Okay Dez, now that you have your contract...

[dbair1967]

They did. They needed a TD not a 48 yd field goal. You can't pooch punt it there, GB would just run out the clock. Which is exactly what they ultimately did. They had no reasonable choice but to go for it on that particular 4th and 2.

The way you said it, I thought you were referring to going for the endzone on that particular play. Yes, they indeed had little choice to at least try and get the first down.

Romo said he did what he did because of the coverage and front GB showed. While throwing the ball longer down the field is completed less, against what he saw he might have decided (in his judgement), throwing the ball downfield to one of the elite players in the league 1 on 1 had ultimately a better chance of success than throwing into tighter coverage underneath or running into a stacked front.

No matter what happened on whatever play, the Cowboys HAD to score a TD. If they had gotten the first down instead of the ultimately overturned Dez catch, there's no guarantee they'd have scored a TD. You need to quit crying over spilt milk.

 

[Doomsday]

I would assume

You're making way too many assumptions as usual. In short yardage, the run and the short pass are higher percentage plays than the bomb. It's not something to prove, it's something most everyone knows. If you dispute it, prove it incorrect.

He'll continue to argue, he's an idiot

You can only, truly speak for yourself.

The "argument" is, I don't like the call while the minions, do. The minions might just accept that and move on, but they can't. Because there is a little niggling but overly shy brain cell somewhere in their head that's been shouting the same thing too.

We lost and it hurts, and it didn't have to be. In the end we didn't dance with what brung us. Instead we uncorked a bomb on 4th and short for the first time all season. Like the balls, hate the odds and really, really hate the outcome.

 

[Doomsday]

Romo said he did what he did because of the coverage and front GB showed

See, this might be where there is a misunderstanding. I have no problem with Tony's choice there, given what came in to his helmet through the radio. I have the problem with what came in through the radio. I have the problem with no Murray in there as a threat at least. The first read and the first option for that play was the bomb. So Tony executed exactly what was sent in.

No matter what happened on whatever play, the Cowboys HAD to score a TD. If they had gotten the first down instead of the ultimately overturned Dez catch, there's no guarantee they'd have scored a TD. You need to quit crying over spilt milk.

Nobody's saying anything is guaranteed, for the fifth time now.

I well imagine that if the on-the-field call had stood (it should have) and we had 1st and goal from the half yard line, GB just lets us score to preserve the clock. Maybe not on 1st down, but they would pretty quick. They certainly weren't going to burn timeouts and time trying to have a goal line stand there, with Rodgers as hot as he was. Of course this is not a guarantee of a TD, but it's about as close as it comes - they very likely would have let us score.

Then you probably do try for two, since no difference really (if you don't make it) losing by one or two points. If you make it, the ensuing FG that isn't guaranteed either merely ties the game.

You need to quit crying over spilt milk.

Or, you could quit reading it and responding to it.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

‘I have three options on the play. Cole has a route that’s very quick, Witten has a route that’s very fast and Dez has a go route.’

There were three options for that play. Cole, Witten and Dez. I don’t know how you know the first read was a bomb. Romo compares this play to the Williams player from earlier in the game. Said Williams wasnt the first read.

Terrance on a spread-out formation – I think we had a running back in on that play – but he ends up scoring a touchdown. He’s not the first read on that play, but it was based on the configuration, not that dissimilar from what this one is.

I also don’t think running the ball with Murray would have been wise, the box was stacked and they were blitzing. 4 and 1 or 4 and inches, but not 4th and 2.

 

[Doomsday]

There were three options for that play. Cole, Witten and Dez. I don’t know how you know the first read was a bomb.

But as we can see in replays, Romo never looked anywhere but Dez. And again, i have no issue with his choice because that's what they were after, clearly.

I also don’t think running the ball with Murray would have been wise, the box was stacked and they were blitzing. 4 and 1 or 4 and inches, but not 4th and 2.

