Bob's Blog - Football 301: Decoding Garrett - Week 10

[ejthedj]

I think Wade needs to say something during the game to Garrett, probably at half time.

Seems like when things go rough during the first half, Wade's opening comments to the reporter at the beginning of the second half are too ho-hum, like "we had opportunities we just need to execute them."

Actually, that is what Bob is calling for--sticking to the game plan. But Wade needs to say it forcefully... "Come on guys, we gotta execute! We gotta wake up and shove the ball down their throat. The game is ours, we got the game plan, let's go take it!"

Maybe that would stop Garrett and the players from going into panic mode.

I used to coach and could always see it in my players eyes when they looked like they were ready to lose. Eventually, I recognized it so well that I would speak up, try to snap them out of the funk, and sure enough it worked from time to time.

Come on Wade, saying something, getting the ship back on course midstream, is what HEAD coaches do. Not just complain about abandoning the run after the fact.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Don't know what people want to call me regarding Garrett. To some I'm sure I'm an apologist.

I like the potential of Garrett. He certainly has his detractors. He also came pretty highly regarded and has backed much of that up during his time in Dallas. I do think he is likely having some growing pains. That should be no shock. I suspect Jerry is wise enough to know that was going to happen.

I loved the plan to bring Reeves in, presumably at least in part (though I suspect for reasons beyond Garrett as well) to help accelerate JG's maturation. I have enough trust in Jerry and his inner circle (some are guffawing) to assess whether Garrett needs an aide for 2010, needs to be replaced altogether, or is good to go as is.

I see the potential in Garrett both as an OC and a HC. I understand the road forward with him is not without potholes. Don't be misled into thinking there are no such potholes with others "more proven."

I'd like to see the revolving door at HC in Dallas slow down, a lot. I like the team approach Jerry has built in talent evaluation. I think we have enough good things going in this organization now that consistency can reap some rewards. And I was thinking that BEFORE Garrett was hired.

Garrett may be green but I still like his upside for this organization as OC and as a possible HC.

If that makes me an apologist, so be it. I'm in the thread.

Your perspective does not make you an apologist; it makes you a realist. An apologist would just excuse his shortomings, not hold him accountable, and call to immediately have him promoted to head coach. You're not doing that.

I too think Garrett can improve, but, like Roy Williams, he has to start doing it CONSISTENTLY as an OC first! He still is sub-par there versus his potential. In my mind, he's very gifted, which sets his bar high, and at the moment, his underachievment as well. Until he improves and calls games to his potential, he has no business even smewlling the head coache's chair. Quite frankly, Garrett can use a coach's coach to teach him how to be a better coach. In all fairness, that means he's better suited to be a position coach at the moment, reporting to a more capable OC above him.

Right now, he needs help calling games. He misses Sporano's play-calling ability, validates the need to have a Dan Reeves type assisting the offense, and is clearly proven that as an OC he is way over his head.

No apologies; just the way it is!

 

[NextGenBoys]

Well, sorta.

Look at percentages, not just the fact that there were a handful more running plays against Philly. There were also 5 less passing plays against Philly, meaning that the passing percentage against Philly was roughly 62%. And again, against the Pack it was 75ish%. Big difference.

That, and maybe things just clicked against Philly with the shotgun. No need to go away from what's working. But against the Pack, it's quite obvious that that strategy was NOT working, yet Garrett kept going back to it over and over.

Anyone see the movie Tin Cup? Remember when Roy McAvoy kept trying to reach the green instead of laying up in the U.S. Open?

"I can make that shot!"

So he keeps dropping the ball at the same spot, trying the same shot, over and over, each one landing in the water hazzard. Finally, he makes the shot, but not before plummeting in the Open's standings and almost being disqualified...all because he has to prove something.

Well, he proved it, but at what cost?

That's the picture I get of Jason Garrett right now.

25 of Romo's 39 attemps where when we were down 17-0. So in all essence, while the game was balanced, Romo threw the ball 14 times.

 

[Dodger]

25 of Romo's 39 attemps where when we were down 17-0. So in all essence, while the game was balanced, Romo threw the ball 14 times.

Really.

I went back to NFL.com's game recap, and before the Packers go up 17-0, I count 22 passes or plays where Romo drops back to pass and is sacked. In that same period of time, there were about 11 running plays.

I did a quick count, so consider it +/- a play. That's still 22 called passing plays (regardless of whether there was actually a pass attempted) and 11 running plays, a 2/1 ratio. I wouldn't call that balanced.

 

[kramskoi]

Really.

I went back to NFL.com's game recap, and before the Packers go up 17-0, I count 22 passes or plays where Romo drops back to pass and is sacked. In that same period of time, there were about 11 running plays.

I did a quick count, so consider it +/- a play. That's still 22 called passing plays (regardless of whether there was actually a pass attempted) and 11 running plays, a 2/1 ratio. I wouldn't call that balanced.

...it's not just the run-pass mix, as Sturm has observed...it's the formation used, namely S11 or S12...these shotgun formations simplifiy things for an opposing defense...

 

[arglebargle]

It would be interesting to see a Sturm/Rafaela discussion, as Raf does not agree with Sturm on this one.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2009/11/17/1161399/night-of-the-living-dread-the#storyjump

I am not so sure that the 'Boys would have done any better running the ball. I think Gurode is more injured than the team is admitting. Remember, he did not practice for much of the week. Flozell is always a coin flip. Barber and Felix both seem to be running behind their usual form. My main beef with the Cowboys' coaching decisions comes from them stolidly holding on to playing injured players rather than fresh backups. Choice last year, and Austin this year are examples of where they were dead wrong.

