DMN: Cowboys would have already won a SB if I was coaching them

[joseephuss]

Sort of like what happened to Jimmy his first 2 seasons in the NFL. He had to bring in players that not just fit his system, but bought into his philosophy on how to win. Not saying Kelley's ideas are all going to work, but being a trailblazer takes just as much patience as courage, especially in the face of adversity. There were people burned at the stake for saying the world was round, or that the earth was not the center of the universe. Truth changes when light (new discoveries) is shined upon it.

Is football so evolved that there are no more new ideas or concepts to improve it?

Saying this guy is crazy is not the same as saying the NFL has no room for improvement or can evolve. Two different things.

 

[joseephuss]

You are right the game changes. I think back when Jimmy got the job in Dallas and everyone hated him and thought what a mistake it was to bring Jimmy in and get rid of Tom. Well change was hard but you see the results. 3 Super Bowl wins with the team Jimmy built. I know Jimmy only won 2 but that was his team.

Jimmy did a lot of the same things that previous dynasties did. He acquired and horded talent. He got a top QB. He built a strong offensive line. He created a quality defense with a lot of depth. These are some of the basic things that all great teams do. Nothing too innovative about it.

 

[dallasdave]

Jimmy did a lot of the same things that previous dynasties did. He acquired and horded talent. He got a top QB. He built a strong offensive line. He created a quality defense with a lot of depth. These are some of the basic things that all great teams do. Nothing too innovative about it.

Jimmy won at the college and pro level. He did a lot of innovative things.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm not necessarily in on what this guy is selling. I do think it's really interesting, though. In your own example, 8 of 23 means they got 8 additional possessions agains that NE defense. In order to get them, they had to give up the yardage for 17 punts, assuming no muffs or blocks. Netting ~40 yards/punt, that's, what, ~650 or so yards of field position. And you're also eliminating the risk of a big play on the 23 ST plays you'd otherwise have.

Personally, that's not enough to make it worth it to me, but it's not altogether crazy. Maybe you only go for it most of the time and eliminate some of the lowest probability plays from the metrics. Or maybe things look different when you don't use the Superbowl champion for the baseline. Either way, though, you have to admit, it'd be fun to watch. If you're a Bucs fan or a Jags fan or a new team in LA, maybe, it'd be worth the experiment. I think it'd be great for the game.

yes but they failed 23 times so you’re not getting extra possession the vast majority of the time all you are doing is handing the ball back to a team with a very good offense who will now put points on you for being foolish. NE offensively only went for it on 4th 13 times last season. Belicheck is not an idiot he is not going to risk when you don't have to.
I think there are times to take risk I think there are many other times you are better off punting it away. I hears fans boo at times when teams put but fans are not going to be held accountable they can go for it 100% of the time in their minds but they do not have to be called out afterwards of taking unnecessary risk

 

[BAT]

Jimmy did not go for it that often on 4th downs, heck most in a season was 12 times and it was not his offense it was Norv Turners offense

The team who are leading the NFL in 4th down attempts are the losing teams they have no choice since they are behind in games and their conversions are low. NFL coaches rightfully get question when they try risking things. If you get it and win your a hero if you miss it and lose you were just stupid. High school coach spouting off makes him look good in front of his kids but frankly a HC in the NFL always going to it on 4th is going to get fired. There are some NFL defense who will shut you down

People like stats that say if you go for it on 4th and 1 you will make it x amount of times but there is another stats and that is not mentioned which is what is the percentage a defense will win those 4th and shorts and that varies from defense to defense

Never said that Jimmy would take risks on 4th down or even that he was a Kelley clone. I think you are missing my point.

 

[JoeKing]

Not according to analytics. And many said the same would not work at the HS level either.

Will McClay has the ear of Stephen and Jerry Jones. If analytics favored this stated strategy, it would have already been exploited. If Will McClay, the ultimate analytical guru hasn't encouraged that strategy then it must not be all that you claim it is cracked up to be. End of discussion.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Does this guy know that the Cowboys have already won 5 Super Bowls?

 

[Direwolf63]

Whether a coach always goes for it on 4th down is more than just numbers. If you defense was like the Cowboys of 2 years ago, you cannot be constantly giving up field position to guys like Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady. They would put up a 60 burger on you in a heartbeat.

