Sturm's Morning After - Cowboys Defense Can't Stop Rodgers Late

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Glad you asked that, because I can explain what I personally feel about that.

I am not subscribing to the idea that Dak should have fallen down at the 1 or whatever. No matter how likely it appeared that we would score, when you are down by more than a FG, you cannot just assume you are going to score a TD.

You don't just snap your fingers and score whenever you like. Even if the defense doesn't look capable of stopping you, you never know if you can have a fumbled snap or dropped pass or some other mistake that prevents you from scoring, so you cannot take that opportunity for granted.

Having said that, I would have been fine with Dak scoring on that 2nd down instead of 3rd. Yes, I would've lamented leaving Rodgers all that time, but due to what I said above, I would have no qualms with us scoring there.

My issue with the 2nd down pass into the corner of the endzone is that it is a blatant example of how Garrett just can't seem to grasp the idea of situational awareness and clock management. Throwing a low percentage pass like that in that moment suggests that Garrett is completely unaware of the circumstances -- circumstances that include the team and QB he's facing, how poorly his defense has performed in the 2nd half, and how that exact same team he's looking at just burned his defense 9 months prior to end their season.

Every single one of us on this board had ALL of those things in mind as that sequence was unfolding. So how is it possible that Garrett can be so oblivious to it?

It's the playcall that bothers me there because it suggests that Garrett, Linehan, Dak, or even all of the above were completely oblivious to both the circumstances surrounding that situation and our recent history with that opponent.

That play should never have even been an option on that 2nd down and that squarely falls on the coaching.
You may be suggesting that it shows no situational awareness, but I'm saying it can't be stated definitively that it had any negative impact on us at all. You can't say that call cost us the game.

The fact that we scored by running on the very next play actually implies, if anything, that there's a good chance we would have scored one play earlier and left more time for GB.

I mean, whatever, people are gonna have their problems with Garrett's game management until he's gone, I don't think this one was particularly egregious, but I'm saying you can't be treating that call like it cost us the game.

I haven't been reading the board at all, but frankly I think this loss has to be nearly entirely on the defense. And Terrence Williams.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
There is no guarantee you can run it in from the 1 or the 2 even with four tries. One penalty and you are throwing from the 6 or 11.
Spoken like a true fan of a team that hasn't seen the NFCC since the 20th century. Props.

Cant trust our defense with 1:13. Can't trust our offense with four tries from the 1.

Sophie's Choice.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,401
You may be suggesting that it shows no situational awareness, but I'm saying it can't be stated definitively that it had any negative impact on us at all. You can't say that call cost us the game.
Then there's nothing to discuss.

If you can't see how that play significantly contributed to us losing the game, then there's no sense in debating this with you any further.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Zeke with 3 tries from the 1 yard line or Aaron Rodgers with over a minute against our defense.

That's beyond an easy choice.
No one ever turns down the score, down 4 points. That's a fantasy scenario that did not present itself.

We scored the next play on a RPO. The thing people have been clamoring for more of.

So if we call the RPO instead of the pass, and Prescott scores the down earlier, we are just in a worse position.

We obtained the first down anyway, so the pass play was wiped out in terms of importance. Are people then saying that he should have deliberately taken a knee at the one? Is that the claim? Is that the bad management? Cause I can't buy that.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Then there's nothing to discuss.

If you can't see how that play significantly contributed to us losing the game, then there's no sense in debating this with you any further.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Well I'm gonna have to rely on what Chocolate Lab, noted Garrett hater, stated:

Yeah, I can't blame the playcalling at the end of the game that much. My bigger problem is probably that I hate the fade to the endzone when you're gashing a depleted and exhausted defense on the ground, but that's more because of the risk of interception than clock management.

And if you're Dak you almost have to score when it's that wide open. If you fall down at the one and then get stuffed and don't score, you really can't live with yourself.


Not a clock management issue. You can't turn down the points. It's insanity.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
No one ever turns down the score, down 4 points. That's a fantasy scenario that did not present itself.

We scored the next play on a RPO. The thing people have been clamoring for more of.

So if we call the RPO instead of the pass, and Prescott scores the down earlier, we are just in a worse position.

We obtained the first down anyway, so the pass play was wiped out in terms of importance. Are people then saying that he should have deliberately taken a knee at the one? Is that the claim? Is that the bad management? Cause I can't buy that.
I get that you can't tell Dak to sit down on the one yard line. But the fact that Garrett was also trying for a quick score instead of milking the clock also tell you how dumb his clock management is.

But the fact of the matter is, if Dak gets tackled at the one yard line we probably win that game. Any idiot can figure that out.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
You may be suggesting that it shows no situational awareness, but I'm saying it can't be stated definitively that it had any negative impact on us at all. You can't say that call cost us the game.
Agreed. Best case scenario we score with 40 seconds for Rodgers. We would still lose.
 

GShock

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
6,384
Glad you asked that, because I can explain what I personally feel about that.

