The fallacy of the playcalling argument - Page 3 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

FuzzyLumpkins · 02-14-2013

He hasn't been replaced as of yet has he? He said in his press conference to the question, 'Is it your decision, ultimately, as to who calls the plays?' with a direct 'yes.' I reduce it to particular statements made by him and the lack of an announcement as to who may or may not take over the duties.

I don't even disagree that he seemed to have too much on his plate. I recall him arguing with the ref over a bad spot of the ball and have to give up on it to call a play.

Wow a specific example!

5Stars · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by superpunk

Right we're replacing him because he's awesome at it. Reductionist that, Mr. Scientist.

I'm not sure if it's the play calling, the execution, or the players/coaches themselves?

However, what confused the hell out of me is that during the end of the 3rd, or at the beginning of the 4th qtr most times. for example, when the Cowboys are down, say by 14 or 17, all of sudden the offense comes alive and almost or does win the game! Who is at fault for that?

Romo.

TwoDeep3 · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Stars

I'm not sure if it's the play calling, the execution, or the players/coaches themselves?

However, what confused the hell out of me is that during the end of the 3rd, or at the beginning of the 4th qtr most times. for example, when the Cowboys are down, say by 14 or 17, all of sudden the offense comes alive and almost or does win the game! Who is at fault for that? Romo.

Think the defense changes at that point to try and protect against the pass, which is governed by the passing rules that favor the offense?

FuzzyLumpkins · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Then explain your signature, Fuzzy. Seems like you're calling people who don't believe your point of view cowards.

I don't identify anyone in particular as a cynic and I personally do not define a cynic as someone who disagrees with me. Cynicism is an idea and not a person anyway.

I don't even label for example, punk, as a cynic. I just like specific examples if you are going to attribute cause to something. I don't think that is unfair.

**justbob** · 02-14-2013

Thanks for keeping this on thread and eliminating any personal remarks.

5Stars · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Think the defense changes at that point to try and protect against the pass, which is governed by the passing rules that favor the offense?

I think your are right...that stupid "prevent defense" crap!

"hey, guys, we are up by 17, so let's lay back and don't let them pass"

How ignorant is that!

Oh, hell to the no! I would go with what got me to the dance in the first place!

If I'm up by 17, I would do the same things that got me there in the first place.

HoustonFrog · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

That is not what I said nor is it what you were saying. You cannot make a point if you keep on changing it.

This discussion is about playcalling as cause and not about the architect of the offense.

Yes it is what I said. It's what I said directly when I made the Ravens reference and a Packer reference in my first comments. You started going off about it even referenced the "click" remark. I again clarified it by showing how they changed philosophy with their same personnel. Go reread my post to the OP that you then commented on right after.

Chocolate Lab · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by superpunk

When game in and game out you see this team come out flat and ineffective on offense, until they get behind and have to toss the gameplan out, I think you can pretty safely infer that there is some sort of problem with our coaching; either playcalling/gameplanning/having the team ready to play.

Combine that with the fact that as an organization we are making playcalling changes...

What in the heck do you want people to conclude?

There is an art to playcalling. It's why Norv Turner will have a job in the NFL as long as he wants one - because he's got a knack for timing and is regarded as one of the finest playcallers in the league.

The fact that it's a simplistic explanation doesn't make it untrue. It also doesn't mean we don't have other very serious problems.

[View Full Quote]

Exactly right. Norv is the first example that always comes to my mind as well.

It's pretty funny, really. We like Garrett, so we'll just pretend that one of his deficiencies is merely a myth.

Hoofbite · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/dallas...s.php?t=252256

Is this being enforced or do I need to put 30 posters back on ignore?

Not sure I see how it applies to this thread.

FuzzyLumpkins · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocolate Lab

Exactly right. Norv is the first example that always comes to my mind as well.

It's pretty funny, really. We like Garrett, so we'll just pretend that one of his deficiencies is merely a myth.

What's a myth is you guys mentioning a play and demonstrating on any level the ability to evaluate play calling. Personally, I don't know enough about coverages, route combinations, defensive formations and their offensive counterparts to be able to make what I would consider a decent evaluation. I never see you or most anyone else do it either.

The offense is certainly a problem and of course Garrett is more than a little responsible for that but applying cause to something where you cannot articulate anything but generalizations because of at best incomplete information is what is deficient.

Chocolate Lab · 02-14-2013

First, I don't know who "you guys" is. Second, I didn't even mention a particular play, so why would I talk about route combinations, etc.?

The fact is, some playcallers are better than others. As with pretty much everything else, some people have a talent for it more than others. You aren't claiming otherwise, are you?

Bluestang · 02-14-2013

In case anyone was interested in the CHI game, the first INT that Romo was threw was on a 3rd and 9 pass play. The previous play was a manageable 2nd and 5 but Murray fumbled the ball on the play and lost 4 yards recovering the football.

I know questioning the playcalling is easy to do after the results of the play but the intent is to keep the offense on schedule. Negative plays resulting from lack of player execution plays a big part of those calls.

Dallas had the 5th fewest drives on offense and managed to rank 10th in points per drive and 11th in TDs per drive in the NFL. Did I mention that they also ranked 31st in INTs per drive too?

JG said himself best though...they need to improve the scoring, running, and pass games. Basically everything needs improvment. Everything.

**jobberone** · 02-14-2013

You will likely find the playcalling on any team to 'improve' with the talent, balance and execution of the offense. If you have guards that don't pull well and execute screens then you have lost an important chess piece.

I'm not blaming it all on the players despite that comment. Garrett does some things that make me scratch my head at the very least. But he's been handicapped much of the time he's been here.

In the end it's his party. If it doesn't go well he gets the blame.

Bluestang · 02-14-2013

@Bease11: don't see why everybody cares so much about who calls the plays. If we don't execute it doesn't matter what we run. Have to execute #simple

Cole Beasley offers his .02 cents

wileedog · 02-14-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by erod

How do you gameplan with Tyron Smith and four traffic cones up front?

Maybe better than we did?

Did our offense at any point look like something that was compensating for having a terrible Oline?