Cowboys Over-Performed?

[kskboys]

What does this prove? No one has said execution wasn't a problem for this team. Don't create strawman arguments now.

Where we criticize you is that you want to make it ALL about execution. That the team didn't succeed this year because they didn't execute and that the coaches bear pretty much zero responsibility for the outcomes.

It was also interesting to note that before the segment you wanted us to listen to, Spags is going on about how teams in the playoffs ran the ball well, implying that running is basically a simple concept........ just hand if off, block the guy in front of you and presto, you run the ball! But if people were paying attention and reading the analysis after the Rams game, it was pointed out in multiple places that the Rams coaching staff did a fantastic job in using motion and formations and some new wrinkles to get our DL and our LBs often out of position because of tendencies their staff saw in how we played.

You and I guess Spags, who is a Garrett homer so his opinions here are certainly not unbiased, will likely dismiss that because it doesn't fit into the worldview that coaching doesn't really matter all that much.............

Pass pass pass in the red zone says the problem is more than just execution.

 

[Sydla]

By the way, Dre.............. are you upset Jerry fired Linehan? Because in that clip, it sure seems like Spags is saying Linehan got scapegoated since his offenses were better in parts 2017 and the 2016 season. It's just that in the down times in 2018, they didn't execute well enough.

So did Linehan get scapegoated and was unfairly fired?

Were we wrong to fire Alexander, the OL coach? I mean did he get fired because his OL simply didn't feel like executing in the first half of the year? What about Dooley last year? Was he unfairly pushed out the door because of Dez, largely, not playing hard and not executing in 2017?

 

[kskboys]

By the way, Dre.............. are you upset Jerry fired Linehan? Because in that clip, it sure seems like Spags is saying Linehan got scapegoated since his offenses were better in parts 2017 and the 2016 season. It's just that in the down times in 2018, they didn't execute well enough.

So did Linehan get scapegoated and was unfairly fired?

Were we wrong to fire Alexander, the OL coach? I mean did he get fired because his OL simply didn't feel like executing in the first half of the year? What about Dooley last year? Was he unfairly pushed out the door because of Dez, largely, not playing hard and not executing in 2017?

Jared Goff loves Jeff Fisher.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

He doesn't deserve any credit for leading the team to an over-performing season. #SMH

Why not? He gets dogged when and if the team sucks. Why shouldn't he get any credit when they "over perform"?

Double standard bs if you ask me but I am sure many will have a pat answer for me. Bring it on.

Oops. I didn't realize there were already 10 pages on this post. My bad. lol

 

[xwalker]

Cooper was huge. I disagree with @xwalker that this was the most talented team since 1996, but I do think it was the most balanced team since then. The offense was pretty ho-hum talent wise, but it's also very young and had a down year for the OL, so that should improve. The defense is the best we've seen since 2009, but needs a few more pieces.

I agree with the concept of the article - this team could have easily been a 5-8 win team and a combination of grit by the players who never quit and the coaching staff to understand the limitations of talent and coach around it probably contributed to a slight over achievement.

As for next year, the schedule is REALLY REALLY REALLY hard compared to this year, so the team needs to consider the following to continue to compete:

• I appreciate why they want to keep the coaching staff as is, but they had best work their heads off this offseason to install some new and better concepts to help the passing game and play call strategy.
• Quality control needs to improve on both sides of the ball (tendencies). Too many reports of teams knowing what the Cowboys were going to do.
• They are really counting on their young talent progressing. I think that's a bold move - I think you generally know what you have and the degree of change/improvement is limited, but I've been proved wrong with people like Jaylon Smith, Byron Jones, all the TEs, etc.
• THEY MUST address holes in free agency. The more I hear about Stephen Jones saying that's not their strategy the more foolhardy I think it is. I read that the Rams offered a 1st and a 3rd for KHalil Mack because they KNEW the window is now. Waiting for the window to come is the same as watching it pass by. Use your resources, acquire talent, and then trust the process.

This off season will be the biggest in a long time, and history says the Cowboys get complacent with success. 2009 exposed some SERIOUS shortcomings with the Offensive Line and defense in the playoffs, and 2010 suffered because of it. 2014 we SAW what happens with Brandon Weedon as the QB and took no real action to find a reliable backup QB. 2017 was an off year, but I'm not sure what opportunities were available then anyway.

It looks like the front office will repeat the mistake - they "like the team" so they'll ride with it, but that's just non-aggressive and I don't like. I like the team too, but you have got to think creatively of ways to improve up and down.

The offense had Zeke, Tyron, Martin and Amari Cooper. All 4 are All-Pro type talents.

Hurns ended up as the #4 WR and he is better than TWill who was the #2 WR some years.

Beasley is one of the better slot WRs in the league.

The only player that would give to the nod to any of the Romo years over this year's roster is Witten.

The years between Mike Irvin's last game and the Romo era were not very good regardless of some big name players remaining.