I am not subscribing to the idea that Dak should have fallen down at the 1 or whatever. No matter how likely it appeared that we would score, when you are down by more than a FG, you cannot just assume you are going to score a TD.

You don't just snap your fingers and score whenever you like. Even if the defense doesn't look capable of stopping you, you never know if you can have a fumbled snap or dropped pass or some other mistake that prevents you from scoring, so you cannot take that opportunity for granted.

Having said that, I would have been fine with Dak scoring on that 2nd down instead of 3rd. Yes, I would've lamented leaving Rodgers all that time, but due to what I said above, I would have no qualms with us scoring there.

My issue with the 2nd down pass into the corner of the endzone is that it is a blatant example of how Garrett just can't seem to grasp the idea of situational awareness and clock management. Throwing a low percentage pass like that in that moment suggests that Garrett is completely unaware of the circumstances -- circumstances that include the team and QB he's facing, how poorly his defense has performed in the 2nd half, and how that exact same team he's looking at just burned his defense 9 months prior to end their season.

Every single one of us on this board had ALL of those things in mind as that sequence was unfolding. So how is it possible that Garrett can be so oblivious to it?

It's the playcall that bothers me there because it suggests that Garrett, Linehan, Dak, or even all of the above were completely oblivious to both the circumstances surrounding that situation and our recent history with that opponent.

That play should never have even been an option on that 2nd down and that squarely falls on the coaching.
This is exactly the right answer. Watch what the defense does to Zeke on that second down RPO - they were not letting him score.

We know our defense without Lee is garbage, but we chose to put it on the field against one of the GOATs in precisely the same situation as he killed us last year (against a defense WITH Lee). We thought that was the better option than leaving our offense on the field to win the game.

Our learning curve is flat.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,401
Well I'm gonna have to rely on what Chocolate Lab, noted Garrett hater, stated:

Yeah, I can't blame the playcalling at the end of the game that much. My bigger problem is probably that I hate the fade to the endzone when you're gashing a depleted and exhausted defense on the ground, but that's more because of the risk of interception than clock management.

And if you're Dak you almost have to score when it's that wide open. If you fall down at the one and then get stuffed and don't score, you really can't live with yourself.


Not a clock management issue. You can't turn down the points. It's insanity.
But I already CLEARLY explained that I have no gripe with us scoring there, so why do you keep bringing that up?

My gripe is that we have a HC who NEVER EVER learns from his previous experiences and failures.

That play should never have even been an option there. That is my gripe.

If we run it on 2nd down or go with the same read option and score, I'm not holding Garrett accountable at all for the loss. But the fact that he did allow that play to be an option there shows a total lack of awareness, as usual, and it allowed the clock to stop in a situation where it should not have.

That is the point I am making.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Agreed. Best case scenario we score with 40 seconds for Rodgers. We would still lose.
You know what the other sad part was. Like 2 plays before they scored the game winning TD, 2 of our D-lineman had Rodgers for a sack. If one of them just holds on to a fucking ankle and gets the sack, suddenly the Packers are rushing onto the field with the clock running out praying to make a long field goal. Just little things like that about this game really eat me up.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,401
I get that you can't tell Dak to sit down on the one yard line. But the fact that Garrett was also trying for a quick score instead of milking the clock also tell you how dumb his clock management is.
Exactly.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I get that you can't tell Dak to sit down on the one yard line. But the fact that Garrett was also trying for a quick score instead of milking the clock also tell you how dumb his clock management is.
Well, and I said, whatever, people can have their issues with his game management.

All I'm saying is, you can't argue that that pass attempt cost us the game. Again, if people are saying we should have run, well, the very next run ended up in the endzone. Running would have scored quicker! Come on now. The pass play burned 3-4 seconds. The outcomes of plays AFTER the pass play negated the stopped clock. Prescott picked up what would have been a first down, and then TD, on his scramble on the ensuing play.

But the fact of the matter is, if Dak gets tackled at the one yard line we probably win that game. Any idiot can figure that out.
Sure, but he didn't get tackled at the one. What I'm saying is, at that point, Prescott has the first down and we can run it in from the 1 or 2 yard line and leave little time on the clock, but it's not reasonable to argue he should have turned down the points. Way too risky.

It might have worked out better, yes. But you can't turn down a TD down 4. You just can't.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,731
No one ever turns down the score, down 4 points. That's a fantasy scenario that did not present itself.

We scored the next play on a RPO. The thing people have been clamoring for more of.

So if we call the RPO instead of the pass, and Prescott scores the down earlier, we are just in a worse position.

We obtained the first down anyway, so the pass play was wiped out in terms of importance. Are people then saying that he should have deliberately taken a knee at the one? Is that the claim? Is that the bad management? Cause I can't buy that.
You keeping trying to make the point that if we ran and scored anyway we would have been in worse position, but that's not how you coach a damn game. You run, and if you score, your defense has to come out and play. You just don't take the chance on a pass. Literally nothing good can come from it. If he catches it, it is just like you ran it in. If he doesn't the clock stops. Worst case, it gets intercepted and it costs you the game. immediately. There is at least upside to running it. You don't get the TD, and the clock runs or they are forced to use their last TO. You don't not call a run because you might score. That's silly.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
But I already CLEARLY explained that I have no gripe with us scoring there, so why do you keep bringing that up?

