Twitter: Sturm comparing Dak downfield completion percentage with other league QBs

[kskboys]

A lot of folks think Dak is the only QB that misses recievers deep, when it's simply not true.
Truth is, he's not a bad deep ball passer.
If there IS an area he really needs to improve on it's hitting those intermediate throws more often. The 10-20 yard range passes.

Absolutely. And here's the kicker: When Cooper complained that the WR's were just running at the DB and then turning around, many of us just nodded. Because that is seriously what it looked like. Confirmation bias? I don't think so. WR's have had trouble getting open in this system for many, many years.

Dak is a known good slant thrower. So, why aren't we running slants?

Logic says that we're still not sure exactly what Dak is, but logic also says that it appears the system was not doing him any favors.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Dak does see the field well. Where did you get this incorrect info from?

same place you got your incorrect info......

 

[armadillooutlaw]

Absolutely. And here's the kicker: When Cooper complained that the WR's were just running at the DB and then turning around, many of us just nodded. Because that is seriously what it looked like. Confirmation bias? I don't think so. WR's have had trouble getting open in this system for many, many years.

Dak is a known good slant thrower. So, why aren't we running slants?

Logic says that we're still not sure exactly what Dak is, but logic also says that it appears the system was not doing him any favors.

Plenty of stop routes and fewer opportunities for yards after catch. I hope Moore will play to Dak's strengths moreso which seem to include more in-cutting routes. Dak's very good on slants and routes where the reciever cuts inside.
One thing I noticed back in 2017 is that Dak was pretty accurate on dig routes, particularly to Bryant (one of the few routes Dez seemed to run consistently well, IMO).
Saw him hit Gallup a few times on that throw last year, too.

 

[kskboys]

same place you got your incorrect info......

From the many scouts who evaluated him. Experts.

This not seeing the field fallacy comes from Dak not always seeing a WR open. Which goes back to the same thing, watching only Dallas games and comparing Dak to highlights from other QB's. No QB in the history of the NFL has always thrown to the best option.

One of Dak's strengths is seeing the field. However, if the WR's are just running at the DB and turning around, seeing the field is not going to help.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Plenty of stop routes and fewer opportunities for yards after catch. I hope Moore will play to Dak's strengths moreso which seem to include more in-cutting routes. Dak's very good on slants and routes where the reciever cuts inside.
One thing I noticed back in 2017 is that Dak was pretty accurate on dig routes, particularly to Bryant (one of the few routes Dez seemed to run consistently well, IMO).
Saw him hit Gallup a few times on that throw last year, too.

This offense still has too much from what Romo liked and has been slow to change. There's a short clip of Kitna talking about the type of passes Tony liked and they were stop and comebacks were because Romo liked to throw to stationary targets. I would like to see the route tree open up more, more digs, end cuts, crosses, slants etc.

 

[kskboys]

This offense still has too much from what Romo liked and has been slow to change. There's a short clip of Kitna talking about the type of passes Tony liked and they were stop and comebacks were because Romo liked to throw to stationary targets. I would like to see the route tree open up more, more digs, end cuts, crosses, slants etc.

X 888 gadzillions of gadzillions!!!!!!!

All O's must be tailored to the QB, no exceptions.

 

[armadillooutlaw]

This offense still has too much from what Romo liked and has been slow to change. There's a short clip of Kitna talking about the type of passes Tony liked and they were stop and comebacks were because Romo liked to throw to stationary targets. I would like to see the route tree open up more, more digs, end cuts, crosses, slants etc.

It's funny, because a lot of Dak's success as a rookie was on these type of routes.
Then 2017 and 2018 it's like they reverted back to the old Romo-friendly playbook.

 

[armadillooutlaw]

X 888 gadzillions of gadzillions!!!!!!!

All O's must be tailored to the QB, no exceptions.

It's common sense to a good coach.

 

[kskboys]

It's funny, because a lot of Dak's success as a rookie was on these type of routes.
Then 2017 and 2018 it's like they reverted back to the old Romo-friendly playbook.

It was well publicized at the time, how they simplified things as a rook, but then got more complicated. In this case, it appears complicated means more stupid.

 

[Roadtrip635]

It's funny, because a lot of Dak's success as a rookie was on these type of routes.
Then 2017 and 2018 it's like they reverted back to the old Romo-friendly playbook.

