Week 8 Game Day Chatter | Cowboys @ Redskins | 10-29-2017

[Smitty]

I don't think the KC game effects us at all actually, if we are 5-3 versus 4-4. It's just another game.

From a statistical standpoint there is no question that beating Atlanta but losing to KC is better for our chances than vice versa.

 

[midswat]

I don't even care who we play, team wise. I worry only about who the opposing QB is.

If he's above average, then he'll likely have his way with this defense.

 

[Smitty]

I get what mschmidt is saying. We're not going to win out, so if/when we do take the L's, it'd be preferable to take them against the AFC and win out against NFC.

Or to put it better, AFC losses hurt less.

But I disagree that a loss to KC doesn't matter. It obviously does.

They all matter of course.

Order of importance for us should be

1) Philly
2) Division opponents
3) NFC opponents, particularly the wild card contenders (I think that's all that we even have left on the schedule in the NFC, is playoff contenders).

The AFC games are nice to have to get you to the 10 win threshold, if you are saying you can't get to ten wins by winning those other games.

But if you had to pick wins and losses to get us to a final record of 10-6, you would absolutely, 100% make the losses KC, LA, and Oakland.

I don't buy that we need the KC win to establish momentum down the second half stretch. It is much more important to beat Atlanta, period.

 

[midswat]

I don't think the KC game effects us at all actually, if we are 5-3 versus 4-4. It's just another game.

Strangely, it does though. NFL standings matter. It's how they select who gets into the playoffs.

 

[Smitty]

Strangely, it does though. NFL standings matter. It's how they select who gets into the playoffs.

I meant in terms of momentum.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I don't think the KC game effects us at all actually, if we are 5-3 versus 4-4. It's just another game.

From a statistical standpoint there is no question that beating Atlanta but losing to KC is better for our chances than vice versa.

If you win one more game then the other wild cards then tie breakers don't matter. How can you say beating the Chiefs doesn't matter.

 

[Texas Ace]

I don't think the KC game effects us at all actually, if we are 5-3 versus 4-4. It's just another game.

From a statistical standpoint there is no question that beating Atlanta but losing to KC is better for our chances than vice versa.

I don't buy that we need the KC win to establish momentum down the second half stretch. It is much more important to beat Atlanta, period.

It is not just another game and it totally affects us.

You don't think that getting to 5-3 while beating one of the best teams in the NFL matters or would have any positive lasting effects on this team?

If you fall to 4-4, then it's a back-to-the-drawing-board type of vibe within that locker room. But get to 5-3, establish a winning streak, and do so while beating a really good team, and it absolutely improves this team's prospects going forward as they are going to be feeling highly confident no matter who they face.

I can't understand how you don't see that and dismiss it as not being all that important.

 

[Texas Ace]

I meant in terms of momentum.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Do you know what momentum means? Of course I ask that rhetorically, but I find it funny that you seem to think that ending the 1st half of the season with a .500 record while not beating a single good team in that span gives us the same odds of building 2nd half momentum as beating said good team and putting together a 3 game winning streak.

How exactly is momentum built? By winning.

What would happen if we won this weekend? We'd be on a 3 game winning streak heading into the 2nd half.

You know what would increase our odds of building momentum in the 2nd half of the season? If we actually already had momentum going into that part of the schedule as opposed to having to build it all over again.

But yet you think starting from .500 wouldn't affect our ability to build momentum when we'd basically be starting from scratch again going into week 9?

How does that make sense?

 

[Genghis Khan]

I'm with Smitty. I don't think KC is that important in the big picture.

 

[Smitty]

It is not just another game and it totally affects us.

You don't think that getting to 5-3 while beating one of the best teams in the NFL matters or would have any positive lasting effects on this team?

If you fall to 4-4, then it's a back-to-the-drawing-board type of vibe within that locker room. But get to 5-3, establish a winning streak, and do so while beating a really good team, and it absolutely improves this team's prospects going forward as they are going to be feeling highly confident no matter who they face.

I can't understand how you don't see that and dismiss it as not being all that important.

I don't think the players buy into it as much as you do, and I'm sure that the coaching staff doesn't buy into it. They look at every game as "just focus on this game."

So no, I don't think they'll be feeling better about themselves going 5-3 versus 4-4, to the point where it affects their play the next week.

In fact, if they beat KC but then lose to Atlanta, they are in a much worse position heading down the stretch than if they lose to KC and beat Atlanta. So even if there was any momentum effect, they will have to feel more positive about their situation if they beat Atlanta.

