Cowboys discuss bringing in Scott Linehan for playcalling

[Risen Star]

Who cares? What difference does it make?

Nobody thinks this team has a shot w things staying the way they are...might as well try somebody new. Can't be any worse.

Going to clean house anyways if it fails.

Play calling is scenery to distract fans from the real issue.

But people flock to it. It's always a quick fix.

 

[hra8700]

Love it love it love it!

Biggest corrections we need on offense:

1. Moving dez around and getting him away from doubles (ummm...calvin johnson anyone? Linehan is VERY creative on this front.
2. Freeing romo to be a playmaker (stafford sucks but he let it fly in their offense. I think this was one of romo's worst seasons, we learned that romo isnt brady/manning...he just isnt. You have to take the good with the bad--youll get the bad in crunch time in either case. Romo doesnt have staffords mechanics issues so it wont be as bad)
3. Creativity (linehans offense looked very different when they got reggie bush...he can shift his offense to his personnel)

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Did shock research and while he had success with Dante Culpepper 10 years ago and one good year with Stafford, he has been pretty mediocre to bad at Miami, St Louis, and Detroit. Jones seems to think someone being good a decade ago means they are still good.

Liinehan sucks but so did his QB.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree. Here's his numbers. But I'll admit I haven't watched the guy play much so most of my impression is off the stats.


Att. Com Yds TD INT NFL Rating PFF Rating
Total "aimed" passes 595 371 4647 29 19 89.5 26.4
Thrown away 17
Hit as Threw 2
Batted Passes 17
Spikes 3
Dropped Passes 58
Total 634 371 4647 29 19 84.1 22.0

He's been part at the top of the list of picks for years and his completion percentage is awful. It's 58% and while that would have been decent in 1993, it is 11 points lower than Rivers league lead. Even with all the long completions, his YPA was awful which just screams poor accuracy.

He amasses yards due to his high attempts and completes a lot of long throws but that doesn't do much for me.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

On board with this.

However, just another example of us doing everything we can to 'mentor' Garrett in running the offense.

Reeves, Sparano, Callahan, and now Linehan.

How many offensive coaches do we need to bring in to teach our offensive coach how to coach offense?!

Very well put.

 

[jobberone]

He's been part at the top of the list of picks for years and his completion percentage is awful. It's 58% and while that would have been decent in 1993, it is 11 points lower than Rivers league lead. Even with all the long completions, his YPA was awful which just screams poor accuracy.

He amasses yards due to his high attempts and completes a lot of long throws but that doesn't do much for me.

I'd have to look at film on him and the team but his numbers are there for anyone to see. Some of the games I saw he got pressured more than I'd like to see but that's anecdotal. I don't care enough to research it and try to in an amateur way get deeper into it. He's in the third tier or less of QBs in the league IMO.

 

[noshame]

If we hire this guy, the same day, Callahan and Wilson will be pounding the pavement.

 

[jobberone]

On board with this.

However, just another example of us doing everything we can to 'mentor' Garrett in running the offense.

Reeves, Sparano, Callahan, and now Linehan.

How many offensive coaches do we need to bring in to teach our offensive coach how to coach offense?!

That's a good point. I will say that different coaches bring some things they do better than the others even if all of them have a good knowledge of the offense. Some people can 'see' the defense and call the best plays to beat it better than others. I don't know all the older OCs around and available nor the up and comers either in the pros or the college ranks.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

We should pass the ball when that is working and the game situation including their D calls for it. We should run the ball when that's appropriate. I'm not hung up about the balance as that can and will change from game to game according to many variables. Look at NE. The goal is to have a versatile offense that can take what's given to them and make the defense have to constantly guess what's next.

I feel that is too simplistic of an approach that ignores some important parts of the game. And I think that is what has gotten us in trouble.

By running the ball, even if it is not working that great it:

1. Gives your defense less time on the field
2. More likely to wear down the opposing defense
3. Sets up the big plays with play action
4. Can get teams out of comfortably blitzing the offense every down.
5. Can get a non blitzing team to have the safeties and LB's sneak up on the run

Romo is at his best when he throws it about 30-38 times a game. The team has been undefeated when Murray gets only 20 carries per game.

Sure, you cannot just run the ball until Murray gets 20 carries and expect to win. And part of it has to do with the defense and special teams not getting the team down too much too early where we have to throw the ball to get back in the game.

But, if we look for 36 pass attempts and 20 runs...that's only 9 passes per quarter and 5 runs per quarter and equating to *extreme* success.

It shows that when the team is patient with the run play calling and doesn't abandon the run when it is not working early (or abandon it when it is working great because the defense stacks the box)...the team is successful. We don't consider our defense when it comes to our offensive playcalling. We don't consider where Romo is at his best with our playcalling. We don't consider the O-Line (I've never met an O-Lineman that prefers pass blocking to run blocking). And we don't think about wearing down the opposing defense and setting up the big play later on when we'll need it.

