Dak on what to expect from Moore's offense

[Diehardblues]

I didn't say they don't influence outcomes.

The front office has evolved. Jason Garrett hasn't. And like I said, I'm open to the idea that they can change. There is just absolutely no evidence to suggest that they can, other than....faith?

I suppose we can always be hopeful the results might change even if our leadership hasn’t ?

It’s not something I have a lot of faith in but perhaps it’s left up to each individual fan to follow their own path.

 

[Future]

I suppose we can always be hopeful the results might change even if our leadership hasn’t ?

It’s not something I have a lot of faith in but perhaps it’s left up to each individual fan to follow their own path.

I mean sure. I HOPE that Moore is the answer.

There's just no real reason to believe that he is, at this point lol. We won't know anything until like Week 8.

 

[OmerV]

There's some truth to this, but there are also things you can do to scheme players open. We hardly ever bunch our receivers to make it harder to bump them. We don't use very many rub routes. We don't really take advantage of rules that favor the offense, instead running our plays in a way that's similar to the 1990s teams. The rules have changed a lot since the '90s.

I agree - there can be wrinkles and new plays added in that will help, and I don't think what Dak said necessarily suggests that won't happen. I think he is mainly just saying a lot of the difference in the offense will be in disguising plays better. I just think some fans have a false notion of what "Garrett's offense" is, and think of it as a completely unique offensive scheme that is unlike anything any other team does, when the reality is most teams run variations of the same plays. It's like Kitna said a week or so ago - there really aren't a lot of new plays, so it comes down to how you dress up the plays up.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

And the fact that JG doesn't know how that works and the fact that Moore has never been an OC and the fact that Dak has never shown a proclivity to do that and the fact we're still going to be a power-run offense first. Shifts and motions and wrinkles don't mean anything, because the passing concepts aren't going to change. Unless they shift and then change the play based on what the defense does (which is what the Rams did until they got owned by the Pats), nothing will change.

The offense will be better this year just based on health and having Amari. I'm not convinced that anything else will change, and nobody else should be either, because the passing game is the same now as it was in 2007.

Responding to the bolded statements above:

1. Yes Moore has never been an OC. Sean McVay played wide receiver at Miami of OHIO, had 39 receptions in his CAREER there. But

"On January 14, 2014, McVay was promoted to offensive coordinator by new Commanders head coach Jay Gruden.[14] In his first year as offensive coordinator, he turned the team's offense into the 12th-ranked pass offense in the NF and the 10th ranked total offense in the NFL (a year after the team's offense finished ranked 25th in total offense).

So McVay never played in the NFL, and was never an OC, but he did pretty well as a rookie OC. So just because Moore has never been an OC doesn't mean he can't be successful. Doesn't mean he can of course, but just he was never an OC doesn't count for a lot.

2. Dak runs the offense he's given, if Linehan didn't call shifts, etc. then we don't know if Dak can do them or not.

3. Agreed. I'm assuming by health you mean Frederick, Smith, etc, because there were no health issues with Dak, Zeke, Martin, Cooper, Jarwin and others.

4. Don't agree that nothing will change other than health. Moore can certainly have seen what didn't work under Linehan, and nobody is a carbon copy of anybody else. Besides, the offense averaged 14th in the league over the last 3 years, it's not like he has to revamp the 25th ranked offense like McVay, he has more to work with than McVay did.

Not saying I expect a radical difference in the offense, as you say it's still going to be a power running game offense, but every team runs the same basic plays - sweeps, off tackles, screens, post patterns, 12 personnel, fades, etc. No team has a unique set of plays in their entire playbook that no other team runs, the subtle differences in how the plays are run, and the particular set of circumstances they're run in makes one offense better than most (assuming the personnel are there, which I don't think anybody Dallas doesn't have to at least a pretty good degree).

I'm expecting a more varied and productive offense, not greatly because then you'd have to run a lot of plays that the players haven't done before, and as they say, practice makes perfect, so you don't want to start from scratch. But at worst, I will give the kid a chance to see what he can do before I say it won't change at all....

