Packers happy Cowboys abandoned running game

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000299618/article/packers-happy-cowboys-abandoned-running-game

Packers happy Cowboys abandoned running game

By Chris Wesseling ... Around the League Writer

Published: Dec. 16, 2013 at 05:18 p.m.

Updated: Dec. 16, 2013 at 07:49 p.m

" The victorious Packers were perplexed yet grateful for the Cowboys' much-derided, soap operatic play-calling. "

GO PACK GO !

[Fritz]

"We don't know why their coach is an idiot, but we humbly appreciate it."

[red]

they said on sports center last night that the boys actually threw the ball more in the second half then we did

thats insane, garrett should lose his job for that. he blames romo for changing that one call from a run to a pass when garrett calls for passes all half with a huge lead

[gbgary]

the only reason I can think of that they'd want to stay so aggressive is to run the score up on us for some past humiliation. the Packers did have the home (dallas) locker room at the superbowl. maybe they plugged all the toilets up or something worse.

[MadScientist]

they said on sports center last night that the boys actually threw the ball more in the second half then we did

thats insane, garrett should lose his job for that. he blames romo for changing that one call from a run to a pass when garrett calls for passes all half with a huge lead

And the thing is, the option to the pass was the right call by Romo, just very poor execution. There was an easy touchdown for Dallas with a decent pass. There should have been a lot more runs earlier in the half when the box was not being stacked.

[smuggler]

Part of the reason the box is vacated is because of how thoroughly they've abandoned the run in that game.

[Pugger]

I wonder if we had some D looks that enticed Romo to throw instead of run the ball?

[Patler]

The announcers went off on this, but I think you need to look at the situations.

Here is their 1st possession of the second half, with Dallas leading 26-10:
1/10 – Run
2/6 – Pass
1/10 – Pass
1/10 – Run
2/8 – Pass
1/10 – Run
2/5 – Pass
3/5 – Pass
1/10 – Run
2/4 – Run
2/14 – Pass
3/13 – Pass
Dallas kicked a field goal to end this possession. I'm not sure there is a lot to fault in this one. Fairly decent distribution in view of the down and distance situations.

The second possession, with Dallas leading 29-17 was the one that set Aikman off:
1/10 – Pass
2/10 – Pass
3/10 – Pass
In retrospect, it was bad; but the 1st down pass, when Aikman and everyone thought they would run, might have been a good cross-up. Wasn't this the one where Dez B. was open behind Shields, but the ball was underthrown. Good call, but bad execution maybe? I could be wrong on this, and it isn't worth going back to look at again, but I think on 2nd down it was another situation of bad execution.

3rd Possession, Dallas leading 29-24
1/10 – Run
2/5 – Pass
3/5 – penalty on GB
1/10 – Run
1/5 – Pass
1/10 – Pass
2/9 – Pass
1/10 – Pass
2/10 – Pass
3/4 - Pass for TD.

This was the drive kept alive by the overturned interception and a couple penalties, but the Cowboys took what was there to be taken and scored a TD. 11 plays, 80 yards.


The next possession seems the worst, in some ways. It came with Dallas leading 36-31:
1/10 - Pass
2/10 - Pass
3/12 - Pass
1/10 - Run
2/6 - Pass - intercepted.
This drive started with 4:17 remaining. Run - Run - Run, or at least high percentage passes intended to keep the clock running would have at least caused GB to burn timeouts. A single first down in three plays might have fairly well salted the game away.

I think there can be a lot of second guessing, but the only drives that really standout are the one that went 3-and-out and the one ending in the interception.

[channtheman]

Romo missed at least 2 TD's by under throwing guys in the 2nd half. I actually don't think the Cowboys did the wrong thing (though even against a stacked box, I could see our defense giving up a first down against 3 runs) but merely executed poorly. Romo is as noodle armed as Flynn with his under throws on deep balls that are easy TD's.

