Where do you stand on this debate

[ZeroClub]

How do you cover Moss, Stallworth and Welker with Nate Jones and Jacques Reeves?

If any genius can tell me the answer to that, we can fire Wade and hire them as soo as today.

The Patriots are a great team with teriffic offensive weapons and a HOF quarterback. They are the measuring stick and the best team in the league right now.

I'd like to see the Cowboys and Patriots play at full strength with a competent officiating crew. That's not what we got yesterday.

As to the 'debate'? It's a stupid one. An undermanned defense still under construction was chewed up by the league's best QB. No reason for shame there.

Good post. I agree.

It should be noted too that the Cowboys offense didn't exactly do the Cowboys defense many favors.

 

[Crown Royal]

I'm with Hansen. The Pats just have too much - anyone who thought we couldd hold them under 30 points was delusional - they are just too stout.

And for all the complaints about pass rush - it's very hard to get to a QB when he takes a 3 step drop and unloads to a fast Wes Welker on a quick route.

 

[Kangaroo]

I'm with Hansen. The Pats just have too much - anyone who thought we couldd hold them under 30 points was delusional - they are just too stout.

And for all the complaints about pass rush - it's very hard to get to a QB when he takes a 3 step drop and unloads to a fast Wes Welker on a quick route.

Which brings me back to why the team never went to press coverage which is how you stop a 3 step drop. If you say because we had Reeves and Jones while playing 10 yards off got us exactly what 40+ points dropped on us anyways

 

[Crown Royal]

Which brings me back to why the team never went to press coverage which is how you stop a 3 step drop. If you say because we had Reeves and Jones while playing 10 yards off got us exactly what 40+ points dropped on us anyways

I can't answer that one. I've been complaining about that soft zone hogwash since game one, since I've always felt that we play better in man to man press. This defense was built to be a man-to-man coverage unit by Parcells and we now run a soft zone to 'keep the play in front of you.' That works a lot, but sometimes you need to play to win, not play not to lose.

 

[Hostile]

I'm listening to 103 this morning, and Chuck Cooperstein and Dale Hansen are having a pretty heated debate.

Cooperstein and Jen Engel seem to be pretty outraged at the game and Coop in particular is saying that this defense is still awful. He argues that we've only played two good QBs and both of them have torched us, and the only reason we've done any good the last few weeks is that the offenses we've played have been terrible.

Hansen -- yes, Hansen is actually defending us -- argues that the Pats are simply better and that especially with our injuries, we can't match up with that offense. He defends the criticism of Roy Williams and Newman by saying that the rules of the league are set up to encourage the pass (no touching WRs, protecting the QB etc.) and that the Pats are simply too good. He says, show me the defense that has stopped the Pats so far. At least they got some sacks on him and the D scored a TD.

In a nutshell, Coop and Jen seem to be arguing that the "This D has all these first rounders and Mr. Fixit and they still can't get it done."

Hansen is more calm and says that the defense shouldn't be expected to be totally fixed in just a few weeks (or months, counting summer camps), and that besides, there is no shame in not beating the best team in football. Sometimes the other team is just better -- their guys get paid, too -- and that the Cowboys are still one of the better teams in football and maybe the best team in the conference.

Just curious where you stand, because they were getting into it pretty good. Should we be angry that the team isn't better, or happy that we are still pretty darn good? (And yes, it is weird to hear Hansen defending how good this team is.)

Dale Hansen is 100% exactly right.

I'd love to win every game we play, but since that isn't realistic, let's talk about what is. Take a pick of either option below.

1. The team starts out blazing fast, destroying all opponents, but as the season wears on teams catch on and catch up. By season's end and in the playoffs it's a coin flip.

Or...

2. The team builds as the season progresses, doesn't fade in the home stretch and is playing it's best ball at the end of the season and into the playoffs.

Which one do you prefer? Me, I'll go with the old horse racing adage. It doesn't matter how much mud and dust you kick up in the front stretch. It's who is kicking up the mud and the dust in the home stretch that counts.

