Cowboys Game Plan Should Be Questioned.

space · Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Posts: 1

I know hindsight is 20-20, but I don't think that the 'Boys should have
approached this Giants game any different than the way the played in the
first two.

They scored 45 and 35 points in those games, but instead seemed to be more
focused on establishing the recently anemic running game and tried to keep
the ball out of the Giants hand. Most of the time this is a sound thing to
do, but it backfired on them because of mistakes made by defense in missing
tackles and untimely penalties, sustaining NY scoring drives. That coupled
with the offense miscues and penalties killing their own drive.

This wound up keeping the game a lower scoring affair than the previous
games and this only help the Giants, IMO. Outside of the last 47 seconds of
the 1st half, Eli wasn't forced into enough passing situations where he is
prone to making mistakes.

Even though Toomer had a big day, with Shockey out and Burress not being
the player he was at the beginning of the year, NY would have been hard
pressed to try and win a shootout type of game against the 'Boys.

Dallas wanted to establish the run and dominated time of possession, mission
accomplished. But by changing their approach, I think Dallas helped NY stay
in the game much longer than they would have with the dropped passes, mental
errors, and penalties along with the game plan they came in with. The 'Boys
offense never got in rythym with both passing and running to keep NY
guessing.

Just like the Chicago Bulls before their championship run where they would
just try and keep the score close until the 4 quarter and then let Jordan
try and win the game for them, the depleted Giants just wanted to stay in
the game long enough so that the strength of their team, the defensive line,
not Eli, could win the game for them. And the Cowboys game plan helped allow
it to happen.

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>dallas-cowboys

Olin · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 37

"space" wrote in message $L%6.49643@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>I know hindsight is 20-20, but I don't think that the 'Boys should have
> approached this Giants game any different than the way the played in the
> first two.
>
> They scored 45 and 35 points in those games, but instead seemed to be more
> focused on establishing the recently anemic running game and tried to keep
> the ball out of the Giants hand. Most of the time this is a sound thing to
> do, but it backfired on them because of mistakes made by defense in
> missing
> tackles and untimely penalties, sustaining NY scoring drives. That coupled
> with the offense miscues and penalties killing their own drive.
>
> This wound up keeping the game a lower scoring affair than the previous
> games and this only help the Giants, IMO. Outside of the last 47 seconds
> of
> the 1st half, Eli wasn't forced into enough passing situations where he is
> prone to making mistakes.
>
> Even though Toomer had a big day, with Shockey out and Burress not being
> the player he was at the beginning of the year, NY would have been hard
> pressed to try and win a shootout type of game against the 'Boys.
>
> Dallas wanted to establish the run and dominated time of possession,
> mission
> accomplished. But by changing their approach, I think Dallas helped NY
> stay
> in the game much longer than they would have with the dropped passes,
> mental
> errors, and penalties along with the game plan they came in with. The
> 'Boys
> offense never got in rythym with both passing and running to keep NY
> guessing.
>
> Just like the Chicago Bulls before their championship run where they would
> just try and keep the score close until the 4 quarter and then let Jordan
> try and win the game for them, the depleted Giants just wanted to stay in
> the game long enough so that the strength of their team, the defensive
> line,
> not Eli, could win the game for them. And the Cowboys game plan helped
> allow
> it to happen.
>

With Owens hobbled, with Romo still nursing a sore thumb that, apparently,
he re-aggravated early in the Giants game and the legitimate speed burner
just coming back after missing virtually the entire season... I frankly
don't see how they could have hoped to light it up the way they did in the
first two games. That said, Romo still hit receivers in the hands, of all
places, and they dropped at the very least two sure touchdowns and possibly
three.

Besides, pretty close to a consensus among the varied geniuses here was that
the running game HAD to be established and that the order HAD to be changed
up with Barber getting the start.

Season's over. No matter how one wants to spin it, it was a good year that
did not reach all of its goals. Time to rest, rehab and retool where you
can, replace a few coaches, glom every piece of information you can scrounge
up on the draft and start planning for next year.

