our veteran players and other key players quitting on Wade in 2010? You're reaching.

 

[khiladi]

Actually, I named numerous reasons for our losses. It was a combination of issues. I'm not going to continue repeating the numerous reasons.

And you're talking about 2013? What a terrible comparison. You are comparing us transitioning from the 3-4 to the 4-3 and losing multiple key players and starting scrubs off the street to our veteran players and other key players quitting on Wade in 2010? You're reaching.

Lol..

And your accusing me of moving the goalposts. So there is precedent right...

Since when did a transition to a defense justify RECORDS in futility. And the defense wasn't the only side of the ball performing bad.

So in 2010, it didn't matter context before Wade was fired, like the offense turning the ball over 19 times in that 8 game stretch, despite the fact the defense got 10 TOs, with Romo in the game and Jason calling the plays?

It doesn't matter that the Cowboys up to those last two games before Wade was fired had only averaged losing by less than 6 points per game, there biggest loss only 7 points. So a six game stretch is not playing hard for Wade, but it's some testimony to Garrett's 'greatness' this year...

So why did they fire Rob Ryan the year prior to transitioning the defense. Why is Kiffin not the DC here? Let me guess, you can blame the coordinator in both cases Garrett is HC, but not when Wade is in 2010...

So why did Jerry make Wade take over the DC job from Brian Stewart, before firing him the year after, but made him stick with Jason despite the latter struggling?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Happy Thanksgiving Matt and Khiladi Let's whoop some Panther *** today.

 

[mattjames2010]

Lol..

And your accusing me of moving the goalposts. So there is precedent right...

Since when did a transition to a defense justify RECORDS in futility. And the defense wasn't the only side of the ball performing bad.

So in 2010, it didn't matter context before Wade was fired, like the offense turning the ball over 19 times in that 8 game stretch, despite the fact the defense got 10 TOs, with Romo in the game and Jason calling the plays?

It doesn't matter that the Cowboys up to those last two games before Wade was fired had only averaged losing by less than 6 points per game, there biggest loss only 7 points. So a six game stretch is not playing hard for Wade, but it's some testimony to Garrett's 'greatness' this year...

So why did they fire Rob Ryan the year prior to transitioning the defense. Why is Kiffin not the DC here? Let me guess, you can blame the coordinator in both cases Garrett is HC, but not when Wade is in 2010...

So why did Jerry make Wade take over the DC job from Brian Stewart, before firing him the year after, but made him stick with Jason despite the latter struggling?

Are you kidding me? The transition was a HUGE issue, especially when the majority of the players on that defense were better fit for a 3-4. We hardly had the starters let alone the depth for the 4-3, we lost starters or our starters, we lost our backups and went to even worse backups. I'm not moving a goal post, you are equating a defense fielding buggy pushers to a team completely giving up on a coach. It's not a comparison, one is clearly worse than the other. One is a clear reason to fire a HC. Stop with the Wade apologies, you're simply never going to convince anyone outside of Catch17.

As for you going on about Garrett, it's kinda funny how our offense picked up once Wade was fired? Either way, Wade's defense got torched by a 2010 Jay Cutler and Vince Young. The D just continually got worse as the season progressed. Either way, I have never stated Garrett was a great OC, so I'm not entirely sure why we are discussing it.

I had issues with us going to the 4-3, I openly criticized the transition before 2013. I didn't like Kiffin and I don't like Marinelli, and if Garrett lobbied to get them here, he should be rightfully criticized.

 

[khiladi]

Are you kidding me? The transition was a HUGE issue, especially when the majority of the players on that defense were better fit for a 3-4. We hardly had the starters let alone the depth for the 4-3, we lost starters or our starters, we lost our backups and went to even worse backups. I'm not moving a goal post, you are equating a defense fielding buggy pushers to a team completely giving up on a coach. It's not a comparison, one is clearly worse than the other. One is a clear reason to fire a HC. Stop with the Wade apologies, you're simply never going to convince anyone outside of Catch17.

As for you going on about Garrett, it's kinda funny how our offense picked up once Wade was fired? Either way, Wade's defense got torched by a 2010 Jay Cutler and Vince Young. The D just continually got worse as the season progressed. Either way, I have never stated Garrett was a great OC, so I'm not entirely sure why we are discussing it.

I had issues with us going to the 4-3, I openly criticized the transition before 2013. I didn't like Kiffin and I don't like Marinelli, and if Garrett lobbied to get them here, he should be rightfully criticized.

These games were at the last half of the season, plenty of time to adjust. They set the records in futility close to the end of the season, enough time to adjust.

So they gave up on Garrett after his stupid decision to change yo a 4-3.. How does that sound?

 

[Idgit]

These games were at the last half of the season, plenty of time to adjust. They set the records in futility close to the end of the season, enough time to adjust.

So they gave up on Garrett after his stupid decision to change yo a 4-3.. How does that sound?

Off-base.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Woo hoo.. Moral victory, the team went 0-7 but didn't give up on Garrett, though they knew Romo was coming back..

Two years ago, the Cowboys got wrecked by the Bears and Saints, shattering all sorts of records in futility with their defense in particular.. Garrett was the coach..

So the Eagles gave up on Kelly, but ended up beating the Cowboys two weeks ago? So a team that gave up, beat the Cowboys?

Whatever fits your agenda...

Who said the Eagirls gave up? Maybe they just stink. And yes they beat us so that probably means we do to.

 

[cowboyuptx]

Damn right! Say what you want about Garrett, but you've got to give him some credit for keeping the team motivated and unified... I know that regardless of what us fans might think or desire, every player in that locker-room is going to fight their butt off to try and get to 8-8...