Week 4 Dallas Cowboys coaches film analysis

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by awp8912:

Originally posted by thl408:

Short hops the throw.

Isn't this just a bad play call here in the redzone, on 3rd and 14?

Might have had a chance with Torrey but the throw itself, to me, was just a throw away (3 defenders quickly converge on AB). Just take the points on 3rd and 14.

Man, just about every single curl route was open if Gabbert anticipates the route. Instead, he tries to throw it off his front foot instead of stepping into it.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by awp8912:

Originally posted by thl408:

Short hops the throw.

Isn't this just a bad play call here in the redzone, on 3rd and 14?

Might have had a chance with Torrey but the throw itself, to me, was just a throw away (3 defenders quickly converge on AB). Just take the points on 3rd and 14.

Man, just about every single curl route was open if Gabbert anticipates the route. Instead, he tries to throw it off his front foot instead of stepping into it.

You think? At 14 yards in the RZ? I thought it was pretty well defended. But yeah, if he had some great anticipation there it could have had a chance, certainly, assuming they all curl to the right spot and Gabbert threw it correctly. Otherwise it's an INT. He's risk aversive so I had no doubt we were kicking a FG there.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by awp8912:

Originally posted by thl408:

Short hops the throw.

Isn't this just a bad play call here in the redzone, on 3rd and 14?

Might have had a chance with Torrey but the throw itself, to me, was just a throw away (3 defenders quickly converge on AB). Just take the points on 3rd and 14.

Man, just about every single curl route was open if Gabbert anticipates the route. Instead, he tries to throw it off his front foot instead of stepping into it.

You think? At 14 yards in the RZ? I thought it was pretty well defended. But yeah, if he had some great anticipation there it could have had a chance, certainly, assuming they all curl to the right spot and Gabbert threw it correctly. Otherwise it's an INT. He's risk aversive so I had no doubt we were kicking a FG there.

They defended the first down marker and gave us those short passes. At least Gabby tried.

I miss Fangio and his defensive staff already especially after watching this thread. When do we hold York responsible?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by PowderdToastMn:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by communist:

Originally posted by NCommand:
It really is...we lost cornerstones on defense right down the middle with Williams + Bowman + Ray-Ray. And it doesn't even include the fact that guys are already playing through injuries or not playing at all such as Tartt, Ward, Dorsey, Lynch, Redmond, Davis, Armstead, Buckner, etc. That's 11 players right there. And it's only going to get worse.

Ward down, both of the starting ILBs down, NT down, a rookie in the d-line, the sophomore is injured. This indeed does not contribute to success at all.

It's very unfortunate. Fans will just b***h about talent but talent can't grow from the training room. I have a feeling this defense would look significantly better with this healthy lineup for a full year (or at least 95%).

RDE: Quinton Dial/DeForest Bucker
NT: Ian Williams/Glenn Dorsey
LDE: Arik Armstead
WILL: Ahmad Brooks
TED: Ray-Ray Armstrong
MIKE: Navarro Bowman
SAM: Aaron Lynch
RCB: Jimmie Ward
SLOT: Will Redmond
LCB: Rashard Robinson
FS: Eric Reid
SS: Jaquiski Tartt

It's very true. I cannot believe the number of injuries this team has. It's beginning to look like the pre-Nolan days before he got rid of all the machines in the training room. Every year since after the super bowl, the team is decimated early on in the season.

I was OK with them last year b/c we got to see players we probably would not have seen such as Tiller and Brown, etc. and they grew into quality starters for this year. But not THIS year. This is the year everyone needs to be healthy so we can figure out what we have and don't have.

Regardless, you can only turnover so many players in a given year anyways and I think the biggest holes on this team have been identified: QB, WR, OLB/pass rush. Some combination of draft and free agency is going to have to address those three areas before all else. Fortunately, they'll have a lot of cap space and a high draft pick.

I would be surprised if Dorsey doesn't get the start at NT from here on out. With how poorly Purcell is playing, I can't see how Dorsey can't play 30 snaps a game at NT. I would like to see us go back to our run stuffing DL this week to stop Johnson, let's force their backup QB to beat us. Our starting DL should be Dial, Dorsey, AA, with Blair, TJE, and Purcell rotating in. Idk why I feel like we haven't seen a ton of Dial either. With how poor our ILB's are now we need to focus on stopping the run.

