Sturm's Morning After: Cowboys have a coaching mess; Garrett ignores reality of the underdog

JoeKing

Diehard
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
30,977
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken poop which is what we have in totality without Romo. The coaching is not the issue.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
It's been a bad run. The most frustrating thing is, in 4 of the 5 games, we've been so close. Just a play or a penalty or a blown call or a whatever has been the difference between the win and the loss. The offense was completely toothless against both NE and SEA, but the defense has really come around. The OL is finally playing really well. We've got the role players, and now we've got Dez back, too. If we could just get the ST units to come together, block a bit better for the returner, get a returner back there who actually wants to be there, and cover our own damn kicks, I'd feel pretty good for when Tony gets back.

Was I the only one that thought that SEA team looked to be back in stride this week? That game felt like a defensive slug-fest. As opposed to two teams who were inept offensively. We're getting closer. We're just running out of time about as quickly as we're improving.

Gotta win at least one of these next two. Preferably both of them, and preferably with a win v. PHI if we only get one. But even 3-6 with 7 to go gives us a shot of getting in at 8-8 if Tony can manage 5-2 down the stretch. That's a tall order, but not unheard of. 6-1 is possible, even, if we're firing on all cylinders. Good teams have done better than that to close out seasons before, anyway.

exactly. we seem to make enough mistakes to lose the game, where a team missing key pieces doesn't necessarily have to do anything special, but minimize its mistakes and negative plays.

and it boils down to 4th quarter. our offense and defense have been very bad in the 4th. very bad.

and I was surprised we didn't get any sacks against seattle, a team that had given up average of 5 per game prior.

we have to win the next two to stay in the race and just buy enough time for romo to get back and dez to get in shape
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
I agree on the draft picks, after 1st round they are mostly duds or low impact, like street etc.
This last game our big money WR was back, and he didnt do anything either, so that says maybe you shouldnt come down on the other wr either?

And ON the QB's, I watch the wr take off on their routes, and by the time the qb needs to throw, they havent even looked back yet , so he cant throw it.
The routes are too deep and take too long. It is ok to have one guy run long route, but the other 2 should be shorter and turn around quickly,
and maybe even come back to QB, or ad lib to get open.
But they dont do that,
If we could see what cassel sees, which on some plays they show that, there is no one to throw to and they are all far away and over by sideline.

Sometimes it is cassels fault as he doesnt look off the safety and just stares down the guy he is throwing to.
But if they changed the routes, it would have helped him and weeden.

The routes and play design are on JG and linny, so I blame them for that, and also the formations and lack of innovation in formations, motion, and play design.

Guys like weeden and cassel need to be able to throw quickly, and JG and linehan have not made that easy for them.
In fact they have made it very hard for them, aside from some of the checkdowns to RB or TE.

The one thing I have noticed about cassel is he is mobile, but tends to not move in pocket, he doesnt move side to side to but time , or up, and just throws when he feels pressure and if he just moved he could buy more time easily.
So I have to think he is not being coached properly in practice.

I think you touch on a point. with Romo those routes worked. Romo is great at scanning the field and seeing things and looking defense off. Cassel is very limited. My comment in the other post was that with us missing our top talent, I don't expect them to come and do anything special to win. we just need to minimize mistakes and not miss opportunities. we have done neither. Cassel missed Dez a couple of times and tried to force it to him a couple of other times (which Dez saved him playing like a CB, as if it was Williams they may have been interceptions like the giants game). Cassel missed Williams and Beasley, so he is defintley not looking at his options. we also tend to make too many mistakes. we have been in the game in 4 of the 5 losses and collapsed, offensively and defensively in the 4th quarter.

and regarding the quick throws. I know Beasley and witten have been there, but not sure why they are not going to him. maybe they are afraid to throw in tight spaces...not sure.
 

Gaede

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,165
Reaction score
14,127
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken poop which is what we have in totality without Romo. The coaching is not the issue.

