What is Garrett's issue?

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by CowboysFaninDC

hhmmmm, is it play calling? or execution? fine line between the two.

It's not really that fine a line. You can see when the execution is not what it's supposed to be. You can't necessarily tell what play was called or where a call breaks down.

Originally Posted by Lazyking

A lot of it is playcalling. Take the third down slant play in OT in the saints game. Garrett has called that play alot on third down to get a first. Teams have caught on. Sure, some of the execution can play a part but when teams know what you're gonna call in certain situations, its your own fault when it doesn't work out..

How did I know the first example of a play calling limitation would actually be an execution limitation? This is the problem with blaming the call without the proper context or without knowing what the receiver is actually supposed to do in a given situation.

[dfan32]

I see an inspired team with a whole lot more attitude and fight than any team we've had since the nineties. I see signs of a team that is beginning to believe in itself and that it can win against anyone and has no quit in them whatsoever.

While it may not yet have shown up in the win/loss column, it is still very difficult not to notice it....and we want to pull the rug out from under them?

These players do not give up no matter how bad the cards they are dealt. This is something that even the great Bill Parcells could not seem to foster in any of the Cowboy teams he coached. In fact it was the other way around when he was here. Players may have responded well to him at first but then declined each year after. Same thing happened to Wade Frillups, big first year and then downhill.

I believe it would be a huge mistake to not give Garrett the opportunity to finish what he seems to have started here. He's building a team that gives a crap.!

[TwoDeep3]

Originally Posted by Idgit

It's not really that fine a line. You can see when the execution is not what it's supposed to be. You can't necessarily tell what play was called or where a call breaks down.



How did I know the first example of a play calling limitation would actually be an execution limitation? This is the problem with blaming the call without the proper context or without knowing what the receiver is actually supposed to do in a given situation.

OC calls a screen. QB tosses ball to RB in the flat behind student body right.

Defense overcomes screen by reading and reacting and stops the play behind the line of scrimmage because of a tell the offense does when they screen.

Is this poor execution, or the OC not understanding the play was blown up because the defense knows the play coming?

Now I'm not big on anecdotal examples, but you have become the master are generalization lately in your quest to be right.

[Kilyin]

Originally Posted by CaptainMorgan

I like this girl

Have another drink, Corky.

[birdwells1]

Originally Posted by Picksix

If the defense was truly back on its heels, then a run should have worked just fine. Even if it didn't, it's still 2nd and 10, which gives you chances to go right back to Witten and Dez, which they did. The pass to Witten was completed for about 5 yards. The pass to Dez wasn't. Don't act like one play that didn't work killed the drive. Even pass happy teams like NE, GB, and NO mix in runs when they have momentum.
Not a fan of his at all and we desperately need a replacement.

Yeah I agree, I'm not a big garrett fan but I didn't have a problem with the run call. It was the start of the OT and time wasn't a factor so the run should have caught them off guard, it just didn't work.

[LatinMind]

Originally Posted by dfan32

I see an inspired team with a whole lot more attitude and fight than any team we've had since the nineties. I see signs of a team that is beginning to believe in itself and that it can win against anyone and has no quit in them whatsoever.

While it may not yet have shown up in the win/loss column, it is still very difficult not to notice it....and we want to pull the rug out from under them?

These players do not give up no matter how bad the cards they are dealt. This is something that even the great Bill Parcells could not seem to foster in any of the Cowboy teams he coached. In fact it was the other way around when he was here. Players may have responded well to him at first but then declined each year after. Same thing happened to Wade Frillups, big first year and then downhill.

I believe it would be a huge mistake to not give Garrett the opportunity to finish what he seems to have started here. He's building a team that gives a crap.!

Thank for actually responding to the post. I do like the attitude of the team something that Dallas hasnt had since Jimmy days. But i dont think that enough. This isnt the Bengals or the dolphins. The cowboys should be about more than moral victories. More then just a attitude.

Seems the scouts have done their work and focused alot of more than just talent. Murray, Carter, Lee, Mo and even Dez provide a great future for Dallas. Without it seems the baggage. Dez had some early trouble but has seemed to turn the page in the maturity department.

I just think the bar should be higher than what Garrett has done. I really think he shouldnt be calling plays because basically he isnt very good at it. And i just wish he would swallow his pride and let Callahan do that job. For somebody who hasnt accomplished anything worth bragging about in his entire coaching career really shouldnt have a ego this big.

[birdwells1]

Originally Posted by Hostile

They get fired for failing to lead, inspire, and win.

I simply do not agree with most fans on play calling. I don't believe any of us have any idea why a play is called, and the assignment of each guy on the field at the time. Maybe couchscout does when he has a specific assignment; but the rest of us have no clue and we base it strictly on if it worked or not. Notice I am including myself in that cabal.