It worked with Tony and to a certain extent with Dak early because we also had the type receivers to take advantage of those routes. Dez and Witt are big strong and it plays to their strengths. TWill, being a body catcher, those type routes are ideal for him as well. I was banging that drum last off-season that we were going to need to change the type of routes we run to suit the type of WRs we had, I will bang it again this off season. Looking at the skillset and strengths of the WRs we have on this roster, we need more routes that keep them in motion, not slowing down, stopping or coming back. Curls are the most popular route in the NFL and they're not going away, but we need more variety. I said earlier in this thread, we also need more variety in our deep routes too.

 

[Haimerej]

It was well publicized at the time, how they simplified things as a rook, but then got more complicated. In this case, it appears complicated means more stupid.

Doesn't it undermine the idea that he sees the field well if he struggled with a more complicated scheme? I've yet to see any analysis of his game showing he sees the field well. One of his biggest criticisms is holding the ball too long, which is directly related to what he's seeing develop.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Once again the haters take one on the chin.

 

[kskboys]

Doesn't it undermine the idea that he sees the field well if he struggled with a more complicated scheme? I've yet to see any analysis of his game showing he sees the field well. One of his biggest criticisms is holding the ball too long, which is directly related to what he's seeing develop.

The complexity of the scheme and the QB's ability to see the field have almost nothing in common. However, the point is that our scheme doesn't get WR's open, so seeing the field doesn't help.

He does hold the ball too long, as did Romo. A problem w/ this scheme for a long time now is slow developing routes.

That could be one cause of holding the ball too long. It could also be a scheme that doesn't get WR's open. I don't consider Coop a liar, he's sort of a quiet type, seemingly. So when he made the statement that he was tired of running toward the DB and just turning around, I believe him. Can you see where a crapp scheme can also make a QB hold the ball too long?

 

[pansophy]

Completing more intermediate (10-20 yard range) passes would alleviate that issue.

Totally agree -- to the outside of the field. I believe that Dak's inefficiency at that explains a lot of year 2 woes when there was talk of Dez, Witten, and Beasley all declining in the same year, but in reality defenses just started clogging the middle of the field because Dak wasn't hitting WRs to the outside.

My hope is that we started to see Dak turn the corner in that regard towards the end of last year and two break out games by Cooper finally forced defenses to defend the outside again. "Suddenly" Jarwin and Beasley started to impact the game again because the middle of the field opened back up.

So if that holds it could be a big year for Dak and we will all be happy the Jones decided to pay him this year instead of next year. That's my hope anyway.

 

[BigCatMonaco]

when Dak throws the ball 20+ yards:

• Top-10 in pass yards per attempt.
• 7th in touchdowns (7), pass TD% (13.0), and interceptions (2).
• 6th in rating (107.6)

From 30+ yards, Dak Prescott’s stats now look like the following:

• 5th in touchdowns (4).
• 7th in pass TD% (14.3).
• 1st in interceptions (0).
• 2nd in rating (118.8).

 

[Haimerej]

The complexity of the scheme and the QB's ability to see the field have almost nothing in common. However, the point is that our scheme doesn't get WR's open, so seeing the field doesn't help.

Define, "complexity." Fans like to bandy about these generalizations but rarely provide substance to bolster the argument.

A simpler scheme is generally regarded as allowing for less or quicker reads from the QB, right? When things get more complex, you generally get different route combinations or option routes based on reads made by the receiver and QB. These are dependent on pre and post snap reads, which are directly related to what the players are seeing on the field.

How many times have we seen receivers visibly frustrated at the end of a play? Everyone remembers Beasley (and he paid the price) but there were several times Witten was visibly frustrated as well.

He does hold the ball too long, as did Romo. A problem w/ this scheme for a long time now is slow developing routes.

All schemes have slow developing routes. They also have hot routes and checkdowns. But the QB has to recognize when to give up on a downfield route and get rid of the ball. If he saw the field well, why wouldn't he get rid of the ball?

That could be one cause of holding the ball too long. It could also be a scheme that doesn't get WR's open.

That's simply ridiculous. Literally no one who knows football would say something that absurd. You don't reach the level of NFL coach if your scheme, "doesn't get WRs open." Linehan has always been pass happy and actually put together some prolific passing offenses during his career. Now we're to believe he can't scheme a guy open?

I don't consider Coop a liar, he's sort of a quiet type, seemingly. So when he made the statement that he was tired of running toward the DB and just turning around, I believe him. Can you see where a crapp scheme can also make a QB hold the ball too long?