 

[Simpleton]

And another random thought, this is why I thought the idea of trading Scandrick was completely ridiculous. The guy is signed through the 2019-20 season at only about $5 million a year, which is a pittance to pay these days for a guy who is still your best CB.

I get that Lewis and Awuzie are supposed to be the future but there's no question that Scandrick was still our best CB as we stood in late April, or early August, and today. I'd keep him around next year too, he's only going to be 31 after all and will almost assuredly still be one of our top 3 CB's, and then maybe going into the last year of the deal you give serious consideration to getting rid of him.

But I'd keep him throughout the life of the deal unless his play drops off a cliff, his contract expires the same year as Dak so it's not like we're going to need the money to sign him long term.

 

[Smitty]

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Do you know what momentum means? Of course I ask that rhetorically, but I find it funny that you seem to think that ending the 1st half of the season with a .500 record while not beating a single good team in that span gives us the same odds of building 2nd half momentum as beating said good team and putting together a 3 game winning streak.

How exactly is momentum built? By winning.

What would happen if we won this weekend? We'd be on a 3 game winning streak heading into the 2nd half.

You know what would increase our odds of building momentum in the 2nd half of the season? If we actually already had momentum going into that part of the schedule as opposed to having to build it all over again.

But yet you think starting from .500 wouldn't affect our ability to build momentum when we'd basically be starting from scratch again going into week 9?

How does that make sense?

I said I don't think the KC game matters in terms of building momentum for us.

Winning KC AND Atlanta, maybe. I tend to subscribe more to the theory of, once you've won a bunch in a row, you start to dread the next loss being around the corner, though.

But win in KC and lose to Atlanta, and you have put yourself right back behind the 8-ball.

Lose to KC but beat Atlanta, and you are in a much better spot.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I said I don't think the KC game matters in terms of building momentum for us.

Winning KC AND Atlanta, maybe. I tend to subscribe more to the theory of, once you've won a bunch in a row, you start to dread the next loss being around the corner, though.

But win in KC and lose to Atlanta, and you have put yourself right back behind the 8-ball.

Lose to KC but beat Atlanta, and you are in a much better spot.

All I know is that I like our chances against Atlanta more if we are 5-3 and just beat a really good football team as opposed to 4-4 and having just gotten our teeth kicked in.

It's not really any more complicated than that. You can't win 4 straight if you don't first win 3 straight.

 

[Smitty]

All I know is that I like our chances against Atlanta more if we are 5-3 and just beat a really good football team as opposed to 4-4 and having just gotten our teeth kicked in.

I don't think the KC results have much bearing on the Atlanta results, barring injury or something like that.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I don't think the KC results have much bearing on the Atlanta results, barring injury or something like that.

You're taking this tie breaker thing to a ridiculous level

 

[GShock]

And another random thought, this is why I thought the idea of trading Scandrick was completely ridiculous. The guy is signed through the 2019-20 season at only about $5 million a year, which is a pittance to pay these days for a guy who is still your best CB.

I get that Lewis and Awuzie are supposed to be the future but there's no question that Scandrick was still our best CB as we stood in late April, or early August, and today. I'd keep him around next year too, he's only going to be 31 after all and will almost assuredly still be one of our top 3 CB's, and then maybe going into the last year of the deal you give serious consideration to getting rid of him.

But I'd keep him throughout the life of the deal unless his play drops off a cliff, his contract expires the same year as Dak so it's not like we're going to need the money to sign him long term.

Yeah. The CB play, particularly Brown, has been a disappointment. Feels like there are always yards to be had for any vaguely competent QB/WR combo.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Yeah. The CB play, particularly Brown, has been a disappointment. Feels like there are always yards to be had for any vaguely competent QB/WR combo.

I honestly think the safety play has a lot to do with that. When you run a cover two defense your corners have to actually have safety help. Our safeties provide none.

 

[Smitty]

You're taking this tie breaker thing to a ridiculous level

This could be a team in direct competition with us for a wildcard spot.

You need to beat them head to head.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

This could be a team in direct competition with us for a wildcard spot.

You need to beat them head to head.

Or you can win more games then them.

Winning more games is a better tie breaker.

 

[Smitty]

Or you can win more games then them.

Winning more games is a better tie breaker.

Yeah, it's "ridiculous" to think that this team may need to beat Atlanta to win more games than them.