Author Topic: How Bout Them Cowboys?! (Read 3759 times)

Sixpence · « **Reply #120 on:** October 16, 2007, 04:15:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by myelo
Oh really?

According to my cipherin' they had drives of:
4 yd
-12 yd
4 yd
-8 yd
18 yd
0 yd
-1 yd

They only had 3 drives over 20 yds. The main way they were moving the ball was punting it.

Here is a chart to help. Aside from the int at the end, they scored on 50% of their drives, 2 field goals, three TD's, five punts. They did that in only 21:45, and you think that's bad?

You show me misleading stats to say the Pats defense is good. I show you stats the are far more relevant to show that the defensive is not good.

Again, they give up four yards a carry, and you could make an argument that it could be misleading(yards given up at end of game when you are preventing deep passes) if not for the other stats. They have given up nine TD passes(tied for 21st in the league) and are last in red zone defense.

The patriot defenses in the past got very stingy at the goal line, they were usually near the top in red zone defense. Teams like the Dolphins, Bengals, Bills and Falcons have better red zone defenses.

cav58d · « **Reply #121 on:** October 16, 2007, 07:15:46 PM »

Dallas came into the game averaging 405.2 Total Yards/game with 274 passing and 130.5 rushing with an average of 4.9 per rush.

The Patriots held them to 283 total yards, with 173 being passing and 97 rushing with an average of 6.5 yards per carry.

OF COURSE THE COWBOYS WERE GOING TO COME IN THIS GAME AND PUT POINTS ON THE BOARD! THEY ARE/WERE A HIGH POWERED OFFENSE WHO COULDN"T MEET A SINGLE OFFENSIVE AVERAGE AGAINST THE PATRIOTS DEFENSE LAST WEEK.

Oh and by the way...The Pats defense is # 2 in fewest rushing ypg and 4 in passing.

I don't know what other proof you need man. Are you sure you are watching football? England and France had a rugby game on tv right about the time of the Dallas Pats game...Are you sure you were'nt watching that? I know it can be confusing.

Sixpence · « **Reply #122 on:** October 16, 2007, 07:24:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d
Oh and by the way...The Pats defense is # 2 in fewest rushing ypg and 4 in passing.

I don't know what other proof you need man. Are you sure you are watching football? England and France had a rugby game on tv right about the time of the Dallas Pats game...Are you sure you were'nt watching that? I know it can be confusing.

The Patriots are dead last in red zone defense, give up four yards a carry(17th) and have given up 9 TD passes(tied for 21st)

fewest rushing yards and 4th in passing yards doesn't mean a thing. If your offense has a 2-1 advantage in time of possession, your defense will give up few total yards.

If you know football as you say you do, you would know that

Oh, and btw, you said this:

Originally posted by cav58d
97 rushing with an average of 6.5 yards per carry.

6.5 yards a carry is good?? If you equal the time of possession, that's 150 yards rushing, that's bad

OF COURSE THE COWBOYS WERE GOING TO COME IN THIS GAME AND PUT POINTS ON THE BOARD! THEY ARE/WERE A HIGH POWERED OFFENSE WHO COULDN"T MEET A SINGLE OFFENSIVE AVERAGE AGAINST THE PATRIOTS DEFENSE LAST WEEK.

The Cowboys are averaging over 6.5 yards a carry?? Holy ****!!

Tattered · « **Reply #123 on:** October 16, 2007, 08:49:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
I don't quite understand the logic there, but to steal a quote from the coach, "it is what it is". And what it is is that they are giving up four yards a carry(17th), have given up nine td passes(21st) and are dead last in red zone defense.

How you get a pretty good defense out of that is beyond me.

Lol..

You don't watch Patriots games, do you?

As you said, stats are misleading...

Also, you're going to have to recognize that the NFL is moving away from shut-them-down defences and turning to high powered offences. The Pats have one of the best linebacking corps and a couple of the best safety's/cornerbacks in the league.

Baseball is all about stats. Football is not. Football is far more emotional and based off momentum than compared to any other sport.

I'll take a defence that can shut down a team on 3rd and shorts more than not but gives up 4 yards a carry any day of the week.

Sixpence · « **Reply #124 on:** October 16, 2007, 09:03:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tattered

Lol..

You don't watch Patriots games, do you?

