FSSW: Sturm: Decoding Garrett: Cowboys out of balance and out of sorts

[WoodysGirl]

September 18, 2012

There is no question that this game was going to be a fantastic test for the offense when the special teams portion of the squad put the Cowboys in a tremendous hole. Any time special teams concedes 10 points before anyone has broken a sweat, then the tendency will be for the offense to scrap their entire game plan and turn the game into a 55-minute version of the 2-minute drill.

And from following this offense from a perspective of trying to understand their objectives based on their actions, it appears that the achilles heel with the current edition of the Dallas Cowboys - going back now through 5 seasons of data - is a loss of patience in both play-calling and execution.

When patience is lost, so is the game-plan of balance, staying ahead of schedule, and allowing DeMarco Murray to set the tone in the contest. It is replaced with playing the game out of shotgun, never allowing your offensive line to do anything but pass protect, with each incompletion falling further behind the chains, and then inviting blitzes in passing situations.

It begins to roll steadily down hill the later it gets in a game, and it is a recipe of disaster the Cowboys have fallen into several times a year since we have done this study.

Read the rest: http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/09/18/12/Decoding-Garrett-Out-of-Balance-And-Out-/landing_cowboys.html?blockID=792079&feedID=3799

[perrykemp]

Wow. The amount of time Sturm put into this article is incredible.

Lots to chew on here.

[ConstantReboot]

This article is wrong when it asserts that Garrett is a great offensive mind.Great offensive minds are unpredictable and hard to game plan. The players from Seattle even mentioned how predictable Dallas was. You can even see it in the game when we ran Murray, they new exactly where we was going to run it to.

Romo was under duress for most of the game. Yet Garrett didn't adjust to it - there was no play action pass or any type of roll out to help alleviate some of that pressure. We didn't even run a simple draw play....that might have helped a little in making us less predictable.

[Kangaroo]

I understood passing at times but I think they over rely on the shotgun instead of going under center for a 3 or 5 step drop. I like to see him under center even with 3 or 4 wide outs hit the quick slant like Troy use to do in the day with Irvin

[Kangaroo]

This article is wrong when it asserts that Garrett is a great offensive mind.Great offensive minds are unpredictable and hard to game plan. The players from Seattle even mentioned how predictable Dallas was. You can even see it in the game when we ran Murray, they new exactly where we was going to run it to.

Romo was under duress for most of the game. Yet Garrett didn't adjust to it - there was no play action pass or any type of roll out to help alleviate some of that pressure. We didn't even run a simple draw play....that might have helped a little in making us less predictable.

Funny since Dallas does not run to designated gaps but give the backs freedom on the runs on the wholes they pick

[Wolfpack]

Nice read. He nailed it and Red. Pure panic mode and thats when this team folds like a tent...it starts at the top (or near top in the case of Dallas).

Red panics and goes to shotgun. He will say it will give Tony the best chance to read the defense but its a false claim as it gives the defense the best chance to read Tony and the offense. Add in the fact that the OL is sub par and you see how the wheels come off like they do.

[ConstantReboot]

Funny since Dallas does not run to designated gaps but give the backs freedom on the runs on the wholes they pick

Those run plays are designed. Its because we have a shifty runner who selects or create holes even if there isn't one.

[AbeBeta]

This article is wrong when it asserts that Garrett is a great offensive mind.Great offensive minds are unpredictable and hard to game plan.

Really? I consider Andy Reid to be a great offensive mind. He has won an amazing 61% of the games he's coached. He's had two losing seasons out of 13 -- one of those was his first year taking over a 3-13 club. And one thing about Reid - he has rarely been balanced as a play caller. He is far more likely to call a pass than a run.

Go back further -- Bill Walsh -- a legendary HoF coach. Again far more likely to pass than run.

That sort of imbalance makes what you do very predictable.

The difference is EXECUTION.

[ConstantReboot]

Really? I consider Andy Reid to be a great offensive mind. He has won an amazing 61% of the games he's coached. He's had two losing seasons out of 13 -- one of those was his first year taking over a 3-13 club. And one thing about Reid - he has rarely been balanced as a play caller. He is far more likely to call a pass than a run.

Go back further -- Bill Walsh -- a legendary HoF coach. Again far more likely to pass than run.

That sort of imbalance makes what you do very predictable.