Maybe 97 and 98 but Novacek's last season was 95 and they struggled to find a replacement for him.

Irvin was injured early in the 99 season.

 

[xwalker]

I think I'd still take 2007. But, otherwise, you are right. This team has talent in a lot of places.

The CBs were Anthony Henry and Jacques Reeves.

The top off-ball LB was Bradie James. He was a well known name but never remotely in the ballpark from a talent perspective as compared to Vander Esch, Jaylon or Sean Lee.

The RB was Julius Jones...

 

[ThreeandOut]

Most of the time when teams have a lot of close wins, it is natural to assume that it might end up in a regression the following season if things remain constant. That is why it is important that the brass don't stay complacent. Change nothing, this is likely a six-eight win team.

This was exactly the point of the article that teams that win a lot of close games will tend to regress to the mean the next year. The thing is the Cowboys have a QB that’s been very good in these close game situations over his three year career. They also have a running game that can control the clock. The Cowboys may just be a team that is built to win close games.

 

[Dre11]

And the coaches can put players in better positions to succeed. Coaches can make proper play calls within a game that exploit weaknesses of other teams. Coaches can make adjustments in game based on what the opposing team is trying to do.

Your continual denial of that shows how silly you are being here.

In your world, football is simply rolling the ball out there and letting guys play and things like strategy, adjustments, etc. don't matter.

Exactly, they can put players in position, and if they miss a tackle, a la Heath, Woods, or let their eyes deceive them Vandy,smith,and Heath . You can have all the strategy in the world. None of it's gonna matter if you don't get execution. It all ones down to players, you can make all the adjustments you want , it still comes down to execution, I live it, been coaching for 20+ years, have been in many coaching circles on all levels through clinics, seminars, training, and still hold some contacts with coaches like Mike Locksley, Brian Stewart, Kevin Gilbride, to name a few.

 

[Dre11]

The flaw in your - and Broaddus' and Mickey's argument is that both they and you somehow think that the two things are separate, when in fact they are intertwined. A coach is not only responsible for the playcalling, but also the execution of the plays he's calling. You can call the greatest plays in the world, but if your players can't run them, or they don't play to the players' strengths, they're worthless.

This is where You're flawed, most teams are made up with multiple types of players with different strengths. No team have all their players with the same strengths and weaknesses . What they do is what this team was built to do best is run the ball. It doesn't mean because you run the ball it's going to be successful, even though it's the teams strength. 1 miss block, false start, or a player getting blown up can kill a play. That's execution. A ball hit a player right in the hand he drops it, is that on the coach? A drop int, a miss read of a hole? ZEKE had some, a bad route?

 

[Dre11]

Baker Mayfield disagrees w/ you.

Baker? Lol. Let see...lol

 

[Dre11]

What does this prove? No one has said execution wasn't a problem for this team. Don't create strawman arguments now.

Where we criticize you is that you want to make it ALL about execution. That the team didn't succeed this year because they didn't execute and that the coaches bear pretty much zero responsibility for the outcomes.

It was also interesting to note that before the segment you wanted us to listen to, Spags is going on about how teams in the playoffs ran the ball well, implying that running is basically a simple concept........ just hand if off, block the guy in front of you and presto, you run the ball! But if people were paying attention and reading the analysis after the Rams game, it was pointed out in multiple places that the Rams coaching staff did a fantastic job in using motion and formations and some new wrinkles to get our DL and our LBs often out of position because of tendencies their staff saw in how we played.

You and I guess Spags, who is a Garrett homer so his opinions here are certainly not unbiased, will likely dismiss that because it doesn't fit into the worldview that coaching doesn't really matter all that much.............

 

[scottsp]

And the coaches can put players in better positions to succeed. Coaches can make proper play calls within a game that exploit weaknesses of other teams. Coaches can make adjustments in game based on what the opposing team is trying to do.

Your continual denial of that shows how silly you are being here.

In your world, football is simply rolling the ball out there and letting guys play and things like strategy, adjustments, etc. don't matter.

One such instance if this comes to mind. From Jeff Fisher to Sean McVay. The decade leading up to this change had the Rams averaging around five wins, topping out at seven under Fisher.

There has been considerable turnover on offense and in their secondary, but there is no mistaking the driving force behind that. The catalyst is their head coach, and certainly he’s been responsible for putting his guys in the best position to be successful.

It’s a far cry from turning over the troops to a house plant, since they, too, would be capable of leaving everything up to “execution.” That’s not to say Garrett is a Boston Fern, but he’s definitely the other guy, either.

His resume is the essence of employee whose primary objective is to hold a job. He is less likely to stray from norms or out of his comfort zone. I suppose there is something to be said for a coach who relies on eleven guys winning their individual battles every tine the ball is snapped, but that something is in the realm of fantasy.

