News of the Game - Dallas

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,852
Reaction score
23,164
Location
Orlando, FL
Good News

How much time have you got? This is enough to make me believe in the Multiverse. The funny part was the announcers kept cutting in with one KC score after another. I kept thinking that was supposed to be the Cards’ game. Was I in the right universe?

While there were great performances by many players, this win belongs to the coaches. It’s one thing to tell your players to win; it’s another thing to coach like you’re all in to win. Gannon didn’t coach with thoughtless aggression, as Kingsbury did. Kingsbury’s moves seemed all about ego. To me Gannon’s was sending a message to his staff & players. I’ve been complaining the Cards seemed to be playing to lose. Gannon’s coaching told all there would be no further compromise. They were leaving it all on the field. He even took points off the board. The aggressive overall strategy cost a couple of conversion points, but the team played like they were risking everything and they came through. Whether it was a 62 yard field goal or a rookie CB challenging Lamb in the end zone. This time they played to win!

Another thing I noticed about the coaching is that they do their homework. The opening play was a naked bootleg. The Cowboys game film indicated they were vulnerable to QB planned runs. Later they had specific plays designed to attack some of the unusual defensive formations Dallas uses. In the old days we would have said the Cowboys got out-schemed. The Cards studied Dallas’ alignments and tendencies then exploited them. Nothing less than brilliant coaching. I also noted Dobbs on the bench studying a tablet. Yet another adjustment reflecting improved coaching. There ability to improve the performance of even veteran players is impressive.

The OC also realized he had been underusing Brown and the Cowboys seemed caught off-guard by Brown’s abilities. The Cards also got nice support via WR blocks. Wilson especially had a couple of significant contributions. I had been questioning why they didn’t go to Connor through the air. The Cards remedied that. I really liked the old school line pulling. They overpowered Dallas with it. Froholdt made a nice contribution to this strategy. The play design seems to have helped Connor find the Fountain of Youth. He’s running like he did in Pitt. Prater seems to also be recreating his prime. Dobbs was mostly solid. He made a nice throw to Brown to beat a blitz. He ran well but sometimes dangerously for his own safety.

On defense Gardeck continued to stand out. Wallace keeps contributing. He was an outstanding pickup. Thompson struggled in coverage, which was understandable since he was on Lamb. However, he was strong against the run. Clark continues to show great potential while still making rookie mistakes. The best part is he seemingly refuses to get discouraged. Collins contributed another sack. There were literally so many good contributions it would be hard to enumerate all of them.

On the whole there were far more positives than in the first 2 games.

The Bad News

The coaching wasn’t always brilliant. They ran one of the most convoluted trick plays I’ve seen. They continue to target Ertz short hoping he’ll run for the first; he won’t. His hands used to be better. The tackling was often poor and the Cards were fortunate that wasn’t more costly. Some of the players, like Wilson, don’t play physical enough. There are still too many penalties. The usual suspects keep making them. Stills was sloppy again. I was okay with the first 2 point conversion attempt. The second one was questionable especially since history says passes work less than 45% of the time. I didn’t like the draw call on third and long if your going all in. They still seem confused on the 2 minute drill.

Matthew belongs on the practice squad. His penalty was inexcusable and amateurish. Pass defense was inconsistent, but I liked playing more man. Wilson is still giving too much cushion, especially on third down. They played more man but when they switched to zone it was too loose. The coverage against passes in the flat is weak. Thomas needs to work on consistency. He’ll make a good play and then fail to recognize a screen or overrun the QB. He’s improving, but slowly. Dimukeje is much the same. He offers flashes of talent but gets out of control rushing sometimes. Considering they were facing Dallas’ second sting O-line, I expected more line penetration.

Dobbs played well but grounded a pass to the flat. He threw high to Ertz. On a throw to Brown, with Gilmore covering, Dobbs was late with his throw. He struggled occasionally with ball placement. No QB has only perfect passes, but Dobbs problems still seem related to holding his technique together.

The Cards still lack a backup running back. Ingram does not run with authority. He looked particularly bad executing a screen. Moore had a nice gimmick run. Sadly he appears to have few, if any, moves when he has the ball. He certainly doesn’t break tackles. The center of the DL played better but is not sound. They need a true anchor.

