Scott Linehan & The Running Game

[jday]

Fully agree. As for Garrett calling plays or not, when he 1st took over and said he would do both I had no issue with it, After all you hire me to do a job then let me do it as I see fit. Now he has given up the playcalling for the most part but of course as a HC he will always have the ability to tell Linehan what he wants to do and Garrett will still be involved in the game plan that they work on through out the week. I think main reason Linehan is here is because he and Garrett know each other well and have worked with each other and I think the trust factor between the 2 will allow Linehan more freedom to run the offense.

I really hope so. I'm excited about the prospect of Linehan running the offense. I honestly think he will do a much better job of getting the most out of all his players as opposed to a select a few; namely Beasley and Dunbar who I feel have been under-utilized. I look at what Linehan did with Reggie Bush last year even with Megatron on the team, and am predicting even better results here, though I understand that might be asking for alot. .

 

[Idgit]

There is nothing evasive about what I'm saying, but you seem to be looking for excuses out of a very simply point. Let us assume your argument about 'viewing the tape' was true? What do you attribute a play-action being successful too, even after a defense 'studied the tape'?

Play action is a misdirection based passing play that works because of the defense's expectation of the run and not necessarily because of the effectiveness of the running game.

This is an example of what I've said several times in this thread about a running game being important while having a more effective running game than your opponent (outside of short yardage) does not appear to be very important.

 

[Wolfpack]

Play action is a misdirection based passing play that works because of the defense's expectation of the run and not necessarily because of the effectiveness of the running game.

This is an example of what I've said several times in this thread about a running game being important while having a more effective running game than your opponent (outside of short yardage) does not appear to be very important.

You are just being difficult here. If Jason ran the ball 45 times a game you'd be saying how running the ball was the only way to win.

If you can't stop the run you loose. Every coach here (besides Jason who doesn't get to talk defense ) said you need to stop the run first. I'll take Jimmy, Tom, Wade and Bill over anyone here.

 

[Idgit]

You are just being difficult here. If Jason ran the ball 45 times a game you'd be saying how running the ball was the only way to win.

If you can't stop the run you loose. Every coach here (besides Jason who doesn't get to talk defense ) said you need to stop the run first. I'll take Jimmy, Tom, Wade and Bill over anyone here.

I don't need to answer hypotheticals, but you're wrong about what I'd say if we ran the ball that often. I'd say "if we win the passing efficiency differential, I don't care how much we run or how much we pass."

 

[khiladi]

Play action is a misdirection based passing play that works because of the defense's expectation of the run and not necessarily because of the effectiveness of the running game.

This is an example of what I've said several times in this thread about a running game being important while having a more effective running game than your opponent (outside of short yardage) does not appear to be very important.

So what exactly are they expecting from the run on that play call? The guy will dance around and fall behind the LOS or the guy will actually gain significant yardage? Logically, don't you think, the defense would fall for play-action, because they perceive the run as a threat, would they not?

So please tell where the statistics of passing yardage demonstrate this reality?

 

[Idgit]

So what exactly are they expecting from the run on that play call? The guy will dance around and fall behind the LOS or the guy will actually gain significant yardage? Logically, don't you think, the defense would fall for play-action, because they perceive the run as a threat, would they not?

So please tell where the statistics of passing yardage demonstrate this reality?

Play action works if the defense perceives the play as a run. It doesn't matter whether the expect it to be a long run or a short one. They obviously defend it just as aggressively. This is why bad running teams still use play action.

Because, as I keep saying, the running game is an important part of any offense.

And, yes, the threat of the run makes play action work. What doesn't appear to matter as much--again, outside of short yardage--is how effectively you actually run it. A bad running game can still get you into the downs and distances a good passing game can usually convert with. That's all that matters.

Short yardage is the exception as those plays take the passing game out of the picture and you either score or convert based on how effectively you run.

 

[khiladi]

Play action works if the defense perceives the play as a run. It doesn't matter whether the expect it to be a long run or a short one. They obviously defend it just as aggressively. This is why bad running teams still use play action.

Because, as I keep saying, the running game is an important part of any offense.

And, yes, the threat of the run makes play action work. What doesn't appear to matter as much--again, outside of short yardage--is how effectively you actually run it. A bad running game can still get you into the downs and distances a good passing game can usually convert with. That's all that matters.

Short yardage is the exception as those plays take the passing game out of the picture and you either score or convert based on how effectively you run.

So they have the defense has to perceive it as a run, right for it to be successful? Apparently from one of your previous posts, they can tell it from the tape. If not from the tape, why would they bite? And when you do please inform me of why they would bite, in your statistical numbers, please inform me where the yardage that your using for passing yardage as being the reason why a team wins games has nothing to do with the run.