But, we had a 100 percent success rate that season running Murray in short yardage. Even when the opponent was stacked and blitzing. I'm not advocating a run over a pass either, I am saying what sense does it make to have Murray on the sidelines in that 4th and 2 situation.

Here's ideally what I would have liked to have seen. Let's see who has a problem with this:

We load up in Jumbo with a fullback and Murray in there, 2 tight ends, looking like we're just going to bludgeon it. That's been our tendency anyway, for short yardage. Let 'em crowd the line and get nervous, then fucking at least TRY to draw them offside with a hard count. Whatever happened to that? We just accept our lot in life, and not even try to get the 1st down by penalty? The only time that ever works is when it is at least tried. Why not give it a shot?

If no offsides we burn a timeout then come back with no fullback, 2 receivers split wide like we had on the failed play, and Witten and Beasley in there. We fake it to Murray then hit the open man - even if it happens to be right back to Murray. Even if we see Dez streaking past the coverage, chunk it to him. Remember in the NFC Championship game when we did this with Emmitt, and Romanowski was flagged for tackling him? Defensive Holding, First Down Dallas. "We thought he had the ball" Romanowski still repeats today, even in his sleep. Yeah, we know s0n, that was the whole idea.

I would like the above better than what we did, regardless of success. Even if it turned out the exact same way - Dez makes the catch but it is disallowed. I wouldn't be bitching about the choice by Tony, or the play call.

Terrance on a spread-out formation – I think we had a running back in on that play

You did, but he was split out. You did NOT have a RB lined up in the backfield, Terrance. And the ONLY RB we have GB is afraid of, was standing there on the sidelines, harmless to them.

 

[peplaw06]

You're making way too many assumptions as usual. In short yardage, the run and the short pass are higher percentage plays than the bomb. It's not something to prove, it's something most everyone knows. If you dispute it, prove it incorrect.

No, that's not how it works. If you make an assertion and your assertion is questioned, the burden is on you to prove it... not on others to disprove it.

 

[peplaw06]

But, we had a 100 percent success rate that season running Murray in short yardage.

100 percent false.

 

[peplaw06]

The "argument" is, I don't like the call while the minions, do. The minions might just accept that and move on, but they can't. Because there is a little niggling but overly shy brain cell somewhere in their head that's been shouting the same thing too.

Yeah, this sounds like you really think the other side has a reasonable take.

Quick, tell us all more about how WE'RE all reading things that aren't there.

 

[Doomsday]

Yeah, this sounds like you really think the other side has a reasonable take.

Quick, tell us all more about how WE'RE all reading things that aren't there.

Minions can be reasonable. Just because there's many of them doesn't make them wrong. Or right. Or unreasonable, or not. It just means there are many of them and they all agree.

No, that's not how it works. If you make an assertion and your assertion is questioned, the burden is on you to prove it... not on others to disprove it.

When we repeat well known and well established fact, it's not burdenable. When YOU make like it's NOT well known and and established fact, you have placed the onus of burden on yourself. It's exactly like I said "the sun rises in the East" and you're saying, "prove it."

So let's get this straight - you're disputing that in short yardage, the run and the short pass are higher percentage plays than the bomb? Or, do you agree?

100 percent false.

You disagree with the stats Statman posted earlier? That's what I was referencing.

Last season the Cowboys had 17 plays that were 3rd or 4th and 2.

When they ran the ball they made a 1st down 100% of the time, averaging 5 yards a carry.

The majority of the runs happened late in the 4th quarter with less than 6 minutes to play.

Every completion they made in this situation came from a short pass.

The throw to Dez Bryant against the Packers was the one and only time they threw the ball deep on 3rd or 4th and 2.

 

[dbair1967]

Last season the Cowboys had 17 plays that were 3rd or 4th and 2.

When they ran the ball they made a 1st down 100% of the time, averaging 5 yards a carry.

.

So I guess you don't count 4th and 1?

4th and 1 at ARI 34 (9:41) D.Murray up the middle to ARZ 34 for no gain (D.Bucannon).

