Cowboys at Eagles | Week 7 Game Day Chatter Thread | 10/20/2013

[Smitty]

For no reason other than to...well...damn, I have no idea what point you were trying to make, other than a real good QB does a number on us...well no shit.

Yes! Exactly.

That's my point. A real QB still does a number on us.

C-rock disagrees.

That wasn't what the damn Tweet was about.

So? I didn't tweet it. I never said "that tweet is exactly right." I started off agreeing with you that Foles was off.

Hey I can do the same thing, let me just point out to you people to settle down. Brees and Rodgers will kill us. Got it? Good. Those are great QBs and they will do that to everyone.

Yes, I agree completely.

If we play the same as we did on Sunday, those QBs will still tear us up and we'll be sitting here wondering why our defense lets us down.

That is exactly what I was saying and what C-rock disagreed with.

Again...claim hyperbole so we can end this shit discussion. You spouted off, changed and spun the whole basis of the argument and typed a lot defending that position.

I didn't make the claim you are saying is hyperbole.

 

[boozeman]

C-rock disagrees.

He can speak for himself but I don't think he was stating that at all. And again, a "real QB" is going to do that to practically everybody. I don't think the general response to your argument was that we will shut down "real QBs".

It was more directed towards your extreme comment, which I guess is meant to keeping it real or something.

 

[NoDak]

Again...claim hyperbole so we can end this shit discussion. You spouted off, changed and spun the whole basis of the argument and typed a lot defending that position.

This could be attached to practically every thing he writes. Certainly to that shitstorm he was dancing in last night.

 

[data]

The 99 Rams would've f'd us up.

 

[boozeman]

The 99 Rams would've f'd us up.

Fouts and the Chargers of the 1980s...fugeddaboutit.

 

[boozeman]

This could be attached to practically every thing he writes. Certainly to that shitstorm he was dancing in last night.

Witchhunt.

 

[NoDak]

Witchhunt.

 

[data]

Get the milk. It's getting too hot for Schmitty in here.

 

[Smitty]

He can speak for himself but I don't think he was stating that at all.

That's exactly what he was stating.

I said

The quality of coverage against the Eagles yields results that were probably a lot closer to the Giants or Chargers game, if the QB throwing the ball was Manning or Rivers.

<-- which is the same as saying exactly your words, which are "a real QB does a number on us."

and he said

That's a ridiculous stretch.

That's his exact disagreement. He does not think, given our coverage on Sunday, that a QB like Rivers or Manning would have posted a high passing yardage day.

It was more directed towards your extreme comment, which I guess is meant to keeping it real or something.

What extreme comment? I never made any extreme comment. I never said an average QB throws for 400 yards.

I said an average QB has more success, yes, and that is true, an average QB would have had more than 80 yards passing through 3 quarters.

But I don't even know what this extreme position you are attributing to me is.

You guys are making up stances for me and then claiming they are hyperbole, now.

 

[Smitty]

Here's another idea, we can end this debate right now.

I'm saying, right this second, that a good QB would have "done a number on us" given our coverage, boozeman's exact words (This has been my exact stance all along, by the way, but maybe re-phrasing it in the words of a neutral party like booze will provide clarification).

Since that statement is vague, we have to attach some numbers to it, so I'm claiming that means "numerically closer to the Giants or Chargers passing day totals -- 400 yards -- than to 80 yards" (The implication of that statement is that our coverage is not some boffo thing we are gonna ride the rest of the year to victory after victory, but that instead, we're still gonna have more than a couple days where QBs really eat us up, if the coverage is exactly as good as it was in Philly).

Let C-rock come in here and agree with that statement (the part that isn't in parentheses) and the debate is over.

 

[boozeman]

Armistice.

 

[Rev]

Armistice.

When dealing with schmittler I would be cautious with that.

 

[Smitty]

When dealing with schmittler I would be cautious with that.

Nah, I'm fine.

Until C-rock comes back in here and says he thinks it's a "ridiculous assertion" that a QB like Manning or Rivers would have done a number on us, like he did before.

 

[p1_]

Here's another idea, we can end this debate right now.

I'm saying, right this second, that a good QB would have "done a number on us" given our coverage, boozeman's exact words (This has been my exact stance all along, by the way, but maybe re-phrasing it in the words of a neutral party like booze will provide clarification).