 

[Parcells4Life]

It will be interesting for sure. "Running the same plays" doesn't mean a whole lot to me because NFL teams all run similar plays. The real edge comes in how you try to hide what you are doing.

That being said, I hope the passing concepts change a bit. The all four receivers running curls play on 3rd and 7 needs to get flushed down the toilet. Or once we get inside the red zone, we start throwing back shoulder throws and fades.

I am hoping there is more creativity in the passing game.

The QB has to be able to make the fades and back shoulder throws. The fact he couldn’t is why Dez isn’t here any more.

 

[Diehardblues]

The QB has to be able to make the fades and back shoulder throws. The fact he couldn’t is why Dez isn’t here any more.

We’re going to try and win it without a QB with those skill sets. And one who doesn’t do play action well either. Shame with our running game.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

We’re going to try and win it without a QB with those skill sets. And one who doesn’t do play action well either. Shame with our running game.

Doesn't do well with play action? Nonsense. Just one example, with a pinpoint throw to boot:



http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...npoint-pass-to-James-Hanna-for-16-yard-pickup

 

[OmerV]

Its more complicated than that. Yes, the passing tree is the same but it's more than how you disguise a play, it's how and when you use a play.

We've been criticized by some who have looked back at some past seasons that we are fairly conservative on third downs in terms of the passing routes we use. We also are a bit predictable in the route combinations we have used (lots of curls, etc). So for this offense to be better, it has to go beyond just adding a couple of new formations or more motion.

I am (was) hoping Moore would kill our tendencies and open up the offense, specifically in the passing game, by getting away from our predictability.

I agree my post was a bit of a simplification, but what you are talking about is play calling and tendencies not basic offensive scheme I know play calling goes hand in hand with the scheme, but I don't think that's what Dak was referring to. He was referring to the way the plays will look.

 

[OmerV]

They ran those plays so much faster than we did. Watching the Rams Cowboys playoff game I felt like that is what our offense should look like. So crisp and all the fakes and misdirections happened very quickly so it really did 'pause' defenders.

And I think that's part of what Dak is referring to when he talks about Moore changing the look of plays. The same basic play can look so much different when you dress it up with some motion or shifts or whatever. And, of course, when the play calling is a little less predictable.

 

[gimmesix]

I agree - there can be wrinkles and new plays added in that will help, and I don't think what Dak said necessarily suggests that won't happen. I think he is mainly just saying a lot of the difference in the offense will be in disguising plays better. I just think some fans have a false notion of what "Garrett's offense" is, and think of it as a completely unique offensive scheme that is unlike anything any other team does, when the reality is most teams run variations of the same plays. It's like Kitna said a week or so ago - there really aren't a lot of new plays, so it comes down to how you dress up the plays up.

Not only how you dress them up, but how you use them to attack a team's weaknesses. The Rams didn't draw up new running plays to use against us; they simply set up their offense for that game to stay away from our best defender and attack weaker areas. (That we did not adjust is on us.)

My only problem with Garrett is that he doesn't seem to take that approach. If a team has a great No. 1 corner, he doesn't scheme to get his No. 1 receiver away from that corner but instead just relies on his player to outexecute his opponent. We don't use rub routes as a staple because of this kind of thought process. We don't do things to catch the opponent off-guard, and I don't know if Moore will be allowed to add that element.

If you've got a strong run-defense team that insists on stopping Elliott, you've still got to run Elliott, but you need to be wise in how you do it. You've got to throw some things at the defense to get them to back out of that. Instead, we just run it up in there and defend it by saying you've still got to run the ball. Quick passes to the running back can be just as effective as handing the ball off and more so in those situations. Draw plays on third down when they are not expecting the run can lead to big gains.

I like Garrett better than some as a head coach, but our offense, even with Romo at QB, has always fallen short of being the dynamic offense it should be because of his offensive philosophy IMO. I don't hold out much hope for him to allow Moore to truly try to outsmart the other team.

 

[ESisback]

Could be but yet to be seen. Assuming you mean Championship contenders.

