Packers happy Cowboys abandoned running game

[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.


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