2023 Dallas Cowboys

[baddog]

10 minutes ago, BEARCPA said:

Speak of the devil 

 

When it’s a bad call that favors the other team, then nothing is said and the Cowboys lose. Seen it too many times and that’s why I say don’t come at me with bad calls. lol

[BEARCPA]

16 minutes ago, baddog said:

When it’s a bad call that favors the other team, then nothing is said and the Cowboys lose. Seen it too many times and that’s why I say don’t come at me with bad calls. lol

ESPN definitely isn’t what it used to be, but I’m very glad Schefter has been calling out how bad the refs have been across the board this season. They need more accountability. 

[spidersal]

I take it that you forgot about the Arizona, SF, and Philadelphia games this year on this outstanding defense They have beaten 2 good teams this season in 16 games. Detroit and Philadelphia The other 9 wins have been against teams that are not very good

[spidersal]

I forgot about the Buffalo game. They have played 16 games and the defense has been poor in 7 of those games, so I don’t think Dan Quinn and the defense needs any gold stars. Probably 2 more games and done unless they can somehow beat TB 3 more games at the most. Basically same type of season as last year 

[BEARCPA]

1 hour ago, spidersal said:

I take it that you forgot about the Arizona, SF, and Philadelphia games this year on this outstanding defense They have beaten 2 good teams this season in 16 games. Detroit and Philadelphia The other 9 wins have been against teams that are not very good

Sure. What schemes should they have ran to yield better defensive results this season? I’ll agree that playing soft prevent coverage at the end against Detroit and Miami was a bad call, as it usually is for any defense. 

[BEARCPA]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:34 PM, BEARCPA said:

Pretty much locked in to the 5th seed no matter how the last 2 games go. 

Good post idiot. Cowboys can now win the East and get a 1st round home game with a win against Washington next week. Huge thanks to the Cardinals for beating Philly

[tvc184]

The ball now is in the Cowboy’s hands. 
 

Beat the Commanders next week and they are the division champions. 
 

If the Texans win next week, they are in the playoffs. 

[spidersal]

The defensive problem is that you rarely see #’s 14 and 33 make a play. They always seem to be misaligned and attack with the wrong shoulder or get get destroyed by OL and the secondary is way too soft. The run defense has been bad mainly due to where are those 2 LB ‘ers I mentioned The defensive front is good. They simply must draft good inside LB’ers

[BS Wildcats]

Cowboys fans insist the right call was made.  If this was the case, why is the NFL penalizing the game officials?  Brad Allen is clearly the NFL’s version of Angel Hernandez.  No matter, Cowboys will not be going bowling.

[BS Wildcats]

9 hours ago, navydawg31 said:

Correct call was made, part of the game. They had 2 more chances after that call to try and get it in but couldn’t. 

NFL thinks otherwise on that “correct” call.

[baddog]

I’ll go back to a previous statement I made……only when the bad call favors a Cowboys opponent is it swept under the rug. Only one I can remember that wasn’t swept is “THE DEZ BRYANT RULE” You know the refs screwed up big time when the rule is named after a player. Guess what, it didn’t change the outcome. 29 other teams won’t go bowling. Lol

[BS Wildcats]

Point is the refs screwed up, much like they have done all year.  Just can’t arbitrarily say the call was the right one.  Lions should have kicked the extra point and take their chances in ot.

[BEARCPA]

5 hours ago, spidersal said:

The defensive problem is that you rarely see #’s 14 and 33 make a play. They always seem to be misaligned and attack with the wrong shoulder or get get destroyed by OL and the secondary is way too soft. The run defense has been bad mainly due to where are those 2 LB ‘ers I mentioned The defensive front is good. They simply must draft good inside LB’ers

Yeah their LBs wouldn’t be starting on many other teams in the league. I think the secondary has been pretty decent considering the guys they have playing. 

[baddog]

Well, we are missing Vander Esch and Diggs.

[BEARCPA]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

Well, we are missing Vander Esch and Diggs.

I could be wrong here but I don’t think Vander Esch has been good for a few seasons. 

[Reagan]

 

Like one of the "X" poster said, they were not going to let the Cowboys lose on Jimmy Johnson Day.  So, one has to wonder!

[baddog]

1 hour ago, BEARCPA said:

I could be wrong here but I don’t think Vander Esch has been good for a few seasons. 

Yes he had a drop off but he was still decent against the run, which is where our problem lies. Also need a pass rush without having to send Parsons. He’s a monster at tackling. 
 

Side note: Parsons has had only one team get a holding call on him….. one holding call against possibly the defensive MVP and QB’s nightmare. 

[spidersal]

Vanderbilt Esch was a very good leader and lined people in the right spots, however he was an average LB’er whose career is unfortunately over. Sighs so so player. Dallas has not have very good inside LB’ers in several years

[spidersal]

Diggs not sighs

[baddog]

10 minutes ago, spidersal said:

Vanderbilt Esch was a very good leader and lined people in the right spots, however he was an average LB’er whose career is unfortunately over. Sighs so so player. Dallas has not have very good inside LB’ers in several years

Do you even do research or are you simply so eager to insult the players that it makes no difference. These stats look good to me. Vander Esch has been hurt.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Legend
Bold	Career high

Year	Team	Games		Tackles					Interceptions						Fumbles
		GP	GS	Comb	Solo	Ast	Sck	SFTY	PD	Int	Yds	Avg	Lng	TD	FF	FR
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	16	11	140	102	38	0.0	0	7	2	56	28.0	28	0	0	0
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	9	9	72	43	29	0.5	0	3	0	0	0.0	0	0	1	0
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	10	10	60	32	28	1.0	0	0	0	0	0.0	0	0	1	1
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	17	16	77	48	29	1.0	0	2	1	7	7.0	7	0	0	0
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	14	14	90	54	36	1.0	0	1	0	0	0.0	0	0	1	0
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up	5	5	30	17	13	0.0	0	0	0	0	0.0	0	0	0	1
Career		71	65	469	296	173	3.5	0	13	3	63	21.0	28	0	3	2

[spidersal]

I said Vanderbilt Esch was a good leader on the defensive side with a high intelligence of lining people up and he played hard, however these stats you produced are nothing to write home about. A good guy and good character, just an average LB’er

[baddog]

Well, well, well…….LMAO

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

Here is something that I have wondered about.