[red]

i don't know patler

that looks well and good if the game is close, but with a huge lead, should you still be playing like that? you gotta burn some clock

i know this for a fact, because some of us throw an absolute shit fits when M3 takes his foot off the gas and starts burning the clock when we take a lead in the 1st quarter. we are always bashed for being "stupid" and "wrong", and that the smart thing to do is to run the ball and burn the clock

[red]

Romo missed at least 2 TD's by under throwing guys in the 2nd half. I actually don't think the Cowboys did the wrong thing (though even against a stacked box, I could see our defense giving up a first down against 3 runs) but merely executed poorly. Romo is as noodle armed as Flynn with his under throws on deep balls that are easy TD's.

agreed, if romo makes the throws he's suppose to make, we get blown out. the shields int is a perfect example. that should have been a backbreaking dallas TD, but romo threw a horrible ball that got picked. the talk shouldn't be about why they called a pass play there instead of a run, it should be about how romo panicked when clay flew by him and threw a horrible pass behind austin who had nothing but open field in front of him

[Guiness]

Yes, it looks somewhat balanced with a bit of a lean towards pass...which normally you'd think was ok, except as the announcers pointed out so many times, the Cowboys were averaging 7yards/carry! Demarco had 18 rushes for 134 yards. I'd argue that their 3rd possession, although it resulted in a TD, was ill advised. It felt like they were on a wing and a prayer that drive, and if it wasn't for Free getting away with motion (drawing an offside penalty on Neale) and Bryant's circus catch, they come away from that set of downs with nothing.

From the plays you listed, there were 8 runs, 21 passes. Is that the playcalling you expect from a team up by a couple of TDs and gaining 7 yards/rush? In their first possession they ran for 4, 2, 5 and 6. Not what they averaged in the first half, but certainly not a disaster! I'm pretty sure if they'd kept pounding the ball, the Packers would just plain of run out of time.

[Patler]

i don't know patler

that looks well and good if the game is close, but with a huge lead, should you still be playing like that? you gotta burn some clock

i know this for a fact, because some of us throw an absolute shit fits when M3 takes his foot off the gas and starts burning the clock when we take a lead in the 1st quarter. we are always bashed for being "stupid" and "wrong", and that the smart thing to do is to run the ball and burn the clock

Generally, I agree. But when you breakdown each drive and the situation of each call, I don't think it is as far off as it might have felt at the time.

1st drive - pretty good mix, and it lead to 3 points. Safe passes kept the clock running. 12 plays, just 2 third downs and lead to a FG.

3rd drive - pass heavy, but even Aikman mentioned during this drive that it was mostly short stuff, easy to complete and not much different than runs. Heck, they went 80 yards in 11 plays. Can't hardly fault the play calling when the result is a TD.

The 2nd drive sent Aikman into tizzy fit, and it is hard to disagree with him. But calling a couple passes when everyone "knows" you have to run it would have been raved about as gutsy and a kill shot if Romo threw it better. But, I recognize that is precisely why convention calls for runs there.

The 4th drive is the one I think was horrible. Just over 4 minutes left. Three runs and/or short, safe passes would likely have lead to a 1st down and used up the Packers TO's. That was a very ill-advised time to go to the longer, more difficult throws, and it burned them.



Long & short of it, two of their drives I don't think were so bad. They took 23 plays and got 10 points from them. It wasn't an entire half of poor play calling.

One of the problems is that it is hard to burn the clock against the Packers, yardage is so easy to get against them.

[King Friday]

Why do you need to be "gutsy" by making some kind of genius playcall when you are already up by multiple scores and in control of the game?

Run the ball and get the W. With a defense like theirs, you don't play with fire.

[woodbuck27]

The announcers went off on this, but I think you need to look at the situations.

Here is their 1st possession of the second half, with Dallas leading 26-10:
1/10 – Run
2/6 – Pass
1/10 – Pass
1/10 – Run
2/8 – Pass
1/10 – Run
2/5 – Pass
3/5 – Pass
1/10 – Run
2/4 – Run
2/14 – Pass
3/13 – Pass
Dallas kicked a field goal to end this possession. I'm not sure there is a lot to fault in this one. Fairly decent distribution in view of the down and distance situations.

The second possession, with Dallas leading 29-17 was the one that set Aikman off:
1/10 – Pass
2/10 – Pass
3/10 – Pass
In retrospect, it was bad; but the 1st down pass, when Aikman and everyone thought they would run, might have been a good cross-up. Wasn't this the one where Dez B. was open behind Shields, but the ball was underthrown. Good call, but bad execution maybe? I could be wrong on this, and it isn't worth going back to look at again, but I think on 2nd down it was another situation of bad execution.

3rd Possession, Dallas leading 29-24
1/10 – Run
2/5 – Pass
3/5 – penalty on GB
1/10 – Run
1/5 – Pass
1/10 – Pass
2/9 – Pass
1/10 – Pass
2/10 – Pass
3/4 - Pass for TD.

This was the drive kept alive by the overturned interception and a couple penalties, but the Cowboys took what was there to be taken and scored a TD. 11 plays, 80 yards.