 

[dbair1967]

we've got alot of injuries and/or guys trying to play through stuff...nobody is deep enough to cover 3 very good WR's and TE/RB in coverage when you have to go to your 4th and 5th DB's

also, if you look at Phillips track record, while the 1st yr usually does see improvement defensively, its almost always been his 2nd yr somewhere where the results dramatically improved

but if we can get Newman & Henry healthy, Ellis improves some and Tank Johnson can make a positive contribution, we could still be in pretty good shape by December and into January...it would also be a big help defensively if we could run the ball more consistently and start playing with a lead, rather than seeing the offense be stoned for basically the first 15-20 minutes week in and week out...they dont necessarily have to score alot, but at least flip the field some and move the ball...too many games we start out with multiple 3 and outs

David

 

[TX_Yid]

Our D couldn't get itself off the field because with the two 7th Round CBs on the field New England was able to keep drives alive.

With our Offence stuttering at times and the D on the field for 66% of the game we were still in with a shot until mid-way through the 4th Quarter.

No it wasn't pretty as the game wound down. Yes the pass defence was at times disapointing but overall this wasn't a catastrophic display in any way shape or form in my mind.

In fact until the 4th Quarter I was surprised with how well we were playing them, as without a doubt they are a very solid team that has been together for the most part a long time now.

 

[big dog cowboy]

As to the 'debate'? It's a stupid one. An undermanned defense still under construction was chewed up by the league's best QB. No reason for shame there.

Hard to argue with any of that.

 

[Dodger12]

I'm listening to 103 this morning, and Chuck Cooperstein and Dale Hansen are having a pretty heated debate.

Cooperstein and Jen Engel seem to be pretty outraged at the game and Coop in particular is saying that this defense is still awful. He argues that we've only played two good QBs and both of them have torched us, and the only reason we've done any good the last few weeks is that the offenses we've played have been terrible.

Hansen -- yes, Hansen is actually defending us -- argues that the Pats are simply better and that especially with our injuries, we can't match up with that offense. He defends the criticism of Roy Williams and Newman by saying that the rules of the league are set up to encourage the pass (no touching WRs, protecting the QB etc.) and that the Pats are simply too good. He says, show me the defense that has stopped the Pats so far. At least they got some sacks on him and the D scored a TD.

In a nutshell, Coop and Jen seem to be arguing that the "This D has all these first rounders and Mr. Fixit and they still can't get it done."

Hansen is more calm and says that the defense shouldn't be expected to be totally fixed in just a few weeks (or months, counting summer camps), and that besides, there is no shame in not beating the best team in football. Sometimes the other team is just better -- their guys get paid, too -- and that the Cowboys are still one of the better teams in football and maybe the best team in the conference.

Just curious where you stand, because they were getting into it pretty good. Should we be angry that the team isn't better, or happy that we are still pretty darn good? (And yes, it is weird to hear Hansen defending how good this team is.)

Was this a mere beating by a superior team (which NE is) or is it the same flaws on D that have haunted us in the past? Wade has been promoting his scheme and how it will put players in a position to succeed. He made statements that he can coach penalties in contradiction to something BP stated. What I saw were the same guys (Ware, Ellis and a gimpy Newman) making plays yesterday regardless of scheme and the same drive killing/game changing penalties.

Stallworth and Welker shouldn't strike fear in the hearts of DC's around the NFL, especially since NE had absolutely no running game and was one dimensional. We've contained Harrison, Wayne and Clark catching passes from Manning when they were undefeated. I expected more from our D, especially with Phillips at the helm.

I know we were short on a starting CB, but Belicheat can insert a WR to play CB on defense and he thinks up a scheme where they don't miss a beat. It will be interesting to see what other teams do in the coming week(s) after looking at the film of how our D was expopsed.

 

[chinch]

our defense was exposed opening night vs the Gints. it's amusing to read how Welker is a such a great WR today. By tonight he'll be a lock HOFer.

Stallworth has been persona non grata for months and months (his middle name is overhyped). our inept secondary/coverage makes decent players look great.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

our defense was exposed opening night vs the Gints. it's amusing to read how Welker is a such a great WR today. By tonight he'll be a lock HOFer.

Stallworth has been persona non grata for months and months (his middle name is overhyped). our inept secondary/coverage makes decent players look great.

Wow....

 

[Crown Royal]

our defense was exposed opening night vs the Gints. it's amusing to read how Welker is a such a great WR today. By tonight he'll be a lock HOFer.

Stallworth has been persona non grata for months and months (his middle name is overhyped). our inept secondary/coverage makes decent players look great.

There were several of us stating that Welker was a very good WR last week. I thought he was, next to moss, the best pickup the Pats made.