We've spent years under Garrett solidifying the talent around Romo. If the team sucks completely without him, then the head coach-who has presided over the selection and training of this team-bears a significant share of responsibility. We don't field a team of one player. There's 21 other guys out there. Garrett is responsible for all of them
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
OMG, you totally lost it on this response. you went on to babel a bunch of non sense that I have no idea where to start to respond. my gawd, what color is the sky in your world! holy cow, I will attribute this to you having been drunk or something...or on drugs....it has to be one of those

oh, aren't you the one who has been touting mcclay as the reason for putting the talent together on this roster!!! but now saying its garrett or was it your brother Darryl!! :)



1. The winning seasons can be attributed to offensive performance or Romo? Apparently, the offense can't do anything right now because Romo isn't playing. Based on your logic, Jason has made all sorts of personnel moves that made this team much more talented. Yet, Jason performed better with all these abysmal roster moves Wade allegedly made and gets credit for, including guys like Roy Williams and Felix Jones and Kitna as QB, but he can't win with his own talented roster that proves his superiority to Wade?

Did I get that woeful logic right?

2. I mean it's not like Wade specifically said he wanted Chris Johnson on Hard Knocks, while Jerry asked Jason and they wanted Felix. Oh, but it was like that. It's also not like Wade wanted Mike Solari as OL coach, who coached a zone scheme, while Garrett got Houck, the same guy he coached with in Miami and with the Cowboys when he was here, he also preferred a man scheme, with big hefty linemen. Oh, but it was like that. But I guess when Dallas was drafting flop OL all those years, it was because of Wade's decision of wanting a zone-blocking coach and had nothing to do with Garrett's decision of Houck, who only left when he retired, meaning Houck was still there even after Wade left... Did I get more of your woeful logic right?

I mean how many years did we waste when Garrett was OC with that shoddy OL that Garrett homers use to blame as one of the reasons for his lack of success, that Garrett supposedly had no part of, despite the above points, only for Jerry to bring in Callahan to implement a zone-blocking scheme with quicker and more agile linemen. That same guy who Jerry was then set on having Garrett stripped of his play-calling duties for?

3. What part of stats don't you understand? Offensive performance equates to yards, not points. The amount of yards one racks up doesn't have any bearing on win-loss record. When we look at 13-3, when Tony Sparano was baby-sitting Garrett, they were 2nd in points, but 13th in points allowed. In 2008, when Jason Garrett got full control of the offense, the guy dropped from 2nd in points, to 18. That is a whopping 16 teams in ranking, despite essentially having the same team and roster, including Romo. And the defense, was 20th in points allowed. AND GUESS WHAT? BRIAN STEWART was the defense coordinator.

2009, the Cowboys went to 14th in points WHILE THE DALLAS DEFENSE, when Wade took the play-calling away from Brian Stewart was SECOND in points allowed. So Dallas first play-off win in twenty years was because the defense coached by Wade was playing lights out, while Garrett kept waffling trying to score in the red-zone.

If Romo didn't have escapability, then you can be sure that the yardage gained, let alone red-zone scoring would have been dramatically reduced. Basically what your praising Garrett's play-calling for, is nothing but defenses playing deep coverage not giving up the big play, allowing Dallas to flounder when the field shortened.

When you actually look at 2010, the year Wade got fired, despite being 7th in terms of points allowed, during the first 8 games with Garrett as coach, the OFFENSE LED BY GARRETT turned the ball over a whopping 19 TIMES. 19 times in 8 games. 5 out of 8 games, the team couldn't even brak 50 yards rushing. Against the Commanders, Garrett could only put up 7 points and gave 7 to the Commanders, after calling a bomb on a 4th down, right before the half , having only 80 yards to go, with Romo having to check-down to Choice, who then fumbled it. I guess that was Wade's fault...

And the Dallas defense generated 10 turnovers. So the offense was putting that much pressure on the defense. Even the game against the Giants, when Wade's defense let close to 500 yards of total offense by the Giants, they created 5 TOs. And that offense managed a whopping less than 300 yards of total offense.

Your stats don't support what you claim they support. What that means is when the team allegedly quite on Wade, the offense kept turning the ball over putting tremendous pressure on the defense.