The force of that win by the Giants tonight is enough to carry the Niners to a win. Good vibes in SF

Can any of you guys explain why we haven't seen more of Dial at NT, he can play there and is our best run stopper, Blair can pick up the slack at End and allow Dial to slide inside and Purcell to slide to the bench.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by communist:

Originally posted by thl408:
Later on the opening drive of second half. Due to some minimal runs and a false start penalty, 3rd & 14.
Hank concept versus Tampa2

I do get it that Hank is quite useful against Tampa 2 but was it a good call on this particular play? I mean we had to go for 14 yards.
Or am I misled by the poor execution, i.e. if Burbridge had caught the ball and had turned inside, he would have converted the 3rd to a 1st down?

I think the bolded was the only chance to get the first down. Seemed like a "safe" playcall to ensure the FG, and the 3 point lead. Gabbert short hopped the throw and immediately pointed to himself after the incompletion as if to say "my bad".

Just out of hindsight:
Assuming we know pre-snap that they call a cover 2 zone, why not flood the left side (vertical stretch) while holding the closest LB in his zone with a decoy? Three receivers to the left, a TE as a decoy who could also block the LB away as soon as the ball is arrived...
What do I overlook?

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by PowderdToastMn:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by communist:

Originally posted by NCommand:
It really is...we lost cornerstones on defense right down the middle with Williams + Bowman + Ray-Ray. And it doesn't even include the fact that guys are already playing through injuries or not playing at all such as Tartt, Ward, Dorsey, Lynch, Redmond, Davis, Armstead, Buckner, etc. That's 11 players right there. And it's only going to get worse.

Ward down, both of the starting ILBs down, NT down, a rookie in the d-line, the sophomore is injured. This indeed does not contribute to success at all.

It's very unfortunate. Fans will just b***h about talent but talent can't grow from the training room. I have a feeling this defense would look significantly better with this healthy lineup for a full year (or at least 95%).

RDE: Quinton Dial/DeForest Bucker
NT: Ian Williams/Glenn Dorsey
LDE: Arik Armstead
WILL: Ahmad Brooks
TED: Ray-Ray Armstrong
MIKE: Navarro Bowman
SAM: Aaron Lynch
RCB: Jimmie Ward
SLOT: Will Redmond
LCB: Rashard Robinson
FS: Eric Reid
SS: Jaquiski Tartt

It's very true. I cannot believe the number of injuries this team has. It's beginning to look like the pre-Nolan days before he got rid of all the machines in the training room. Every year since after the super bowl, the team is decimated early on in the season.

I was OK with them last year b/c we got to see players we probably would not have seen such as Tiller and Brown, etc. and they grew into quality starters for this year. But not THIS year. This is the year everyone needs to be healthy so we can figure out what we have and don't have.

Regardless, you can only turnover so many players in a given year anyways and I think the biggest holes on this team have been identified: QB, WR, OLB/pass rush. Some combination of draft and free agency is going to have to address those three areas before all else. Fortunately, they'll have a lot of cap space and a high draft pick.

No different than we knew coming into the season...while hoping that Gabbert/Kaepernick and/or some WR's or OLB's would establish themselves well enough that it would eliminate one or more of those 'team needs.'

Spot on the bold. This is a rebuilding team so naturally, we're trying to establish starters and we're not going to have strong backups. Now, many critical starters are down for the season and a large number are playing hurt already; ST players are now being forced to start. This defense could end up being historically bad going forward. You can afford a loss here and there when rebuilding but we're already far past the max.

Originally posted by communist:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by communist:

Originally posted by thl408:
Later on the opening drive of second half. Due to some minimal runs and a false start penalty, 3rd & 14.
Hank concept versus Tampa2

I do get it that Hank is quite useful against Tampa 2 but was it a good call on this particular play? I mean we had to go for 14 yards.
Or am I misled by the poor execution, i.e. if Burbridge had caught the ball and had turned inside, he would have converted the 3rd to a 1st down?

I think the bolded was the only chance to get the first down. Seemed like a "safe" playcall to ensure the FG, and the 3 point lead. Gabbert short hopped the throw and immediately pointed to himself after the incompletion as if to say "my bad".

