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

[Smitty]

I don't think that means you can just assume that a good QB explodes for 300 + under those circumstances.

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.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Stafford won't miss, fellas. It could get fugly Sunday.

Really? Have you seen Stafford play? The guy misses a ton of throws. He also has basically no touch on his throws. Stafford isn't an elite QB in this league. He is more in the ballpark of RGIII when it comes to hitting on throws. He just throws the ball a lot more then RGIII because his defense isn't that good and he can't run with the ball.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

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.

That's a ridiculous stretch.

 

[Smitty]

That's a ridiculous stretch.

No it's not. I think a 300+ yard passing day would have occurred if those passes were completed and drives extended.

It's not any different than saying Tony Romo was off and missed at least another 50 yards on the pass to Bryant where he didn't lead him out in front enough. Which is also true by the way. A better day from Romo and we would have scored 30. But we didn't, he had a bad day. The Eagles shouldn't go around pretending like their defense is better all of a sudden now. No, it still sucks. Romo was just off.

 

[Carp]

Even local guys like Norm Hitzges noticed that Foles missed open guys and receivers dropped passes.

QBs miss throws, but the CBs have been better and were the strongest factor in the last two wins. The Bears have respected CBs and they gave up quite a few points to RGIII. Foles had a good game the week prior...both QBs were affected by our CBs contributing to bad days. There were many times too where both QBs just had to hold the ball because no one was open.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

No it's not. I think a 300+ yard passing day would have occurred if those passes were completed and drives extended.

It's not any different than saying Tony Romo was off and missed at least another 50 yards on the pass to Bryant where he didn't lead him out in front enough. Which is also true by the way. A better day from Romo and we would have scored 30. But we didn't, he had a bad day. The Eagles shouldn't go around pretending like their defense is better all of a sudden now. No, it still sucks. Romo was just off.

If you didn't see a coverage difference between the Cowboys the last two games, and the Chargers/Giants game then I would have to seriously question if you watched the games. Foles was a 11 of 29 for 80 yards. Yet you think he could have had Giants/Chargers type performance against us if he was on top of his game. That's ridiculous.

 

[superpunk]

If you didn't see a coverage difference between the Cowboys the last two games, and the Chargers/Giants game then I would have to seriously question if you watched the games. Foles was a 11 of 29 for 80 yards. Yet you think he could have had Giants/Chargers type performance against us if he was on top of his game. That's ridiculous.

Yup.

Particularly impressive was what we did to McCoy. Carter kept Foles from even looking at him.

 

[bbgun]

If you didn't see a coverage difference between the Cowboys the last two games, and the Chargers/Giants game then I would have to seriously question if you watched the games. Foles was a 11 of 29 for 80 yards. Yet you think he could have had Giants/Chargers type performance against us if he was on top of his game. That's ridiculous.

The tweeter said an average QB could have raped us, not Foles.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

The tweeter said an average QB could have raped us, not Foles.

He was 22 of 33 for 296 yards against Tampa. I guess that means an average QB would have thrown for 1200 yards in that game against Tampa. Or even the game prior to that Foles was 16 of 25 for 197 with 2 TDs against the Giants. Hell even go back to last year against Dallas he was 22 of 34 with 251 yards against Dallas.

So lets not pretend that guys were wide open and Foles wasn't able to have that type of a game.

 

[Deuce]

There were plays to be made that Foles missed, but that doesn't necessarily mean the D did a bad job. Their focus was to shut down McCoy and they brought safeties up quite a bit to do so. That won't be a plan against other teams that have a limited running threat like NYG.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah I don't get that crap. We hit Foles early, got him off his spot, were on his ass all day and pressed the receivers to disrupt their offense. Basically, everything we've been wishing we'd do. Then it's "oh this guy who's been lighting people up in an (addmittedly over)hyped offense is garbage."

Some people are never happy. Let them be wrong, and dumb, and loud about it.

