Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: My First Fight: Diego Sanchez

10 Random Thoughts - Week #1

 

  1. Always nice to get the first win, especially on the road.

 

  1. It took exactly one game for us to see significant improvement in our Special Teams play.

 

  1. I have a feeling that DeMarcus Ware will sign on the dotted line this week after the injury he suffered early in the game... I know that I was holding my breathe for a while!

 

  1. Garrett’s Accountability - We are paying this guy $3MM to run our offense and we look like a freaking 5th grade Pee-Wee team at times trying to line-up.  How is Romo suppose to read the defense and make adjustments at the line-of-scrimmage when his teammates can’t even get lined up until there is 5 second left on the play clock?  It’s really embarrassing.

 

  1. Romo’s Cadence - We are continually snapping the ball the ball as the play clock is winding down, giving out offensive linemen no advantage coming off the ball and zero chance at drawing the defense offsides.  Not to mention Gurode not being able to make protection calls to his line mates.

 

  1. Garrett’s Playcalling – Yeah, Romo & Co. lit up the secondary in the second half, but I wasn’t impressed.  We were up 20-7 with the 3rd quarter winding down and Garrett is calling spread formations with minimal protections that had Romo running for his life and ultimately making poor throws.  With a 20-7 lead we should be running plays out of balanced formations and keeping our opponent honest.  Anyone know what our pass/run ratio is with the lead?

 

  1. The penalties – Couple of killers again this week with Sensabaugh’s slight jersey pull before Jenkins interception and Flo’s personal foul.  I don’t want to be a homer, but it always seems like we get the ticky-tacky calls against us, yet so many clear penalties by the opponent always seems to go uncalled.

 

  1. The Bucs offensive line doesn’t get much press, but they have been assembling some pretty good players over the last few years.  I thought they might give us some trouble, but the effort from our front seven was extremely disappointing.  It was almost as bad as the Ram’s game last year.

 

  1. Roy Williams made some nice catches today.  Forget the great TD catch & run; I was very happy to see him working well with Romo on the short and intermediate routes as the primary target.  If he gets that monkey off his back, he might even be a step faster!  =)

 

  1. If is fair to call to call this a disappointing win?  Why is it that our offense always has to bail our defense out, but when our defense comes up big, our offense struggles to score?


Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

Comment 34 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This was not a disappointing win by any means

Yes, we had no sacks and yes we struggled in the first half. But look at this:

1) We had an interception! Yes it was negated because of a penalty but it still happened.

2) 4 penalties for 41 yards. Nice work by our guys to control their false-starting habits.

3) We managed to score 34 points without T.O. That shows we don’t need him.

4) Buehler kicked two or three balls in or behind the endzone which is two or three more touchbacks than last season. Plus Felix Jones ran it for 36 yards the first return and we had a blocked field goal. Way better special teams than last season.

5) It was one of Romo’s best games. What was it? 353 yards (the most he’s ever thrown)? 3 touchdowns? NO INTERCEPTIONS.

I think it’s a great win.

2009 Dallas Cowboys: 10-6
2009 New York Jets: 11-5

by Grady90 on Sep 13, 2009 10:41 PM CDT reply actions  

were you at the game?

If you were not there then how did you even see Flozell’s penalty? They never showed it on tv so how are you going to criticize him if you never even saw it?

How much do you pick the Giants to win by next week?

by SWITZBEATS88 on Sep 13, 2009 10:57 PM CDT reply actions  

It was one game, dude.

Just like it’s too early to say that the defense is going to allow 450 yds per game, it’s too early to say that these receivers will perform at that level consistently.

by Baked Potato Soup on Sep 14, 2009 2:18 AM CDT up reply actions  

Also if the other team fails to show up,

The defender falls down every play, and several other possible scenarios. If you have to make an “if” statement, then that’s not consistently.

by Baked Potato Soup on Sep 14, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't you always have to say "if"?