The difference is EXECUTION.

You don't have to be balanced to be a great offensive mind. I for one don't care for balance so long if it wins us games. I don't want predictability - and my case is that Garrett is too predictable as what the article is implying.

[AbeBeta]

You don't have to be balanced to be a great offensive mind. I for one don't care for balance so long if it wins us games. I don't want predictability - and my case is that Garrett is too predictable as what the article is implying.

And that stance is BS

Our successful teams in the 90s were 100% predictable. Everyone knew what they wanted to do. They executed and were great. We run a similar, timing-based offense. It is a predictable approach. However, it is hard to stop when players execute.

All you need is a computer to parse out various coaches tendencies -- there are so much data available that ANYONE broken down in this manner is going to come off as predictable. Sturm is just highlighting what any DC knows about any OC in this league.

[blackbull]

And that stance is BS

Our successful teams in the 90s were 100% predictable. Everyone knew what they wanted to do. They executed and were great. We run a similar, timing-based offense. It is a predictable approach. However, it is hard to stop when players execute.

All you need is a computer to parse out various coaches tendencies -- there are so much data available that ANYONE broken down in this manner is going to come off as predictable. Sturm is just highlighting what any DC knows about any OC in this league.

This is 2012 not the 90's. Every team is equally talented somewhat. You can't just line up and beat people.

[Idgit]

I don't agree with the thrust of this article, at all. Getting down 10-0 early, we threw a lot precisely because we needed to get back to a situation where our game plan could be effective, and we executed well on that early, offensively. The problem was that SEA matches up really well with WRs outside and we needed to make them pay on routes to the backs and to the TEs over the middle so we could selectively take our shots downfield on longer developing routes to the WRs. Unfortunately, we didn't execute on the middle/intermediate passing game, and it killed us. And maybe the best downfield shot to Austin we had Austin ended up breaking in when Tony expected him to continue to run under the ball. That was probably a long touchdown we missed on that play alone through miscommunication.

Then, in the second half, we ran so few offensive plays because our defense couldn't get off the field. You don't have to be down like we were in GB to scrap a gameplan that's not going to work. On the road, against a team like SEA playing with that crowd and a two-score lead and a working running game, you're not going to win by trading shots methodically. You need the big plays in the passing game to convert. And, either way, if you can't execute the plays that are called, you're going to lose regardless of what your gameplan was going in.

[Zman5]

Really? I consider Andy Reid to be a great offensive mind. He has won an amazing 61% of the games he's coached. He's had two losing seasons out of 13 -- one of those was his first year taking over a 3-13 club. And one thing about Reid - he has rarely been balanced as a play caller. He is far more likely to call a pass than a run.

Go back further -- Bill Walsh -- a legendary HoF coach. Again far more likely to pass than run.

That sort of imbalance makes what you do very predictable.

The difference is EXECUTION.

Biggest reason for Andy Reid's success is that he benefited from having a great defense ran by late Jim Johnson.

And not every team has a Joe Montana and Jerry Rice on their roster.

You are right in that if you have the talent to execute perfectly, you can run whatever offense you want without worrying about predictability. Our 90's team supposedly ran plays that the opposing teams knew before hand but could not stop.

Problem is with parity, that is almost impossible these days.

[cowboysooner]

This article is wrong when it asserts that Garrett is a great offensive mind.Great offensive minds are unpredictable and hard to game plan. The players from Seattle even mentioned how predictable Dallas was. You can even see it in the game when we ran Murray, they new exactly where we was going to run it to.

Romo was under duress for most of the game. Yet Garrett didn't adjust to it - there was no play action pass or any type of roll out to help alleviate some of that pressure. We didn't even run a simple draw play....that might have helped a little in making us less predictable.

That was a play nice statement in an analysis that excoriates the play caller.

[burmafrd]

And that stance is BS

Our successful teams in the 90s were 100% predictable. Everyone knew what they wanted to do. They executed and were great. We run a similar, timing-based offense. It is a predictable approach. However, it is hard to stop when players execute.

All you need is a computer to parse out various coaches tendencies -- there are so much data available that ANYONE broken down in this manner is going to come off as predictable. Sturm is just highlighting what any DC knows about any OC in this league.

still living in the past

No one has the kind of O line we had back then. NO ONE.

No one in this league NOW is talented enough to do that. Just line up and beat you.

