Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
John63":2yo7wd0f said:Uncle Si":2yo7wd0f said:John63":2yo7wd0f said:Uncle Si":2yo7wd0f said:Should have thrown sooner is the same thing as throwing more, to be fair.
Yeah, they waited too long. But.. if the D makes a tackle on 3rd and 17 in the final minutes then the team has the ball, down 3/6 points with 4 minutes to go. This is the scenario PC is trying for. He was poor tackling away from being in the position he wanted.
Watching the team march down the field and score down 11 in now way definitively shows how successful the team wouldve been had they started the 2nd half that way. Dallas was very clearly rushing with 4 and dropping deep, allowing for more room to complete passes. Their D would've been different to start the 2nd.
Would it have mattered? Hard to say. But proclamations that it would ignore the way the team has been successful all season, and in PC's past 7 years.
Actually no if you look at our success just this year we did rin, but when it struggled we adjusted see the Carolina Game as one example. That was the difference in this game we waited too long to adjust, Now was it the only issue? NO, but it was one, and some on here want to ignore it or say it was not which is wrong. Given both the HC and OC said they should have starting throwing sooner and more It is safe to say we should have
Actuay no? You just repeated what i said. You also bring up carolina. Interesting because as the team marched up the field with high risk passes they also gave the ball back to the Panthers quickly who were running their offense almost at will. That is something PC tries to guard against.
Look at the first cowboys game that while the run wasnt breaking the game open it was controlling it.
So regardless of what PC has said, if the D makes tbe one stop they need the offense has the ball in a situztion PC has wanted his team to be in for years.
Couple game highlights of our bigger games in the PC era demonstrate that.
The only issue i have with the Dallas 2nd half was that there wasnt much balance or flexibility. That doesnt mean the team needed to start hurling the ball over
ahh for one we won Carolina that said I never said throw all the time and only throw. I said start throwing more, not exclusively. If we threw more in the 1st half, mix it up more, it would have opened up the run more in the 2nd like Carolina. So like the Head Coach, OC, Qb, and just experts said we should have made our adjustments sooner.
Let me help you with Carolina
1st drive run, run, 3rd and long pass, pint
2nd drive run, run, 3rfd and long punt.
3rd drive pass, run, pass, run, pass, pass, pass, run, run, pass TD hmm amazing 10 plays
4th drive sack, run, run
5th drive run, run, pass, run, pass, run TD 7 plays
6th drive run, run, run, Pass, run, run, pass TD now why do you think these runs started working after not in the 1st half. answer the pass was working.
I will stop there, there was no more a high risk passing this game than any other and once again the run was not working against Dallas, however unlike the Carolina game were they adjusted in the 2nd qtr, they waited till the 4th against Dallas. THat was the mistake not adjusting sooner, which I have been saying all along that adjustment was around the pass game.
Yes. You keep saying they didnt adjust sooner.
And yet if the defense holds in 3rd and 17 the team has the ball in a one score game with plenty of time to win, which is a staple of PCs philosophy.
At this point your posts are exclusively focused on one singular belief it wouldve made the difference.
Also ignores carolina missing 2 maybe 3 dback starters and a back up if i recall... and not having near the defense Dallas did. Also.. i mean come on.. 2 drives not working then suddenly everything clicks and its the pass? One sets up the other. Always has with PC. The balance in carolina was easy.
Could the hawks have done better against the cowboys? Absolutely. But its not as easy as "throw more" or play sequence. The game was going to plan by PCs standards.
You can argue if thats good enough for the future.