IF things continue to go as they have then…
IF everything holds true to form…

You can replace IF with as long as if you’d like, but no matter how you spin it unless you KNOW something is going to happen, and nothing in the NFL is a certainty, you have to use to word IF.

by sduncan24 on Sep 14, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hence the word consistently.

In terms of football, that means doing it in more than one game, and against different levels of competition and in different scenarios, not just ideal ones against over matched opponents.

by Baked Potato Soup on Sep 14, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

my point is

no matter if it becomes consistent or not, your statement doesn’t mean anything. you are always going to say IF, if we play the way we are capable of, if we play the way we have done so far. So Terry’s statement that IF Romo continues to get protection the receivers will continue to produce is just as true, regardless of how many times they have done it.

by sduncan24 on Sep 14, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

You're not making sense.

I’m not trying to predict anything. I’m saying that it’s too early to tell whether these receivers can play at this level in various conditions or just when Romo is getting protection and they have the mismatch. Terry’s answer is, well, if conditions are always ideal, they will always play well. That’s awesome, but has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

Anyone can say IF anytime they want. Is that your point? What I’m curious about is IF these receivers can do it in more than one game or when the deck is not stacked in their favor, and not just IF it is. Can they play consistently well? So the answer IF they have one condition over and over that he thinks that they will do well is irrelevant to their consistency. Until we see them in multiple situations, not just the one that happened Sunday, it’s too early to say they can play that well in multiple situations. I’m not talking about just guessing, I’m talking about knowledge that they have produced in those situations before.

To reword it, I’m wondering if they can play that well when Romo doesn’t get the protection that he got Sunday, among other scenarios, and Terry’s answer was if Romo get’s the protection that he got Sunday, they can. So my response was that IF they can only play that way in one scenario, that doesn’t represent consistency.

by Baked Potato Soup on Sep 14, 2009 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

so what you're basically saying

is if Romo doesn’t get time, can these receivers break off their routes, can they read blitzes in those type of scenarios?

I think they can and will.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Sep 15, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

I'd like to see it, not just guess.

I think they can and will also, but I think it’s too early to know for sure, since they haven’t done it yet.

by Baked Potato Soup on Sep 15, 2009 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I noticed how Romo always snaps the ball as the play clock is about over. He did this last season, as well if i remember correctly.

Sensi’s penalty cost us an interception, and it wasn’t even a penalty. What a jip, we could of answered the takeaway problem, also if Jenkins caught the other ball that came right to him.

by Why on Sep 13, 2009 11:25 PM CDT reply actions  

Never disappointed with any win

Give Garrett credit when he deserves it, he called a great game.

It’s week one, every game I watched had teams making dumb mistakes, Dallas looked good in comparison.

I hope you are right about Ware, the sooner his deal is done the better.

So it begins...

by APerfectStar on Sep 14, 2009 1:16 AM CDT reply actions  

I didn't mind the play calling on offense

The defense, I don’t know, I don’t know the problem, I would hope that this was just a bad game for them

"We play to win the game" - Herm Edwards

by nicholas.rodriguez on Sep 14, 2009 2:37 AM CDT reply actions  

I would have settled for a disappointing win over the Rams last year

You are way off base in your assessment of Garrett’s playcalling in the 3rd. This is when he got it going.

Criticize Garrett’s scripting of plays, lack of production in the 1st quarter or red zone calls. His halftime adjustments are as good as I have ever seen from an O coordinator.

Ich bin ein Berliner--JFK

by HudBaby on Sep 14, 2009 4:05 AM CDT reply actions  

Win is a win

To me the pass rush looked like it did 2 years ago, when even the blitz’s didn’t do much. I guess we did put some pressure on him even though we didn’t get a sack there were some hurried throws that were not on target to open receivers.

Still can’t run block, I knew that would take the bite out our 3 headed monster.