Dallas continued to struggle in the red zone. They made horrible coaching decisions. Passing on a field goal and continually running in the red zone when time was short. They frequently manifested weird formations. The Cards got lucky on the interference no call that cost Dallas a TD.

It crossed my mind that I wondered what Murray was thinking. Is he recognizing this team can eventually be built into a contender? Can he continue to adjust his behavior and be part of it? Does he see drafting a QB is less likely but he could be a large part making people forget that option? I’m beginning to think Gannon believes Murray is the guy. Gannon shoots pretty straight, so when he says so, maybe it’s gospel.

This was a big win. So much for tanking! These guys have the potential to surprise several teams. Luckily the Cards figure to still have 2 fairly early picks and enough cap space to contend for the playoffs in 2024. They continue to have many needs but they appear to be able to get more from less. That’s great coaching. What a promising start!
 

slanidrac16

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
15,077
Reaction score
14,588
Location
Plainfield, Il.
Thanks Harry. I kind of thinking Gannon knows ha doesn’t have the horses and is willing to give up the yards between the 20’s. White alluded to that when he said they aren’t going to give up anything easy and hold them to a fg.
My question. Did this staff benefit from playing teams very familiar to Gannon?
As far as Dobbs, I don’t know what more can we expect from him? He’s steady but not spectacular and he’s improved every week. Will that continue? Then again, did anybody really expect The emergence of Geno Smith?
More than likely this game against the 49 ers is going to bring us back down to earth.
But can you imagine the narrative on Monday morning if we are 2-2?????
 

BullheadCardFan

Go for it
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Posts
60,427
Reaction score
23,134
Location
Bullhead City, AZ
Excellent points Harry

There was much to be excited about in the win

But reality we have a long ways to go to be a good team

Nice to see the effort and better coaching

Tightening up the tackling and coverage will be a key to success this year

Overall it looks like the team is headed in the right direction with this staff
 

juza76

ASFN Icon
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Posts
13,748
Reaction score
9,511
Location
milan-italy
Yeah the depth behind conner Is not good
Pretty weird they didnt add anyone at this point
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Harry

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,852
Reaction score
23,164
Location
Orlando, FL
Thanks Harry. I kind of thinking Gannon knows ha doesn’t have the horses and is willing to give up the yards between the 20’s. White alluded to that when he said they aren’t going to give up anything easy and hold them to a fg.
My question. Did this staff benefit from playing teams very familiar to Gannon?
As far as Dobbs, I don’t know what more can we expect from him? He’s steady but not spectacular and he’s improved every week. Will that continue? Then again, did anybody really expect The emergence of Geno Smith?
More than likely this game against the 49 ers is going to bring us back down to earth.
But can you imagine the narrative on Monday morning if we are 2-2?????
Certainly knowing a coach you’re facing helps, but teams change from year to year. It takes study and analysis. Smith has shown to be a decent QB with a great surrounding cast can work. I think Dobbs is still overrated. I don’t really know any longer if things like 2-2 is possible. Overachievers are harder to evaluate.
 

BullheadCardFan

Go for it
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Posts
60,427
Reaction score
23,134
Location
Bullhead City, AZ
Probably because he mostly gets hit by multiple DLinemen as soon as he gets the handoff. It’s as though our OL takes a breather when he comes into the game lol.
He has been hit in the backfield on a few occasions so I get your point

But when he does get some room he goes down way too easy

No drive through someone or the quickness to juke them
 

Zeem_Freeze

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Posts
1,152
Reaction score
1,735
Location
Arcadia
Harry I appreciate the content you put out but your post isn't based on the game I watched and stats that have come out.

Opening play was not QB bootleg. 44yard Dobbs run was zone read a couple plays later but I was STOKED on that play call... agreed that was brilliant.

Also, what about cowboys film showed they are susceptible to QB rushes? Dobbs had MORE yards on that vs opponent QB rushing against their previous 2 opponents combined... ?

Nothing gimmicky about Moore running between the tackles. How was that touchdown gimmicky?