In each era we became a Championship caliber team I wasn’t sure until we actually contended for it. Perhaps I should be from Missouri, the Show Me state. Ha

Which state demands guarantees?

 

[ESisback]

I didn't say they don't influence outcomes.

The front office has evolved. Jason Garrett hasn't. And like I said, I'm open to the idea that they can change. There is just absolutely no evidence to suggest that they can, other than....faith?

Some folks seem to believe that if they dislike someone, there’s NO CHANCE that person can improve or evolve. They talk like the person they dislike has “0” intelligence or ability, and all achievement is due to someone else’s actions or accomplishments.

 

[Diehardblues]

I didn't say they don't influence outcomes.

The front office has evolved. Jason Garrett hasn't. And like I said, I'm open to the idea that they can change. There is just absolutely no evidence to suggest that they can, other than....faith?

We appear to be talent dependent? How else can we explain going from 12-4 to 4-12 a few years ago with same coaching but different talent on the field ?

Or how do we explain with same coaching last year going from 3-4 to 10-6 except for talent added ?

 

[Them]

...a lot of speculations here....might as well wait till the regular season to see what they actually do!...preseason shouldn't tell much I suppose...

 

[pansophy]

And I think that's part of what Dak is referring to when he talks about Moore changing the look of plays. The same basic play can look so much different when you dress it up with some motion or shifts or whatever. And, of course, when the play calling is a little less predictable.

We can hope.

 

[OmerV]

Not only how you dress them up, but how you use them to attack a team's weaknesses. The Rams didn't draw up new running plays to use against us; they simply set up their offense for that game to stay away from our best defender and attack weaker areas. (That we did not adjust is on us.)

My only problem with Garrett is that he doesn't seem to take that approach. If a team has a great No. 1 corner, he doesn't scheme to get his No. 1 receiver away from that corner but instead just relies on his player to outexecute his opponent. We don't use rub routes as a staple because of this kind of thought process. We don't do things to catch the opponent off-guard, and I don't know if Moore will be allowed to add that element.

If you've got a strong run-defense team that insists on stopping Elliott, you've still got to run Elliott, but you need to be wise in how you do it. You've got to throw some things at the defense to get them to back out of that. Instead, we just run it up in there and defend it by saying you've still got to run the ball. Quick passes to the running back can be just as effective as handing the ball off and more so in those situations. Draw plays on third down when they are not expecting the run can lead to big gains.

I like Garrett better than some as a head coach, but our offense, even with Romo at QB, has always fallen short of being the dynamic offense it should be because of his offensive philosophy IMO. I don't hold out much hope for him to allow Moore to truly try to outsmart the other team.

This is a good post. The moral of the story seems to be that while plays need to be disguised better, game planning and play calling also need to be handled better

 

[Diehardblues]

This is a good post. The moral of the story seems to be that while plays need to be disguised better, game planning and play calling also need to be handled better

Don’t forget about execution.

 

[Future]

Some folks seem to believe that if they dislike someone, there’s NO CHANCE that person can improve or evolve. They talk like the person they dislike has “0” intelligence or ability, and all achievement is due to someone else’s actions or accomplishments.

Didn't say that they can't. I specifically said that I'm open to it.

What I said was that there is no evidence. What evidence is there of this offense being capable of making significant philosophical changes and executing them well, other than offseason quotes? Could it happen, sure, but there is nothing to say that it will, so any prediction that it will is based on just hope.

Jason Garrett, specifically, is only in the league because of Tony Romo. So...yea.

 

[Future]

We appear to be talent dependent? How else can we explain going from 12-4 to 4-12 a few years ago with same coaching but different talent on the field ?

Or how do we explain with same coaching last year going from 3-4 to 10-6 except for talent added ?

Of course we are. The changes in philosophy would be based on the idea that the cowboys have moved from a team who depends on winning individual matchups across the board, to actually scheming wins. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Rockport]

Yea - so Moore is still running JG's trash offense.

The offense is a very good one. Disguising it fixes the only issue with it.