I'll leave it at that because I know me saying that we as fans have no clue why plays are called usually upsets someone.

I agree, there's so much more that goes into a play than any of us care to know. With my limited technical knowledge of play design, who am I to judge what kind of pass play should be called. The things that I can judge is clock management situations, going for it on 4th or not, and whether to attempt a field goal or punt. Those things or sort of generic throughout football but play calling, I try to avoid.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

OC calls a screen. QB tosses ball to RB in the flat behind student body right.

Defense overcomes screen by reading and reacting and stops the play behind the line of scrimmage because of a tell the offense does when they screen.

Is this poor execution, or the OC not understanding the play was blown up because the defense knows the play coming?

Now I'm not big on anecdotal examples, but you have become the master are generalization lately in your quest to be right.

Not sure what you're asking. A play call can be bad because the defense knows it's coming. Is that what you're trying to say?

That wasn't so much the issue with the slant in question, though, since that was a play where Dez paused in the route, resulting in the broken up pass. Or at least that's what I believe happened from looking at the posted vids.

Does that somehow make me a master of generalization? And, really, shouldn't we all be on a quest to be right, Two-deep? I don't see much point in a quest to be wrong, not that I"m judging you or anything.

[Picksix]

Originally Posted by AKATheRake

How about that poor offensive play calling before the half to allow Drew Brees enough time to slice us up a bit more for 3 points to take the lead before half.

We went from 10-0 to 10-13 because suddenly we went 1 dimensional on offense and forgot they were controlling the clock. Barely any rush attempts, barely any high percetage quick outs, screens or tosses.

Run right or left, stop us and we're gonna pass intermediate. You stop that we're going to be in 3rd and 10 and try to convert a 1st down. We don't convert, then we commit another 3 and out on offense that uses up less than 1 minute on the clock.

You can't learn that in the Ivy leagues. You learn that in Pop Warner +. If you learn how to win games of course and can think about all facets of your team. Offense, defense and ST's, not just offense.

If you're going to make an argument, fine. But back it up with facts. Don't just make stuff up to support it.

It was never 10-0. We were up 14-7, and our defense gave up a TD, that allowed NO to tie it. Then, we got the ball at our own 20 with 1:11 to go. Garrett could have gone conservative, try to run it, force NO to use their TO's, and then punt if need be, leaving NO only a few seconds left. Of course, then there would have been the usual suspects saying Garrett was being too soft, not coaching to win, not taking one more shot at a defense against which we had already made two big plays. But Garrett knew we were going to need points if we were going to win.

It's not just about keeping the other team's offense off the field. If you don't score points yourself, it doesn't matter. It's a failed concept.

So Garrett starts the drive by calling a pass, that goes for 7 yards to Witten. 2nd and 3. Then he takes a shot deep left, which falls incomplete. On 3rd down, a slant to Dez, which was open, but Romo missed him. He hits Dez, it's a first down, possibly a big play if he breaks the tackle. So we punt. NO gets it on their own 33, with about 40 seconds left. On the first play, a short pass to Sproles goes for 44 yards because our defense couldn't make a tackle. The defense. Nothing to do with Garrett's play calling. And on that one play, they were in FG range. With a team like NO, keeping the offense off the field is nice, but when you have the ball, you have to try to score, because they don't need a lot of time to score on their own.

There was nothing wrong with the playcalling on that drive. The only reason you (and others) didn't like it, was because of the result. But the offense didn't put the defense in position to give up 10 points at the end of the half. The defense did.

[Prossman]

Our oline is barley average. We simply stuggle to run the ball. We are 31st running the ball in the nfl. Demarco Murray provides enough of a threat for defenses to have to account for him. So our offense run alot better when he is there. Our pass blocking is average at best also, getting better but... Romo covers allot for our oline weaknesses. All of this affects Garretts play calling. The RHG has been atricous at times regardless. He refuses to incorporate variations to his base set, with young talent on this team, unless someone gets hurt. Or like with Free it takes 11 weeks of lousy play to finally rotate parnell in and now both are doing well. I think Garrett has earned another year to prove himself. Though he really needs to being in someone to run the offense so he can focus on being a HC.

[EGG]

I doubt very seriously that the defense is calling the "perfect play" to defeat the Cowboys objectives so often. Guaranteed that a giant percentage of those times it's poor execution on somebody's part and most often it's a lineman.

That being said, every time it's 2nd and 10 and I'm watching that pathetic running play up the middle for 2-3 yards(you know that one they run EVERY SINGLE FREAKING TIME IT'S 2nd and 10) I want to pull my hair out.