Quite a lot of evasiveness in this thread...

 

[Hoofbite]

And that is why I hate it when the mediots/bloggers look at past seasons as a whole and use season pass vs run ratios in an attempt to strengthen their agenda against Jason Garrett. The argument automatically loses credibility, because you cannot look at season stats to form conclusions that there is a secret balance that when applied over a season will lead to championships. Like you said, you have to look at each game and understand the individual situations. If you are playing from behind with a huge deficit, you cannot run the ball and expect to catch up and win. Transversley, when you are playing with a substantial lead, the last thing you want to do is it air it out - which, admittedly, Garrett has been guily of doing.

To be clear, it hasn't all been pretty and I am glad he is no longer responsible for calling the plays as the Head Coach. But that has more to with me preferring the Head Coach to maintain a birdseye view of all of the teams innerworkings, as opposed to being focused on one aspect. In his first few seasons as Head Coach, he was too close to the offense and the team, as a whole, suffered as a result.

You might as well be saying that no season totals matter because you have to look at individual games.

I think that's a bit much.

Nobody says there's a magic recipe, only that the recipe isn't pass regardless of situation.

Whatever reason you would pull from looking at the individual games (not running because the team is trailing) is likely a shared experience with the rest of the league, particularly the teams that finished worse.

Over the course of the year it seems highly unlikely that any team would be put into certain situations to an extent great enough that it would skew play calling percentages out of whack.

These numbers are from PFR and I'm on my phone so forgive me if there are mistakes.

To my surprise, Dallas ran the 7th fewest (332 plays) offensive plays when trailing last year. While trailing, Dallas was passing on 72% of those plays and the league average is 66%.

They had the 10th most (420 plays) plays ran while leading. Dallas passed 63% of the time, the league average was 49.6%

They were right in the middle for the number of plays ran while tied. Dallas passed 57.5% and the league average was 56%. A little further, only 22 of the teams 87 rushing plays while tied occurred outside of the first quarter. For the 2Q through overtime, Dallas passed 68.5% of the time when the game was tied. The rest of the league rose to 57.3%.

I think it's more than apparent based on season totals. I think you watch the games to see what impact it has.

 

[Idgit]

So they have the defense has to perceive it as a run, right for it to be successful? Apparently from one of your previous posts, they can tell it from the tape. If not from the tape, why would they bite? And when you do please inform me of why they would bite, in your statistical numbers, please inform me where the yardage that your using for passing yardage as being the reason why a team wins games has nothing to do with the run.

Quite a lot of evasiveness in this thread...

Teams look at tendencies as they prepare for games. And they read the plays in real time and react. We all know this. Neither of those things is an evasion and neither has any bearing whatsoever on the point.

You're floundering.

I don't understand what specific yardage you're asking about. Nor am I likely to look anything up just because you ask me to. If I want a statistic to support my own argument, I'll get it. It's not my job to get them for an argument you simply misunderstand.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I agree I also think at times Dallas outsmarted themselfs. Take a situation of looking at 3rd and 1 or 2 and instead of using the run game to pick it up they would drop back and throw and end up punting. This happened quite a bit. While I don't expect the Cowboys to be a team running it 50% of the time I do think they are capable of being a very effective running team

Thats Garrett for you. He called those head-scratcher plays quite a bit. Then we mediots ask him why he calls those plays his response is that we don't have a play for 3rd and short or 4th and short. I'm so glad that he's no longer calling the plays and that Jerry did the right thing by taking that away from him. I'm fine him being a walk around coach. Now with all that free time he has he should take a toastmasters course because he flat is is boring to listen to when he speaks.

 

[jday]

You might as well be saying that no season totals matter because you have to look at individual games.

I think that's a bit much.

To the contrary, there are plenty of season totals you can look at and derive sound conclusions - sacks, interceptions, touchdowns, rush yards, reception yards, pass yards, 3rd down efficiency both on offense and defense, etc. And when you break down situational football with pass vs run ratio, I am somewhat okay with that too. Clearly the Cowboys need to run the ball more when they have the lead; on that I'm agreed. But there are some exceptions to the rule even then. 1. Is it effective - are we averaging over 3 yards per carry. 2. Is Demarco Murray injured and do we trust the player that is backing him up. When both Murray and Dunbar were injured the responsibility fell to Randle...and he clearly is not as effective in the lead role. 3. What kind of lead are we talking about here? If our lead is 7 points or less and there is more than 3 minutes left in the game and we are facing a very good QB such as Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, then the most important thing is keeping the ball out of their hand at all cost. If that means you have to throw the ball to convert a third and long, so be it...especially if your defense is as bad as our defense was last year.

