Ed Reed on Irvin show - Garrett comment - WOW w/audio

Ed's right. The players and the coaches are not that good.
 
wileedog;2560364 said:
When you are down to your 3rd string RB, your QB is beaten to a pulp and your line is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine, you may want to get a little creative.
so when you're down to you're 3rd string RB, your QB is beaten to a pulp and you line is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine you want to make the offense harder to run?
 
Lewis and Ed Reed were openly campaigning for Rex Ryan to get the job. They were probably greatly relieved that Garrett didn't take the job, even more so now.

If they have an axe to grind with Garrett its that all the Ravens defensive players love Rex Ryan and they don't understand how a young coordinator who has actually accomplished things in the league year after year after year keeps getting overlooked while Garrett gets HC interviews based on nothing.
 
You can't run a simple offense when your WRs run sloppy routes.

Because the corners know where they are going and get there first.

Don't even try to deny the truth there. We've all seen it so many times.
 
Right, our offense was so simple in that game that Baltimore's defense performed below their season average in points given up, passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed and opponent 3rd down conversion %. It was an offense so simplistic, that we drove down twice in the 4th quarter and scored to bring the game within two. The defense is what failed us in the Balt. game.
 
masomenos85;2560391 said:
Right, our offense was so simple in that game that Baltimore's defense performed below their season average in points given up, passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed and opponent 3rd down conversion %. It was an offense so simplistic, that we drove down twice in the 4th quarter and scored to bring the game within two. The defense is what failed us in the Balt. game.

The only time the Cowboys moved the ball on the Ravens is when they entered no huddle/hurry up late in the 4th when the playcalling was taken out of Garrett's hands and into Romo's pre-snap reads.
 
I seriously doubt it is sour grapes about Garrett not taking the Ravens coaching job. I think they just believe exactly what they've been saying. That our offense was easy to figure out, which is why it was shut down for 80% of the game. Then, our defense decided to tank the last 20%.
 
InmanRoshi;2560370 said:
Nothing wrong with simple, but simple requires and demands perfection to execute. That means being a "not so nice guy" towards your players when they don't display a perfectionist attitude. If Jason Garrett is going to keep his schemes simple, he better develop more "drill sargeant" demeanor and less "cool summer camp counselor who will talk girls and stuff with you".

The basic tenet of a good offense is simple for the offensive players but putting the defenders in a tough spot.

Again people thinking what we ran int he 90s was simple is a flawed thought.

It was simple for our offensive players because we didn't need 30 calls but it was hard for defenders because you couldn't sit on anything, we ran everything out of the same basic formations and nothing was given away except on short yardage runs and then we just had more horses on the OL than the DL.

Irvin ran the same exact first 5-7 yards of every pattern he ever ran. No one could sit on his routes. They had to either guess or just allow him those catches and tackle him for first downs.
 
masomenos85;2560391 said:
Right, our offense was so simple in that game that Baltimore's defense performed below their season average in points given up, passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed and opponent 3rd down conversion %. It was an offense so simplistic, that we drove down twice in the 4th quarter and scored to bring the game within two. The defense is what failed us in the Balt. game.
Everything failed in that game.
 
jimmy40;2560385 said:
so when you're down to you're 3rd string RB, your QB is beaten to a pulp and you line is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine you want to make the offense harder to run?

Having a few extra plays worked into the playbook the Ravens may not have seen before makes the offense "harder to run?"

Scratch that, with this group, you are absolutely right.
 
Here's the thing.

I watched alot of the pre-game and weekly interviews, and quite frankly I was completely annoyed with how cocky Ray Lewis and Harbaugh were when talking about how they were going to shut down our offense. I wish I could post the interview with Harbaugh where he mockingly talked about the "great Cowboys offense" and then said "it can be slowed down, heck it can be stopped, and we're gonna do it."

And then they did, for almost the entire game. They seemed to lay off the rush at the end and Romo was running the quick-offense well.

Again it is fine to have a simple offense. But the way our WRs run routes it simply doesn't work. They get no seperation because the DB knows where they're going almost every play.

I have a feeling if Garrett became the HC here and was given GM powers, he would get rid of T.O. and possibly Roy Williams (although I reserve judgement there given Roy's midseason transition).
 
IF WRs are running their own routes, how do the DBs know where they are going every play?When Romo runs the quick-offense, that would necessarily imply that coaching becomes more or less a non-factor, and the talent of the players take-over. That would mean the Cowboys are more successful when the WRs aren't running their routes...
 
superpunk;2560414 said:
Here's the thing.

I watched alot of the pre-game and weekly interviews, and quite frankly I was completely annoyed with how cocky Ray Lewis and Harbaugh were when talking about how they were going to shut down our offense. I wish I could post the interview with Harbaugh where he mockingly talked about the "great Cowboys offense" and then said "it can be slowed down, heck it can be stopped, and we're gonna do it."

And then they did, for almost the entire game. They seemed to lay off the rush at the end and Romo was running the quick-offense well.

Again it is fine to have a simple offense. But the way our WRs run routes it simply doesn't work. They get no seperation because the DB knows where they're going almost every play.

I have a feeling if Garrett became the HC here and was given GM powers, he would get rid of T.O. and possibly Roy Williams (although I reserve judgement there given Roy's midseason transition).

I think we need to go to a no huddle offense more often....We should start the game with that Romo does really well in the no huddle.
 
superpunk;2560414 said:
Here's the thing.





Again it is fine to have a simple offense. But the way our WRs run routes it simply doesn't work. They get no seperation because the DB knows where they're going almost every play.

How come the defense knows where the WR's are going but Romo doesn't?:confused:
 
HanD;2560333 said:
simple doesn't matter all the time. it's about exectution. it's been said MANY times that the colts have a very simple offense as well. i think the part that i lay on JG is lack of adjustment and lack of commitment to a real running game instead of this shotgun draw all the time. why have maulers if you don't power run and throw WR screens on 3rd and 1?

By simple, I'm sure Ed Reed meant predictable. The Colts run an effective play-action, Garrett doesn't. In fact, this team hardly runs play-action. At least the Colts force safeties to bite on the run. Defense of Garrett and his simplicty is often compared to Norv being simple, but the fact is, Norv, while simple did a number of things way different than Garrett, including:1. Running the ball consistently2. Using play-action often and wellPlay-action is dependent upon making secondary bite, which means the defensive backs don't necessarily know what is coming. Garrett sucked at it, didn't employ it, and Norv did...
 
jimmy40;2560427 said:
How come the defense knows where the WR's are going but Romo doesn't?:confused:

That's the 64,000 dollar question.

I don't think they went where they were supposed to go alot of the time this season.
 
masomenos85;2560391 said:
Right, our offense was so simple in that game that Baltimore's defense performed below their season average in points given up, passing yards allowed, rushing yards allowed and opponent 3rd down conversion %. It was an offense so simplistic, that we drove down twice in the 4th quarter and scored to bring the game within two. The defense is what failed us in the Balt. game.
And our offense only got 4 first downs in 3 quarters in a half, obviously necessitating the defense was tired of bailing the offense out...The offense only moved in know-huddle, when Garrett became a non-factor...
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,701
Messages
13,826,925
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top