[dfan32]

Originally Posted by LatinMind

Thank for actually responding to the post. I do like the attitude of the team something that Dallas hasnt had since Jimmy days. But i dont think that enough. This isnt the Bengals or the dolphins. The cowboys should be about more than moral victories. More then just a attitude.

Seems the scouts have done their work and focused alot of more than just talent. Murray, Carter, Lee, Mo and even Dez provide a great future for Dallas. Without it seems the baggage. Dez had some early trouble but has seemed to turn the page in the maturity department.

I just think the bar should be higher than what Garrett has done. I really think he shouldnt be calling plays because basically he isnt very good at it. And i just wish he would swallow his pride and let Callahan do that job. For somebody who hasnt accomplished anything worth bragging about in his entire coaching career really shouldnt have a ego this big.

No attitude is not enough all by itself but it is an important part of the whole thing. You can't wipe out a losing culture with just a few wipes of a moist towelette. If you want it to be a long term change, it takes a lot more than inspirational speeches and X's & O's. It takes time and a lot of hard work.

Garrett just seems to me like he is implementing a long term, sustainable plan for success and he may be learning some along the way but the evidence of his plan beginning to take hold is there. He's got more work to do though. I want to see what he can accomplish in 2 more years. I think we will all like it.

[Picksix]

Originally Posted by LatinMind

Thank for actually responding to the post. I do like the attitude of the team something that Dallas hasnt had since Jimmy days. But i dont think that enough. This isnt the Bengals or the dolphins. The cowboys should be about more than moral victories. More then just a attitude.

Seems the scouts have done their work and focused alot of more than just talent. Murray, Carter, Lee, Mo and even Dez provide a great future for Dallas. Without it seems the baggage. Dez had some early trouble but has seemed to turn the page in the maturity department.

I just think the bar should be higher than what Garrett has done. I really think he shouldnt be calling plays because basically he isnt very good at it. And i just wish he would swallow his pride and let Callahan do that job. For somebody who hasnt accomplished anything worth bragging about in his entire coaching career really shouldnt have a ego this big.

That's fair, and maybe you're right. But I submit play calling is a lot more complex and complicated than any of us realize. And it's so easy to judge a play based on its result, but I don't know if it's accurate. Nonetheless, you may be right. Perhaps the team does need a different signal caller. I don't think so, but I don't know everything. But I do like the idea of having a HC
who doesn't have to worry about play calling.

My question is, given what this team had become (talent, work ethic, attitude, culture, etc) where do think the bar should be set? Should they be an annual conference title defender, depsite all the issues they've had, just because they're the Cowboys, and that's where we want them? It's easy to argue another coach could do better with this team, but how can you be sure? You might say, "well, look at their track record." Okay, but that was with a different team, different organization. No Jerry Jones constantly over your shoulder, offering personnel decisions to the media. Garrett is trying to get rid of the entitlement mentality that's pervaded this franchise, and build a team full of players who are hungry, smart, tough, and just plain want to play. He wants a team that isn't just good now, but will be for the long term. Even you admit, he's doing that.

People don't want to admit it, but we are in a rebuilding phase. Maybe not so much in talent, but in just about every other way. That takes time. Garrett took over a mess. You don't go 1-7, with the last two being blowout losses, if you're not a mess. Now, you could argue Garrett was part of that mess. Personally, I think he had his hands tied, and immediately showed what he could do once he was in charge. Does he need to improve? Sure. But more I think in terms of situational management than play calling. Shoot, give us a good OL, that can actually move somebody in the run game, and consistently protect the QB, the plays will start looking a whole lot better.

I just think he's on the right track, and I think it would be a shame to give up on him this soon. Fisher was a .500 coach his first 4 years, before he broke through. Payton started off with a bang in NO, but then regressed for a couple years before breaking through. Belichek was terrible in Cleveland. The league is full of stories like that, and I believe can be one of them.

[Zordon]

garrett just isn't a very good offensive coordinator, plain and simple.

[LatinMind]

Originally Posted by dfan32

No attitude is not enough all by itself but it is an important part of the whole thing. You can't wipe out a losing culture with just a few wipes of a moist towelette. If you want it to be a long term change, it takes a lot more than inspirational speeches and X's & O's. It takes time and a lot of hard work.

Garrett just seems to me like he is implementing a long term, sustainable plan for success and he may be learning some along the way but the evidence of his plan beginning to take hold is there. He's got more work to do though. I want to see what he can accomplish in 2 more years. I think we will all like it.

If Xs and Os are what he's teaching why does the nfl lead the league in penalties? And its not the same ole story as some would say it because this is basically a new team.

I seriously doubt that they are focusing on fundamentals because the lack of attention to a simple snap count says they arent.