 

[khiladi]

Teams look at tendencies as they prepare for games. And they read the plays in real time and react. We all know this. Neither of those things is an evasion and neither has any bearing whatsoever on the point.

So what tendency is there in the game tape when the team is showing two possibilities, either run or pass?

If the defensive adjustments to an effective running game mattered, then they would show up in the victory correlations. But they don't.

If a running game was effective, why would the defense not adjust to the run in play-action? So please provide the 'correlations' that show all the successful passing had nothing to do with the threat of a run that even you admit happens that defenses adjust to?

 

[Doomsday101]

Thats Garrett for you. He called those head-scratcher plays quite a bit. Then we mediots ask him why he calls those plays his response is that we don't have a play for 3rd and short or 4th and short. I'm so glad that he's no longer calling the plays and that Jerry did the right thing by taking that away from him. I'm fine him being a walk around coach. Now with all that free time he has he should take a toastmasters course because he flat is is boring to listen to when he speaks.

One thing for sure no matter who calls the plays it comes down to basic execution. Linehan was brought in because of his past relation with Garrett and the type of offense they run. I do think having Linehan who can focus strickly on offense is a benifet and it does allow Garrett to focus on the entire team. If Dallas fails it falls to the HC like it would any where else.

 

[Idgit]

So what tendency is there in the game tape when the team is showing two possibilities, either run or pass?



If a running game was effective, why would the defense not adjust to the run in play-action? So please provide the 'correlations' that show all the successful passing had nothing to do with the threat of a run that even you admit happens that defenses adjust to?

Khiladi, sorry, but in my opinion you're flailing here to try to distract from the topic. And asking questions that have obvious answers and aren't even particularly relevant to the discussion.

Feel free to disagree, but for my part, I'm comfortable letting my position stand on my earlier posts above. I think the case I'm making is pretty clear.

 

[khiladi]

Khiladi, sorry, but in my opinion you're flailing here to try to distract from the topic. And asking questions that have obvious answers and aren't even particularly relevant to the discussion.

Feel free to disagree, but for my part, I'm comfortable letting my position stand on my earlier posts above. I think the case I'm making is pretty clear.

Distracting? To quote you again:

If the defensive adjustments to an effective running game mattered, then they would show up in the victory correlations. But they don't.

Where are those stats that talk about defensive adjustments to an effective running that you say don't matter in victory correlations. Obviously, you mean to imply it's all about the successful passing game that wins games.

So what about play-action and the impact of an effective running game? I mean you've just admitted in this thread that defenses adjust to a running game. First you said it was just game tape and then you changed it to game-tape and real time.

 

[Idgit]

Distracting? To quote you again:



Where are those stats that talk about defensive adjustments to an effective running that you say don't matter in victory correlations. Obviously, you mean to imply it's all about the successful passing game that wins games.

So what about play-action and the impact of an effective running game? I mean you've just admitted in this thread that defenses adjust to a running game. First you said it was just game tape and then you changed it to game-tape and real time.

I think you probably ought to re-read what I've already posted on this topic. These questions you're asking have either been answered already, or aren't relevant to the topic anyway. Or you're splitting hairs that don't exist and don't help your argument if they did.

 

[khiladi]

I think you probably ought to re-read what I've already posted on this topic. These questions you're asking have either been answered already, or aren't relevant to the topic anyway. Or you're splitting hairs that don't exist and don't help your argument if they did.

I have and they haven't been answered. Where are the stats you claimed existed?

 

[peplaw06]

Play action is a misdirection based passing play that works because of the defense's expectation of the run and not necessarily because of the effectiveness of the running game.

Those go hand in hand. If an offense is being effective at running the ball, the defense is more likely to expect the run.

 

[Idgit]

Those go hand in hand. If an offense is being effective at running the ball, the defense is more likely to expect the run.

Defense is going to read it's keys and react, regardless of whether or not we've run the ball effectively previously. The reason poor running teams are poor running teams is because they can be defensed effectively when their running plays are identified and stopped.

IIRC, there's not a significant correlation where better running teams have more effective play action, but I could be remembering that wrong.

 

[peplaw06]

Defense is going to read it's keys and react, regardless of whether or not we've run the ball effectively previously. The reason poor running teams are poor running teams is because they can be defensed effectively when their running plays are identified and stopped.

IIRC, there's not a significant correlation where better running teams have more effective play action, but I could be remembering that wrong.

I disagree with that. You're discounting the instinctual and emotional part of the game. Defenders aren't just a bunch of robots out there. If you don't think a team has effectively run the ball 70% of their snaps is more likely to get a defense to bite on a play action than a team who runs it effectively 20% of their snaps, then I don't know what to tell you.