Can you see how the scheme doesn't force a QB to hold the ball, "too long," if he actually sees the field?

Here's what Cooper actually said-

"All the stop routes, I don't know if you noticed but we just couldn't really complete them, because they were literally giving us the go [route]. We called a stop route a third time, and I kind of looked at Dak like 'I don't want to run that', but he was like 'Just run it Coop'. I guess he had a second thought, and at the line of scrimmage, he gave me our go signal. Obviously, we're going to have to change it now that I've divulged that secret, but he gave me our go signal and I beat [the coverage]."

You like to appear to be above the nonsensical, hyperbolic ranting which plagues most fans. Yet it appears you took a simple explanation of how one play worked in one game and indicted the entire scheme.

Check this out-

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/amari-cooper/COO487703

There is Cooper's route charts from each game last year. Looks like he ran plenty of slants and crossing routes, too. You know... those routes you keep saying they don't run?

 

[Haimerej]

From the many scouts who evaluated him. Experts.

Citation?

 

[kskboys]

Define, "complexity." Fans like to bandy about these generalizations but rarely provide substance to bolster the argument.

A simpler scheme is generally regarded as allowing for less or quicker reads from the QB, right? When things get more complex, you generally get different route combinations or option routes based on reads made by the receiver and QB. These are dependent on pre and post snap reads, which are directly related to what the players are seeing on the field.

How many times have we seen receivers visibly frustrated at the end of a play? Everyone remembers Beasley (and he paid the price) but there were several times Witten was visibly frustrated as well.



All schemes have slow developing routes. They also have hot routes and checkdowns. But the QB has to recognize when to give up on a downfield route and get rid of the ball. If he saw the field well, why wouldn't he get rid of the ball?



That's simply ridiculous. Literally no one who knows football would say something that absurd. You don't reach the level of NFL coach if your scheme, "doesn't get WRs open." Linehan has always been pass happy and actually put together some prolific passing offenses during his career. Now we're to believe he can't scheme a guy open?



Can you see how the scheme doesn't force a QB to hold the ball, "too long," if he actually sees the field?

Here's what Cooper actually said-

"All the stop routes, I don't know if you noticed but we just couldn't really complete them, because they were literally giving us the go [route]. We called a stop route a third time, and I kind of looked at Dak like 'I don't want to run that', but he was like 'Just run it Coop'. I guess he had a second thought, and at the line of scrimmage, he gave me our go signal. Obviously, we're going to have to change it now that I've divulged that secret, but he gave me our go signal and I beat [the coverage]."

You like to appear to be above the nonsensical, hyperbolic ranting which plagues most fans. Yet it appears you took a simple explanation of how one play worked in one game and indicted the entire scheme.

Check this out-

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/amari-cooper/COO487703

There is Cooper's route charts from each game last year. Looks like he ran plenty of slants and crossing routes, too. You know... those routes you keep saying they don't run?

IDK, your response makes you appear to be a guy who can rationalize anything that he wants to believe. You find some sort of little twibbygitter and twist it around to fit your agenda. You ramble on and then declare that you've made some sort of point, when in reality you've just reiterated the same old tired crapp w/ very limited brain involved.

I really thought you were interested in an adult discussion. That's what we're here for, to exchange thoughts. Imagine my surprise when you met my opinion w/ petty insults and convoluted rambling!!!!!!! Get back to me if you're serious about exchanging ideas and if you're ready to leave this childish rhetoric behind.

 

[kskboys]

Citation?

Do you ever read anything that's not online? Honestly, you sound like a pouty 9 year old.

 

[Haimerej]

IDK, your response makes you appear to be a guy who can rationalize anything that he wants to believe. You find some sort of little twibbygitter and twist it around to fit your agenda. You ramble on and then declare that you've made some sort of point, when in reality you've just reiterated the same old tired crapp w/ very limited brain involved.

I really thought you were interested in an adult discussion. That's what we're here for, to exchange thoughts. Imagine my surprise when you met my opinion w/ petty insults and convoluted rambling!!!!!!! Get back to me if you're serious about exchanging ideas and if you're ready to leave this childish rhetoric behind.

Typical Kevin. You can't address my criticism of your position so you resort to ad hominem. How funny that you follow the above with-

Do you ever read anything that's not online? Honestly, you sound like a pouty 9 year old.

Namecalling. That's much easier than actual substance. I always appreciate your cognitive dissonance. Keep on doing you, bro.