 Everyone has seen the video but we have no audio. All of the conclusions say, 68 must’ve reported because he was by the ref. So were two others, however, including 70. If we look closely at the video, the referee appears to be looking at 70 jogging toward him almost the entire time.

All we are left with is two people, accusing each other. There appears to be absolutely no proof of either side of the story.

However…..

It has been reported that the referee went to Dallas and reported that 70 was a designated receiver. If that was true, even if that had been a mistake, should the play be allowed to stand?

An example is that I’ve seen this from high school to the pros, if a referee has an inadvertent whistle, the play ends. They don’t speculate and play what if but the referees mistake negates anything in the future. We may have seen plays in the past, and I remember a couple, where a person broke into the open but the referee blew the whistle. They cannot speculate on what might have happened. If the referee makes a mistake, nothing after the mistake can go forward.

So if 68 actually reported to the ref but the ref went to Dallas and mistakenly said it was 70, should the play go forward? Dallas could legitimately say, we did not line up to cover 68 because he should not have been an eligible receiver.

The stuff that Campbell said about drawing up the play before the game on notifying the officials, which apparently is routine, should be meaningless within the rules. I imagine that’s just to give the referees a heads up of what “might” happen because what if Campbell wanted to run the exact play that he showed the referees before the game, but changed his mind and use a different lineman as a receiver? His excuse of, I told him before the game what might be coming… So what? Is his play calling limited to what he told the referees before the game? That would be ludicrous. 

[Ty Cobb]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Here is something that I have wondered about.

 Everyone has seen the video but we have no audio. All of the conclusions say, 68 must’ve reported because he was by the ref. So were two others, however, including 70. If we look closely at the video, the referee appears to be looking at 70 jogging toward him almost the entire time.

All we are left with is two people, accusing each other. There appears to be absolutely no proof of either side of the story.

However…..

It has been reported that the referee went to Dallas and reported that 70 was a designated receiver. If that was true, even if that had been a mistake, should the play be allowed to stand?

An example is that I’ve seen this from high school to the pros, if a referee has an inadvertent whistle, the play ends. They don’t speculate and play what if but the referees mistake negates anything in the future. We may have seen plays in the past, and I remember a couple, where a person broke into the open but the referee blew the whistle. They cannot speculate on what might have happened. If the referee makes a mistake, nothing after the mistake can go forward.

So if 68 actually reported to the ref but the ref went to Dallas and mistakenly said it was 70, should the play go forward? Dallas could legitimately say, we did not line up to cover 68 because he should not have been an eligible receiver.

The stuff that Campbell said about drawing up the play before the game on notifying the officials, which apparently is routine, should be meaningless within the rules. I imagine that’s just to give the referees a heads up of what “might” happen because what if Campbell wanted to run the exact play that he showed the referees before the game, but changed his mind and use a different lineman as a receiver? His excuse of, I told him before the game what might be coming… So what? Is his play calling limited to what he told the referees before the game? That would be ludicrous. 

I think you are spot on with your statement. I would be beyond mad if I were a lions fan, but I’m not. I’m a COWBOYS fan and have gone through this before when the nfl didn’t know what a catch was. 
Dez caught it!!!

Must beat the redskins to get to 12-5, and lock up the 2seed.

GO COWBOYS!!!

[BEARCPA]

16 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Here is something that I have wondered about.

 Everyone has seen the video but we have no audio. All of the conclusions say, 68 must’ve reported because he was by the ref. So were two others, however, including 70. If we look closely at the video, the referee appears to be looking at 70 jogging toward him almost the entire time.

All we are left with is two people, accusing each other. There appears to be absolutely no proof of either side of the story.

However…..

It has been reported that the referee went to Dallas and reported that 70 was a designated receiver. If that was true, even if that had been a mistake, should the play be allowed to stand?

An example is that I’ve seen this from high school to the pros, if a referee has an inadvertent whistle, the play ends. They don’t speculate and play what if but the referees mistake negates anything in the future. We may have seen plays in the past, and I remember a couple, where a person broke into the open but the referee blew the whistle. They cannot speculate on what might have happened. If the referee makes a mistake, nothing after the mistake can go forward.

So if 68 actually reported to the ref but the ref went to Dallas and mistakenly said it was 70, should the play go forward? Dallas could legitimately say, we did not line up to cover 68 because he should not have been an eligible receiver.

The stuff that Campbell said about drawing up the play before the game on notifying the officials, which apparently is routine, should be meaningless within the rules. I imagine that’s just to give the referees a heads up of what “might” happen because what if Campbell wanted to run the exact play that he showed the referees before the game, but changed his mind and use a different lineman as a receiver? His excuse of, I told him before the game what might be coming… So what? Is his play calling limited to what he told the referees before the game? That would be ludicrous. 

Yeah on replays I've seen the ref turned his mic on and clearly announced that 70 was the reporting eligible receiver. Just a bad goof on the ref's part. Lions made it possible though by having 2 linemen already close to the ref with another running towards him.