Just out of hindsight:
Assuming we know pre-snap that they call a cover 2 zone, why not flood the left side (vertical stretch) while holding the closest LB in his zone with a decoy? Three receivers to the left, a TE as a decoy who could also block the LB away as soon as the ball is arrived...
What do I overlook?

It's hard to get a vertical stretch in the red zone with defense knowing that the offense needs 14 yards. If there was more room to work with then a vertical stretch would be a viable method to attack Tampa2, but with such a condensed field, it's hard to threaten vertically and get 14 yards. Defenders will be smart enough to defend the sticks/goalline, and allow any underneath stuff to be completed.

Originally posted by GORO:
I miss Fangio and his defensive staff already especially after watching this thread. When do we hold York responsible?

He wouldn't have been able to do much better with all the talent that left. Just look at what he has done in Chicago.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by awp8912:

Originally posted by thl408:

Short hops the throw.

Isn't this just a bad play call here in the redzone, on 3rd and 14?

Might have had a chance with Torrey but the throw itself, to me, was just a throw away (3 defenders quickly converge on AB). Just take the points on 3rd and 14.

Man, just about every single curl route was open if Gabbert anticipates the route. Instead, he tries to throw it off his front foot instead of stepping into it.

You think? At 14 yards in the RZ? I thought it was pretty well defended. But yeah, if he had some great anticipation there it could have had a chance, certainly, assuming they all curl to the right spot and Gabbert threw it correctly. Otherwise it's an INT. He's risk aversive so I had no doubt we were kicking a FG there.

Well-defended, none of the options were particularly great. Really disappointed there were no routes in the endzone. Would've flipped the formation and put a TE over the LT instead of going 4 wide. I would've preferred a post route from the slot, TE running up the seam, a "jerk" crosser underneath, and a back shoulder or a post corner fade (depending on defensive look) if I had my choice in that area of the field. The post and back shoulder fade to the right would draw coverage further upfield for the RB in the flat to be 1 on 1 with an LB as well.

Just didn't like this play-call in general.

Originally posted by thl408:
Third drive of 2nd half. Very manageable down and distance, trailing 21-17.
Verticals versus Cover 1 robber/spy


The robber is playing close to LoS which suggests he's spying Gabbert in case of a scramble. Not much separation anywhere. Gabbert knows he has 1v1 across the board and takes Kerley versus Wilcox


Not much separation + a flat pass means it didn't really have a chance.

Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to say after the fact, especially when we're not the ones with the pressure on our shoulders.

but when you only need 2 yards.... wouldn't you want to go for the easy throw? Which would be Celek. and Gabbert had time.

He has more space to his side to lead the pass....and most likely has the size advantage (height).... and Celek has been reliable for Blaine.

just lobing it to that open space where Celek could've boxed out his man.

heck looking at the playcall...and down and distance... I would think the play was designed to go to Celek in the first place.

but back to my point... trying to hit Kerley there is tough.. no size advantage...and he's running straight. Harder pass to hit, I would think.


see it's not so much that Gabbert didn't convert on this play... but I'm just trying to understand what he was thinking. This is a crucial part of the game...sure it's early, but we are still in striking range...score is close.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to say after the fact, especially when we're not the ones with the pressure on our shoulders.

but when you only need 2 yards.... wouldn't you want to go for the easy throw? Which would be Celek. and Gabbert had time.

He has more space to his side to lead the pass....and most likely has the size advantage (height).... and Celek has been reliable for Blaine.

just lobing it to that open space where Celek could've boxed out his man.

heck looking at the playcall...and down and distance... I would think the play was designed to go to Celek in the first place.

but back to my point... trying to hit Kerley there is tough.. no size advantage...and he's running straight. Harder pass to hit, I would think.


see it's not so much that Gabbert didn't convert on this play... but I'm just trying to understand what he was thinking. This is a crucial part of the game...sure it's early, but we are still in striking range...score is close.

Yeah attacking downfield on 3rd & 2 is questionable. Hindsight, I would liked to see if Gabbert could have hit Celek there. Celek had inside positioning on an inside breaking route. Kerley is not a vertical threat at all - no top line speed, no size. The playcall as well as the decision to target Kerley is questionable. Maybe Chip wanted to catch DAL squatting on a short route.