An Example of Garrett's Playcall

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by Gaede

I like it too. It's a great idea to take a shot when you've only a little to go on 3rd. This team can pick up short yardage 3rd downs pretty well--between Witten and Austin.

I think when you can have some good success on 1st down in general it opens up the playbook and keeps the defense off balance. Hell on 3rd and 10 everyone and their brother know you will pass the ball and defense knows it as well. When you can keep the down and distance in your favor as an offense it just allows a lot more opportunities to hit the big plays.

[CowboysFaninDC]

Originally Posted by Gaede

We had smarter players. Your post above mentioned Crayton and where is he today? Who cares? While he was here, he was good. And extremely useful when the opponent blitzed.

Robinson, likewise, gave us speed and dependability. And production!

We've had these guys and let them go. Yeah Robinson wanted starters money. But if this offense's success absolutely depends on their WRs, why in the hell did we go with Bryant and Ogletree (knowing full well that these guys take the short bus)

the point is that it also takes skills. crayton has faded. the point is that just because he did something 4 years ago, doesn't mean he could have the same success today.

and robinson was a business decision. we couldn't match it because of salary cap implications. I never said he was bad or anything, its just that we couldn't afford him. go talk to the GM. he manages the salary cap.

and the offenses success doesn't just depend on WRs. we have enough of them. it depends on the OL and that's where we went cheap.

the personnel decision sometimes comes down to money.

[CowboysFaninDC]

Originally Posted by cowboys102030

Crayton was an arrogant idiot that dropped the game winning touchdown pass against the Giants in the playoffs. He was wide the hell open, free, and if he simply caught it, the Cowboys would go up two scores in the 4th quarter. Thank god that trash is gone.

wow. just wow. how stories grow over time. dropped a winning TD catch? in the early part of 3rd quarter? running around the 45 yard line? so you are guaranteeing that he would have scored on that play and that would be the final score of the game because as I recall there was a whole lot of game still to play.

geez people. I wasn't the biggest crayton fan. he was a decent 3rd WR, but to blame him for a loss, that was clearly the entire team's fault!!! unbelievable.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Gaede

I was just generally speaking, not regarding this play in particular

You know I agree that, in general, our receivers need to be on the same page with Romo.

I think Crayton's personality got him an invitation out of Dallas. In other threads, we have fans lauding Jeff Fisher for making his headaches run stairs, but Garrett was pretty quick to get rid of personalities he thought could be toxic. It stinks, though, because PC was a player you could count on to aways be where he was supposed to be and to usually make the play. Robinson, we all know why he's gone.

I really thought we had a chance to have several young guys develop into that kind of player underneath our starters this offseason. It hasn't happened yet, but, I've got to say, I think Harris has shown signs of being that kind of guy (he deserves more mention as a possible WR3, I think), and we all know that little Beasley has the potential to be a chain-mover now that he's getting some snaps in the slot.

I believe, against weaker teams and with our running game back and putting into more 2nd and 3rd and shorts, we're going to see our offense click at the end of the year. Assuming, of course, that we don't keep losing defensive starters for the season. We finally got a glimpse this week of what the defense can do playing with a lead. It could be an effective combination if we can get it sorted in time.

[Gaede]

Originally Posted by Idgit

I believe, against weaker teams and with our running game back and putting into more 2nd and 3rd and shorts, we're going to see our offense click at the end of the year. Assuming, of course, that we don't keep losing defensive starters for the season. We finally got a glimpse this week of what the defense can do playing with a lead. It could be an effective combination if we can get it sorted in time.

Good point. After whooping the Eagles on Sunday, I'm definitely more optimistic about the rest of the season. I don't have any grand ambition of them winning the superbowl--this team is clearly not talented or deep enough to do so. But I would like to see the '3-phases' continue to improve together . Sunday was a great example of the defense helping the offense and the special teams helping the defense.

I have to admit, lately, I am starting to vaguely see the team as Garrett envisions it. I believe he wants this team to be strategic, smart, traditional. Be aggressive when the opportunity presents itself. He's conservative, which isn't exactly a bad thing for a football coach, and wants his offense, special teams and defense to complement each other rather than have just one unit dominate. I like this approach. It's boring, yeah, but it's a traditional design that SHOULD win football games.

In theory, I like that. But the product on the field is much different. There's too many negative plays and in pretty much every game, there's only 1 phase of the team that is operating as it should. It's hard to know why, exactly. Is it Jerry, Garrett, the players? All of them?

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Gaede

Good point. After whooping the Eagles on Sunday, I'm definitely more optimistic about the rest of the season. I don't have any grand ambition of them winning the superbowl--this team is clearly not talented or deep enough to do so. But I would like to see the '3-phases' continue to improve together . Sunday was a great example of the defense helping the offense and the special teams helping the defense.

I have to admit, lately, I am starting to vaguely see the team as Garrett envisions it. I believe he wants this team to be strategic, smart, traditional. Be aggressive when the opportunity presents itself. He's conservative, which isn't exactly a bad thing for a football coach, and wants his offense, special teams and defense to complement each other rather than have just one unit dominate. I like this approach. It's boring, yeah, but it's a traditional design that SHOULD win football games.

[View Full Quote]In theory, I like that. But the product on the field is much different. There's too many negative plays and in pretty much every game, there's only 1 phase of the team that is operating as it should. It's hard to know why, exactly. Is it Jerry, Garrett, the players? All of them?