Since that statement is vague, we have to attach some numbers to it, so I'm claiming that means "numerically closer to the Giants or Chargers passing day totals -- 400 yards -- than to 80 yards" (The implication of that statement is that our coverage is not some boffo thing we are gonna ride the rest of the year to victory after victory, but that instead, we're still gonna have more than a couple days where QBs really eat us up, if the coverage is exactly as good as it was in Philly).

Let C-rock come in here and agree with that statement (the part that isn't in parentheses) and the debate is over.

We were lucky Foles played so horribly. Allegedly, prior to our game, he had been dead on accurate.

 

[Angrymesscan]

Nah, I'm fine.

Until C-rock comes back in here and says he thinks it's a "ridiculous assertion" that a QB like Manning or Rivers would have done a number on us, like he did before.

And if Manning (I'm guessing you mean Eli here) and Rivers had an off day like Foles? What then huh? Huh?

 

[superpunk]

It's not just the Eagles game. I like how you refer to 5 other games. Are we pretending that the Redskins game didn't happen at all? Or did RG3 just have his worst passing game against the Cowboys too? Bradford looked like crap against our defense as well, but that was probably his worst game ever as well.

You sound like the homer fan of a losing team. ThE CoWbOys didn't outPlay us, We JusT haD a bAd week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go ahead and point out the throws that Foles missed as though every QB every week in the NFL doesn't miss some throws.

Somehow he seems to be missing that we completely changed the way we cover on the back end before the Skins game.

 

[superpunk]

So what do you think if, instead of Foles playing like he did on Sunday, it had been Phillip Rivers at QB?

How do you think things unfold then?

Same results? 80 yards passing through 3 quarters and 3 points? Or do you think they probably have accumulated a lot more yards and points?

Say it's 300 yards.... that is "more like" 401 or 450 than it is like 80. You would agree with me that 300 is closer to 400 than it is to 80, right?

All things being equal we would have murdered Rivers last week. Our issue with Rivers and Manning were that we couldn't hit them, and we couldn't cover their backs. We hit the shit out of Foles early and often, demolished their porous Oline and contained the back.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Nah, I'm fine.

Until C-rock comes back in here and says he thinks it's a "ridiculous assertion" that a QB like Manning or Rivers would have done a number on us, like he did before.

You suggested that a Rivers or Eli would have a 450 yard type day as opposed to what the Eagles did against us. That was your implication, which is an absolutely ridiculous assertion because the Cowboys coverage against the Eagles was infinitely better then the Cowboys coverage was in that first Giants game. You're now trying to back track by saying that statistically a 300 yard performance would be closer to the 450 yards (Which it wouldn't be considering in total the Eagles threw for 194 yards in total). You made a stupid statement, own up to it and stop trying to prove you can be the furthest opposite from a homer.

 

[Smitty]

You suggested that a Rivers or Eli would have a 450 yard type day as opposed to what the Eagles did against us.

Really? Let's check the transcripts.

Post #1758, C-rock, in response to boozeman's contention that Foles had a shitty day: "I don't think that means you can just assume that a good QB explodes for 300 + under those circumstances."

Post #1761, Smitty, in response to post #1758: "I think it means exactly that. The quality of coverage against the Eagles yields results that were probably a lot closer to the Giants or Chargers game, if the QB throwing the ball was Manning or Rivers."

Post #1763, C-rock, in response to post #1761: "That's a ridiculous stretch."

....

So actually, what I said was, if the QB was Manning or Rivers, the results would have been "closer to" either a 401 yard day or a 450 yard day (since I cited both the Chargers and Giants games) than they would have been to what actually occurred, which was Nick Foles' 80 yards passing.

I did not say it would have been 450. I did not imply, I straight up said, and I still straight up say, that had Rivers or Manning been playing, it would have been numerically a lot closer to 400 than it was to 80.

You're now trying to back track by saying that statistically a 300 yard performance would be closer to the 450 yards

How is that backtracking? My original words were "if it was Rivers or Manning, it would have been closer to the Giants or Chargers game."

Is 300 closer to 400 than 300 is to 80? Yes?

Then I'm not backtracking.

The backtracking nonsense is distracting from the real issue, anyway.

This is the point.

Boozeman said, and I quote, "a real good QB does a number on us." That is the truth. A real good QB like Rivers or Manning would have racked up considerably more yards and points through the first three quarters of that game than Foles did. Period.

How many would it have been? 300? 400? Does it matter? The point is, it would not have been an afternoon that we look at as a crowning achievement of pass defense, and it would have made the game a lot closer if not an outright loss.

Thus, it's ridiculous to go around touting it like it was a shutdown defensive performance.

 

[NoDak]