Article on how predictable Cowboys were on offense

[Ranching]

You lol, but people still blame him when they second guess the play calling.

I blame him too, I'm just have to LOL to keep my sanity...LOL!!!

 

[Jake]

Being "run heavy" and having formation tendencies are not the same thing.

 

[robbieruff]

Reading the article, our passing game tendencies were also fairly vanilla (i.e., number of routes run and how often)...naturally, this is a function of having a young QB and trying to avoid game changing mistakes and also looking to protect a porous defense by playing keep away (TOP). I know there were times this past season when I wanted us to run even more in the redzone (e.g., Greenbay game). Hopefully Dak takes a big step next year (accuracy and recognition) and we're able to open up the playbook while (hopefully) adding/inserting a WR who can actually beat people deep with some level of proficiency.

 

[KingintheNorth]

It seems this issue comes up every so often. Ray Lewis used to say Dallas was too predictable.

So what is the common denominator for this team to continually be so evident with they play selection at the line of scrimmage?

It's not just Ray Lewis. Other teams and TV analysts have piled on too.

I have a feeling that after Garrett is gone, a lot more will come out. Whether it will be scapegoating or players no longer worried about upsetting a coach that is well-liked (by players), I don't know. There is definitely something to it though.

 

[waldoputty]

Reading the article, our passing game tendencies were also fairly vanilla (i.e., number of routes run and how often)...naturally, this is a function of having a young QB and trying to avoid game changing mistakes and also looking to protect a porous defense by playing keep away (TOP). I know there were times this past season when I wanted us to run even more in the redzone (e.g., Greenbay game). Hopefully Dak takes a big step next year (accuracy and recognition) and we're able to open up the playbook while (hopefully) adding/inserting a WR who can actually beat people deep with some level of proficiency.

as others have said, there is a difference between run-heavy to protect the d than being predictable based on offensive formation.

 

[Longboysfan]

players complained about how predictable the offense was. this article did a nice job of quantifying how predictable there were:
http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...revealing-stat-tendencies-of-cowboys-offense/

Some highlights which the articles went into depth:
2) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line with 2+ tight ends attached to the formation, Dallas ran the rock 88.9 percent of the time.
3) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when in a straight I or offset I-formation.
6) With less than three minutes remaining in a half, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when using multiple tight ends or multiple running backs.
7) Dallas passed 74.8% of the time when there was a bunch, stack, or couple as part of the formation.

I would have liked to have that compared to the Super Bowl years.

 

[khiladi]

So this is being presented as something new?

 

[McKDaddy]

Wanting to win based on sheer athleticism and brute force as opposed to strategic creativity in a game that lets you be extremely creative is seriously the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Brought to us by JG for 8 years now.

 

[Idgit]

even more reasonable to squeeze the last drop of potential from the offense.
being predictable 100% of the time from certain formations does not make sense, particularly with all the warts we have and will have.
we had dominant ol play in 2016 with the depth needed.
we may be able to get the depth from fa, but doubtful the same dominant play given tsmith's condtion.
we have gone from 3 probowler, 1 very good guard and free with collins as a backup to 2 probowlers, an improving rt, tsmith with a bad back and a ?

Well, you guys like to talk about it, anyway. No harm in that. For me, I don't care at all whether the offense is predictable or not. I care if it's productive. That's literally all that matters.

We have bigger fish to fry. When it's not so predictable that Aaron Rodgers will convert on third or fourth and a mile with the season on the line, I'll be happy.

 

[Jarv]

So what happens to the Eagles if Garrett was at the helm there instead of Pederson and Jason Peters, Carson Wentz, Jordan Hicks, etc, get injured? Does he find a way to win games if everything isn't perfect? This is the chatter you hear on Dallas radio. Oh if everything is perfect the team looks great, but if any major adjustments are required, the team falls flat on its face.

FYI the schedule in 2016 was extremely easy as well, that was a huge factor.

 

[waldoputty]

It's not just Ray Lewis. Other teams and TV analysts have piled on too.

I have a feeling that after Garrett is gone, a lot more will come out. Whether it will be scapegoating or players no longer worried about upsetting a coach that is well-liked (by players), I don't know. There is definitely something to it though.

i think dez and perhap dak have been saying it already.
think one of the jones also

 

[Jarv]

You're still making the assumption that being unpredictable is better than being predictable but teams being unable to stop it anyway. I mean, you know we're going to run it in the red zone in a two TE set most of the time....does it matter? When we're inside the five, you know you're probably going to see Dak run an option. He scores with it regularly. The whole design of the offense is to beat teams physically. It's what we do. And we've been very effective doing it for years now.

Lol...Part of the problem with tendencies and predictability is that we always fall apart when a part needs replacing, QB hurt, LT hurt.... So no, we haven't been "very effective" for years now or we would be having better results in terms of playoff wins.

Open your mind, we can pound the rock, typically a good formula for play action, except for last year. We could be BETTER if we kept other teams off guard, keep them from cheating up or other advantages they claim via us being so predictable. The answer isn't "Hey, we've been doing ok" the answer is to always wanting to get better, it's the zen of war, it's the fact were good checkers players but the champions are chess masters.