And the scenarios I gave *still* have us passing 64.2% of the time.





YR

 

[theebs]

He is not a great QB. If he were, Caldwell would not have been hired to "fix" him.

That is just the window dressing for the fans. He wasnt hired to fix stafford he was hired to make the team better.

That team as much as any needs to be viewed differently by fans. Everyone thinks they are a bunch of reckless thugs.

Caldwell is there to change the perspective. Stafford is fine, he throws a lot of interceptions because they are so aggressive in the passing game.

 

[Alexander]

That is just the window dressing for the fans. He wasnt hired to fix stafford he was hired to make the team better.

Apparently it was window dressing for Ford and Mayhew as well when Caldwell walked into the interview having broken down every pass Stafford made last year.

 

[CATCH17]

All we do is bring in people from losing organizations.


If there is a ex lion or Bengal out there we are all over it.

 

[Gaede]

All we do is bring in people from losing organizations.


If there is a ex lion or Bengal out there we are all over it.

Its a minimum investment. No one will cry over losing Linehan when the whole staff is let go next season

 

[theebs]

Apparently it was window dressing for Ford and Mayhew as well when Caldwell walked into the interview having broken down every pass Stafford made last year.

Ok ok

You guys are right, stafford stinks and Caldwell is their to fix him.

They lost because of stafford and he has been holding them back. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Aven8]

Ok ok

You guys are right, stafford stinks and Caldwell is their to fix him.

They lost because of stafford and he has been holding them back. Makes perfect sense.

Stafford was first made of glass, but since healthy. He is erratic, but has the strongest arm in the NFL IMO. He can be fixed and does need the work. I hate is smug face, but I love the player.

 

[jobberone]

I feel that is too simplistic of an approach that ignores some important parts of the game. And I think that is what has gotten us in trouble.

By running the ball, even if it is not working that great it:

1. Gives your defense less time on the field
2. More likely to wear down the opposing defense
3. Sets up the big plays with play action
4. Can get teams out of comfortably blitzing the offense every down.
5. Can get a non blitzing team to have the safeties and LB's sneak up on the run

Romo is at his best when he throws it about 30-38 times a game. The team has been undefeated when Murray gets only 20 carries per game.

Sure, you cannot just run the ball until Murray gets 20 carries and expect to win. And part of it has to do with the defense and special teams not getting the team down too much too early where we have to throw the ball to get back in the game.

But, if we look for 36 pass attempts and 20 runs...that's only 9 passes per quarter and 5 runs per quarter and equating to *extreme* success.

It shows that when the team is patient with the run play calling and doesn't abandon the run when it is not working early (or abandon it when it is working great because the defense stacks the box)...the team is successful. We don't consider our defense when it comes to our offensive playcalling. We don't consider where Romo is at his best with our playcalling. We don't consider the O-Line (I've never met an O-Lineman that prefers pass blocking to run blocking). And we don't think about wearing down the opposing defense and setting up the big play later on when we'll need it.

And the scenarios I gave *still* have us passing 64.2% of the time.





YR

I think that is ideal but my point was the game plan is going to change week to week and within the game itself. They need to do a better job of play calling in the moment IMO. Overall I get what you're saying and I agree. I don't have a problem with trying to dictate the flow of the game either if you can. Teams have for some time placed an emphasis on stopping the run so that's not always easy.

I have no problem with more running and I agree we should. But you're not going to see that ideal balance game in and game out. Again go back and look at the passing attempts for NE this last year. I picked them because they have a successful offense and do not have a dominating defense and this is closer to us than looking at SF or Seattle.

You do what works and you don't get too cute too often.

 

[Next Years Champ]

Romo has put Jason Garrett on the map.

Before coming to Dallas as an inexperienced QB coach who had "success" with Joey Harrington in Miami, he lacked bullet points on his resume.

Yes he did.

Garrett and Romo are tied like an embilical.

I think this is why we all get a little crazy with the outcomes at time.

We bounce back and forth b/w the two of them placing blame and shaking their hands when it works.

Fans are crazy.

Sometime crazy good...

sometimes crazy bad.

 

[Idgit]

So much complaining about adding an offensive coach. At the end of the day, it's hardly going to matter, and people are only talking about it now to try to spin it negatively for whatever perverse reasons they may have. If it happens, it'll happen to address some offensive limitation they thought they had last season, and the reality is we'll probably never get the details as to what it was.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what we do on defense, since we're locked into our coaches there and still need so much help.

 

[Alexander]

Ok ok

You guys are right, stafford stinks and Caldwell is their to fix him.

They lost because of stafford and he has been holding them back. Makes perfect sense.

I did not say he stinks. He has talent but he certainly needs a lot of work still. If he puts it together, he will be great.

 

[Sarge]

Not good.