If you are predictable you will get beaten.

[arglebargle]

Sturm's base analysis is interesting, but I would really like to see when the players started getting injured on defense. I know we ended the game with both of our run stuffing DEs and both safeties out. Sadly, the announcers rarely do a decent job of keeping you informed about these things.

At a certain point in the third quarter every coach has a rough idea of how many times you are likely to get the ball back before the game ends. As those chances dwindle, and your defense starts getting really gouged by Lynch's running, the push to pass becomes more paramount.

Of course, with Captain Dropsey inspiring the recievers, that was dangerous in its own right.

[ykc]

I agree, rewatch the video posted in the forum and just watch for Seattle defensive formations.
I thought of charting it but didn't get that much time but if you are interested, looks at how many defenders are in the box for each play.
I see 8 people in the box when we run and 4 people rushing and 7 dropping in coverage when we pass. It says anything but unpredictable


This article is wrong when it asserts that Garrett is a great offensive mind.Great offensive minds are unpredictable and hard to game plan. The players from Seattle even mentioned how predictable Dallas was. You can even see it in the game when we ran Murray, they new exactly where we was going to run it to.

Romo was under duress for most of the game. Yet Garrett didn't adjust to it - there was no play action pass or any type of roll out to help alleviate some of that pressure. We didn't even run a simple draw play....that might have helped a little in making us less predictable.

[Yakuza Rich]

Sturm is brilliant here.

This is one of my reasons as to why I don't consider Romo elite or in the top-5. I think he's a pretty good QB, but we cannot win games where we have to throw the ball a ton with him while other QB's like Brady, Peyton, Brees and even Eli can.

That doesn't mean we can't win a Super Bowl, but it's something where we need to be able to keep things in check when it comes to passing the ball and try to limit his throws to under 35 attempts a game.









YR

[tyke1doe]

Sturm is brilliant here.

This is one of my reasons as to why I don't consider Romo elite or in the top-5. I think he's a pretty good QB, but we cannot win games where we have to throw the ball a ton with him while other QB's like Brady, Peyton, Brees and even Eli can.

That doesn't mean we can't win a Super Bowl, but it's something where we need to be able to keep things in check when it comes to passing the ball and try to limit his throws to under 35 attempts a game.

YR


Look out. You may have invited the wrath of Romosexuals everywhere.

P.S., I agree with you. Romo is a very good QB. But I've always said he should be protected with a running game. I'm just surprised that our once vaunted running game with Barber, Jones and Choice has basically disappeared. We now basically have Murray and that's it.

[Chocolate Lab]

This article is wrong when it asserts that Garrett is a great offensive mind.
Bob is simply biased in favor of Garrett. Like many DFW media people, he's already decided based on superficial things like the Princeton degree and the grammatically correct press conferences that Garrett is a great coach.

In his article yesterday about how we were physically dominated in all areas by the Seahawks

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/09/17/12/Cowboys-physically-beaten-down-in-Seattl/landing_cowboys.html?blockID=791625&feedID=10194

The words "Jason Garrett" are not mentioned one time. Not even once.

I pointed this out to him at the Ranch and he at least admitted that I had a good point and that he never would have "forgotten" to mention the head coach by name if that had been a Wade Phillips team.

Anyway, you're right. There's no basis in fact for calling him a great offensive mind. Save those accolades for the real gurus like Norv Turner and the like.

[Yakuza Rich]

Look out. You may have invited the wrath of Romosexuals everywhere.

P.S., I agree with you. Romo is a very good QB. But I've always said he should be protected with a running game. I'm just surprised that our once vaunted running game with Barber, Jones and Choice has basically disappeared. We now basically have Murray and that's it.

I think the same goes for most QB's. Peyton Manning didn't win his first Super Bowl until he showed he was unafraid to rely on the running game, particularly in the red zone. His defense playing better had a lot to do with it as well, but I think those things go hand-in-hand.

Case in point, how awful the Patriots' defenses have been since they have become a pass happy offense.

I just think that as a QB and as our offense, Romo is not Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees or Tom Brady or even Eli in that sense. Doesn't mean we can't win a Super Bowl by having more of a balanced offense.

That being said, I'm more worried than anything. It's bothered me for a while that teams are dead set against constantly blitzing Romo and I think Sturm has uncovered why and it has little to do with the O-Line. I'm not sure if that's a Garrett problem or a Romo problem given our audible system.







