Garrett is seriously playcalling like a scolded child

[adbutcher]

once you plant the seed, reality has no bearing.

:laugh2:

 

[802dave]

Many people disagree. If they haven't proven that they can stop the run, then why stop running? Make them put 8 men in the box and hell maybe you still don't believe they can stop you.

I kept thinking Dallas was going to run the ball on their last drive but they stuck to the pass and completed almost every single throw. So maybe there is something to getting into a rhythm and establishing yourself.

Their success at the run helped set up the last drive and maybe the sense of urgency eased Romo's back pain.

They better get something going against the Raiders; that's the last "easy" game on the schedule. It doesn't feel easy after watching the last two games! How will they avoid another December swoon?! Who's going to step up offensively?

 

[Stautner]

Obviously he didn't overthrow every ball, and I didn't say he did. I said too many passes were either poorly thrown or dropped. Many were also completed, and some were just well-defended. The point is that plays were there to be made, and for a variety of reasons, the execution wasn't there.



You and I have vastly different definitions of predictability, apparently. The middle 2 1/2 quarters were our most balanced, had the most variety, the most play action, and the most decoys.

The scoring drive was our least balanced and had the least variety. We called 9 consecutive passing plays. How many passes in a row does it take for a defense to stop being "geared toward the run"? If the first four passes in a row weren't enough, then we've crossed the line from unpredictable playcalling to completely clueless defense. There was absolutely nothing predictable about it once we crossed midfield.

We didn't score by tricking them into thinking run. We scored because we started completing passes and picking up first downs even when they knew exactly what we would do. The same thing was true on our second most successful drive, when we ran 6 straight times and got down to Washington's 12 yard line before fumbling.

The fact of the matter is that our two best drives were also our least predictable. The rest of the game, we were sufficiently balanced and unpredictable, but we consistently killed drives with incomplete passes -- sometimes two in a row.

You have completely missed what I have been saying. ALL pass or ALL run can work in individual drives, but not over and over, possession after possession. That's why we stagnated after that first drive where we fumbled and didn't get it together again until we committed to the pass. That drive was great, but because of the predictablity it wouldn't work as a pattern for the entire game. After the first drive for the rest of the first half we just kept trying to recreate it and couldn't. The Skins dug in. At the start of the 2nd half we tried to mix things a little, but after being stagnant for most of the 1st half we had no rythem or focus at all, which was compounded by (or maybe resulted in), some blocking, penalty and misthrow problems.

 

[Disturbed]

I understand the frustration with the offense, and the predictability that people talk about.... But if you look at matchups and rankings, it made sense to run on Washington.

This week the rankings look like this -- Oak run def is 30th in the league and pass def is 12th. So I would expect Dallas to run the ball a lot on Oakland. Big day for the Dallas backs.

 

[802dave]

I understand the frustration with the offense, and the predictability that people talk about.... But if you look at matchups and rankings, it made sense to run on Washington.

This week the rankings look like this -- Oak run def is 30th in the league and pass def is 12th. So I would expect Dallas to run the ball a lot on Oakland. Big day for the Dallas backs.

Agreed! No fumbles please!

 

[Stautner]

I understand the frustration with the offense, and the predictability that people talk about.... But if you look at matchups and rankings, it made sense to run on Washington.

This week the rankings look like this -- Oak run def is 30th in the league and pass def is 12th. So I would expect Dallas to run the ball a lot on Oakland. Big day for the Dallas backs.

I agree completely that it made sense to run on Washington, just like it made sense to pass on Green Bay. But when it isn't getting results, you adjust, right? And when you have success you mix in other plays to hit them hard when they are focused on stopping one element of the offense, right?

 

[802dave]

I agree completely that it made sense to run on Washington, just like it made sense to pass on Green Bay. But when it isn't getting results, you adjust, right? And when you have success you mix in other plays to hit them hard when they are focused on stopping one element of the offense, right?

5 Yards/carry is getting results; fumbles, poor throws, and drops aren't.

Got to minimize turnovers and execute better - and play-call better.

 

[Disturbed]

Yes, I agree adjustments are a big part of any game -- at all levels. But adjustments can be fine tuning or slight changes, not complete disregard to the gameplan.

I think Dallas is spending too much effort at times trying to get guys involved in the offense...this should happen naturally through production, etc. not forced. I would stay with the run and use Witten more... Focusing on RW is not healthy, and honestly I would rotate him with other recievers until he proves himself.

The defense also needs to be more intense at times. Olshansky and Brookings have been great.