The next possession seems the worst, in some ways. It came with Dallas leading 36-31:
1/10 - Pass
2/10 - Pass
3/12 - Pass
1/10 - Run
2/6 - Pass - intercepted.
This drive started with 4:17 remaining. Run - Run - Run, or at least high percentage passes intended to keep the clock running would have at least caused GB to burn timeouts. A single first down in three plays might have fairly well salted the game away.

I think there can be a lot of second guessing, but the only drives that really standout are the one that went 3-and-out and the one ending in the interception.

Nice analysis Patler.

Yes it comes down to the last possession by the Dallas Cowboys:

A possession of certain emergency and as often happens in such cases something either goes just swell or there's a play made by the 'D' to snuff out any hope of a comeback.

The play ratio was in your analysis Patler :

Pass = 21 and Run = 8 or 72.41% pass plays (not necessarily intended pass plays from the sideline ie Dallas HC Jason Garrett or whomever was calling the Boys running plays at that time?). That percentage of pass plays might support an argument that the running game was neglected/aborted; but I would disagree looking at the downs and calls bases on need to move the chains. Evidently the Dallas Cowboys have done this in other games. Established a sounf running game and for some reason went more pass.

What we saw in the end for the Dallas Cowboys was an example of things simply going wrong. That based on some state of emergency to get in position for a FG....or say at or inside the Packers 35 yard line.

What we saw is commonly referred to as, 'shit happens' !

**The real story isn't what the Green Bay Packers claim as gratitude for the Cowboys seemingly abandoning the running game.

Certainly looking at the success that Demarco Murray had against our... 'NO' Run Defense'. Does call into question why did they abort on that?

Please read this Patler ... Packerrats:

Posted December 17, 2013

The All-22: Packers also surprised by Cowboys’ run-averse game plan

Dallas Cowboys, Green Bay Packers, The All-22

By: Doug Farrar

http://nfl.si.com/2013/12/17/the-all-22-cowboys-run-game-demarco-murray-packers/

That lays out a pretty convincing argument that the Cowboys might have run the ball more in the second half and leading by a score of 26-10.

Do we really know what's all going on or what's in the minds of the coach's?

I'll elect to simply let that rest and move forward.... and this has been a solid discussion.

** The real story is elsewhere. The rest of the story will take place at another time and place.

[gbgary]

in all seriousness I understand the criticism that the boys are getting. it's not like their running game was ending with 3 and outs like ours used to. they gashed us at will. as red said I hate it when mm gets conservative but only because it usually ends in a quick punt with hardly any time used. I'm a run up the score kind of guy until its obvious the opponent has no chance. Rodgers coming back will only mean something if we are able to do something to stop the run...or the opponent only attempts 7 runs in the 2nd half of a game they lead us by 23 and were averaging 7/8 yds per run.

[Patler]

Why do you need to be "gutsy" by making some kind of genius playcall when you are already up by multiple scores and in control of the game?

Run the ball and get the W. With a defense like theirs, you don't play with fire.

You don't need to. My point was that criticism is often a reaction to the result, not necessarily the fact itself. If the results had been different, people wouldn't have been standing in line to criticize the play calling.

[woodbuck27]

You don't need to. My point was that criticism is often a reaction to the result, not necessarily the fact itself. If the results had been different, people wouldn't have been standing in line to criticize the play calling.

Please re-examine the above statement Patler? I believe if you do that. Do so in terms of 'reality and growth' moving forward:

a) You'll see the folly in such a manner/attitude.

b) You'll disagree ... that any grading system which is a foundation of our American way is a waste of time.

Given this forum and in a wider scale Packer Nation. If your statement and 'taken at face value' is fully merited in terms of acceptance.

c) The russsshhh ...... achieved by the Green Bay Packers amazing come from behind '23 points' win in Dallas, is enough in itself; to propel our beloved Packers to victory Vs the Pittsburgh Steelers.

If you truly stood by your statement above:

d) There would be no need or cause of concern for the winning side... the Green Bay Packers.

e) If you totally abide by your above statement you would disagree with this statement:

An attitude centering on 'nonchalance or indifference' is a fools playground, dominantly occupied by the immature, deprived, naive, the innocent.

f) You would agree that ' Packer fans ' should be partaking of their daily activities and absolutely content with the state of the Green Bay Packers moving forward.

g) That Packerrats should be a place where Packer fans come together for a constant 'Pepper Rally'. No need for any bulletin board.

h) That there was nothing that should concern any Packer fan upon even a half hearted examination of that last game. All that truly matters is the result in the win-loss column.

i) All concern for that game is strictly now the burden of the Dallas Cowboys organization and it's fans. As far as the Green Bay Packers and it's fans. ALL IS VERY GOOD. :no:


GO PACK...GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

And the thing is, the option to the pass was the right call by Romo, just very poor execution. There was an easy touchdown for Dallas with a decent pass. There should have been a lot more runs earlier in the half when the box was not being stacked.