4. And you claim Wade's record has been woeful, where-ever he went, how does coaching a Buffalo team to the play-offs with scrubs like Flutie and Johnson and a meddling FO prove his ineptness?
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
We've spent years under Garrett solidifying the talent around Romo. If the team sucks completely without him, then the head coach-who has presided over the selection and training of this team-bears a significant share of responsibility. We don't field a team of one player. There's 21 other guys out there. Garrett is responsible for all of them

ok, the other garrett haters claim it wasn't garrett who amassed the talent and it was jerry and mcclay.....so which is it?
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
A lot these can also be attributed to poor coaching though. I know it's shocking but often times teams that aren't well coached make lots of mental errors, turn the ball over, make numerous special teams gaffes, fail to execute, etc. That can be a sign of inadequate or not great coaching.

And sometimes, when a team subtracts a key player, the mediocrity of the coaching becomes amplified because the start player or players often cover up for the shortcomings of the staff.

that's a valid argument....it could also be attributed to "are we really that talented?"..... Williams, street, Beasley, escobar, hanna have all underwhelmed. Dez and Romo being so great masked their incompetence.....we have a good OL. one good DL man, coupl of god DBs, the rest are down right awful. outside of 1st round, our drafts and talent evaluation has been very bad. we don't have any significant contributor in 2nd rounds and below.that goes for both offense and defense.
 

JoeKing

Diehard
Messages
35,467
Reaction score
30,977
We've spent years under Garrett solidifying the talent around Romo. If the team sucks completely without him, then the head coach-who has presided over the selection and training of this team-bears a significant share of responsibility. We don't field a team of one player. There's 21 other guys out there. Garrett is responsible for all of them

If you remove the main spring from a Swiss watch, it's not going to work right. Does that mean the craftsman that made the watch is no good? No, Swiss watches are main by the finest craftsman in the world. What it means is when a thing of precision is missing the parts it's design to operate with, subpar replacements won't make it work right. Garret has put together such a thing of precision that needs it's main spring (Romo).
 

cowboyblue22

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,926
Reaction score
8,606
under garrett everyone acts like he is all world the man has won one playoff game and if not for a bad call wouldn't of won that in five years he has barely a winning record without tony this team cannot finds its way out of the dark in five years jimmy had already won 2 superbowls.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,207
Reaction score
15,282
ok, the other garrett haters claim it wasn't garrett who amassed the talent and it was jerry and mcclay.....so which is it?

I think it is a group effort, with the jones boys at top making final approvals.
JG and coaches, and McClay all give their opinions and wants etc, and they evaluate, and come to conclusions.
It isnt any one person that does it all.
JG might want or not want a player, and he may get what he wants or he may not.
I think Romo had a big influence on getting frederick.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
I think it is a group effort, with the jones boys at top making final approvals.
JG and coaches, and McClay all give their opinions and wants etc, and they evaluate, and come to conclusions.
It isnt any one person that does it all.
JG might want or not want a player, and he may get what he wants or he may not.
I think Romo had a big influence on getting frederick.

I don't disagree with you. that's the normal course of process for NFL team. but some garrett haters, placed the roster makeup and the talent acquisition on McClay and claimed he is solely responsible. now, another group of garrett haters, seeing that the talent is not all that, say its garrett who amassed this group and I wanted them to provide clarification.. :)
 

Dave_in-NC

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,049
Reaction score
5,132
I don't disagree with you. that's the normal course of process for NFL team. but some garrett haters, placed the roster makeup and the talent acquisition on McClay and claimed he is solely responsible. now, another group of garrett haters, seeing that the talent is not all that, say its garrett who amassed this group and I wanted them to provide clarification.. :)

Socks to jocks. That's where all the final decisions are made. The others just have their say. When Stephens had enough he just puts daddy to the wall.:D
 

Dave_in-NC

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,049
Reaction score
5,132
Interesting take. I have to say that I just disagree. We did a good job keeping Wilson in the pocket and closing it around him, for the most part. We kept contain. We took the ball away from him. We limited them to a lot of 3 and outs. Covered Graham well, for the most part. Their players said as much, after the game, too.

