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

mschmidt64 said:

All I'm saying is that the pass play didn't cost us the game.

Click to expand...

Going old school DCC here and calling out semantics...I agree with what you say above. The pass play didn't "cost us the game" but the other posters are more arguing it didn't "win us the game".

You guys are discussing different things.

We don't win games by purposely slamming the door shut, but we win games based on other teams not being able to open the cracked-open door we left behind. Against the middle-of-the-pack teams, we'll usually win. Against the Rodgers and elite teams, a crack is all they need...speaking of which ~picks up pipe~

mschmidt64 said:

I completely agree. I texted my Packers fan co-worker as soon as we scored and said "Final: Green Bay 35, Dallas 31" or something like that. I also texted my dad and said "It won't take Rodgers more than 2 plays to cross midfield. The question left to be answered is whether he's gonna merely tie it, or win it."

There was no doubt there was too much time left.

But you can't pass up on the TD. It's insanity. You just have to hope your defense can hold.

The game management needs to be deeper into the quarter. You need to be running clock at the 5 minute mark, the 7 minute mark. You can't turn down points when it's gonna come down to execution on one or two plays with under a minute left.

Click to expand...

Yup, with this I am in full agreement with you.

Had the Cowboys chosen to forego the TD in an attempt to run out clock and score a play or two later, I wouldn't have had a problem with that either, but it's not what I think a team should do.

My issue is the 2nd down play which I've already explained in detail.

Iamtdg said:

You are trying to make a point using hindsight as your only talking point.

Click to expand...

Uh.... I'm doing the exact opposite.

That call hurt our chances... bad.

Click to expand...

No, it didn't.

You are ASSUMING that a run play wouldn't have scored and would have used more time.

You are the one using speculation to make a point.

Once Prescott picks up the first down on his run, he has the ability to go down and render the pass play completely moot. At that instance, any argument that the pass play cost us the opportunity to run time off the clock is mere speculation, completely unsubstantiated because we did in fact score on our next run play.

Any guessing as to what would have happened if we had run on second down is completely unproveable.

You are free to argue the odds. You are free to say running a straight run up the middle for 2 yards and a first down may have been the better play. I'm not arguing any of those things.

But to say the call cost us the game is false. That does not require hindsight.

pdom said:

You guys should read this article I posted in the gameday chatter thread. Really sheds light on how sophisticated and meticulous the conversations get in these situations. Fine-tuned fucking machine the Broncos were. Contrast that to the low level of conversation and execution we have in Dallas and...well...that's why we haven't made an NFCC in a long time and Denver made two straight SBs.

http://m.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Clock-Management-Crucial-in-Cowboys-Win/4fbc87ef-13f4-4993-b588-7aee380d08d9

Click to expand...

I'm with you in general, but those Broncos were in an entirely different situation with a tie game. If we'd been in position for a FG to win the game... well, Garrett probably still would have screwed it up, but it's a lot more forgiving situation.

Like CR said, I think the best thing would have been just a Zeke run straight up the gut. Probably get a few yards while also burning clock and making them use a TO.

mschmidt64 said:

Uh.... I'm doing the exact opposite.



No, it didn't.

You are ASSUMING that a run play wouldn't have scored and would have used more time.

You are the one using speculation to make a point.

Once Prescott picks up the first down on his run, he has the ability to go down and render the pass play completely moot. At that instance, any argument that the pass play cost us the opportunity to run time off the clock is mere speculation, completely unsubstantiated because we did in fact score on our next run play.

Any guessing as to what would have happened if we had run on second down is completely unproveable.

You are free to argue the odds. You are free to say running a straight run up the middle for 2 yards and a first down may have been the better play. I'm not arguing any of those things.

But to say the call cost us the game is false. That does not require hindsight.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. Speculation and hindsight are two completely different things. You are making yourself look stupid here.

Texas Ace said:

Yup, with this I am in full agreement with you.

Had the Cowboys chosen to forego the TD in an attempt to run out clock and score a play or two later, I wouldn't have had a problem with that either, but it's not what I think a team should do.

My issue is the 2nd down play which I've already explained in detail.

Click to expand...

Well like I said, the second down pass play was not the smartest option. But without knowing that we would have run for 2 or 3 yards and picked up a first down on the next play, and then also subsequently scored from the 8 some time later, you can't say that call cost us the game. It was made irrelevant by the next play. If you could go back in time and eliminate that pass play, you have no idea that the next rushing play wouldn't have scored.

All you have to go on, is the fact that we had the opportunity on the next play to get the first down and run the clock more. We did get the first down.

And then scored instead of choosing to milk the clock.

Oh well. We agree you can't pass up the points.

Shitty luck. Even shittier defense.

But the RPO worked, I can't argue with that call. And I can't say that Prescott should have taken a knee at the one.

Bad idea to pass maybe... but made meaningless by the subsequent conversion.

mschmidt64 said:

You are ASSUMING that a run play wouldn't have scored and would have used more time.

You are the one using speculation to make a point.

Click to expand...

What you're missing is that had the 2nd down run play scored, the vast majority of us would not have had a problem with that.

Yes, a few people would've felt like we should have fallen down at the 1 or whatever, but most of us would have been fine with the run call even if it led to a score.

It's nitpicky to then criticize a call like that.

But throwing a ball into the corner of the endzone though is completely indefensible and it leaves the playcalling and game management open to criticism.

You keep saying we're missing the point, but I think it is you who is failing to grasp the severity of the mistake there just because we scored on the very next play.