If, on the other hand, you have an excellent defense, like Seattles' for example, you can take more chances because your defense will bail you out more often than not.

It takes more than just a calculator to determine how a game should be managed properly.

 

[Idgit]

yes but they failed 23 times so you’re not getting extra possession the vast majority of the time all you are doing is handing the ball back to a team with a very good offense who will now put points on you for being foolish. NE offensively only went for it on 4th 13 times last season. Belicheck is not an idiot he is not going to risk when you don't have to.
I think there are times to take risk I think there are many other times you are better off punting it away. I hears fans boo at times when teams put but fans are not going to be held accountable they can go for it 100% of the time in their minds but they do not have to be called out afterwards of taking unnecessary risk

Did I not understand you right? They were 8 of 23, meaning they failed 15 times (derp, I did my simple subtraction wrong last time), right? And they were giving the ball back to NE, either way, the difference was the field position.

And field position matters a lot, obviously. But then again, there are plenty of bend-but-don't break defenses that are designed to stiffen up when backed up, anyway.

I don't know. I totally get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with it. At the same time, I don't think it's as crazy as the average fan might think it is on the surface. I really believe that NFL coaches do an awful lot of things to avoid taking risks. Not because it's the most logical thing in terms of winning games necessarily. But because it's the most logical thing in terms of job security. In a league where talk radio eats you alive for 6 days after every single loss, most guys can't sustain 8 weeks of talks about what giant idiots they are. Like it or not, that public opinion affects the locker room and it affects the ownership who's constantly marketing the team. You end up breeding an environment where guys naturally avoid criticism in order to keep their great high-paying jobs. Even a coach like Belichick takes on water when he goes for it on 4th down on his own side of the field.

 

[Idgit]

Does this guy know that the Cowboys have already won 5 Super Bowls?

"It would have been six if I was coaching them."

 

[Direwolf63]

Sort of like what happened to Jimmy his first 2 seasons in the NFL. He had to bring in players that not just fit his system, but bought into his philosophy on how to win. Not saying Kelley's ideas are all going to work, but being a trailblazer takes just as much patience as courage, especially in the face of adversity. There were people burned at the stake for saying the world was round, or that the earth was not the center of the universe. Truth changes when light (new discoveries) is shined upon it.

Is football so evolved that there are no more new ideas or concepts to improve it?

Jimmy was much more of an innovator off the field (i.e. how he treated his players) than he was on it. Norv Turners offense was a basic as you can get. We won with better talent, not with anything goofy on the field. There was very little on the field that Jimmy did that was innovative. He won by accumulating better talent than anybody else.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Kevin Kelley wants to be a Cowboy. Would love to get this crazy guy on the staff somewhere.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...y-won-a-super-bowl-if-i-was-coaching-them.ece

Hmmmm. I would Say R. Kelley half more chance of success than this HS nutjob.

 

[Doomsday101]

Did I not understand you right? They were 8 of 23, meaning they failed 15 times (derp, I did my simple subtraction wrong last time), right? And they were giving the ball back to NE, either way, the difference was the field position.

And field position matters a lot, obviously. But then again, there are plenty of bend-but-don't break defenses that are designed to stiffen up when backed up, anyway.

I don't know. I totally get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with it. At the same time, I don't think it's as crazy as the average fan might think it is on the surface. I really believe that NFL coaches do an awful lot of things to avoid taking risks. Not because it's the most logical thing in terms of winning games necessarily. But because it's the most logical thing in terms of job security. In a league where talk radio eats you alive for 6 days after every single loss, most guys can't sustain 8 weeks of talks about what giant idiots they are. Like it or not, that public opinion affects the locker room and it affects the ownership who's constantly marketing the team. You end up breeding an environment where guys naturally avoid criticism in order to keep their great high-paying jobs. Even a coach like Belichick takes on water when he goes for it on 4th down on his own side of the field.

I think logic is knowing who your playing and their strength and weakness. Field position and the score matter. Sometimes punting or getting the FG is more than enough to win.

