Zeke only got 23 touches

[Kevinicus]

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?
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.

That's about as absurd as you can get. You do know there is a difference between an opinion of hypothetical situation and a strawman, right? Come on now, I thought you were this big journalism expert.

 

[robjay04]

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.

I believe you are correct.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's about as absurd as you can get. You do know there is a difference between an opinion of hypothetical situation and a strawman, right? Come on now, I thought you were this big journalism expert.

First, I know enough about a straw man to understand that the basis of a straw man is that you're assigning a position to someone else that the opponent didn't make. I didn't assign that argument to you.

A straw man is logical fallacy that occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version and rebuts that weak & fake version rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning usually has the goal of [1] avoiding real debate against their opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing fair debate, or [2] making the opponent's position appear ridiculous and thus win over bystanders.

You'll notice that I never assigned this argument to you.
You'll also notice that I said I doubt Romo would have done any better.
You'll also notice that accusing me of a strawman strategy in this discussion is silly because this entire discussion is based on hypotheticals, i.e., what Romo would have done had he been in the game. In summary, there is no real argument here. Hypothetical arguments aren't real.

Second, my point is a hypothetical also, i.e., if the argument for Romo is that he didn't have the defense to lead his team to the NFC Championship (and that's one of the arguments offered in support of Romo's "futility" in the playoffs), then it is reasonable to assume that given the fact that this defense wasn't great, Romo's play in this game would have made no difference.

Third, you're the one who said that we're talking about the game on Sunday and ONLY the game on Sunday. If that's the case, Romo didn't play did he? If he didn't, then we're not talking about ONLY the game on Sunday. Pretty simple.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

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 threw 4 to GB........please tell us those 4 occasions

 

[Kevinicus]

First, I know enough about a straw man to understand that the basis of a straw man is that you're assigning a position to someone else that the opponent didn't make. I didn't assign that argument to you.

You'll notice that I never assigned this argument to you.
You'll also notice that I said I doubt Romo would have done any better.
You'll also notice that accusing me of a strawman strategy in this discussion is silly because this entire discussion is based on hypotheticals, i.e., what Romo would have done had he been in the game. In summary, there is no real argument here. Hypothetical arguments aren't real.

Second, my point is a hypothetical also, i.e., if the argument for Romo is that he didn't have the defense to lead his team to the NFC Championship (and that's one of the arguments offered in support of Romo's "futility" in the playoffs), then it is reasonable to assume that given the fact that this defense wasn't great, Romo's play in this game would have made no difference.

Third, you're the one who said that we're talking about the game on Sunday and ONLY the game on Sunday. If that's the case, Romo didn't play did he? If he didn't, then we're not talking about ONLY the game on Sunday. Pretty simple.

So you're just arguing against some point that nobody is making and quoting people for what purpose? You were deliberately going around the arguments that were presented in the posts that you quoted.

A hypothetical about what COULD HAVE HAPPENED in the game on Sunday is still talking about the game. Good lord.

 

[tyke1doe]

So you're just arguing against some point that nobody is making and quoting people for what purpose? You were deliberately going around the arguments that were presented in the posts that you quoted.

A hypothetical about what COULD HAVE HAPPENED in the game on Sunday is still talking about the game. Good lord.

Did you read the thread title and the OP's post?

The thread title is "Zeke only got 23 touches".
Nowhere in the title is Romo mentioned. But that doesn't stop a poster from postulating that IF Romo were in the game, he would have shredded the Packers defense. The implication is clearly that we would have won the game if Romo were in the game. What would be the purpose of interjecting Romo into a thread that has NOTHING to do with him? That's when you entered and asked a question about the hypothetical that was raised. That's when I responded with my opinion to the hypothetical that was raised.

Second, if we're talking about ONLY THE GAME (your words) then Romo is NOT a topic because he did not play in the game. But discussing Zeke's 23 carries IS ABOUT THE GAME because that's what happened in the game. Or should we talk about how many sacks Randy Gregory would have gotten had he been AVAILABLE for the game or how Mark Sanchez would have done if he were active and able to play or whether La'el Collins would have performed better than Doug Free?

