(Editor's Note: Each day we will take the 2 best questions for our staff writers to answer from the Mailbag. "Click here" to email questions now.)

STEVEN BECTON, MEMPHIS, TN: Could it be that our defense lacks intensity at times? Could that be a result of Phillip's laid back approach to training camp? Also, an offensive line that should be dominant seems at times to not live up to that. Again, is that the result of a "soft" training camp? Would you say that this is a soft team because of the way they prepare?

Nick: I think the defense might lack a killer instinct at time, but not intensity, and I think there's a big difference. I don't think the way they prepare makes them soft. I don' think this time is soft. But going out and taking control of the situation, especially in the second half, isn't something we've seen from this team all the time.

Josh: Maybe you're just making a rush to judgment based on one game the Cowboys lost by two points to a playoff team from a year ago. DeMarcus Ware looks pretty intense to me. Tank Johnson? Marc Colombo? Whether they have Ray Lewis out there firing them up or not really doesn't matter. The nature of competition says these guys are probably giving their full effort. Was there an intensity problem against Cleveland or Green Bay? Was the offensive line too soft against Philadelphia? It's one game.

Rob: No I don't think so, because they don't prepare in a soft manner. Several players have said this year's camp was grueling. They're the ones going through two-a-days, so I'll defer to them. Yes, they got outplayed by Washington, but tough teams win a shootout against the big, bad Eagles and beat Green Bay on the road six days later. Let's not overreact to one loss, even though it's obvious that the offense can be more balanced and the defense can be more effective.

JEFF CEDARFIELD, BRISTOL, CT: With all the concern about turnover margins, people are overlooking the fact that these are good teams we've played. Other than Cleveland, which still has weapons, we played three really good teams that I wouldn't expect to turn the ball over a lot. Your thoughts?

Nick: Have the Cowboys really played good teams? Do we know that yet? Right now, Washington is the only team with a winning record. Green Bay and Philly are both 2-2. So how good are they? Just look at the quarterbacks. McNabb, Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell and Derek Anderson. If you can't get interceptions and turnovers from them, then who will cough it up? I think it's definitely time to be concerned.

Josh: Ah, there's two sides to that pancake, as someone around here used to say. Maybe those teams are too good to have many turnovers, but surely you think the Cowboys are better, right? And they have six turnovers through four games. Shouldn't they have fewer turnovers too, by that logic? As Wade Phillips said earlier this week, it wasn't a problem until they lost. Fans have complained a lot about the cornerbacks playing off their receivers in zone coverage, but understand they play so much zone because it makes it easier to get interceptions. The takeaways will come, the Cowboys have too many good players for them not to.

Rob: Washington certainly falls into that category because of their low-risk, short passing game (except for the occasional downfield shot to Moss). But the more zone you play, the more interceptions you'll probably get because you're keeping everything in front of you. The Cowboys haven't drastically changed schemes and they had nine picks at this point last season. The takeaways will come.

Home | Email | Print | Register for New Alerts | RSS