2009 was a fabulous year for taking care of the football. The Cowboys gave away possession of the football 33 times in the 2008 regular season, and they come back in 2009 and cut 14 turnovers off that total, giving it away only 19 times in 2009. Only Green Bay (16) and Minnesota (18) gave the ball away less than the Cowboys in the NFC. Phenomenal job by the offense of really making things easier on themselves.
The defense, however, remained rather flat. There is a lot to like about a Wade Phillips defense, but one thing that is not impressive at all is the ability to take the ball away (and really, what is more important than that?). In 2008, the Cowboys forced 22 turnovers and in 2009, they actually went backwards to 21. 43 takeaways in 32 games for the last two seasons barely beats Green Bay's 2009 production (40), New Orleans (39), and Philadelphia (38).
We can talk all we want about a dominating defense - and the scoring defense should not be overlooked - but for this defense to get to a higher level, they need to get guys who can take the ball away, too, right? This is one reason why I might try to upgrade a few spots if the opportunity presents itself rather than assume my defense is fine. Ken Hamlin might be a candidate as I do not recall many huge ball-hawking moments for him in the last few years.
Cowboys Turnovers | Opponents Turnovers | ||||||
Game | Fumbles (Lost) | INTS | Giveaways | Fumbles (Lost) | INTS | Takeaways | +/- |
W @ TB | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | 0 | 0 | E |
L vs NYG | 1 (1) | 3 | 4 | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | -4 |
W vs Car | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 2 | 3 | +3 |
L @ Den | 1 (1) | 1 | 2 | 2 (1) | 0 | 1 | -1 |
W @ KC | 2 (2) | 0 | 2 | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | -2 |
W vs Atl | 1 (1) | 0 | 1 | 2 (1) | 2 | 3 | +2 |
W vs Sea | 2 (1) | 0 | 1 | 2 (2) | 0 | 2 | +1 |
W @ Phi | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 | 0 (0) | 2 | 2 | +1 |
L @ GB | 2 (2) | 1 | 3 | 2 (0) | 0 | 0 | -3 |
W vs Was | 1 (1) | 1 | 2 | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 | -1 |
W vs Oak | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | 1 | +1 |
L @ NYG | 1 (1) | 0 | 1 | 2 (1) | 1 | 2 | +1 |
L vs SD | 1 (0) | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 | +1 |
W @ NO | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | 2 (2) | 1 | 3 | +3 |
W @ Was | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 | 3 (0) | 1 | 1 | E |
W vs Phi | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 | 2 (1) | 0 | 1 | E |
Totals | 12 (10) | 9 | 19 | 20 (10) | 11 | 21 | +2 |
And here are the numbers on the turnover story in the 2 playoff games - clearly a story of two different turnover-related outcomes.
2009 Playoffs:
Cowboys Turnovers | Opponents Turnovers | ||||||
Game | Fumbles (Lost) | INTS | Giveaways | Fumbles (Lost) | INTS | Takeaways | +/- |
W v Phil | 1 (1) | 0 | 1 | 3 (3) | 1 | 4 | +3 |
L @ Minn | 4 (2) | 1 | 3 | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | -3 |
Totals | 5 (3) | 1 | 4 | 3 (3) | 1 | 4 | E |
Same chart, but from the 2008 season:
Cowboys | Turnovers | Opponents | Turnovers | - | |
Game | Fumbles (Lost) | INTS | Fumbles (Lost) | INTS | +/- |
W @ Cle | 1 (0) | 1 | 2 (0) | 0 | -1 |
W vs Phil | 2 (1) | 1 | 3 (1) | 0 | -1 |
W @ GB | 3 (1) | 1 | 2 (1) | 0 | -1 |
L vs Wash | 1 (0) | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 |
W vs. Cin | 2 (1) | 1 | 1 (1) | 1 | 0 |
L @ Arz | 4 (1) | 0 | 2 (2) | 1 | +2 |
L @ St Lou | 2 (1) | 3 | 0 | 0 | -4 |
W vs TB | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | +1 |
L @ NYG | 1 (1) | 3 | 3 (2) | 1 | -1 |
W @ Wash | 1 (0) | 2 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
W vs SF | 1 (1) | 0 | 2 (1) | 1 | +1 |
W vs Sea | 0 | 1 | 2 (1) | 1 | +1 |
L @ Pitt | 3 (2) | 3 | 2 (2) | 0 | -3 |
W vs NYG | 2 (0) | 0 | 2 (0) | 2 | +2 |
L vs Balt | 2 (0) | 2 | 5 (1) | 0 | -1 |
L @ Phil | 4 (4) | 1 | 1 (1) | 0 | -4 |
Totals | 29 (13) | 20 | 28 (14) | 8 | -11 |
So the 'Boys had only 2 games this season of multiple-giveaways - first Giants & Green Bay. If they had won either of those games and finished 12-4, would that have given them home-field in the playoffs?
ReplyDelete