 

[bbgun]

He was 22 of 33 for 296 yards against Tampa. I guess that means an average QB would have thrown for 1200 yards in that game against Tampa. Or even the game prior to that Foles was 16 of 25 for 197 with 2 TDs against the Giants. Hell even go back to last year against Dallas he was 22 of 34 with 251 yards against Dallas.

So lets not pretend that guys were wide open and Foles wasn't able to have that type of a game.

Right, in the Tampa and Giant games, Foles was more accurate. Against Dallas, not so much. I'll trust the guy who watched the film and saw a lot of missed opportunities. Let's stop pretending that we had blanket coverage all day long. It took a rookie QB in garbage time to finally net some easy turnovers.

 

[superpunk]

Couldn't have possibly been that what we did to Foles caused him to be inaccurate. Naw, his completion pct. just magically plummeted. File this bullshit under "They didn't win, we lost". I'll take Meaningless Idiotic Distinctions for a trillion, Alex.

 

[Smitty]

If you didn't see a coverage difference between the Cowboys the last two games, and the Chargers/Giants game then I would have to seriously question if you watched the games. Foles was a 11 of 29 for 80 yards. Yet you think he could have had Giants/Chargers type performance against us if he was on top of his game. That's ridiculous.

No, I said if Eli Manning or Phillip Rivers was playing QB for the Eagles Sunday, they would have amassed yardage more like to what they did to us in the Giants or Chargers games, than what happened with Nick Foles on Sunday.

It's not any more ridiculous than saying Romo had a bad day. Are Eagles fans entitled to believe that their defense is significantly better now?

Yeah, the Dallas CBs played better. The man to man change up is definitely helping.

But its a pure homer fantasy to expect that we're gonna hold all QBs to 80 yards or even 180 yards. The top QBs are still gonna burn this defense for much closer to 300, and probably a lot of them will be well in excess of it.

Nick Foles had an awful day and just straight up missed a lot of throws where guys were open, plain and simple. You have to factor that in. If he didn't have all the drops, plus his drives were extended, he'd probably have had another 100+ yards. Don't forget to add in what Barkley passed for as well.

 

[Smitty]

There were plays to be made that Foles missed, but that doesn't necessarily mean the D did a bad job.

Who said the D did a bad job? Not me. They played well.

But fundamentally this defense is gonna be susceptible year long to being torched.

We can revisit this topic in a couple weeks when Rodgers and Brees go off on us, and then we can hear about how it's just a coincidence that all our DBs played poorly those weeks.

No one will ever admit how many balls Eagles WRs dropped or how many non-pressured passes Foles just straight up missed. Frankly I thought the performance against Griffin was more impressive last week.

 

[Smitty]

Their focus was to shut down McCoy and they brought safeties up quite a bit to do so. That won't be a plan against other teams that have a limited running threat like NYG.

Now that is true, and it's one thing that this pointless (since it's already been resolved ten times over) debate that whining CB whores want to have about the secondary is causing us to overlook, and that's that the DL held McCoy to basically nothing.

That's ten times as impressive given what he's done this year.

 

[Smitty]

Right, in the Tampa and Giant games, Foles was more accurate. Against Dallas, not so much. I'll trust the guy who watched the film and saw a lot of missed opportunities. Let's stop pretending that we had blanket coverage all day long. It took a rookie QB in garbage time to finally net some easy turnovers.

Nuh uh, it's our awesome man coverage.

 

[Angrymesscan]

Top QB's will torch all teams, but all QB's have bad days. Even Peyton has had them.

 

[NoDak]

It's not any more ridiculous than saying Romo had a bad day. Are Eagles fans entitled to believe that their defense is significantly better now?

Romo might have played below his standards, but he still threw for 300+. Not really something to be proud of defensively.

 

[Smitty]

Romo might have played below his standards, but he still threw for 300+. Not really something to be proud of defensively.

Yeah, but they held us to 17 points when their season average is 28 (and actually, that's their average now, with the 17 factored in, so before it was higher).

If Romo was sharp, we would have dropped 24 or 31 on them, no questions asked.