ESPN: Tony Romo, Scott Linehan get acquainted

[17yearsandcounting]

The O has not been the biggest problem.

It's the D.

3 offensive coordinators in 3 seasons says it all.

People only care about continuity if it means the ginger clown continues to spit.

 

[Bowdown27]

Jerry is giving jason a chance it seems. Hiring linehan and moving out kiffin. If Garrett fails then he's gone. If we ACTUALLY make the playoffs and win a game or two then Garrett looks smarter than good ole jerruh

 

[BigStar]

Our Offense could've sealed wins in KC,DET,GB, PHIL but failed to do so. I understand that the D is not even average, so the O would have to compensate with more runs, TOP, creating manageable 3rd downs, etc. and that is his point (I agree). The majority of the talent is on the offensive side and the game plan and game to game results show a different picture than the high ranking offesnsive statistics. I understand why it is easy to simply place all of the blame on the D but the O was by no means "not a problem" or conducive to winning by its inability to "put teams away/seal games" when there have been ample opportunities to do so (4 games above). In a way, the gameplans should compensate for the lack of D talent; pulling the majority of the weight considering how this team is structured (high pass ratio).

 

[khiladi]

Take away TOs this year by a dramatic margin over last year and Bailey sailing FGs right through the uprights, we look a lot better than we actually are. Again, through middle of the season last year, our defense was holding scoring totals to be good enough to be middle of the league. The Saints and Bears obscured the numbers significantly. But games like Detroit, we win the TO margin by four and two of our scores was because of field position given by the defense.

We again were a good 4th quarter team against bad teams. Minnesota we barely squeaked by on a last minute drive, while we stuttered against a bad defense for stretches of bad play.

 

[daveferr33]

Our PPG, Sc%, RZ% and TO Diff were good enough although they'd be better with a better D, I suspect more running, and better play calling. Austin out hurt us badly IMO. The vast problem was the defense and its likely to be better but not good enough unless we are very lucky and creative in talent acquistion.

I am not so sure. Of course, we will see. Here is Sturm on the issue:

Well, by rankings, many of them between 30th-32nd in the league, Linehan might be one of the few NFL coaches that values the run less than even Garrett.

http://sturminator.blogspot.com/

 

[DFWJC]

Our Offense could've sealed wins in KC,DET,GB, PHIL but failed to do so. I understand that the D is not even average, so the O would have to compensate with more runs, TOP, creating manageable 3rd downs, etc. and that is his point (I agree). The majority of the talent is on the offensive side and the game plan and game to game results show a different picture than the high ranking offesnsive statistics. I understand why it is easy to simply place all of the blame on the D but the O was by no means "not a problem" or conducive to winning by its inability to "put teams away/seal games" when there have been ample opportunities to do so (4 games above). In a way, the gameplans should compensate for the lack of D talent; pulling the majority of the weight considering how this team is structured (high pass ratio).

You are right in that the offesne is not above blame.
But you should be embarrassed for blaming the offense for not "sealing" games that were lost with them scoring 48 (Den), 30 (Det), and 36 (Gb) points.
There should be no scenario where that is not enough points to win (and usually win by 2 TDs or more) a game.

But yes, especially that Green Bay game did really tick me off with the play calling and late excustion. of course, winning that game would have made no difference in the end.

 

[BigStar]

You are right in that the offesne is not above blame.
But you should be embarrassed for blaming the offense for not "sealing" games that were lost with them scoring 48 (Den), 30 (Det), and 36 (Gb) points.
There should be no scenario where that is not enough points to win (and usually win by 2 TDs or more) a game.

But yes, especially that Green Bay game did really tick me off with the play calling and late excustion. of course, winning that game would have made no difference in the end.

I didn't mention Denver which was a shootout that could have gone either way. KC (D did its job). The Detroit game had 4 TOs generated by the D and the O struggled to put the game away. GB was a blowout at the half and the O refused to run the ball even while averaging 7 ypc; making even his good friend Troy Aikman call out the deplorable play calling on O.