Almost every one since 1976, you?

Also, you're going to have to recognize that the NFL is moving away from shut-them-down defences and turning to high powered offences.

Last year's bears were one of the best defenses in awhile, Baltimore, San Diego and New Englands weren't bad either. You have a source for that statement? Didn't think so

The Pats have one of the best linebacking corps and a couple of the best safety's/cornerbacks in the league.

So good it is last in the league in red zone defense. Linebackers are one of if not the oldest in the NFL, anyone remember gassed linebackers chasing Dallas Clark in an AFC championship game?

Baseball is all about stats. Football is not. Football is far more emotional and based off momentum than compared to any other sport.

And that is relevant too? Are you suggesting the rest of the NFL doesn't play with emotion?

You are a homer, and ditch the shades man

Tattered · « **Reply #125 on:** October 16, 2007, 09:46:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence

Almost every one since 1976, you?
Oh, I've seen every single football game... ever....

Last year's bears were one of the best defenses in awhile, Baltimore, San Diego and New Englands weren't bad either. You have a source for that statement? Didn't think so

My source is every team to win the Superbowl in the last 15 years other than Tampa Bay.

Oh, that and ten minute conversation they had about it during The Pats and Cowboys game. I'm surprised you missed it, considering you've seen almost every game since 1902.

So good it is last in the league in red zone defense. Linebackers are one of if not the oldest in the NFL, anyone remember gassed linebackers chasing Dallas Clark in an AFC championship game?

I do agree that they do have one of the oldest linebacker corps playing.. But, I also know they have one of the smartest and versatile. You keep bringing up the fact the pats are last in the league in redzone defense, yet you seem to pass by the fact they they allow less points in a game than almost any other team. Think about it, big guy. The less times a team is in the red zone, the more the percentage will go up when a team does score. So if you're only allowing a team into the redzone two times and they score a touchdown once.. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own....

And that is relevant too? Are you suggesting the rest of the NFL doesn't play with emotion?It has about as much relevence as everything you've said in your prior posts. If you believe, anyone, by the numbers, would have thought the pats would do what they did the left 7 years, well dude, you're as dumb as you sound. Spilling fodder onto a forum about a topic you don't seem to think much about really just makes you sound ignorant.

AKIron · « **Reply #126 on:** October 16, 2007, 09:52:31 PM »

Considering the Cowboys have a new coach and quaterback they're doing better than I'd hoped for. We may be facing another dynasty like the early '90's.

Sixpence · « **Reply #127 on:** October 16, 2007, 11:37:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tattered

My source is every team to win the Superbowl in the last 15 years other than Tampa Bay.

Huh? have you been paying attention to the Pats defense the past several years? They won their SB's on defense, speaking of which, isn't the defensive game plan from SB XXXVI enshrined in the hall of fame? Again, show me a source

You keep bringing up the fact the pats are last in the league in redzone defense, yet you seem to pass by the fact they they allow less points in a game than almost any other team. Think about it, big guy. The less times a team is in the red zone, the more the percentage will go up when a team does score. So if you're only allowing a team into the redzone two times and they score a touchdown once.. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own....

98% is 98%, no matter how you slice it, just because the offense keeps time of possession twice as long to disguise bigger numbers, it will never change the %, I think you can figure that out

If you believe, anyone, by the numbers, would have thought the pats would do what they did the left 7 years, well dude, you're as dumb as you sound. Spilling fodder onto a forum about a topic you don't seem to think much about really just makes you sound ignorant

I don't quite understand what the left is(and spilling fodder? lol!), maybe you can help with my ignorance. And if you think Bill Belichick cares what they did in the past, forget it, he doesn't live in the past as you do. What their defense is doing this year has nothing to do with any other year.

"It is what it is", words to live by, and the defense is not playing up to championship level, and the stats show that.

If you want to be a homer, stick your head in the sand and banter foolishly, be my guest

Tattered · « **Reply #128 on:** October 17, 2007, 12:30:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
My source is every team to win the Superbowl in the last 15 years other than Tampa Bay.