Sorry, but a hypothetical is a hypothetical. You don't get to dictate the terms of the hypothetical because one imaginary scenario is as valid as another, particularly since both involve the Cowboys and the possible play of a member of the team.

And if you're so concerned about strawmen and red herrings, maybe you should direct your comment to the person who first mentioned Romo's hypothetical performance/victory in a thread discussing Zeke's actual carries.

 

[Kevinicus]

Did you read the thread?
The thread title is "Zeke only got 23 touches".
Nowhere in the title is Romo mentioned. But that doesn't stop a poster from postulating that IF Romo were in the game, he would have shredded the Packers defense. The implication is clearly that we would have won the game if Romo were in the game. What would be the purpose of interjecting Romo into a thread that has NOTHING to do with him. That's when you entered and asked a question about the hypothetical was raised. That's when I responded to the hypothetical that was raised with my opinion.

Second, if we're talking about ONLY THE GAME (your words) then Romo is NOT a topic because he did not play in the game. But discussing Zeke's 23 carries IS ABOUT THE GAME because that's what happened. Or should we talk about how many sacks Randy Gregory would have gotten had he been AVAILABLE for the game.

Sorry, but a hypothetical is a hypothetical. You don't get to dictate the terms of the hypothetical because one fantasy is as valid as another.

And if you're so concerned about strawmen and red herrings, maybe you should comment to the person who first mentioned Romo's hypothetical victory in a thread discussing Zeke's actual carries.

The world has lost logic, and this board (and your post) proves that beyond a doubt. It's mind-boggling to me that this is an actual train of thought.

 

[Jerryrage]

You're right, but the Packers were probably thinking run Zeke on 3rd and 2 as well. Can't be too predictable; though I also question the playcalling early in the game.

It's smash mouth football time. Time for that offense line to man up and for Zeke to pound them. They should of pounded the run most of the game. Who cares what they think, they can't stop it.

 

[tyke1doe]

The world has lost logic, and this board (and your post) proves that beyond a doubt. It's mind-boggling to me that this is an actual train of thought.

Well, that's what happens when you delve into the realm of hypotheticals. You do understand that hypotheticals don't have to comport to logic. In the world of hypotheticals, Romo can put up mind-boggling stats.
So maybe you and your cohorts can spare us the "Romo would have shredded this defense" comments because they're hypothetical and have no basis in reality.
That's the way hypotheticals work.

 

[Parche]

I don't know about 23 touches, but 3rd and 2 I know I wanted a run... what was that first drive, second drive?

And in that 2nd and I where Dak threw the pick... It was a run, also, we could run the FB with zeke as a decoy... but it was a run...

 

[Kevinicus]

Well, that's what happens when you delve into the realm of hypotheticals. You do understand that hypotheticals don't have to comport to logic. In the world of hypotheticals, Romo can put up mind-boggling stats.
So maybe you and your cohorts can spare us the "Romo would have shredded this defense" comments because they're hypothetical and have no basis in reality.
That's the way hypotheticals work.

Hypotheticals don't have any basis in reality? Ever? Wow. How can people have honest discussions when one side is just...out there.

Opinion: Romo would have shredded this defense had he played.
Opinion is based on over a decade of evidence (I'm assuming- I can't speak for certain about the other poster's experience).

That is not illogical. It's not ridiculous.

A hypothetical that wouldn't comport to logic would be something like, "If Romo started at RT in place of Free...". The hypothetical of Romo, the starter coming out of camp and for the last 10 years, starting is not outside of logic in any way shape or form.

Gameplans and strategy are developed on hypotheticals. So much analysis and planning is based on hypotheticals. Hypotheticals can very well be logical.

 

[Parche]

It's smash mouth football time. Time for that offense line to man up and for Zeke to pound them. They should of pounded the run most of the game. Who cares what they think, they can't stop it.

Also, if they know its a run, they dont know which run play it is... We didnt play McFadden or the FB in short yardage situations... we didnt run with Dak by design neither (except the 2 pt conversion, of course).

 

[bark]

https://youtu.be/

3 1/2 weeks of rest and he gets 23 touches. Linehan needs to answer. I don't care if 13 guys are in the box, make them prove they can stop it before to stop it yourself.