My gripe is that we have a HC who NEVER EVER learns from his previous experiences and failures.

That play should never have even been an option there. That is my gripe.

If we run it on 2nd down or go with the same read option and score, I'm not holding Garrett accountable at all for the loss. But the fact that he did allow that play to be an option there shows a total lack of awareness, as usual, and it allowed the clock to stop in a situation where it should not have.

That is the point I am making.
And I think I said clearly that my point is just, that you can't say that the pass attempt cost us the game.

I'm not debating whether it was a cardinal sin to call a pass play on second down or not.... as you said, it's pointless to debate because no one will change any minds.

I'm just saying, the pass play's impact was negated by the rushing TD on the next play.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Sure, but he didn't get tackled at the one. What I'm saying is, at that point, Prescott has the first down and we can run it in from the 1 or 2 yard line and leave little time on the clock, but it's not reasonable to argue he should have turned down the points. Way too risky.
Which is riskier? Turning down points with the ball at the 1 or leaving Aaron Rodgers with well over a minute and a timeout?
 

Rev

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
19,335
Zeke with 3 tries from the 1 yard line or Aaron Rodgers with over a minute against our defense.

That's beyond an easy choice.
Exactly. Its not a hard choice at all or it shouldnt have been.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,401
This is exactly the right answer. Watch what the defense does to Zeke on that second down RPO - they were not letting him score.
That's a very good point and I totally forgot about that.

Anyone who thinks that Green Bay was just going to allow us to score so they could get the ball back needs to watch that play again.

That doesn't look like the body language of a team that was giving up a free score.

We know our defense without Lee is garbage, but we chose to put it on the field against one of the GOATs in precisely the same situation as he killed us last year (against a defense WITH Lee). We thought that was the better option than leaving our offense on the field to win the game.

Our learning curve is flat.
Exactly.

I don't know why some people are having a hard time grasping this concept.

It's disturbing and frustrating that Garrett and this staff can't seem to ever learn anything from past failures and mistakes.

It doesn't make them any better for it the next time around.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,401
You keeping trying to make the point that if we ran and scored anyway we would have been in worse position, but that's not how you coach a damn game. You run, and if you score, your defense has to come out and play. You just don't take the chance on a pass. Literally nothing good can come from it. If he catches it, it is just like you ran it in. If he doesn't the clock stops. Worst case, it gets intercepted and it costs you the game. immediately. There is at least upside to running it. You don't get the TD, and the clock runs or they are forced to use their last TO. You don't not call a run because you might score. That's silly.
Exactly!
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,417
You keeping trying to make the point that if we ran and scored anyway we would have been in worse position, but that's not how you coach a damn game. You run, and if you score, your defense has to come out and play. You just don't take the chance on a pass. Literally nothing good can come from it. If he catches it, it is just like you ran it in. If he doesn't the clock stops. Worst case, it gets intercepted and it costs you the game. immediately. There is at least upside to running it. You don't get the TD, and the clock runs or they are forced to use their last TO. You don't not call a run because you might score. That's silly.
Yes, it's all about playing the percentages. If you run the ball and get it in the end zone on that 2nd and 2 run, you live with it, chances are you won't, but that you'll get the first or at the very least set yourself up for an easy third down conversion, while the clock keeps running, which honestly should be priority 1A after scoring the TD.

Passing the ball there is unnecessary and shows tunnel vision. I'm fairly certain all the coaches were thinking was, "score, score, score", which you can't really argue with because you do need to score, but you need to manage it in a certain way based on the percentages.

The Cowboys are totally in control of the clock with a 2nd and 2, two timeouts and a RB who put up about 90 yards in the last two drives, you keep running it, keep running the clock down as much as you can, and you control what happens from there. Obviously no one is going to blame Elliott or Prescott for running it in for the TD, but you can blame unnecessarily throwing the ball and running the risk of stopping the clock for literally no good reason.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,731
Well, and I said, whatever, people can have their issues with his game management.

All I'm saying is, you can't argue that that pass attempt cost us the game. Again, if people are saying we should have run, well, the very next run ended up in the endzone. Running would have scored quicker! Come on now. The pass play burned 3-4 seconds. The outcomes of plays AFTER the pass play negated the stopped clock. Prescott picked up what would have been a first down, and then TD, on his scramble on the ensuing play.



Sure, but he didn't get tackled at the one. What I'm saying is, at that point, Prescott has the first down and we can run it in from the 1 or 2 yard line and leave little time on the clock, but it's not reasonable to argue he should have turned down the points. Way too risky.

It might have worked out better, yes. But you can't turn down a TD down 4. You just can't.
Jesus Christ, if our coaches could only call plays in hindsight we wouldn't even be discussing this. Your point is invalid.
 
Top Bottom