I will say this if your team is incapable of playing to the level of your opponent then taking big chances in order to have any chance of winning makes sense. William and Mary vs Ohio State? yeah they need to take any and all risk because playing straight up they don't have a chance.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

to all those in favour of it, I would pay to see your reaction if he went for it on 4th down in a tie game from his own 20 with under two to go, didn't get the first down and we lost by a FG. This site would explode, hell it would probably destroy the internet.

 

[Doomsday101]

Jimmy won at the college and pro level. He did a lot of innovative things.

yeah he fired Dave Shula and hired Nor Tuner. Jimmy was clearly a motivator and knew which button to push on each player but was not a play caller or even much of a risk taker.

Tom Landry on the other hand was an innovator but not much in terms of a risk taker

 

[BAT]

Jimmy did a lot of the same things that previous dynasties did. He acquired and horded talent. He got a top QB. He built a strong offensive line. He created a quality defense with a lot of depth. These are some of the basic things that all great teams do. Nothing too innovative about it.

When I say crazy, I mean crazy like a fox, not like a loon. Hope that clears that up. As for Jimmy, he indeed was innovative when he came into the league. He did not just horde talent but he horde a specific type of talent, especially on defense.

Jimmy made the 4-3 en vogue again, with a twist. Jimmy preached speed, physicality, intelligence, and more speed. Everyone at the time was a believer in bigger/stronger/faster with emphasis on bigger. Jimmy was wiling to sacrifice size for speed, even on the DL. Like he did in college, Jimmy was always taking the good college DE and making them great DTs. He took safeties and made them LBs. Jimmy saw a player not as they were, but what they could be. And Jimmy's trail blazing did not stop on the field, Jimmy was known as Trader Jimmy for a reason. He blew up the NFL draft, literally. Jimmy believed in acquiring quantity as well as quality and he was aggressive in his approach to the point that the league had to adapt to keep up.

"I was on the all-decade team at Arkansas at 195 pounds, defensive nose tackle," Johnson told ESPN.com. "You say, 'How can a 195-pound defensive lineman play?' Not only did we go undefeated [in 1964], we shut out the last five opponents.

"So it goes back to my playing days."

In recruiting meetings, Johnson talked about what prospects could become, not what they were -- the mass they could add or shed, the different positions they could play.

Johnson's non-negotiables: speed and intelligence.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...johnson-bobby-bowden-changed-college-football

 

[BAT]

Will McClay has the ear of Stephen and Jerry Jones. If analytics favored this stated strategy, it would have already been exploited. If Will McClay, the ultimate analytical guru hasn't encouraged that strategy then it must not be all that you claim it is cracked up to be. End of discussion.

I like Will McClay. I just don't bow at his altar. I bow at no man's altar actually. I question everything and encourage everyone else do so, in a respectful manner. I won't have anyone forming my opinions or making my decisions. Besides, it was only a suggestion, mostly tongue in cheek. I am a bit surprised by some of the venom and obstinance of the responses.

 

[Idgit]

I like Will McClay. I just don't bow at his altar. I bow at no man's altar actually. I question everything and encourage everyone else do so, in a respectful manner. I won't have anyone forming my opinions or making my decisions. Besides, it was only a suggestion, mostly tongue in cheek. I am a bit surprised by some of the venom and obstinance of the responses.

Just so you guys know, I caught BAT bowing at my altar, once. Just the once. I don't think he saw me watching him, and he got up right away and left, but it was definitely him. You could tell by the red-white-and-blue hammer in his tool belt.

 

[BAT]

Jimmy was much more of an innovator off the field (i.e. how he treated his players) than he was on it. Norv Turners offense was a basic as you can get. We won with better talent, not with anything goofy on the field. There was very little on the field that Jimmy did that was innovative. He won by accumulating better talent than anybody else.

Could not disagree more. Jimmy's on field product was just as forward thinking as what he did as Trader Jimmy, managing his coaching staff and motivating his players. He approached all his different roles the same way, thinking out of the box and not asking why, but why not. Jimmy was an irresistable force. Unfortunately Jerry became his immovable object. Unfortunately for the fans and players anyway.

 

[BAT]

Just so you guys know, I caught BAT bowing at my altar, once. Just the once. I don't think he saw me watching him, and he got up right away and left, but it was definitely him. You could tell by the red-white-and-blue hammer in his tool belt.

LOL. I was just leveling the flooring, bill is in the mail. Even gave you a discount.