 

[dbair1967]

And while this wasn't 3rd or 4th down, this was 2nd and 1:

2nd and 1 at PHI 4 (10:43) D.Murray left tackle to PHI 5 for -1 yards (F.Cox).

Same game:

4th and 1 at PHI 43 (9:31) (No Huddle, Shotgun) D.Murray right end to PHI 49 for -6 yards (M.Kendricks).

 

[Doomsday]

So I guess you don't count 4th and 1?

He was keeping it 2 yards needed for the first down, since that was the situation on the highway robbery of a Dez catch.

 

[dbair1967]

He was keeping it 2 yards needed for the first down, since that was the situation on the highway robbery of a Dez catch.

OK dipshit, so its less likely then that someone would be able to gain a single yard rather than two running the football?

Got it.

 

[Doomsday]

OK dipshit, so its less likely then that someone would be able to gain a single yard rather two running the football?

Got it.

That's YOUR meter. Nobody else here ever made such a claim.

BUT - I did misspeak - What I said. "But, we had a 100 percent success rate that season running Murray in short yardage" paraphrasing Statman was incorrect. I stand corrected.

We had 100 percent success rate running the ball on plays where we needed 2 yards to make the first down. According to Statman.

 

[dbair1967]

That's YOUR meter. Nobody else here ever made such a claim.

BUT - I did misspeak - What I said. "But, we had a 100 percent success rate that season running Murray in short yardage" paraphrasing Statman was incorrect. I stand corrected.

We had 100 percent success rate running the ball on plays where we needed 2 yards to make the first down. According to Statman.

I don't know if his stat is accurate or not, I looked at 2 or 3 box scores and came up with the above examples of failing when we ran the ball in short yardage situations though.

His stat (if true) is an anomaly. The fact is we didn't convert 100% of short yardage running plays last year. If you go back to the 3 or 4 years prior there was a long track record as well of failing to convert rushing the football in short yardage situations.

 

[Doomsday]

His stat (if true) is an anomaly.

Just like run-first was a anomaly. 400 carries for a feature back was a anomaly.

You proceeded from my incorrect paraphrase, apologies. I myself haven't verified Statman's stats either.

 

[dbair1967]

Just like run-first was a anomaly. 400 carries for a feature back was a anomaly.

.

I don't know if it was "run first" as much as it was "keep at it"

That wasn't an anomaly and will be proven so again this year.

 

[Doomsday]

I don't know if it was "run first" as much as it was "keep at it"

That wasn't an anomaly and will be proven so again this year.

We shall see.

But, please make me a promise - if it is NOT "run first" or "keep at it" type stuff like we saw last year, don't buy all the crap we're gonna hear about how it's because we don't have a back. Remember it is the other way around - we don't have a back because we're not planning to repeat last year's running success.

 

[peplaw06]

Minions can be reasonable. Just because there's many of them doesn't make them wrong. Or right. Or unreasonable, or not. It just means there are many of them and they all agree.

You used the term minion in a derogatory way... But surprise, surprise... you're playing "who me" again?

When we repeat well known and well established fact, it's not burdenable. When YOU make like it's NOT well known and and established fact, you have placed the onus of burden on yourself. It's exactly like I said "the sun rises in the East" and you're saying, "prove it."

Not even close. You said you didn't like the percentages of the play, but you don't have the percentages.

You disagree with the stats Statman posted earlier? That's what I was referencing.

You didn't limit your statement like he did... and I disagreed with his skewed presentation of the "stats"... I already said why earlier in the thread.

 

[Doomsday]

You didn't limit your statement like he did... and I disagreed with his skewed presentation of the "stats"... I already said why earlier in the thread.

Yes I already corrected this and even apologized.

You used the term minion in a derogatory way...

Sure as hell didn't. You choose to read it that way and as always, you default to worst possible motive. Almost like it's projection or something.

You said you didn't like the percentages of the play, but you don't have the percentages.

I said why I don't like the percentages:

in short yardage, the run and the short pass are higher percentage plays

Do you dispute this or not? It's only something most of we minions pretty much agree on.