That is the point at which the downside, no matter the upside, it simply not worth the risk. And the Cowboys have to teach him that. Like a WR or RB learning to get his butt OOB when trailing at the end of a game.

[Patler]

That is the point at which the downside, no matter the upside, it simply not worth the risk. And the Cowboys have to teach him that. Like a WR or RB learning to get his butt OOB when trailing at the end of a game.

Some guys just can't be broken. Lombardi was never able to break Starr of the habit of throwing long TDs to Dowler & Dale on 3rd and short, and Starr was responsible for the play calls in those days. Just wasn't worth the risk, I guess.

[pbmax]

Some guys just can't be broken. Lombardi was never able to break Starr of the habit of throwing long TDs to Dowler & Dale on 3rd and short, and Starr was responsible for the play calls in those days. Just wasn't worth the risk, I guess.

Did Bart still throw the ball after a near miraculous escape from a sack, with his feet not set and another pass rusher free in front of him (not to mention cycling back from the first rusher)? All while leading? And all while the timing of the route was now off?

Did Starr have a history of letting opponents back into games with his INTs (serious question, in his day INTs were more common)?

[Guiness]

You don't need to. My point was that criticism is often a reaction to the result, not necessarily the fact itself. If the results had been different, people wouldn't have been standing in line to criticize the play calling.

It wasn't a reaction this time. It was in the moment...Aikman and Buck were pretty vocal about it throughout the second half.

[George Cumby]

Some guys just can't be broken. Lombardi was never able to break Starr of the habit of throwing long TDs to Dowler & Dale on 3rd and short, and Starr was responsible for the play calls in those days. Just wasn't worth the risk, I guess.

This is a bit of lore I was unaware of, or are you being facetious? Can you elaborate?

[Patler]

Did Bart still throw the ball after a near miraculous escape from a sack, with his feet not set and another pass rusher free in front of him (not to mention cycling back from the first rusher)? All while leading? And all while the timing of the route was now off?

Did Starr have a history of letting opponents back into games with his INTs (serious question, in his day INTs were more common)

In answer to your questions: Yes, absolutely yes, not usually, and No.

But that sort of proves the point I was making. People complain about the play calls, but what they are really upset about most of the time are the play results.

On the three and out series, when Aikman just about had a nervous breakdown, if Romo had hit DB for a TD on 1st down, not even Aikman would have complained about the call. Since it was incomplete and stopped the clock, Aikman bitched. If it's a bad call, it's a bad call regardless of the outcome. It's not a bad call because Romo missed an open receiver and a good call if he hit him.

Now I will grant you that what is good and what is bad can vary depending on the ability of the athletes involved. But Romo is supposed to be one of the upper shelf QBs. Those were not particularly difficult throws.

[Patler]

This is a bit of lore I was unaware of, or are you being facetious? Can you elaborate?

Starr was famous for it, and did it often. Third down and short, with Taylor in the backfield ready do run over anyone in his way, Starr would frequently drop back and throw to Dale most often, sometimes Dowler. He would do it from anywhere on the filed, even deep in his own territory. He would do it sitting on a lead, or when the game was close or they trailed.

You could pretty much expect it once a game, but you just never knew when it was coming; but it sure was fun when he did it. If he did it early in a game, you might be treated to another later in the game.

We would listen to games, and whenever it was 3rd and short we would try and predict if this would be the one!

[QBME]

Starr was famous for it, and did it often. Third down and short, with Taylor in the backfield ready do run over anyone in his way, Starr would frequently drop back and throw to Dale most often, sometimes Dowler. He would do it from anywhere on the filed, even deep in his own territory. He would do it sitting on a lead, or when the game was close or they trailed.

You could pretty much expect it once a game, but you just never knew when it was coming; but it sure was fun when he did it. If he did it early in a game, you might be treated to another later in the game.

We would listen to games, and whenever it was 3rd and short we would try and predict if this would be the one!

I always wondered - do you think he called it in the huddle, or called an audible if he saw the safeties sneaking up? Back in the day, there usually was a single defensive unit (no sub packages) so maybe he got to know the defensive players tendencies really well?