YR

[visionary]

Bob is simply biased in favor of Garrett. Like many DFW media people, he's already decided based on superficial things like the Princeton degree and the grammatically correct press conferences that Garrett is a great coach.

In his article yesterday about how we were physically dominated in all areas by the Seahawks

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/09/17/12/Cowboys-physically-beaten-down-in-Seattl/landing_cowboys.html?blockID=791625&feedID=10194

The words "Jason Garrett" are not mentioned one time. Not even once.

I pointed this out to him at the Ranch and he at least admitted that I had a good point and that he never would have "forgotten" to mention the head coach by name if that had been a Wade Phillips team.

Anyway, you're right. There's no basis in fact for calling him a great offensive mind. Save those accolades for the real gurus like Norv Turner and the like.

that article from someone who is biased in your favor is a huge indictment

[DCBoysfan]

I got to agree with alot of what he wrote. as much as I HATE using the giants as an example, when they fell behind they still kept runnning which allowed them to take shots for big plays in the passing game.

[Gaede]

Great article.

We've all seen these games. They're the most frustrating to watch. Probably the biggest problem with Garrett is that second quarter switch from organized balance to panic-mode shotgun

[Idgit]

Great article.

We've all seen these games. They're the most frustrating to watch. Probably the biggest problem with Garrett is that second quarter switch from organized balance to panic-mode shotgun

Why is that the problem? Why isn't it enough that we had the three turnovers, gave up ST points, and put the team in a hole that effectively negated the game plan after 10 minutes of playing?

Holding onto a plan once your team's down like we were in GB in 2010 makes zero sense. When you get into the situation where probability says you're in trouble, you have to adjust. That means taking chances in the passing game and hoping they pay off to get you to a place where you can get back to your original plan.

In our case, we weren't able to overcome the early hole. We get part of the way back, and SEA was able to bottle us up. Once you're in a position where you're only running, what, 16 offensive plays in the second half, it's pretty hard to blame the offensive ineptitude on a lack of balance. Had the intermediate passing game to the TEs worked, or had the downfield shot to Austin or Witten paid off in a huge play, things might have been different and we might well have seen a return to a more balanced attack. Instead, those passes bounced off of players hands or the players weren't able to get to where the QB thought they should be going, and it ended up killing the drives and compounding the problem we had against a good running team with a very solid defense.

[Flinger]

wow - they detail is extremely rich. Thanks for posting...


I wonder how many audibles Romo calls per game and how many times he 'checks out' of a running play?

[Gaede]

Why is that the problem? Why isn't it enough that we had the three turnovers, gave up ST points, and put the team in a hole that effectively negated the game plan after 10 minutes of playing?



We were down by 10 vs. a rookie QB and a team that can only run the ball. No reason to panic, we weren't up against an offensive powerhouse that was going to wipe us out by halftime.

[Idgit]

We were down by 10 vs. a rookie QB and a team that can only run the ball. No reason to panic, we weren't up against an offensive powerhouse that was going to wipe us out by halftime.

I don't see how we panicked, at all. We switched gears to get out of the early hole, and weren't able to do it. It wasn't about SEA being an offensive powerhouse or not. If they're looking at 2nd and 5, they're going to keep moving the chains. If they keep moving the chains, we're not calling offensive plays. If Witten and Dez keep bouncing balls off their various equipment, we can't come back.

There's a reason why you can't win if you give up possessions in the form of multiple TOs. There's a reason why you can't usually come back from giving up a ST score. These games are won and lost on a handful of big plays...either big mistakes you make, or taking advantage of big mistakes they make.

We lost this week because we did pretty much all of the things teams can do to stack the cards against themselves. Had we come back and gotten ahead of SEA by halftime, people probably would be considering it what Dallas should have done because we have better 'talent' on paper. In reality, it would have meant overcoming almost overwhelming statistical odds.

And I'm not absolving Garrett in any way for last week's loss. Only saying his fault lies in not getting this team to play mistake-free football consistently enough and not in any perceived unwillingness to stick to a game plan that's become obviously untenable. Honestly, it'd be a much more comforting problem if the issue were only us not sticking to our plan. As it is, I don't know what this team needs to do to stop making mistakes like the ones we made in the first quarter this week.