Preacher · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 50

Olin wrote:

> With Owens hobbled, with Romo still nursing a sore thumb that, apparently,
> he re-aggravated early in the Giants game and the legitimate speed burner
> just coming back after missing virtually the entire season... I frankly
> don't see how they could have hoped to light it up the way they did in the
> first two games. That said, Romo still hit receivers in the hands, of all
> places, and they dropped at the very least two sure touchdowns and possibly
> three.
>
> Besides, pretty close to a consensus among the varied geniuses here was that
> the running game HAD to be established and that the order HAD to be changed
> up with Barber getting the start.

I didn't have a problem with plan to establish the run. Might have
worked if the defense had held at the end of the first half.

I do wish that Garrett had found some way to attack the middle of the
field and beat the pressure with slants or some quick pass. Romo does
that so well, yet he kept forcing it deep. Don't know if that was the
plan or Romo panicking.

> Season's over. No matter how one wants to spin it, it was a good year that
> did not reach all of its goals. Time to rest, rehab and retool where you
> can, replace a few coaches, glom every piece of information you can scrounge
> up on the draft and start planning for next year.

It was a good year, just hard not to be disappointed as a #1 seed. They
looked so good in the middle of the season. The injury bug seemed to
bite at just the wrong time, and they just seemed a bit flat late in the
season. A fun year until the end, but disappointing.

Olin · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 37

"Preacher" wrote in message $jJ5.1234@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> Olin wrote:
>
>> With Owens hobbled, with Romo still nursing a sore thumb that,
>> apparently, he re-aggravated early in the Giants game and the legitimate
>> speed burner just coming back after missing virtually the entire
>> season... I frankly don't see how they could have hoped to light it up
>> the way they did in the first two games. That said, Romo still hit
>> receivers in the hands, of all places, and they dropped at the very least
>> two sure touchdowns and possibly three.
>>
>> Besides, pretty close to a consensus among the varied geniuses here was
>> that the running game HAD to be established and that the order HAD to be
>> changed up with Barber getting the start.
>
> I didn't have a problem with plan to establish the run. Might have worked
> if the defense had held at the end of the first half.
>

Except that the running game was only average at best. That line is built
mostly for pass blocking and with at least half your running back tandem
good really only in space, I'm still not sure the playoffs was the best
place to try and ramp it up a notch.

That said, with the problems at WR going into that game, I don't think they
had much choice.

> I do wish that Garrett had found some way to attack the middle of the
> field and beat the pressure with slants or some quick pass. Romo does that
> so well, yet he kept forcing it deep. Don't know if that was the plan or
> Romo panicking.
>

He did attack the middle of the field. That's where Crayton dropped what
would have been, at least, a very long gainer and quite possibly a
touchdown.

>> Season's over. No matter how one wants to spin it, it was a good year
>> that did not reach all of its goals. Time to rest, rehab and retool where
>> you can, replace a few coaches, glom every piece of information you can
>> scrounge up on the draft and start planning for next year.
>
> It was a good year, just hard not to be disappointed as a #1 seed. They
> looked so good in the middle of the season. The injury bug seemed to bite
> at just the wrong time, and they just seemed a bit flat late in the
> season. A fun year until the end, but disappointing.

Disappointing is one thing. To judge from the reaction in many quarters,
"disappointing" would have been a vast improvement.

twoaxes · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 26

On Jan 18, 12:23 am, "space" wrote:
> I know hindsight is 20-20, but I don't think that the 'Boys should have
> approached this Giants game any different than the way the played in the
> first two.
>
> They scored 45 and 35 points in those games, but instead seemed to be more
> focused on establishing the recently anemic running game and tried to keep
> the ball out of the Giants hand. Most of the time this is a sound thing to
> do, but it backfired on them because of mistakes made by defense in missing
> tackles and untimely penalties, sustaining NY scoring drives. That coupled
> with the offense miscues and penalties killing their own drive.
>
> This wound up keeping the game a lower scoring affair than the previous
> games and this only help the Giants, IMO. Outside of the last 47 seconds of
> the 1st half, Eli wasn't forced into enough passing situations where he is
> prone to making mistakes.
>
> Even though Toomer had a big day, with Shockey out and Burress not being
> the player he was at the beginning of the year, NY would have been hard
> pressed to try and win a shootout type of game against the 'Boys.
>
> Dallas wanted to establish the run and dominated time of possession, mission
> accomplished. But by changing their approach, I think Dallas helped NY stay
> in the game much longer than they would have with the dropped passes, mental
> errors, and penalties along with the game plan they came in with. The 'Boys
> offense never got in rythym with both passing and running to keep NY
> guessing.
>
> Just like the Chicago Bulls before their championship run where they would
> just try and keep the score close until the 4 quarter and then let Jordan
> try and win the game for them, the depleted Giants just wanted to stay in
> the game long enough so that the strength of their team, the defensive line,
> not Eli, could win the game for them. And the Cowboys game plan helped allow
> it to happen.