I mentioned that the D was not even average and it would be wise for the offensive scheme/play calling be reflective of that in terms of running the ball more to control TOP and minimize 3rd and longs where this team struggles. I don't see that as blame, I see that as constructive criticism? Adjusting schemes and game plans conducive to the talent available... for the team as a whole.

If you can't see that the Offense should've won DET/GB w/o rushing to the stat sheet and final scores, you won't understand this concept.

 

[coult44]

How in the world is the offensive system what's wrong with this football team. Do you actually believe that, or do you just really not like the coach and so you want the problem to be the offensive system? How can you look at our pass defense being bottom-10 in the league three years running for three 8-8 squads, read the countless posts that explain the significance of passing game efficiency, look at Romo and this offense's efficiency, and actually think the problem is so obviously on offense that it has to be a fact, because having a wrong opinion is somehow insufficient in this regard?

We all know how bad the defense is, but we also can't look at the failures of this offense. We were the 16th ranked offense in the league. And if you were to take out the Denver game, we would've been the 20th ranked offense in the NFL. Yep, right where an 8-8 team belongs. How many times did the offense put the defense in a pretty bad situation? How many untimely turnovers did we have? Remember the Detroit game? Regardless of how bad the defense was, it was the offense that couldn't get a first down at the end of the game. Remember that horrible night in week 16? The defense actually showed up that game. It was the offense who failed in the end. Now I'm a believer that 90% of our failures was due to the WORST coaching staff in the NFL. With that being said, the failures of Bill Callahans and Jason Garret's offense has put a lot of pressure on an already bad defense.

 

[casmith07]

OMAHA!

 

[jobberone]

It's amazing how many people feel this way.

They may be correct.

 

[jobberone]

I am not so sure. Of course, we will see. Here is Sturm on the issue:



http://sturminator.blogspot.com/

The offense was 30-32th in the league in what stat?

 

[BigStar]

The offense was 30-32th in the league in what stat?

Rushing attempts (DET)

 

[JPostSam]

Really? You don't think the scheme and offense are an issue? Really?

"an" issue?

yes.

"the" issue?

no.

 

[Idgit]

We all know how bad the defense is, but we also can't look at the failures of this offense. We were the 16th ranked offense in the league. And if you were to take out the Denver game, we would've been the 20th ranked offense in the NFL. Yep, right where an 8-8 team belongs. How many times did the offense put the defense in a pretty bad situation? How many untimely turnovers did we have? Remember the Detroit game? Regardless of how bad the defense was, it was the offense that couldn't get a first down at the end of the game. Remember that horrible night in week 16? The defense actually showed up that game. It was the offense who failed in the end. Now I'm a believer that 90% of our failures was due to the WORST coaching staff in the NFL. With that being said, the failures of Bill Callahans and Jason Garret's offense has put a lot of pressure on an already bad defense.

I'm tired of addressing this particular argument, which has been absolutely exploded in multiple threads already this offseason. Total yardage is no basis for evaluating an offense's effectiveness, and there's no reason to take out the Denver game, anyway. And, even if you did, the adjusted totals for other high powered offenses minus their own highest scoring games doesn't change the ranking outcome with any significance whatsoever.

We were 8-8 because we could not stop good passers with our lousy pass defense or because our own effective offense (on a points/offensive series basis) could not always overcome the passing game differential if we were playing a good defense. It really is not any more complicated than that. If you guys think it was, then you're entitled to your opinions as long as you understand that your opinions aren't supported by the relevant available evidence. Have at it.

 

[Direwolf63]

They may be correct.

I'm sorry.

But an offense that scores 27 points a game is not the problem. They may have issues regarding not running the football and 3rd down conversions. I'll agree with that. An offense can always be better. But you are not going to convince me that the offense is why this team is 8-8.

Not when the defense is the third worst in NFL history.

This team is 11-5 with the same offense (including the running and 3rd down problems) and an even mediocre defense.