Texas Ace said:

I agree with Schmitty in that you can't just not score and I explained my reasoning already, but I do agree completely with your point on Garrett communicating with his QB.

The problem is, Garrett can never get the right message across to his QB whether it was Romo or now Dak because he is incapable of grasping the situation at hand.

If he's unaware of the situation he's facing, then you can't expect him to communicate the urgency of the matter to his QB.

Click to expand...

Conventional NFL wisdom has to be discarded at times.

With any other QB not named Brady and Aaron Rodgers.....absolutely, go ahead and score. But when your defense is as bad as Dallas' you can't take that chance.

I mean seriously.....this defense couldn't get Trevor Siemian off the field.

Iamtdg said:

Jesus Christ. Speculation and hindsight are two completely different things. You are making yourself look stupid here.

Click to expand...

You don't even have a coherent understanding of what I'm saying. Take a hike.

mschmidt64 said:

Bad idea to pass maybe... but made meaningless by the subsequent conversion.

Click to expand...

This is where we're disagreeing.

I don't think the 2nd down play was inconsequential in the end.

And what's worse, it's a sign that we're going to always make the same mistake in those moments so long as Garrett is here.

Even if this team rebounds and makes something of this season, there is a great possibility that Garrett will make a bone-headed call or decision in crunch time that will contribute to the loss.

Texas Ace said:

What you're missing is that had the 2nd down run play scored, the vast majority of us would not have had a problem with that.

Yes, a few people would've felt like we should have fallen down at the 1 or whatever, but most of us would have been fine with the run call even if it led to a score.

It's nitpicky to then criticize a call like that.

But throwing a ball into the corner of the endzone though is completely indefensible and it leaves the playcalling and game management open to criticism.

You keep saying we're missing the point, but I think it is you who is failing to grasp the severity of the mistake there just because we scored on the very next play.

Click to expand...

No, you are missing it. I'm saying feel free to criticize that play as a mistake. I'm not necessarily agreeing, I'm just not weighing in.

I'm just saying, it may have been a mistake, but it didn't cost us. The conversion on the next play mitigated it.

Saying "If we would have run a dive up the middle for a first down" is speculative.

Texas Ace said:

What you're missing is that had the 2nd down run play scored, the vast majority of us would not have had a problem with that.

Yes, a few people would've felt like we should have fallen down at the 1 or whatever, but most of us would have been fine with the run call even if it led to a score.

It's nitpicky to then criticize a call like that.

But throwing a ball into the corner of the endzone though is completely indefensible and it leaves the playcalling and game management open to criticism.

You keep saying we're missing the point, but I think it is you who is failing to grasp the severity of the mistake there just because we scored on the very next play.

Click to expand...

Correct, which is why I keep bringing up the word hindsight. He is arguing a point using hindsight as his main angle. It's silly, and a complete waste of time. But, anything to try to take the heat off his boy, I guess.

1bigfan13 said:

Conventional NFL wisdom has to be discarded at times.

With any other QB not named Brady and Aaron Rodgers.....absolutely, go ahead and score. But when your defense is as bad as Dallas' you can't take that chance.

I mean seriously.....this defense couldn't get Trevor Siemian off the field.

Click to expand...

Which is why I totally understand the logic behind what you're saying.

It's not like this is some preposterous idea out of left field. What you're saying makes sense.

I just don't know if I can do that in a game where we're down by more than 3.

mschmidt64 said:

You don't even have a coherent understanding of what I'm saying. Take a hike.

Click to expand...

Fuck off. I know exactly what you're saying, and it's gets more and more stupid the more you repeat it.

Texas Ace said:

This is where we're disagreeing.

I don't think the 2nd down play was inconsequential in the end.

Click to expand...

How was it not?

And what's worse, it's a sign that we're going to always make the same mistake in those moments so long as Garrett is here.

Even if this team rebounds and makes something of this season, there is a great possibility that Garrett will make a bone-headed call or decision in crunch time that will contribute to the loss.

Click to expand...

This is the part I have no comment on. Well, I do... but like you said.... not really worth continuing on.

Iamtdg said:

Fuck off.

Click to expand...

Internet tough guy alert.

Chocolate Lab said:

I'm with you in general, but those Broncos were in an entirely different situation with a tie game. If we'd been in position for a FG to win the game... well, Garrett probably still would have screwed it up, but it's a lot more forgiving situation.

Click to expand...

dont pay attention to the situation. Pay attention to the conversation.

Manning is discussing how to handle a situation with the difference of half a yard. From the 2 yard line, get the 1st don't get the TD.

Wed be content to score the TD and 'hope' our defense can pull one out of our asses. Nothing wrong with this conventional thinking if you're happy about just being a playoff team, but never a Super Bowl contender. Otherwise, you're arguing that inches don't matter in football.

mschmidt64 said:

How do you know? We have no idea what would have occurred.

All we have to go on is what happened.

Prescott picked up the first with his RPO. That would have let us continue to run the clock. That would have made the incomplete pass meaningless.

Instead, he went in for the TD.

Without knowing the outcome of this hypothetical second down run, there is no way to say that the second down pass attempt that stopped the clock cost us.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you're the one definitively saying it didn't cost us. Which isn't necessarily true either. And you've already admitted it was the wrong play call.

Cowboysrock55 said:

Yeah but you're the one definitively saying it didn't cost us. Which isn't necessarily true either.

Click to expand...

Once Prescott picks up the first on the next play, that eliminates the clock stoppage issue.

And you've already admitted it was the wrong play call.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was the best. I don't think it was as egregious as some are saying.

Cowboysrock55 said:

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.

Click to expand...

YEP.