The int was supposedly a run/pass option call, and Dak checked out to the pass because 8 guys were in the box. Sometimes running into 8 is a win with Zeke.

the real crime of this game is that we lost without making them stop our #1 offensive weapon.
What we do best is win in the trenches, pound them and then make them try and stop Zeke.
We should have pounded this team until they stopped us and I don't want to hear 21-3. We started getting cute on our opening drive.
This would surely have taken a possession or two maybe more away from Rodgers.
It was not a good day for Scott linehan or Garrett for that matter

 

[Tenkamenin]

This morning, Norm brought up a great pt., why in the world would we line Zeke out wide on 3rd and 2 and 2nd and 6? That was an idiotic decision by Linehan. Zeke in the backfield is the threat, not lined out wide.

 

[reiner]

For most of the season Dallas's play calling has been suspect...They never used their most explosive player effectively, totally underutilizing him. My gawd, empty sets with passes on second and four, or third and two, and keeping him out for great stretches in the 2nd quarter...Couldn't they have used him a little more in the Detroit game, and at least given him a few touches in the Philly game. The coaches absolutely robbed him of any chance at all to get the rookie rushing record, which he could have easily broken. What does a guy like that need almost 1 month of inactivity for...His record proves he gets better and better the more you use him.

 

[tyke1doe]

Hypotheticals don't have any basis in reality? Ever? Wow. How can people have honest discussions when one side is just...out there.

Apparently, you're having trouble with the finer points of reading and comprehension as well as the terminology of words like "strawman" and "hypotheticals."

I didn't say that hypotheticals don't have any basis in reality. I said. ...

You do understand that hypotheticals don't have to* comport to logic. In the world of hypotheticals, Romo can put up mind-boggling stats.

*Don't have doesn't mean can't. It just means that not all hypothetical situations are governed by logic.

Then I pinpointed a particular hypothetical, namely, what Romo would have done in the Green Bay game.

So maybe you and your cohorts can spare us the "Romo would have shredded this defense" comments because they're hypothetical and have no basis in reality.

No, that statement doesn't have any basis in reality. Do you know why? Because there is no way to prove it. The conditions involved in proving that aren't subject to the same forces/dynamics as testing a hypothesis such as, if I leave ice cream in the hot sun, it will melt and testing that to confirm the reality of this phenomenon.
There is NO WAY to recreate Sunday's game, Sunday's conditions and put Romo into the very same situation and prove if he would have shredded the Packers' defense - unless you have some alternate reality time machine you can share with us to prove your statement.
Thus, your statement is not based in reality. By the way, hypotheticals CAN have basis in reality, but only if they can be proven. But then, they're no longer hypotheticals. That's how we confirm a hypothesis and establish scientific "law" based on hypotheticals that are put to the test and reaffirm enough that we establish a consistent pattern that becomes "law."

Now, you can have your opinion just as I have my opinion.

And this is your problem, i.e., you started our discussion incorrectly. You sought to call me out on a strawman without considering that I was sharing an opinion also. You tried to show your argument as the more logical one. And that's why you're having trouble understanding my point.

Maybe before you go popping off about strawmen, logic and reality you might want to delve deeper into the concept of nuances. Just saying.

 

[Staubacher]

oh good god. are we back to these debates again?

oh good god. are we back to these debates again?

Nope. No debate. Dak is a rookie, Romo a 10+ year pro.

 

[ryanbabs]

If they weren't going to fully utilize Zeke, should've had him play in the Eagles game and more against the Lions to have a shot at history.

 

[Kevinicus]

Apparently, you're having trouble with the finer points of reading and comprehension as well as the terminology of words like "strawman" and "hypotheticals."

I didn't say that hypotheticals don't have any basis in reality. I said. ...



*Don't have doesn't mean can't. It just means that not all hypothetical situations are governed by logic.

Then I pinpointed a particular hypothetical, namely, what Romo would have done in the Green Bay game.



