Zeke only got 23 touches

We scored enough to win.

Zeke needed to run especially when we settled for 3

Left the winning 4 points on the field.
I was just thinking the exact thing..this is going to hurt for awhile, we had this, another great comeback for Dak. Play calling lost us this season, not the players. They played HARD, that last play did us in.
 
I was just thinking the exact thing..this is going to hurt for awhile, we had this, another great comeback for Dak. Play calling lost us this season, not the players. They played HARD, that last play did us in.
And yes it's insane EE only touched the ball 23 times.
 
Including the 3rd & 3 play before the last FG. Wide open on the sidelines.

Once the ball is snapped, it's the QB that decides where the ball goes. So if zeke was open and didn't get the ball, that falls on Dak, not the coaches
 
I really don't. It all appears reasonable to me.

You KNOW Romo decimates the Green Bay defense from start to finish?

Did the allies still win WWII in the alternate reality you got that 100% factual news from, or is the west now occupied by the Axis?
 
Dak threw about 4 to GB, they dropped most of them. I explicitly said Dak ayed well. But Romo would have shredded that garbage defense from the get go.

Dak came just about as close to "shredding" Green Bay as Romo has in the past. Hindsight isn't always 20-20 by any stretch.
 
23 touches were not nearly enough, he should have had at least 30 carries, and some pass play directed his ways...
 
It's not just the volume of touches that irritates me, but the lack of running plays in key situations.

How can you claim to be a grind it out, run first team when you won't even run it on third and short?
 
Dak came just about as close to "shredding" Green Bay as Romo has in the past. Hindsight isn't always 20-20 by any stretch.

Yes but the offense had 13 points entering the 4th quarter, that's not going to cut it against Rodgers. They had 2 red zone chances before the 4th and got 3 points out of them.

If they had kept up with the packers its a whole different ball game, you get to use Zeke more and play the type of football you used all season to get to 13 and 3.

The comeback was great and this was absolutely not on Dak, who in my opinion could be the best QB in the NFL in a couple of years, but if the offense and Linehan had done its job from the start there would have been no need for a comeback.
 
If 302/3td isn't decimation I don't know what is. Romo would've thrown 2-3 of them to GB.

Ridiculous and absolutely false.

Not saying I wanted Romo in there but don't make idiot statements because you're trying to prove some point.
 
Yes but the offense had 13 points entering the 4th quarter, that's not going to cut it against Rodgers. They had 2 red zone chances before the 4th and got 3 points out of them.

If they had kept up with the packers its a whole different ball game, you get to use Zeke more and play the type of football you used all season to get to 13 and 3.

The comeback was great and this was absolutely not on Dak, who in my opinion could be the best QB in the NFL in a couple of years, but if the offense and Linehan had done its job from the start there would have been no need for a comeback.

Dak was under more pressure than he should have been throughout the first quarter. That, in itself, was an abomination. The entire team played the first quarter like they thought they just had to show up to glean a resounding win from team that was more than formidable.

I'm not inclined to pinpoint the loss on Linehan without knowing exactly what extent of the blame to place on either himself nor Garrett. The players had many mental gaffs that led to Green Bay sustaining drives that otherwise could and should have been avoided. That falls on the HC as much as anyone else.

Nevertheless, the end result could easily have been different with a more capable defense to finish the job. The offense did it's job as far as I'm concerned. They scored 31 points against Green Bay. Linehan surely wasn't responsible for the defense's lapses. Its lack of talent was.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous and absolutely false.

Not saying I wanted Romo in there but don't make idiot statements because you're trying to prove some point.
Yeah lets all act like Romo hasn't cost us dozens of games with stupid interceptions. The dude had over 10 years and only won two playoff games.

I'm not one of these anti-Romo guys, but it's literally time to move on. The dude is done in Dallas and Dak is the quarterback of the present and future. I don't get why we're still bringing up Romo's name.

Go ahead and throw out his interception stats in the playoffs. Quite frankly, it's what you do in the playoffs that counts. He'll go down as one of the greatest regular-season quarterback's.
 
Once the ball is snapped, it's the QB that decides where the ball goes. So if zeke was open and didn't get the ball, that falls on Dak, not the coaches

Here's the All 22 of that play. Zeke is open at the bottom due to his defender getting tangled up with Dez's coverage. Beasley is even more open at the top. Unfortunately I think Leary is the main culprit - he gets beaten early and Dak has to rush the throw.

upload jpg
 
Here's the All 22 of that play. Zeke is open at the bottom due to his defender getting tangled up with Dez's coverage. Beasley is even more open at the top. Unfortunately I think Leary is the main culprit - he gets beaten early and Dak has to rush the throw.

upload jpg

Yup. Matthews stunts inside and Leary doesn't see him in time.
 
Here's the All 22 of that play. Zeke is open at the bottom due to his defender getting tangled up with Dez's coverage. Beasley is even more open at the top. Unfortunately I think Leary is the main culprit - he gets beaten early and Dak has to rush the throw.

upload jpg
Great shot.
 
How many strawman arguments can you make?

Whatever people have said in the past about Romo means ZERO to anything that was said. That is you bringing that in and nothing more. The discussion is about the game yesterday and only that game. It's not about people's criticisms or defenses of Romo over the years.

But yes, it COULD have mattered. If Romo did better, it could have been enough to make the difference. We can never know. Do you think the game could have gone and ended differently if they scored more early on, and finished with 35+ points?


So let me get this straight. This discussion is about the game Sunday and only about that game, a game in which Tony Romo didn't play.
And yet the hypothetical proposition was raised that if Tony Romo played he possibly could have done better.
And you accuse me of a straw man? :lmao:
My response is directed at those, including you, who raised the Romo hypothetical. If, as you say, it's about Sunday's loss, then Romo has NO PLACE in the conversation because he didn't play.
 
You KNOW Romo decimates the Green Bay defense from start to finish?

Did the allies still win WWII in the alternate reality you got that 100% factual news from, or is the west now occupied by the Axis?

Who said anything about 100% knowing anything?
 
Dak had the best playoff performance by a Dallas QB since Troy Aikman. Dak had 3 TD passes, Romo hasn't done that...I believe I read Romo hasn't even had 300 yards passing in the playoffs. That is not all on great defenses either, he has made poor decisions and he has taken awhile to get into rhythm in some playoff games. Even in 14, he was solid but our offense wasn't overly impressive playing Detroit or GB.

No disrespect towards Romo but he's never proven to be elite in the playoffs.

Also the "dropped interceptions" argument is lame. Aaron Rodgers played lights out, we all agree but he could've easily had 3-4 interceptions if not for drops or players not locating the ball. Lee could've had one on the bomb, Heath should have had another and Church was in a good position on a pass at well. Every game, every QB has dropped interceptions---that is why DB's don't play offense.
I swear I read somewhere that Dak was the first rookie to ever throw 3 TDs in a playoff game.


Don't quote me because I can't remember my source but I swear I read that.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
475,026
Messages
14,577,219
Members
24,214
Latest member
whoami2066
Back
Top