Huh? have you been paying attention to the Pats defense the past several years? They won their SB's on defense, speaking of which, isn't the defensive game plan from SB XXXVI enshrined in the hall of fame? Again, show me a source

You keep bringing up the fact the pats are last in the league in redzone defense, yet you seem to pass by the fact they they allow less points in a game than almost any other team. Think about it, big guy. The less times a team is in the red zone, the more the percentage will go up when a team does score. So if you're only allowing a team into the redzone two times and they score a touchdown once.. I'm sure you can figure it out on your own....

98% is 98%, no matter how you slice it, just because the offense keeps time of possession twice as long to disguise bigger numbers, it will never change the %, I think you can figure that out

If you believe, anyone, by the numbers, would have thought the pats would do what they did the left 7 years, well dude, you're as dumb as you sound. Spilling fodder onto a forum about a topic you don't seem to think much about really just makes you sound ignorant

I don't quite understand what the left is(and spilling fodder? lol!), maybe you can help with my ignorance. And if you think Bill Belichick cares what they did in the past, forget it, he doesn't live in the past as you do. What their defense is doing this year has nothing to do with any other year.

"It is what it is", words to live by, and the defense is not playing up to championship level, and the stats show that.

If you want to be a homer, stick your head in the sand and banter foolishly, be my guest

Ya, I'm done here. You haven't made any points, at all. You've based a whole argument off one or two statistics.

All you've said this whole time is that The Patriots don't have the number 1 defense in the league.

Congratz?

Sixpence · « **Reply #129 on:** October 17, 2007, 01:15:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tattered
Ya, I'm done here. You haven't made any points, at all. You've based a whole argument off one or two statistics.

All you've said this whole time is that The Patriots don't have the number 1 defense in the league.

Congratz?

My point from the start was comparing them to the 2001 rams, where if the ram offense got stagnant, the defense could be exposed.

Then some jumped in with total yards and points, which doesn't give as accurate assessment of the defense as some other stats do.

Here are some stats from nfl.com. The Patriots spend the least amount of time on defense(because the offense is controlling the clock) Now you combine that with the other stats I mentioned(and a few more I could mention) and you realize that if the offense gets stymied, the defense could be in trouble. That's what happened in last year's AFC title game(They also gave up 5.4 yrds a carry to LT, and would have lost if not for a troy brown strip of a Brady intercept)

We lost to the Colts because our defense could not keep up anymore, and if the Colts can stymie the offense enough to keep time of possession close to equal, they can beat us again.

myelo · « **Reply #130 on:** October 17, 2007, 07:58:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
The Patriots spend the least amount of time on defense(because the offense is controlling the clock)

If you limit the other team's offense to 3 and out, you tend not to spend a lot of time on defense.

Sixpence · « **Reply #131 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:08:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by myelo
If you limit the other team's offense to 3 and out, you tend not to spend a lot of time on defense.

That would mean something if the stats showed they hold offenses to 3 and out, which they don't. If you are 12th in TD's given up while spending the least amount of time on the field, that doesn't quite equate to holding opponents to 3 and out.

Spazzter · « **Reply #132 on:** October 17, 2007, 09:10:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
I haven't watched a single game live that Tony Romo has played this year. I plan on not watching as long as the streak holds out.

BTW, Romo MAY be the real deal. I'm talking Staubach real.

I highly doubt he could hold a candle to Staubach. It is way to early to make this comparison. Looking at his stats this year 9 interceptions highlighted by a six turnover game against the lowly Buffalo Bills. Oh and by the way the Patriots spanked them. I agree the Cowboys are most likely to end up the cream of the crop in the NFC, but the AFC will win the superbowl yet again. Tony Romo is good, but he is no Staubach.

My 2 cents.

~~Spazz~~

Spazzter · « **Reply #133 on:** October 17, 2007, 09:26:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusher
And the Pats beat:
The 1-4 Jets
The 2-3 Chargers
The 1-4 Bills
The 2-3 Browns
The 1-3 Bengals

Next weeks game should be fun to watch !

Yes, but they beat them all by 20 plus points.

<>

Spazz

Spazzter · « **Reply #134 on:** October 17, 2007, 10:12:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by cav58d

I played football for 9 years of my life...I was good, but I never had any star qualitys...That said, I gave 200% every down I played, and demanded perfection, and I ended up making, and starting Varsity from my Sophmore year on. Skill is important, but what you demand of yourself is even more so, and that Patriots just have it.

SUPER BOWL BABY!:aok

WTG RUDY!!!!!!

~~Spazz~~