I have read some columnists who were advocating the same position but
I disagree. Yes, its true that as things turned out Dallas wound up
losing a close game, but Dallas had about six chances to score TDs and
did not execute. That's not the fault of the game plan. You can't
game plan for Fasano dropping a TD pass, Romo letting the ball slip
out of his hand over the head and behind a wide open TO, Crayton
dropping a 3rd down pass that would have been the longest Dallas play
of the game, Crayton stopping his route on a perfectly called fade
route at the end of the game and Leonard Davis committing a personal
foul negating a big first down play. The big plays were there.
Dallas just did not do what was necessary to make plays.

The unforced errors killed Dallas and had they made something of half
of the opportunities they had the score would have been 38 -14 with
Dallas winning.

One thing I question in this game is how with Dallas' time of
possession, the Cowboys OL could have been so tired at the end of the
game. I thought the idea was to tire out the defense. At the end,
the Giants appeared fresh and Dallas appeared exhausted. If running
the ball so much in teh first half wore out the OL then maybe you are
right, they should have run it less. But that's not supposed to
happen, is it?

riggodeezil · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 18, 10:01 am, twoa...@optonline.net wrote:

> One thing I question in this game is how with Dallas' time of
> possession, the Cowboys OL could have been so tired at the end of the
> game. I thought the idea was to tire out the defense. At the end,
> the Giants appeared fresh and Dallas appeared exhausted. If running
> the ball so much in teh first half wore out the OL then maybe you are
> right, they should have run it less. But that's not supposed to
> happen, is it?-

The ball-control, run-based game play was a departure from the Cowboys
modus operandi during the season.. It did look like it exhausted
their linemen more than it wore down the Giants D. The flip side of
ball-control and long-scoring drives is that your defense can't let
the opposition score so quickly afterward. Momentum is lost and
mentally it becomes "Hey it took us 20 plays to score and it only took
them 5...we might be in trouble here." The NYG got 2 of their TDs
rapidly and that end-of-half score was a back-breaker for Dallas.

I still think the gameplan was right. You have to be able to count on
your D to make some plays and at least make the other team work hard
for their points. Next season, Dallas should start Barber and
establish a power running attack throughout the season rather than
waiting for the playoffs. This would condition their o-line for such
things and will do wonders for their play-action passing game.
Naturally, as a 'Skins fan I hope they keep pretending that Julius
Jones is a productive back and that they keep thinking Romo is Joe
Montana and/or Brett Favre.

Tony Romo -- game-by-game analysis of Tony's passer-rating + --- The average passer-rating allowed by opponents is compared to the way Tony performed in each game: Houston (28th, 90.8) ............. Tony = 158.3, + 67.5 (2 passes) NY Giants (13th, 79.3) .......... Tony = 73.7, - 5.6 (half game) @ Carolina (15th, 80

Cowboys need to win 3 of 4? Would you say thats about right? 3 of 4? Kansas City, Washington, Caroline, StLouis.. Which ones can they win? 12/11 Kansas City (CBS) 3:15 p.m. Purchase Tickets Sun 12/18 @ Washington (FOX) 3:15 p.m. Travel Packages Sat 12/24 @ Carolina (FOX) Noon Travel

Draft by Cowboys Who will Dallas draft this season? Do they need to look at Quarterbacks or linemen?

Cowboys have something in common with the Ravens one and done. A team that most everyone said was either the best or second-best in the league... dominated. By the Colt defense. And with Peyton finishing with a QB rating that would make Eli look like a superstar by comparison. wow.

Parcells wants Cowboys to put egos aside --- Posted July 30, 2005 By Jean-Jacques Taylor The Dallas Morning News --- Excerpts: Coach Bill Parcells stood before his players Friday morning and implored them to put their individual agendas as