DMN Blog: Grounding out the running game

And we lost that Giants game in week 2 because Romo **** the bed. We would trounced the Giants if it wasn't for Romo.

AKA the running game was there and working.
 
dbair1967;3085513 said:
So why arnt we 0-9? Why do we rank at or near the top of the league in alot of different offensive categories? Why did we go into the GB game with the fewest 3 and outs in the NFL?

Why did we lose to the Giants and Packers?

I didn't post a diatribe clamoring for three yards and a cloud of dust.

I have no problem admitting there are games that will favor passing.

I also have no trouble acknowledging the fact we don't run as much as we should, especially when teams are keying on stopping the pass.

But the way Jason Garrett calls games, the team goes as Tony Romo goes.

We are entirely dependent on Romo's arm every week and that shouldn't be the case.

If another team comes out playing the pass like Green Bay did, we need to be prepared to run on them until they change to stop it.

Why continue throwing the ball when they know you want to and they scheme to stop it?

There's more than one way to win a game.
 
SLATEmosphere;3085523 said:
I'll ask you again. Whens the last game where we ran the ball too much and still lost. Because I can think of at least 4-5 losses where the game was in reach and the ball was sprayed everywhere and lost. Okay so that doesn't work.

Everybody waited quietly for the notion of Cause & Effect to eventually dawn on SLATEmosphere. Sadly, it never happened, but he kept posting anyway because he's such a trooper.
 
Bluefin;3085537 said:
Why did we lose to the Giants and Packers?

It had nothing to do with how many times we ran or passed, we turned the ball over too much in both games, while not getting enough of our own. Period, end of story.

But the way Jason Garrett calls games, the team goes as Tony Romo goes.

And thats pretty much the status quo for the NFL, if your QB plays well you have a good chance usually, if he doesnt, then you usually dont. Romo isnt a scrub, over time he has proven to be one of the leagues best QB's. He isnt a Quincy Carter who has to (or needs to be) hidden or de-emphasized in the offense.

We are entirely dependent on Romo's arm every week and that shouldn't be the case.

I dont agree with that at all. His play is tied to the other 10 guys on offense. If the OL plays poorly (as it did vs GB) he wont have as much success. You can argue all you ant about running the ball more, but if the OL doesnt block you end up with alot of 2nd and 3rd and longs. And other than the first series vs GB, those guys didnt block for the run or the pass.

If another team comes out playing the pass like Green Bay did, we need to be prepared to run on them until they change to stop it.

GB pretty much stoned our run game, especially after Barber's first couple of carries on the opening drive.

Why continue throwing the ball when they know you want to and they scheme to stop it?

I didnt see them do anything amazing to scheme the pass. They did a ton of blitzing, of which we did a very poor job of picking it up. We had plays there to make, they just didnt get made or got negated by a drop, or a fumble, or a penalty. I'm not sure why you (or anyone else) thinks that if we had simply run more times, it would have equated to more yards and a definite win. We couldnt block the blitz when we passed, those plays were still blitzes. They would have still had guys coming into the backfield. There is a theme developing here, and its teams blitzing alot against us. Until we do something to make them pay, we're gonna keep seeing it. Atlanta blitzed more vs us than they had in any of their other games. Seattle blitzed us alot. Philly blitzed us alot, and then we saw GB blitz over and over and over.

There's more than one way to win a game.

Yep. We have a good defense and good special teams. So you have to count that. We do have 3 very good RB's, but unfortunately 2 of the 3 are playing hurt. I dont think its any coincidence whatsoever that when those 3 guys were all 100%, our run game was pretty good.

The best players on our offense are the QB and the TE. The past few season you would add the #1 WR to that group. When thats the case, its foolish to not use that to your advantage.
 
SLATEmosphere;3085523 said:
dbair1967;3085507 said:
It's ridiculous because you can't answer it. New England and Indy have the two best QB's in the league. Arizona has Fitz and Boldin. San Diego and Philly have accomplished nothing. Nice try.

And Romo's a scrub?

I'll ask you again. Whens the last game where we ran the ball too much and still lost. Because I can think of at least 4-5 losses where the game was in reach and the ball was sprayed everywhere and lost. Okay so that doesn't work.

OK, so what games over the past 4 or 5 yrs did we win because of the pass?

As I responded to Bluefin, just because you want to argue that running the ball more would equate to more yards and a defintie win doesnt make it true. They tried to run the ball quite a bit vs Denver, and had no success doing it. We had alot of success running vs the Giants, but we had turnovers. We had too many turnovers vs GB too. We lost both those games because of turnovers, not because of how many times we ran or passed.
 
dbair1967;3085595 said:
It had nothing to do with how many times we ran or passed, we turned the ball over too much in both games, while not getting enough of our own. Period, end of story.