 

[YosemiteSam]

once you plant the seed, reality has no bearing.

My football team suffocates
We're planting seeds of hate
Our love, turned to hate
Trapped far beyond our fate

We give
Garrett takes
This coordinator that I forsake
Been cheated of our offense
You turned this lie to truth

Anger
Misery
We'll suffer unto Garrett

:laugh2:

 

[Stautner]

5 Yards/carry is getting results; fumbles, poor throws, and drops aren't.

Got to minimize turnovers and execute better - and play-call better.

It is getting results, I'm not disputing that. But it also means that you have to put together 12-15 play drives to score, and it also means you are going to have to convert a hell of a lot of 3rd downs to keep drives alive. The more plays you run and the more 3rd downs you have to convert the higher the chance of a drive stalling or making a mistake.

Besides, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. I am not saying we abandon the runnng game when it is having success, and I'm not saying we threw dramatically too litte. I'm simply saying that when you get the defense scrambling to defend the run, that's the time to do a hard play fake and go for a bigger play. As it was we passed only in predictable situations with virtually no pretense at a play fake, which is ridiculous considering how the game was going. With our success running they were primed to bite on a hard play fake. I'm just saying you run the kind of pass plays that are most set up by the success of the running game.

 

[NinePointOh]

You have completely missed what I have been saying. ALL pass or ALL run can work in individual drives, but not over and over, possession after possession. That's why we stagnated after that first drive where we fumbled and didn't get it together again until we committed to the pass. That drive was great, but because of the predictablity it wouldn't work as a pattern for the entire game. After the first drive for the rest of the first half we just kept trying to recreate it and couldn't.

What are you talking about? We didn't even come close to "trying to recreate" the runs-only drive. Excluding that possession, our pass-run ratio on all of our other drives were 2-1, 3-5, 3-3, 5-6, 2-3, 2-1, 5-3, 9-0, 0-3. And plenty of those runs were actually "kill, kill" plays that Romo audibled from a pass into a run, usually with good success.

We were pretty evenly balanced between run and pass on almost every single possession throughout the game -- the exceptions being our two most successful drives.

The Skins dug in. At the start of the 2nd half we tried to mix things a little, but after being stagnant for most of the 1st half we had no rythem or focus at all, which was compounded by (or maybe resulted in), some blocking, penalty and misthrow problems.

Which is exactly my point. When we moved the ball, it was because we were actually executing, not because we were unpredictable. And when we didn't move the ball, it was because too many passes were poorly thrown or dropped, not because we stopped being unpredictable.

 

[NinePointOh]

we passed only in predictable situations

You must have a strange definition of "predictable situations."

Over 40% of our passing plays came on first downs, and over 30% came on second downs. Almost 20% of our passing plays came with 5 or less yards-to-go for a first down, and another 33% came with between 6 and 9 yards-to-go.

And before you ask, the percentages are almost exactly the same whether or not you include our passing-only scoring drive. The fact of the matter is, we called lots of passing plays in situations that weren't obviously passing downs. The problem was that too many of those passes fell incomplete.

 

[Stautner]

What's your definition of a predictable situation?

Over 40% of our passing plays came on first downs, and over 30% came on second downs. Almost 20% of our passing plays came with 5 or less yards-to-go for a first down, and another 33% came with between 6 and 9 yards-to-go.

And before you ask, these percentages do not include our passing-only scoring drive, but they're almost exactly the same if that possession is included.

It's not just the down, but the yardage needed. 3rd and long is the primary one. 1st down is generally an either or down. Yardage need for a 1st down is a big factor, and whether 1st 2nd or 3rd down if we have suffered a loss of yardage or a penalty passing is expected since there is a big chunk of yardage needed for the 1st down.

Even with an either or down like 1st down, if you have had good success running the ball the expectation of a run is increased, and a hard play action fake is a great choice.

 

[NinePointOh]

It's not just the down, but the yardage needed. 3rd and long is the primary one. 1st down is generally an either or down. Yardage need for a 1st down is the big factor, and whether 1st 2nd or 3rd down if we have suffered a loss of yardage or a penalty passing is expected since there is a big chunk of yardage needed for the 1st down.

Then your premise is completely wrong.

Like I said, one-fifth of our passes came with 5 or fewer yards to go. Another 30% came with between 6 and 9. So most of the time, our passes came in short-to-medium yardage situations.