 

[ufcrules1]

Take away TOs this year by a dramatic margin over last year and Bailey sailing FGs right through the uprights, we look a lot better than we actually are. Again, through middle of the season last year, our defense was holding scoring totals to be good enough to be middle of the league. The Saints and Bears obscured the numbers significantly. But games like Detroit, we win the TO margin by four and two of our scores was because of field position given by the defense.

We again were a good 4th quarter team against bad teams. Minnesota we barely squeaked by on a last minute drive, while we stuttered against a bad defense for stretches of bad play.

Excellent post. This is why you can't solely look at stats to determine how good or bad you are, you have to dig deeper. I was not impressed at all with our offense. One of the only teams above .500 we played well against was Denver but that is because we caught them at a bad time.. No Von Miller, No Bailey, and missing other starters as well. Their defense was playing really bad at that time. Our offense is nothing special and there are several reasons for that. One of the biggest reasons is play calling/scheme but some of the personnel can be blamed as well for under performing.

 

[rags747]

I actually have no issue with this move at all. Was never a big Callahan fan anyway, our offense was very sporadic, no running game, no te action, no long ball as in yrs past (maybe Tony was hurt), seemed very hit or miss to me all season except for the Broncos game. Why did we not come out every week like we were going to punch the gorilla in the nose? Yes our defense sucked but I was letdown by the offense as well, just too much hit or miss.

Hopefully Linehan can give this offense some purpose on a weekly basis + Redball likes him and trusts him, seems like a win win to me.

I

 

[Brooksey]

How in the world is the offensive system what's wrong with this football team. Do you actually believe that, or do you just really not like the coach and so you want the problem to be the offensive system? How can you look at our pass defense being bottom-10 in the league three years running for three 8-8 squads, read the countless posts that explain the significance of passing game efficiency, look at Romo and this offense's efficiency, and actually think the problem is so obviously on offense that it has to be a fact, because having a wrong opinion is somehow insufficient in this regard?

There is more then one problem with the team. Defense is #1 and some think the lack of running the football, 3rd down conversions and situational play calling can be improved as well, why is that so hard for you to understand? Nobody said the defense is not the bigger problem but last year we could not control that due to injury's and personnel. What we were able to control was the offense...which stumbled terribly in big spots. It doesn't always show up in the net stats, but boy it sure shows up live on game day. How was the defense against Philly to get into the playoffs? Pretty darn good. We could not put up 25 on Philly for the division, that's a problem and apparently the whole dallas organization thinks it's a problem.

 

[Redball Express]

How in the world is the offensive system what's wrong with this football team. Do you actually believe that, or do you just really not like the coach and so you want the problem to be the offensive system? How can you look at our pass defense being bottom-10 in the league three years running for three 8-8 squads, read the countless posts that explain the significance of passing game efficiency, look at Romo and this offense's efficiency, and actually think the problem is so obviously on offense that it has to be a fact, because having a wrong opinion is somehow insufficient in this regard?

This.

Of course it's the offense that has failed this team.

Why didn't I think of that.

I'll bet if we just post that every day b/w now and the he end of next season..

..its sure to be right?

Ya think?

This.

 

[dogunwo]

I'm tired of addressing this particular argument, which has been absolutely exploded in multiple threads already this offseason. Total yardage is no basis for evaluating an offense's effectiveness, and there's no reason to take out the Denver game, anyway. And, even if you did, the adjusted totals for other high powered offenses minus their own highest scoring games doesn't change the ranking outcome with any significance whatsoever.

We were 8-8 because we could not stop good passers with our lousy pass defense or because our own effective offense (on a points/offensive series basis) could not always overcome the passing game differential if we were playing a good defense. It really is not any more complicated than that. If you guys think it was, then you're entitled to your opinions as long as you understand that your opinions aren't supported by the relevant available evidence. Have at it.

What's wrong with you? Don't you understand the Cowboys are the only team in the league with statistical anomalies that shouldn't count towards averages?