We've got the potential, and we've got a talented roster. But, yeah, we're at a point now where one bonehead play in a tight game can cost everything.

It's frustrating to watch, and I'm as surprised as the most depressed hater that we haven't really seen the efficiency pay off on offense. I'd expect us at this point to be one of the *least* penalized teams in the league. And to be held hostage early by mistakes at the WR position makes *no* sense to me, since we've got such a good position coach there and--I don't care what any other fan chooses to think here--a coach who values consistency and smart players on offense. I don't doubt that we're going to get there. I think this is a situation where patience and allowing the system to work is going to pay big dividends eventually. But it's frustrating and confusing to watch it happen so slowly.

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by Idgit

We've got the potential, and we've got a talented roster. But, yeah, we're at a point now where one bonehead play in a tight game can cost everything.

It's frustrating to watch, and I'm as surprised as the most depressed hater that we haven't really seen the efficiency pay off on offense. I'd expect us at this point to be one of the *least* penalized teams in the league. And to be held hostage early by mistakes at the WR position makes *no* sense to me, since we've got such a good position coach there and--I don't care what any other fan chooses to think here--a coach who values consistency and smart players on offense. I don't doubt that we're going to get there. I think this is a situation where patience and allowing the system to work is going to pay big dividends eventually. But it's frustrating and confusing to watch it happen so slowly.

Beasley is getting more snaps, and KO is getting less targets.

Hopefully that trend continues as KO is still making mistakes.

[Gaede]

Originally Posted by Idgit

I don't doubt that we're going to get there. I think this is a situation where patience and allowing the system to work is going to pay big dividends eventually. But it's frustrating and confusing to watch it happen so slowly.

That's an excellent way of putting it. I'm starting to see this side of the argument more and more.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Bluestang

Beasley is getting more snaps, and KO is getting less targets.

Hopefully that trend continues as KO is still making mistakes.

Yeah. I've noticed. As long as Beasley converts when the ball hits him, it should continue.

I think Harris deserves some snaps, too. His routes were really sloppy as a rookie, but the guy really does make plays when he has the ball in space. There's a lot to be said for that. I'd give him some shots on one or two routes where you're sure he knows what to do and see what happens. If nothing else, putting those snaps up for grabs should send a message to the other WRs.

[Zman5]

Originally Posted by Gaede

I like it too. It's a great idea to take a shot when you've only a little to go on 3rd. This team can pick up short yardage 3rd downs pretty well--between Witten and Austin.

My main issue is not running or passing on 2nd down but why run a play from a shot gun in that situation.

Why not use a play action in that situation?

[rickjameschinaclub]

Originally Posted by Bluestang

It's from NFL's Turning Point.

Just to sum it all up, you have the outside guys running vertical routes and the inside guy running underneath routes.

The shorter, quicker routes seem to be something posters continually scream for and in a short yardage situation Romo and Garrett are looking to get the first down.

BTW this was one of those misthrows that Tony has had uncharacteristically this season.

So let me guess... is the run option any good in this particular scenario? Do you think this play-call fooled anybody or was everybody actually taken into account be the defense, and it was just a case of beating the man underneath with Witten?

Are you telling us that Witten is the underneath option on plenty of the Cowboy plays?

I mean people pick the dumbest plays to actually try and prove their point...

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by rickjameschinaclub

So let me guess... is the run option any good in this particular scenario?

32 post is a run off tackle to the right. With the corners playing tight coverage it's about 50-50.

Do you think this play-call fooled anybody or was everybody actually taken into account be the defense, and it was just a case of beating the man underneath with Witten?

Witten's route call is actually an option based on the coverage of the LB. As the LB is playing inside leverage, meaning - he's not giving up the inside, this gives Witten the outside to break free from the LB.

Play calling is not really about "fooling" people but rather putting a defender "in conflict" with a decision.

Since the defense is in a cover 2, the vertical route by KO will clear the safety and the corner allowing Witten to get separation on his route as he breaks for the sideline since the LB is playing inside leverage technique.

The LB "in conflict" covering Witten has could play outside leverage to negate the route breaking to the outside but Witten would read this on pre-snap and would run a hitch to negate the LB's outside leverage technique.

That is putting the defender "in conflict". There is no right choice to make and either decision would be the wrong one technically.

Are you telling us that Witten is the underneath option on plenty of the Cowboy plays?

Always has been, and always will be. Do you really think Witten is a deep threat?

I mean people pick the dumbest plays to actually try and prove their point...

This play was an example of how player execution doomed the playcall.

And as others have said not only did Garrett give Romo deep threat options but he also had underneath options to pick up the first down.

[visionary]

good thread Bluestang

[Chocolate Lab]

Was the point that Garrett runs the Coryell system? I thought we knew that.

Not trying to be a jerk, just genuinely curious as to what point you were wanting to get across.

[Bluestang]

Originally Posted by Chocolate Lab

Was the point that Garrett runs the Coryell system? I thought we knew that.

Not trying to be a jerk, just genuinely curious as to what point you were wanting to get across.

The point(s) were:
(as you seem to miss with every post of mine which I don't find to be mere coincidence despite your "curiousity")

1. It's a Coryell based system

2. There is a run/pass option and the QB is given the freedom to choose the best play on the defense's coverage.

3. In short yardage scenario's there are deep routes and short ones.

4. Player execution is paramount to play calling success, always has been and always will be.