[red]

Did Bart still throw the ball after a near miraculous escape from a sack, with his feet not set and another pass rusher free in front of him (not to mention cycling back from the first rusher)? All while leading? And all while the timing of the route was now off?

Did Starr have a history of letting opponents back into games with his INTs (serious question, in his day INTs were more common)?

i don't know if int's were more common back then or not, but he threw quite a few of them

for his career he threw 138 int's to 152 td's

by today's td-int ratio, thats not very good, not horrible, but not good.

in 1967, the last great lombardi season which included the ice bowl. he had 9 td to 17 int's for a qr rating of 64.4

[Patler]

I always wondered - do you think he called it in the huddle, or called an audible if he saw the safeties sneaking up? Back in the day, there usually was a single defensive unit (no sub packages) so maybe he got to know the defensive players tendencies really well?

Good question, I don't know the answer. It sure was a different time in those days. On offense, too, you rarely saw the 3rd RB or 3rd WR, usually only if a starter was injured.

[Patler]

i don't know if int's were more common back then or not, but he threw quite a few of them

for his career he threw 138 int's to 152 td's

by today's td-int ratio, thats not very good, not horrible, but not good.

in 1967, the last great lombardi season which included the ice bowl. he had 9 td to 17 int's for a qr rating of 64.4

Interceptions were much more common back then. Starr's reputation was that he was very accurate and avoided interceptions more than most. DBs could brawl with the WRs all the way down the field. Pass interference applied only from after the QB released the ball, and both players had every right to go after the ball when it got there. So play was rough both at the start of a route and at the end of the route. Pass interference was very seldom called.

[red]

Good question, I don't know the answer. It sure was a different time in those days. On offense, too, you rarely saw the 3rd RB or 3rd WR, usually only if a starter was injured.

were roster sizes the same back then? was it still 52 or 53 whatever the hell it is now?

i know you didn't have specialized kickers and punters, and i doubt you had a guy who was just your long snapper. did they have pass rush DE's and run stuffing DE's?

i'm guessing if roster sizes were smaller then you wouldn't have had any of that

[Patler]

were roster sizes the same back then? was it still 52 or 53 whatever the hell it is now?

i know you didn't have specialized kickers and punters, and i doubt you had a guy who was just your long snapper. did they have pass rush DE's and run stuffing DE's?

i'm guessing if roster sizes were smaller then you wouldn't have had any of that

In the early '60s, rosters were at 36 or 38, I don't remember exactly. In the mid '60s it went up to 40, and stayed at 40 for a long time.

[George Cumby]

Interceptions were much more common back then. Starr's reputation was that he was very accurate and avoided interceptions more than most. DBs could brawl with the WRs all the way down the field. Pass interference applied only from after the QB released the ball, and both players had every right to go after the ball when it got there. So play was rough both at the start of a route and at the end of the route. Pass interference was very seldom called.

Which game do you prefer? That all out brawl or today's wide open game?

[pbmax]

In answer to your questions: Yes, absolutely yes, not usually, and No.

But that sort of proves the point I was making. People complain about the play calls, but what they are really upset about most of the time are the play results.

On the three and out series, when Aikman just about had a nervous breakdown, if Romo had hit DB for a TD on 1st down, not even Aikman would have complained about the call. Since it was incomplete and stopped the clock, Aikman bitched. If it's a bad call, it's a bad call regardless of the outcome. It's not a bad call because Romo missed an open receiver and a good call if he hit him.

Now I will grant you that what is good and what is bad can vary depending on the ability of the athletes involved. But Romo is supposed to be one of the upper shelf QBs. Those were not particularly difficult throws.

Ahh. I was not worried about the play calls overall in the second half for them. I was criticizing Romo for not simply taking the sack on that specific play (Shields INT) not the audible.

Similar to trying to pass for a TD but willing to settle for a FG in the red zone. Throw it if open to the back of the end zone. If its not open, throw it into the stands. The only thing that CAN'T happen is an INT.

[red]

Which game do you prefer? That all out brawl or today's wide open game?

i think i would rather have the all out brawl. at least both sides are able to compete

defenses have been so neutered, thats its starting to seem, not scripted, but almost predetermined. the offense is always gonna win. which teams offense is able to put up the most points. defenses just seem to be there to make the offenses look better. almost WWE like imo

[Patler]

Ahh. I was not worried about the play calls overall in the second half for them. I was criticizing Romo for not simply taking the sack on that specific play (Shields INT) not the audible.