 

[CoCo]

I guess I have a strong lean towards Hansen's perspective.

This game against New England clouds everything. We might well end up having the quality of team that could beat some of the recent SB champs. That's exciting huh?

But NE yesterday made it look like that might not be good enough. Sobering thought.

This season has a long ways to go. We have plenty of work to do obviously - but we also have plenty of time before playoff bullets start flying for real.

Gotta be patient. Why would one react any other way at this point?

 

[Hostile]

There were several of us stating that Welker was a very good WR last week. I thought he was, next to moss, the best pickup the Pats made.

When the Pats acquired him I wished we had. He's a chain moveer as a possession guy. I actually think he's a more important signing than Moss, not because he is more talented (he isn't), but because having him makes Moss even more dangerous.

 

[chinch]

who isn't a chain mover vs our secondary?

gimme a break our WR trio would look like HOFers against our D with Brady distributing the ball.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

The keys to the kingdom in the NFL would come in the form of a GM who could know in advance the injury situations his team would face. It's impossible, of course. Anyone remember a particular season in the Landry years when the Cowboys were hit by a rash of injuries to LBs? I recall it happening, but not when.

NFL teams suffer injuries. It's the nature of the game. But injuries are most destructive when they come to a star player or in a bunch at one position. The Cowboys haven't truly had a rash of injuries in the secondary, but they have had critical injuries to both starting corners. Newman is back, and he is good, but he isn't nearly 100 percent. If Henry and Newman were both healthy, the secondary would look much better. But this is the NFL, and you don't get credit for "if."

In retrospect, the Cowboys would have been better served to take a couple of defensive backs earlier in recent drafts. But in fairness, if they had, and if they had lost, say, Ware and James to injuries, many of us would have complained that a LB-centric defense such as the 3-4 should have been stocked with more depth at LB.

One could argue that the Cowboys should have chosen more wisely than to take Carpenter and Burnett, but the book is still out on those guys. E.J. Henderson looked like a bust for the Vikings until this year, and the light seems to have come on.

A bigger point, though: NFL teams miss on draft choices. All NFL teams miss on draft choices. The best organizations miss on draft choices. On balance, Dallas has drafted pretty well in the post-Campo years. Barber was a fourth round pick, Witten a third. Crayton was a late pick. Reeves was a late pick and has played admirably, given that he is the third option at CB. Jay Ratliff was a great later pick. The jury is out on a few others.

By and large, Dallas has chosen pretty well even if a couple or three high picks are disappointments. If Witten had been a first round pick, you wouldn't complain. If Barber and Crayton had been second round picks, you'd probably feel okay. Same with Ratliff.

In retrospect, it would have been nice to have another corner or two, but it's hard to know in advance exactly where injuries will hit. I think Dallas deserves some criticism for not taking another CB early in the draft, but only mild criticism.

 

[CATCH17]

There is only 1 defense that can stop Brady but the only problem is that its his own defense.

 

[khiladi]

Wow, against mighty St. Loser and Buffalo. Two teams that have ONE win between them. What an amazing accomplisment.

So that who have the Patriots beaten? Dallas? But Dallas is a nobody according to you...

 

[Cbz40]

I say some of the 3rd down plays, the short passes etc...were made with such perfection, timing and accuracy that they are not defensible. The 85 Bear's D, the 92-93 Cowboys D would have been chewed up and spit out by such perfection.

Yes our D needs to be improved in the secondary with better talent but let's get real we were beat by what may be the best O in NFL history.

Can they be beat? Yes.....but It will take a team playing perfect mistake free football on both sides of the ball.

The 2007 Cowboys were taught an invaluable lesson yesterday now it's up to each player and coach to strive for that perfection.

 

[khiladi]

I say some of the 3rd down plays, the short passes etc...were made with such perfection, timing and accuracy that they are not defensible. The 85 Bear's D, the 92-93 Cowboys D would have been chewed up and spit out by such perfection.

Are you kidding me... you can't even touch receiver's nowadays, giving them them plenty of room to operate... plus, our LB corp of the 92 season was lightning quick, meaning they would have matched up well against the Patriots...we moved the field laterally incredibly well... plus we had one of the best pass rushers to play the game, coupled with a strong interior line, and we had such depth no team could have worn us out...

And our OL was ahead of the Patriots cheating line that attacks the knees...