4 penalties, hell I’ll take it.

by bad knees on Sep 14, 2009 8:18 AM CDT reply actions  

ever hear of a pyrrhic victory?

not that yesterday’s win was pyrrhic

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey

by Seanrude on Sep 14, 2009 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah... those do kind of suck

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Sep 14, 2009 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

If Ware and Romo got hurt long term in a win

it would suck really bad, but it wouldn’t make the win disappointing. The injures would be disappointing referring to your pyrrhic reference.

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on Sep 14, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

that is the very definition of a pyrrhic victory

Pyrrhic victory – victory at devastating cost

Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey

by Seanrude on Sep 15, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

horrible analysis

1. Bucs were obviously playing “up” and trying to take away short gains (runs, short passes). Garrett and Romo obviously adjusted in second quarter and make the right calls.
2. The runs were averaging 4.5 per play, passes 14 per play, however Garrett still used restraint and called for runs. Most of the winning teams yesterday had similar percentages in run / pass.
3. No mention of the defense? How could you not mention the defensive short comings.
4. Penalty situation was fantastic, especially when taking into account the Flozell phantom call.
5. Clearly you have an agenda and did not really analyze the game.

by mgsmith100 on Sep 14, 2009 10:23 AM CDT reply actions  

Are you sure it was a phantom call?

Just because they didn’t show it on TV doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

by Baked Potato Soup on Sep 14, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Are you saying you don't believe in phantoms?

Nobody was able to see it, that makes it a phantom. Whether or not it occurred is a separate argument. You would think FOX would have at least one camera that had Flo in frame though.

"When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time." -Max McGee

by BigDinSC on Sep 14, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

+1

Either FOX mucked it up by not showing a replay of Flo on that play, or the officials called the wrong number, or it was a phantom call. Whatever it was, I would have liked to know.
Especially since it wiped out a 1st down and killed that drive.

So it begins...

by APerfectStar on Sep 14, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dude, should've made this a fanpost

Why hide this very good piece in a random fanpost? I rec’d your comment.

by One.Cool.Customer on Sep 14, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions  

Meh. Thought about it, but throwing up another top-ten-whatever seemed redundant.

I think if you put two of my best seasons together it wouldn't come up with the numbers he's going to have at the end of the season. -Troy Aikman on Tony Romo

by Big D Bam Bam on Sep 14, 2009 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions  

Nice work!

8. The problem with Julius Jones and his big day is that I am sure he will either put up 3 stinkers in a row or get himself hurt. I feel really bad for Seahawks fan on this one because it just means that they will hold onto him longer than they need to now they have seen the “potential” he has.

by sduncan24 on Sep 14, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Dallas Cowboys blog for the SB Nation network. We talk Cowboys 24/7/365. Join the discussion but follow the community guidelines.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Largestssescape_color_small_small
Myth Busters: Dallas' Sad Pass Rush
Small
Is Mario Williams on the Cowboys' radar?
Fountain_small
The Stanford Routt Situation
Zombie_cap3_small
Two Options for how to fill the Cowboys roster holes
Small
Garrett the next Jimmy Johnson...child please!

Recent FanPosts

Small
2012 FA and 1st Round Projection
Cb1_small
Is the long term answer to the Cowboys NT already on the team?
Small
The Cowboys should sign Routt and franchise Spencer
Small
Hail Mary or a 5 Year Plan?
Massage_home_small
Forward Thinking Vol IV - The Offseason
Small
If the glorious leader were a visionary instead of a consensus taker
Small
Making the case for Mark Barron

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Editor

Head_shot1_small Dave Halprin

Lead Writer

Captain_small One.Cool.Customer

Profile_small Brandon Worley

Ollogo3_copy_small KD Drummond

Contributing Writers

Hotdoglu_small Aaron Novinger

Emmittintro_small rabblerousr

Dr_fate_small Tom Ryle

Moderators

Ns_08bstockb-thumb-200x185_small scottmaui