For their part, they played good defense, as well. Because they've got one of the better defenses in the league, and they got 5-6 players back over their bye.

I thought it was a really good game last week. I know I"m pretty much alone in that, but whatever. It was.

Was a good game if your a Seahawks fan. Geessshhhhh
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Was a good game if your a Seahawks fan. Geessshhhhh

It was a better game for them, yeah.

Am I really alone in appreciating games even when we lose? If it's good football, I'm incredibly bummed after a loss, but I still enjoy the game. The reverse is even true sometimes (though not often) when we win a game playing sloppy. It's a lot less fun to watch one where it feels like we just got lucky against a better team. Though I'll take the win and run to the bank, it's still less satisfying. No?
 

Dave_in-NC

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,049
Reaction score
5,132
It was a better game for them, yeah.

Am I really alone in appreciating games even when we lose? If it's good football, I'm incredibly bummed after a loss, but I still enjoy the game. The reverse is even true sometimes (though not often) when we win a game playing sloppy. It's a lot less fun to watch one where it feels like we just got lucky against a better team. Though I'll take the win and run to the bank, it's still less satisfying. No?

What eva. Naww I'm the same as you. It was a good game. Being a hockey fan and watching my team play 82 games conditions me to realize we won't win every game. Some times being mad even after a win.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
What eva. Naww I'm the same as you. It was a good game. Being a hockey fan and watching my team play 82 games conditions me to realize we won't win every game. Some times being mad even after a win.

Honestly, I was elated after the NY win, but that was one of those games where I was saying 'uh-oh' at the same time. It was the first week of the season, though, so I gave it a pass. PHI was about as bad.

From that point on, I didn't think we'd played well as a team until most of the Giants game. Last week was the first week of the season where I really thought the whole team played well and just the QB sucked. It *feels* like things are coming together a bit underneath the QB-suck right now. We'll see Sunday.

If we don't have a solid game by both the defense, ST, and the OL, though, I'm going to be pretty down on the second half of the year. If we play well and get beat at QB, I can live with that, as long as we then somehow win the TB game next week. If any of that makes sense.
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,437
Reaction score
67,220
exactly. we seem to make enough mistakes to lose the game, where a team missing key pieces doesn't necessarily have to do anything special, but minimize its mistakes and negative plays.

and it boils down to 4th quarter. our offense and defense have been very bad in the 4th. very bad.

Garrett isn't a lot different from your average coach, most of whom are very adverse to taking risks. Most of the time you see underdog coaches playing it safe until the later stages of the game and just try to stay alive as long as possible. All that does is avoid a blowout and makes things contingent on breaking right late. Rarely does that strategy pay off in a win in a game where you are decidedly outmatched or inferior. All in all, it pays off more often to actually roll the dice and do it early instead of depend on something happening in the 4th quarter.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
17,675
Garrett isn't a lot different from your average coach, most of whom are very adverse to taking risks. Most of the time you see underdog coaches playing it safe until the later stages of the game and just try to stay alive as long as possible. All that does is avoid a blowout and makes things contingent on breaking right late. Rarely does that strategy pay off in a win in a game where you are decidedly outmatched or inferior. All in all, it pays off more often to actually roll the dice and do it early instead of depend on something happening in the 4th quarter.

the other side of that is that it probably won't work and you have a big hole you can't climb out of. if you are over matched, you will end up losing more of those risks than winning.
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,437
Reaction score
67,220
the other side of that is that it probably won't work and you have a big hole you can't climb out of. if you are over matched, you will end up losing more of those risks than winning.
An underdog has a better chance to win by taking risks early and often rather than try to survive until late in the game. Now if the risks are successful, is another argument.
 

big dog cowboy

THE BIG DOG
Staff member
Messages
96,949
Reaction score
99,058
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
under garrett everyone acts like he is all world the man has won one playoff game and if not for a bad call wouldn't of won that in five years he has barely a winning record without tony this team cannot finds its way out of the dark in five years jimmy had already won 2 superbowls.

Those teams Jimmy coached were better. Remember, they had the number 1 defense in that day also.
 
Top