Yes, a lot of the game relies on executing elements of a game plan. Though, I think it’s practical to ask what is that plan? Does it stack up against what the enemy is plotting? Power football is fine. But do you have a counterpunch?

These are questions many of us have, I think. It’s not like we hold much of a competitive advantage with the men wearing headsets. Then again, this organization doesn’t tend to place as much value in this area. Garrett is comfortable for them. He’s precisely what they want.

Safe, process-driven, and who cares if everyone sees what’s coming. Try and stop it! Works ok until smarter minds are standing across the field.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

This article basically says that Dallas was lucky to win 10 games. (Which inst surprising as Dallas finished 21st overall in adjusted DVOA). Why does JG deserve credit?

It's going to suck when they take that trophy next week and hand it to the leader of a worthless statistic. It's so stupid that they're still playing games when the fine folks at football outsiders have already told us who is the best.

 

[Sydla]

This is where You're flawed, most teams are made up with multiple types of players with different strengths. No team have all their players with the same strengths and weaknesses . What they do is what this team was built to do best is run the ball. It doesn't mean because you run the ball it's going to be successful, even though it's the teams strength. 1 miss block, false start, or a player getting blown up can kill a play. That's execution. A ball hit a player right in the hand he drops it, is that on the coach? A drop int, a miss read of a hole? ZEKE had some, a bad route?

Sure, no one has ever said the players are blameless in some of our issues. But you seemingly have always taken the position that Garrett and his staff typically call great games, put in great game plans, make great adjustments, are great in preparation for the week and that our failure to really succeed is because our players have consistently failed him and the staff and not "executed".

The Rams game is a pretty good example. As pointed out by a few analyses after the game, the Rams were able to largely run on us with such great success because they schemed our defense and were able to use motion and formations to get our LBs moving and out of position prior to the snap. Sure, there was a lack of execution on the part of the players but we got outschemed and our tendencies (such as us tipping our stunts) were used against us.

That game was a failure of both the players and the coaches. But I suspect in your world, it was simply a failure to execute by the players and they let Garrett down.

 

[Dre11]

What does this prove? No one has said execution wasn't a problem for this team. Don't create strawman arguments now.

Where we criticize you is that you want to make it ALL about execution. That the team didn't succeed this year because they didn't execute and that the coaches bear pretty much zero responsibility for the outcomes.

It was also interesting to note that before the segment you wanted us to listen to, Spags is going on about how teams in the playoffs ran the ball well, implying that running is basically a simple concept........ just hand if off, block the guy in front of you and presto, you run the ball! But if people were paying attention and reading the analysis after the Rams game, it was pointed out in multiple places that the Rams coaching staff did a fantastic job in using motion and formations and some new wrinkles to get our DL and our LBs often out of position because of tendencies their staff saw in how we played.

You and I guess Spags, who is a Garrett homer so his opinions here are certainly not unbiased, will likely dismiss that because it doesn't fit into the worldview that coaching doesn't really matter all that much.............

Yet at the end of the day it all came down to the Rams players executing . I font care how you cook it up, it all ultimately comes down to execution does it not?

 

[MaaS]

We'll need to make some a number of improvements to hit 10 wins again IMO. If we don't bring in a net positive of talent, we'll regress. The schedule looks brutal.

 

[Sydla]

Yet at the end of the day it all came down to the Rams players executing . I font care how you cook it up, it all ultimately comes down to execution does it not?

And this is the problem. How you cook it up is vital as well to the outcome of a game. Sure, a team has to do a good job executing it but again, here you are, downplaying the role of a coaching staff.

It's absurd.

 

[Dre11]

Sure, no one has ever said the players are blameless in some of our issues. But you seemingly have always taken the position that Garrett and his staff typically call great games, put in great game plans, make great adjustments, are great in preparation for the week and that our failure to really succeed is because our players have consistently failed him and the staff and not "executed".

The Rams game is a pretty good example. As pointed out by a few analyses after the game, the Rams were able to largely run on us with such great success because they schemed our defense and were able to use motion and formations to get our LBs moving and out of position prior to the snap. Sure, there was a lack of execution on the part of the players but we got outschemed and our tendencies (such as us tipping our stunts) were used against us.

That game was a failure of both the players and the coaches. But I suspect in your world, it was simply a failure to execute by the players and they let Garrett down.

Do we not know they don't put in a gameplan? All game plans on paper are put in to work, or look good, it's the execution that makes it work. So are you saying this is hing staff put in 10 great gameplans?

 

[Dre11]

And this is the problem. How you cook it up is vital as well to the outcome of a game. Sure, a team has to do a good job executing it but again, here you are, downplaying the role of a coaching staff.

It's absurd.

So did the staff cook up 11 great gameplans??

 

[Sydla]

So did the staff cook up 11 great gameplans??

Using your logic............ no.

The players executed well for 11 games, not so well in 7.

Garrett had no real bearing on the outcomes.