No, that statement doesn't have any basis in reality. Do you know why? Because there is no way to prove it. The conditions involved in proving that aren't subject to the same forces/dynamics as testing a hypothesis such as, if I leave ice cream in the hot sun, it will melt and testing that to confirm the reality of this phenomenon.
There is NO WAY to recreate Sunday's game, Sunday's conditions and put Romo into the very same situation and prove if he would have shredded the Packers' defense - unless you have some alternate reality time machine you can share with us to prove your statement.
Thus, your statement is not based in reality. By the way, hypotheticals CAN have basis in reality, but only if they can be proven. But then, they're no longer hypotheticals. That's how we confirm a hypothesis and establish scientific "law" based on hypotheticals that are put to the test and reaffirm enough that we establish a consistent pattern that becomes "law."

Now, you can have your opinion just as I have my opinion.

And this is your problem, i.e., you started our discussion incorrectly. You sought to call me out on a strawman without considering that I was sharing an opinion also. You tried to show your argument as the more logical one. And that's why you're having trouble understanding my point.

Maybe before you go popping off about strawmen, logic and reality you might want to delve deeper into the concept of nuances. Just saying.

I started our conversation incorrectly? You started it on some tangent that wasn't related to the point that I made, as if that tangent was somehow an argument against what I said. The strawman came several posts in. You can bring up all of those old Romo arguments all you want, but it is not a valid response or an argument against what I said (And it was an argument against what I said, though I'm sure you'll try to claim otherwise - and your claim was lacking in logic as well, "It stands to reason...blah blah." No, it didn't stand to reason.). I did not try to show my argument was more logical. I tried to show that you weren't even talking on the same point I was making, thus your quote was off base. I don't think you have an understanding of my points and are trying to talk about different things, and THAT is why I have a problem. I even said that having the other opinion was perfectly fine and reasonable and that in no way changes the validity of the other opinion.

I missed your words "have to" apparently. My bad on that. It's still an irrelevant point. We're not talking about some absurd hypothetical that isn't a logical one. It is a very logical and common hypothetical, and the opinion is based on history (at least mine would be), an analysis of the ability of the players and teams involved, etc. Those are reality based components. Now you're going onto other tangents with scientific hypothesis and "law" etc. It's how you do things. You always go to absurd tangents.

Hypotheticals can be and ARE based on reality without being tested and proven. There are designs, strategies, plans, etc. developed on hypotheticals that cannot be tested in the real world.

 

[Kevinicus]

Let's look at this post again...

The defense - or not having a good one - has CONSISTENTLY been given as an excuse for why Tony Romo doesn't advance in the playoffs. I've seen that excuse given incessantly. So it stands to reason that Romo wouldn't have done anything to get us to the NFC Championship game because we didn't have the defense to get there.

See, why even bring this up when trying to counter the idea that Romo could have shredded the Packer's D? The Cowboys have had bad defenses (and OLs, and other problem areas) in the past, and it has been the biggest factor for the most part for the TEAM not advancing in the playoffs. The same was true on Sunday. The defense was the biggest factor. Nobody said otherwise. You are trying to argue a different discussion. Then your "stands to reason" is not based on logic. The failures of past teams or Sunday's does not dictate what Romo would have done on THIS Cowboys team against THIS Packer's defense. The question is: Would he have shredded the defense? That was the only thing posed. But if you want to, you could go further and say he did shred them and ask if it could or would have made a difference. That's another discussion to have after the first. I would say that yes, it's certainly possible he could have done well enough to make a difference in the outcome.

Did we advance to the NFC Championship game?

Did he play well? Are you trying to say that it's impossible that someone could have played better than Tony did that day? Are you saying it's his fault they lost? What exactly is your point here? Another "argument" that doesn't really seem to have a place in this discussion.

But would he have done enough to win the game and take us to a level we haven't been in 21 years? That's the issue. He may have "carved" the Packers defense up, but with this defense, it wouldn't have mattered. I'm using the same line of reasoning so many posters here do when they make excuses for why Romo couldn't get us to the next level.

Okay, you finally did get to it. I honestly stopped reading this post after the first couple parts because it was too ridiculous to finish. So he "may have 'carved' the Packers defense up. Thank you. So you agree with me that someone having that opinion is not ridiculous. That's all you had to say.