ESPN: Bill Callahan offers unique influence

[MichaelWinicki]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

and according to you we are fine on the O line

Somehow you lose here

I never said "We are fine on the O line."

I have concerns.

But I'm not going to lose my mind over it like some folks and start yowling at the moon.

[aikemirv]

Originally Posted by Risen Star

I don't really like it. Because I don't think Callahan can hold a candle to Garrett in terms of running an offense.

If you asked me a year ago if Jason Garrett could learn something from Bill Callahan I'd have told you no.

I get the thinking that having an offensive coordinator will lessen the load for Garrett but the thought of Callahan being that guy does nothing for me. I think he's a good OL coach and that's all he is.

Any and all problems with our offense have had to do with talent along our offensive line. The coaching's been fine. More than fine.

I disagree. I don't think the Oline coaching has been fine - I think it has been terrible. The amount of blitz and stunt pickups that have blown has been ridiculous. I don't blame that on talent - I blame that on prep - that is on the coaches!

[jnday]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

Coaching and technique matter as much, if not moreso, than pysical pedigree in the OL. Look at the track records of Howard Mudd in Indy and Alex Gibbs in Denver.

I don't know why Cowboy fans have been indoctrinated in this belief that you have to have free agents with $35 million guaranteed or first round draft picks at all five positions to field a good OL, but it's a totally unusual perspective that is shared by absolutely no NFL front office (or really any other fanbase).

Do you think the current approach of jag free agents, late round draft picks and undrafted free agents is working? I have no problem with first round picks for the oline. The only decent lineman on the team is a first rounder. In reality, I would rather see some 2nd and 3rd round picks used instead of the " slinging mud against the wall and see what sticks" approach. The "mud" approach is the reason that the line is in a mess now.

[bud42]

I hope so. We couldn't run the table on my grandmothers bingo game!

[jnday]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

Must be JTT hasn't gotten the message that Callahan is a "buffoon".

No matter what he says or does with the offensive line, since Grubbs and Nicks aren't part of it and Costa is (supposedly the WORST starting player Dallas has had since the 80's) then he's a buffoon and this offensive line is the worst in the NFL...

According to some.

I haven't read many posts that put Callahan himself down. I don't think he is a miracle worker though. The Jets running game struggled last year under his coaching. This happened with a line that has much more talent than he is working with now. I don't blame him for the mess he walked into. For the record, I didn't want Grubbs or Nicks. I felt like after giving Carr and Scandrick big contracts, some of the draft picks should have been used on linemen. It didn't have to be a first rounder either. There were a couple of linemen in the third that was within reach. Back to the point, I don't blame Callahan for the oline not being a priority. I am sute that he would like some talent to work with. I think most critics of the oline feels the same way. Callahan let it be known that if another center was signed, it wouldn't be because he made those types of decisions. I am sure that he will do everything possible to put a quality line on the field within the limitations that he is faced with.

[davidyee]

...that Callahan is trying to make a Pecan pie with poo as the filling.

Like any other NFL team we have multiple question marks. None are more frightening to me than the o-line.

I hope I am wrong.

[jobberone]

What was the draft makeup of the early 90s teams? I think they could spend an extra 2 or 3 on occasion for an OL but only if they're worth it. I think they do a little better evaluating draft talent. I think they will do better developing the talent they have with Callahan on board.

It's the height of arrogance for 99.9% of the people on this forum to think they know enough to even criticize Callahan's knowledge or experience or ability to act like an asst OC. Notice I said think they know enough. I did not say someone couldn't say what they wanted or they were stupid if they did. If you want to criticize the results of the OL for some time then I'll get out and help you push.

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by jobberone

What was the draft makeup of the early 90s teams? I think they could spend an extra 2 or 3 on occasion for an OL but only if they're worth it. I think they do a little better evaluating draft talent. I think they will do better developing the talent they have with Callahan on board.

It's the height of arrogance for 99.9% of the people on this forum to think they know enough to even criticize Callahan's knowledge or experience or ability to act like an asst OC. Notice I said think they know enough. I did not say someone couldn't say what they wanted or they were stupid if they did. If you want to criticize the results of the OL for some time then I'll get out and help you push.

It's interesting that you touch on the draft makeup up the 90s. Larry Lacewell admitted that they didn't really know what they were doing back then and the Walker trade brought about so many picks that they had room to err and them some. In regards to drafting repalcements they didn't really build the team for long term.

Lacewell also said that he got laughed out of the room twice for suggesting to trade entire drafts for a franchise QB. Both of those QBs were named Manning.

[jobberone]

Originally Posted by Bluestang

It's interesting that you touch on the draft makeup up the 90s. Larry Lacewell admitted that they didn't really know what they were doing back then and the Walker trade brought about so many picks that they had room to err and them some. In regards to drafting repalcements they didn't really build the team for long term.

Lacewell also said that he got laughed out of the room twice for suggesting to trade entire drafts for a franchise QB. Both of those QBs were named Manning.

My point was those OL weren't put together with big name draftees. LA was a 2 and EW was a 3. 2 UDFAs. A FA at C then a 3.

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by jobberone

My point was those OL weren't put together with big name draftees. LA was a 2 and EW was a 3. 2 UDFAs. A FA at C then a 3.

I know what your point was but I was just illustrating how they did things differently back then.

The last part of what you said rings very true. Callahan had every day in the offseason to voice his concerns about the center position but instead hand picked two OGs to make the OL into his unit. To suggest that he didn't have any say whatsoever in personnel is delusional.

Howard Mudd did the same thing with the Eagles and dismissed 4 players on that unit for guys that fit his scheme. I'm sure that didn't sit well with Eagles fans at the time but he put that unit in the top 5 in rushing metrics in the first year and McCoy got his first Pro Bowl berth as a result.

Let's see what we get this season before we start proclaiming the season is over before the first snap.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by jobberone

My point was those OL weren't put together with big name draftees. LA was a 2 and EW was a 3. 2 UDFAs. A FA at C then a 3.

They have proved over the last 15years that they can't duplicate these results with players in those rounds. I don't think the line needs to consist of all first round picks, but a second or third rounder would improve the talent level. This approach of undrafted free agents, late round picks and other teams castoffs hasn't worked. There is nothing wrong with investing a few higher picks to build a solid young line that would last for years. I guess the current plan is still to make the sexy picks and use scrubs in the trenches. To be honest, I think the trend will continue and the results will be the same.

[Eskimo]

I remember last year someone took a look at why the Cowboys seemed not to be drafting OL.

They took a look at the famous board that we had up of players we were interested in drafting and what round value we had on them. As it turned out we usually had OL ranked about a round or two below where they ended up being picked. Now I don't know if that was because it was a weak draft and others were reaching or if it is because we undervalue OL in the draft. I do think it is a point of emphasis on the new regime to bring in more young OL and not to play with a bunch of vet FAs like the old regime had done. I do think our older OL is a big reason why we have struggled in December going all the way back to Parcells time here.

We need a better approach both to player acquisition, player retention and player releases that reflects that this is a young man's game and promising young players need to be extended early to keep them out of FA and avoid overpaying them. This is a critical year to see if we start to do it with Sean Lee at the top of my priority list. If he is successful you can add on Barry Church.

[Doomsday101]

I agree we need to improve on the OL but when you get right down to it defense cost us more games than anything. Dallas was very week in the secondary and the club addressed it. Most of the guys on the OL are young and hopefully under Callahan they can grown and mature into a good OL.