 

[Ken]

players complained about how predictable the offense was. this article did a nice job of quantifying how predictable there were:
http://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/201...revealing-stat-tendencies-of-cowboys-offense/

Some highlights which the articles went into depth:
2) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line with 2+ tight ends attached to the formation, Dallas ran the rock 88.9 percent of the time.
3) Inside the opponent’s 35-yard line, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when in a straight I or offset I-formation.
6) With less than three minutes remaining in a half, the Cowboys ran 100% of the time when using multiple tight ends or multiple running backs.
7) Dallas passed 74.8% of the time when there was a bunch, stack, or couple as part of the formation.

This is embarrassing and unacceptable.

And we wonder why when we go up against good defenses we struggle. We make it 100x's harder on ourselves trying to telegraph what it is we are doing. No wonder when our talent level slips we stink.

Needs to be fixed but it won't.

 

[waldoputty]

Lol...Part of the problem with tendencies and predictability is that we always fall apart when a part needs replacing, QB hurt, LT hurt.... So no, we haven't been "very effective" for years now or we would be having better results in terms of playoff wins.

Open your mind, we can pound the rock, typically a good formula for play action, except for last year. We could be BETTER if we kept other teams off guard, keep them from cheating up or other advantages they claim via us being so predictable. The answer isn't "Hey, we've been doing ok" the answer is to always wanting to get better, it's the zen of war, it's the fact were good checkers players but the champions are chess masters.

i dont think many of us would have a problem running 3 times with 1st and goal on the 3 or better.
however these tendencies based on formations with up to 100% predictability allow the defense to key in on what is coming next.
just dumb.

 

[Sarge]

We're running a non salary cap offensive scheme. Been saying it for literally years. We're going nowhere with it.

 

[Idgit]

Lol...Part of the problem with tendencies and predictability is that we always fall apart when a part needs replacing, QB hurt, LT hurt.... So no, we haven't been "very effective" for years now or we would be having better results in terms of playoff wins.

Open your mind, we can pound the rock, typically a good formula for play action, except for last year. We could be BETTER if we kept other teams off guard, keep them from cheating up or other advantages they claim via us being so predictable. The answer isn't "Hey, we've been doing ok" the answer is to always wanting to get better, it's the zen of war, it's the fact were good checkers players but the champions are chess masters.

That's just not true. 2016 we went through with our QB3 and played two games with a backup LT. We have been very effective on offense for years. Yes, I'm not counting 2015 when we didn't have a QB on the roster.

In those playoff games, we scored 21 (and had 7 points taken off the board) and 21. We gave up 26 and 34.

I'm all for varying up the ways we're able to attack defenses. That's where I actually think we're limited offensively. But even then, it's a relatively minor issue given the other problems this team has. But for whatever reason, it's one fans like to talk about.

 

[Fletch]

No team can assemble that kind of talent any more in the salary cap era, so it is not comparable.

The beginning of the salary cap era was just another Dallas Cowboys’ rule to reign us in. East coast bias!

Are you buying?

 

[robbieruff]

as others have said, there is a difference between run-heavy to protect the d than being predictable based on offensive formation.

Oh you know I agree, brother. I am merely saying that Dak, particularly, gave much more reason to play very close to the vest last year (i.e., dramatic increase in INTs and accuracy issues) and that often influences play calling tendencies. We've been a run heavy offense for a while now, but we should always be able to use that to our advantage to make defenses pay when they load up. Last year, we were not able to do that consistently (the Denver game being the most egregious example of that as they had 9/10 defenders crowding the LOS all game long). I thought, in 2016, Scott did a good job running different plays out of same formations (good example is the fake bootleg in the Bengals game that Zeke took to the house right up the gut...the play initially appeared to be a bootleg to Witten). With a regressed Dak in 2017, Linehan went too conservative at times and it got compounded as defenses adjusted to our strengths from 2016. The most damning thing for me is our inability to adjust to the opposition's adjustments...either due to personnel issues OR lack of in-game coaching (e.g., Atlanta game) or combination of the two.

 

[waldoputty]

That's just not true. 2016 we went through with our QB3 and played two games with a backup LT. We have been very effective on offense for years. Yes, I'm not counting 2015 when we didn't have a QB on the roster.

In those playoff games, we scored 21 (and had 7 points taken off the board) and 21. We gave up 26 and 34.

I'm all for varying up the ways we're able to attack defenses. That's where I actually think we're limited offensively. But even then, it's a relatively minor issue given the other problems this team has. But for whatever reason, it's one fans like to talk about.

those earlier teams are gone.
romo is on tv.
leary is gone.
tsmith has a bad back, causing a major issue in draft/fa priorities along with wr, lb, 1tech and g.
getting competent coaches is free as far as the salary cap is concerned.
and so is getting better-than-competent coaches.

 

[jrumann59]

Nobody complained with our run heavy offense in 2016.

I wonder why?

Where there 13 reasons.