Ertz received like 2 targets and the lowest targets of the season. How can you complain we targetted him too much and it was predictable?

And hands don't dissapear throughout a career... that is actually the only attribute that sticks around for WR/TE late into careers.. they become possesion receivers when they lose the speed of their prime

Thomspon on CeeDee Lamb? In a scheme that mostly plays man coverage with safety help over top?

Will agree that Ingram is concerning... outside of that, most of the post is inaccurate or disagreeable.
 
Last edited:

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,501
Reaction score
32,317
Location
Orange County, CA
Probably because he mostly gets hit by multiple DLinemen as soon as he gets the handoff. It’s as though our OL takes a breather when he comes into the game lol.
Yeah I've noted that as well. Ingram hasn't gotten many chances where the play was blocked well. I've seen a few bad reads from him as well, but most of his carries have been doomed from the start.
 

cardpa

Have a Nice Day!
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
7,324
Reaction score
3,994
Location
Monroe NC
I guess we will really see what Ingram has to offer once he starts a game as the primary back and we all know that will happen as I don't think any of us expect Conner to get through 17 games without missing one or two.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
15,412
Reaction score
12,187
Totally agree with the Ertz comment - apparently his injury made him forget how to catch? He's been a disappointment.
 
OP
OP
Harry

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,852
Reaction score
23,164
Location
Orlando, FL
Harry I appreciate the content you put out but your post isn't based on the game I watched and stats that have come out.

Opening play was not QB bootleg. 44yard Dobbs run was zone read a couple plays later but I was STOKED on that play call... agreed that was brilliant.

Also, what about cowboys film showed they are susceptible to QB rushes? Dobbs had MORE yards on that vs opponent QB rushing against their previous 2 opponents combined... ?

Nothing gimmicky about Moore running between the tackles. How was that touchdown gimmicky?

Ertz received like 2 targets and the lowest targets of the season. How can you complain we targetted him too much and it was predictable?

And hands don't dissapear throughout a career... that is actually the only attribute that sticks around for WR/TE late into careers.. they become possesion receivers when they lose the speed of their prime

Thomspon on CeeDee Lamb? In a scheme that mostly plays man coverage with safety help over top?

Will agree that Ingram is concerning... outside of that, most of the post is inaccurate or disagreeable.
The term bootleg historically refers to any play where the QB keeps the ball and runs toward the sideline. I know recently with QB option’s it’s not always used that way. Here’s a definition from Football Advantage, “A bootleg is a misdirection play that has a few different parts. It's part play-action pass and part rollout by the quarterback.” In this case the play featured a fake RB handoff. It’s defined by what the QB does. I understand your point, but I wouldn’t say my description was wrong.

As to QB runs as bad as the Giants were against the Boys, on the 2nd play Jones ran for 8 yards. On the 7th play he ran for 16 yards. On the 9th play Jones ran for 8 yards. My point was Dallas didn’t stay home in a disciplined way. It was clear a “planned” run had a great chance of success.

The Moore touchdown was the result of exploiting a formation, not some great RB skill from Moore. He ran in a straight line though the biggest lane the Cards have had in recent memory. The reason we don’t see Moore play RB is because he lacks the moves. This play was based on pure straight line speed. Do you think that’s a commonly used play? Please check what I wrote earlier about paradigms.

YTD Ertz has been targeted 20 times, second only to Brown’s 22. No one else has more than 10 targets. In my review of this game I wrote, “ They continue to target Ertz short hoping he’ll run for the first; he won’t.” I didn’t say he was targeted too much. Not only did we see different games I guess you saw a different article than mine.

Ask Jackie Smith if hands betray you as your career goes on.

As to Thompson’s coverage of Lamb I wrote, “Thompson struggled in coverage, which was understandable since he was on Lamb.” I’m not sure what your point is. I didn’t say it was man coverage and I didn’t criticize Thompson because he was beaten. The next sentence complimented his run defense.

Frankly it seems more like you just didn’t like the piece. That’s okay. You’re not the first and I’m certain you won’t be the last. I just ask you to be a little more careful about how you represent what I wrote.
 
Top