And thats pretty much the status quo for the NFL, if your QB plays well you have a good chance usually, if he doesnt, then you usually dont. Romo isnt a scrub, over time he has proven to be one of the leagues best QB's. He isnt a Quincy Carter who has to (or needs to be) hidden or de-emphasized in the offense.



I dont agree with that at all. His play is tied to the other 10 guys on offense. If the OL plays poorly (as it did vs GB) he wont have as much success. You can argue all you ant about running the ball more, but if the OL doesnt block you end up with alot of 2nd and 3rd and longs. And other than the first series vs GB, those guys didnt block for the run or the pass.



GB pretty much stoned our run game, especially after Barber's first couple of carries on the opening drive.



I didnt see them do anything amazing to scheme the pass. They did a ton of blitzing, of which we did a very poor job of picking it up. We had plays there to make, they just didnt get made or got negated by a drop, or a fumble, or a penalty. I'm not sure why you (or anyone else) thinks that if we had simply run more times, it would have equated to more yards and a definite win. We couldnt block the blitz when we passed, those plays were still blitzes. They would have still had guys coming into the backfield. There is a theme developing here, and its teams blitzing alot against us. Until we do something to make them pay, we're gonna keep seeing it. Atlanta blitzed more vs us than they had in any of their other games. Seattle blitzed us alot. Philly blitzed us alot, and then we saw GB blitz over and over and over.



Yep. We have a good defense and good special teams. So you have to count that. We do have 3 very good RB's, but unfortunately 2 of the 3 are playing hurt. I dont think its any coincidence whatsoever that when those 3 guys were all 100%, our run game was pretty good.

The best players on our offense are the QB and the TE. The past few season you would add the #1 WR to that group. When thats the case, its foolish to not use that to your advantage.

That's my question as well.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Where are the whiners when we win and dont have an equal run:pass ratio?
 
Run the football? Impossible. It won't work. We're already down by three points.
 
Chocolate Lab;3085349 said:
Werder was just on GAC and he said he talked to an opposing coach who said the perception around the league was that Garrett wants to throw the ball (just like he did as a former QB) and that he's too easily discouraged from running if things don't go well early.

Man, I'm almost starting to feel sorry for poor RJ. :(

I'm not impressed with this. I've been saying it for 3 years and no one has offered to give me a lollipop.
 
Idgit;3085563 said:
SLATEmosphere;3085523 said:
Everybody waited quietly for the notion of Cause & Effect to eventually dawn on SLATEmosphere. Sadly, it never happened, but he kept posting anyway because he's such a trooper.

does anyone really care what you think?

I mean at the end of the day your just a cyber ***
 
There's just no hope for anyone that doesn't see we give up on the run way too early on many/most occasions. It's just way too obvious. Garrett does not have the stomach or patience to grind out a game. If we'd stick with the run, Davis, Gurode, Flo, etc. would hammer the D line into submission. We don't stick with it.
 
SLATEmosphere;3085672 said:
does anyone really care what you think?

I mean at the end of the day your just a cyber ***

That's not fair or accurate. I'm an *** in person, too.

Don't be mad at me for speaking the truth, SLATE. Or for making fun of you for being such a wangzta.
 
I think the only way Dallas wins that game is if Green Bay doesn't show up.(How many starters did Green Bay have out at the start of the game?)People can moan and groan over the playcalling all they want but the bottom line is that the players left some plays on the field.Green Bay showed up for a dogfight and Dallas showed up for a wine tasting expecting cheese and crackers.

Craig
 
Asklesko;3085642 said:
Run the football? Impossible. It won't work. We're already down by three points.

As sick as I am about this topic already that made me chuckle..:laugh2:
 
Rampage;3085710 said:
he's also a sissy. how bout those big scary Raider fans?:laugh2:

I am a big *****. Thanks for bringing up that idiotic argument again. Sure glad I hit the 'view post' buttons for you guys in this thread.

A side note on my Raider story. I was talking about that game with the guy I went with just last week when we were making fun of Raider fans and my buddy reminded me that during that game stadium security walked up to us in the stands to let us know we should take off the jerseys in the parking lot. I'd forgotten about that little gem. That stadium guard was a big *****, too. So was the lady Raider fan I told you about wearing the blue jacket in the parking lot who almost got jacked by four bangers.

The week before, Colin Cowherd was on the air saying it's dangerous for opposing fans to go to that stadium wearing team colors and commenting that team management immediately called him off the air to ask him not to make the issue public as they were working hard to change that perception. What they need is to get a bunch of white teenage wannabes to go the the games and represent the opposing fan base. That should fix things nicely.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
465,821
Messages
13,899,520
Members
23,793
Latest member
Roger33
Back
Top