Similar to trying to pass for a TD but willing to settle for a FG in the red zone. Throw it if open to the back of the end zone. If its not open, throw it into the stands. The only thing that CAN'T happen is an INT.

I agree.

[Fritz]

How many times have I screamed at Favre or Rodgers for throwing a bomb when only a yard was needed, only to have the pass completed for a huge gain? This is one reason I'm best off watching games alone.

[Patler]

Which game do you prefer? That all out brawl or today's wide open game?


i think i would rather have the all out brawl. at least both sides are able to compete

defenses have been so neutered, thats its starting to seem, not scripted, but almost predetermined. the offense is always gonna win. which teams offense is able to put up the most points. defenses just seem to be there to make the offenses look better. almost WWE like imo

I feel a lot like Red. I enjoy defensive battles in all sports. Scoring should be a real accomplishment. All of the passing/receiving/scoring records are becoming irrelevant. 300 yard games for a QB are no big deal anymore. No sense in getting excited unless your QB is above 40 TDs, or near 70% completion.

[Patler]

How many times have I screamed at Favre or Rodgers for throwing a bomb when only a yard was needed, only to have the pass completed for a huge gain? This is one reason I'm best off watching games alone.

In other words, you are a typical fan!

[Fritz]

Yes. I scream when the bomb fails, and complain bitterly about the decision, but when it works I pretend I wasn't aghast at the call.

[Freak Out]

I like the old rules for the most part.....I HATE that it's come down to guys looking for interference calls every incomplete pass. That's as bad as the wussy soccer injuries you see.

[George Cumby]

I feel a lot like Red. I enjoy defensive battles in all sports. Scoring should be a real accomplishment. All of the passing/receiving/scoring records are becoming irrelevant. 300 yard games for a QB are no big deal anymore. No sense in getting excited unless your QB is above 40 TDs, or near 70% completion.

Me, as well. Like Fritz said in another thread, I like the hard fought battle, the epic clashes, the slug feasts with two teams really taking the iron to one another.

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1895023-dont-get-your-hopes-up-jason-garrett-will-never-learn-to-run-consistently

Don't Get Your Hopes Up: Jason Garrett Will Never Learn to Run Consistently

By Brad Gagnon (NFC East Lead Writer) on December 19, 2013

GO PACK GO !

[KYPack]

were roster sizes the same back then? was it still 52 or 53 whatever the hell it is now?

i know you didn't have specialized kickers and punters, and i doubt you had a guy who was just your long snapper. did they have pass rush DE's and run stuffing DE's?

i'm guessing if roster sizes were smaller then you wouldn't have had any of that

The 60's started off with rosters of 33 players. In 70, it was 40 guys.

There were no long snappers, one of your centers snapped on kicks, IOW he simply snapped the ball longer when you were on 4th down.

Starters played on kicking downs and many teams lost key players to injury on what is now "special teams" plays.

Red the season you named, '67 was one of Starr's poorest, check out '66 for a career year. Starr played most of '67 with broken ribs, but it never appeared in the media.

[Teamcheez1]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1895023-dont-get-your-hopes-up-jason-garrett-will-never-learn-to-run-consistently

Don't Get Your Hopes Up: Jason Garrett Will Never Learn to Run Consistently

By Brad Gagnon (NFC East Lead Writer) on December 19, 2013

GO PACK GO !

Mike Tomlin will not make the same mistake.

[pbmax]

Mike Tomlin will not make the same mistake.

Tomlin will instead waste TimeOuts trying to gain 2 yards at midfield on 2nd down with challenges.

[Cleft Crusty]

Me, as well. Like Fritz said in another thread, I like the hard fought battle, the epic clashes, the slug feasts with two teams really taking the iron to one another.


Did you get a chance to watch Seattle at SF? There was so much hard hitting going on in that game it's a wonder anyone remains standing at the end.

[woodbuck27]

Mike Tomlin will not make the same mistake.

The ** Steelers Running Offense is far from good. That aspect of their game will likely be addressed in the off season:

**It's ranked 31st in the NFL at < 80 Y/G. Vs our 25th Ranked Run Defense??

It's a) 'What do you think'? b) We'll see come Sunday. :-)

GO PACKERS ! ....GO PACK GO !!

[George Cumby]

Did you get a chance to watch Seattle at SF? There was so much hard hitting going on in that game it's a wonder anyone remains standing at the end.

I did, with envy.

Both those D's play with such intensity it's a wonderful thing.

What concerns me is our D's inability to consistently play with that urgency. IMO, this lies with Capers. It's his responsibility to get them ready to play and motivated.