The word 'scapegoat' exists for a reason.

 

[CoCo]

Your perspective does not make you an apologist; it makes you a realist. An apologist would just excuse his shortomings, not hold him accountable, and call to immediately have him promoted to head coach. You're not doing that.

I too think Garrett can improve, but, like Roy Williams, he has to start doing it CONSISTENTLY as an OC first! He still is sub-par there versus his potential. In my mind, he's very gifted, which sets his bar high, and at the moment, his underachievment as well. Until he improves and calls games to his potential, he has no business even smewlling the head coache's chair. Quite frankly, Garrett can use a coach's coach to teach him how to be a better coach. In all fairness, that means he's better suited to be a position coach at the moment, reporting to a more capable OC above him.

Right now, he needs help calling games. He misses Sporano's play-calling ability, validates the need to have a Dan Reeves type assisting the offense, and is clearly proven that as an OC he is way over his head.

No apologies; just the way it is!

Maybe the bolded part is true. Its certainly very speculative.

 

[kramskoi]

It would be interesting to see a Sturm/Rafaela discussion, as Raf does not agree with Sturm on this one.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2009/11/17/1161399/night-of-the-living-dread-the#storyjump

I am not so sure that the 'Boys would have done any better running the ball. I think Gurode is more injured than the team is admitting. Remember, he did not practice for much of the week. Flozell is always a coin flip. Barber and Felix both seem to be running behind their usual form. My main beef with the Cowboys' coaching decisions comes from them stolidly holding on to playing injured players rather than fresh backups. Choice last year, and Austin this year are examples of where they were dead wrong.

The word 'scapegoat' exists for a reason.

...i have a feeling Vela is not looking at this from the standpoint of formation...i could be wrong but there seems to be considerable difference of opinion on Garrett's playcalling...i tend to believe Sturm on this one, as his analysis seems more rigorous and he has the numbers to back him...

 

[craig71]

Bob Sturm made it a point to emphasize that Dallas only ran 13 plays from under center for 51 yards.That looks to be successful so I was curious as to when the 13 plays were called.I hate to look at only averages as they don't always tell a true story.

1st. Series

2-7-DAL 42 (13:00) 9-T.Romo pass short right to 11-R.Williams to GB 39 for 19 yards

1-10-GB 39 (12:25) 24-M.Barber left end pushed ob at GB 26 for 13 yards

2-10-GB 26 (11:43) 24-M.Barber up the middle to GB 19 for 7 yards

There are 3 of 13 plays from under center for 39 yards,those 3 plays averaged 13 yards per play.

2nd. Series

2-5-DAL 47 (5:21) 9-T.Romo pass short right to 24-M.Barber to GB 40 for 13 yards

2-11-GB 41 (4:11) 24-M.Barber up the middle to GB 39 for 2 yards

Plays 4 and 5 of 13 went for 15 yards for an average of 7.5 yards per play.

3rd. Series

1-10-DAL 49 10) 28-F.Jones right end to GB 49 for 2 yards

2-8-GB 49 (15:00) 9-T.Romo sacked at DAL 41 for -10 yards

Plays 6 and 7 of 13 from under center lost 8 yards for an average of -4 yards per play.

4th. Series

1-10-DAL 25 (9:50) 9-T.Romo pass short left to 80-M.Bennett to DAL 31 for 6 yards

2-4-DAL 31 (9:04) 28-F.Jones right end to DAL 31 for no gain

Plays 8 and 9 of 13 gained 6 yards for an average of 3 yards per play.

5th Series

1-10-DAL 28 (4:03) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass deep middle to 11-R.Williams to GB 30 for 42 yards (21-C.Woodson). FUMBLES (21-C.Woodson), RECOVERED by GB-52-C.Matthews at GB 31. 52-C.Matthews to GB 31 for no gain

That was a good call that ended in a bad way.

6th. Series

All snaps out of the gun with less than 2 minutes in the half.

7th Series Start of 2nd Half

1-10-DAL 36 (14:55) 24-M.Barber right tackle to DAL 35 for -1 yards

Play 10 of 13 lost a yard

8th Series

1-10-DAL 20 (8:56) 9-T.Romo pass incomplete short right to 19-M.Austin

1-10-DAL 46 (8:33) 9-T.Romo FUMBLES (Aborted) at DAL 43, and recovers at DAL 43. 9-T.Romo to DAL 43 for no gain

Plays 11 and 12 of 13 gained 0 yards

9th Series / 4th. Quarter GB 10 Dallas 0

All shotgun ending with "The Fumble Recovery That Wasn't"

10th Series

All shotgun with some no huddle ending in Romo pick at goal line.

11th Series

4-1-GB 24 (1:37) (No Huddle) 9-T.Romo up the middle to GB 22 for 2 yards

Play 13 of 13 gained 2 yards.

I count 13 plays for 53 yards.


Craig

 

[NextGenBoys]

Really.

I went back to NFL.com's game recap, and before the Packers go up 17-0, I count 22 passes or plays where Romo drops back to pass and is sacked. In that same period of time, there were about 11 running plays.

I did a quick count, so consider it +/- a play. That's still 22 called passing plays (regardless of whether there was actually a pass attempted) and 11 running plays, a 2/1 ratio. I wouldn't call that balanced.

Hmm, there must be an error from one of us, or NFL.com

I just went and counted every pass Romo had after going down and it was 24, so I was off by one.

 

[Hoofbite]

Oh boy, there are some people around here that are going to hate hearing this from Bob, especially since he makes a point of reminding everyone that it is something that happens consistantly.

They won't hear it. They will just "ear muff" this thread and move on.