Less than one-fifth of our passing plays came on 3rd down, and of those, we never faced a single 3rd down with more than 8 yards to go. We passed on 3rd-and-5, 3rd-and-6, 3rd-and-8, 3rd-and-7, and 3rd-and-3. Only 2 passing plays could possibly be considered "3rd and long," and even that's with an extremely generous definition of long yardage. If "3rd and long is the primary one," and we "only threw in predictable situations," where are all the passes on 3rd-and-long?

We also threw exactly two passes all game with more than 10 yards to go for a first down, and they were complete for 15 and 23 yard gains, respectively. If our problem was predictability and "yardage needed for a 1st down is a big factor" in determining predictability, why were we so successful throwing on our two longest yardage-to-go plays (on first and second down)?

Meanwhile, over 40% of our passes came on first downs, which, in your own words, "is generally an either or down." If 40% of our passes came in what you deem an unpredictable situation, then obviously we didn't even come close to throwing only in predictable situations.

 

[Stautner]

Then your premise is completely wrong.

Like I said, one-fifth of our passes came with 5 or fewer yards to go. Another 30% came with between 6 and 9.

Less than one-fifth of our passing plays came on 3rd down, and of those, we never faced a single 3rd down with more than 8 yards to go. We passed on 3rd-and-5, 3rd-and-6, 3rd-and-8, 3rd-and-7, and 3rd-and-3.

Meanwhile, over 40% of our passes came on first downs, which, in your own words, "is generally an either or down."

Actually I just looked at all 13 of the 1st half passes and EVERY ONE came from 5 yards OR MORE. In fact, the average position was 8.5 yards to the 1st down.

In addition, I found in the 1st half we had 4 plays where it was 2nd down and 2 or less, another at 2nd and 3, and another at 2nd and 4, all downs where the defense would be geared up for the run, we could have done a hard play fake and thrown the ball, all the time knowing we still had 3rd down left to run for the 1st down. EVERY TIME we ran the ball and did exactly what the defense expected. Most of the time we got the 1st down, but we had another opportunity for the 1st down anyway and we ignored tailor made situation for a big play.

You see, I'm not griping about the number of passes, I'm griping about the kinds of passes and in what situations.

We passed when we had 5 yards or more, and we ran on 2nd down every time we had 2 yards or less.

 

[adbutcher]

[youtube]dt1fBjCm49g[/youtube]

 

[NinePointOh]

Actually I just looked at all 13 of the 1st half passes and EVERY ONE came from 5 yards OR MORE. In fact, the average position was 8.5 yards to the 1st down.

Naturally. A pass on 1st down is almost always from 10 yards or more. But you've already admitted that throwing on 1st-and-10 isn't predictable, so those passes don't help your case one bit.

You previously claimed that 3rd-and-long was "the primary one," but of course we know now that we simply didn't face any of those (or perhaps 2 at most with an extremely generous definition). At this point your entire argument is hinging on medium yardage-to-go situations, regardless of down. So, you tell me ... is a 2nd-and-5 or 2nd-and-6 a predictable passing down? How about a 2nd-and-8 following a run on first down?

In addition, I found in the 1st half we had 4 plays where it was 2nd down and 2 or less, another at 2nd and 3, and another at 2nd and 4, all downs where the defense would be geared up for the run, we could have done a hard play fake and thrown the ball, all the time knowing we still had 3rd down left to run for the 1st down. EVERY TIME we ran the ball and did exactly what the defense expected.

We picked up the first down in every single one of those situations, and often a lot more. Were those really the plays you had the biggest problem with?

You see, I'm not griping about the number of passes, I'm griping about the kinds of passes and in what situations.

We passed when we had 5 yards or more, and we ran on 2nd down every time we had 2 yards or less.

We also ran plenty of times with 5 or more yards to go, even on 3rd down.

And every time we ran on 2nd with 2 or less to go, we picked up the first down.

 

[Stautner]

Naturally. A pass on 1st down is almost always from 10 yards or more. But you've already admitted that throwing on 1st-and-10 isn't predictable, so those passes don't help your case one bit.

You previously claimed that 3rd-and-long was "the primary one," but of course we know now that we simply didn't face any of those (or perhaps 2 at most with an extremely generous definition). At this point your entire argument is hinging on medium yardage-to-go situations, regardless of down. So, you tell me ... is a 2nd-and-5 or 2nd-and-6 a predictable passing down? How about a 2nd-and-8 following a run on first down?

We picked up the first down in every single one of those situations, and often a lot more. Were those really the plays you had the biggest problem with?

We also ran plenty of times with 5 or more yards to go, even on 3rd down.

And every time we ran on 2nd with 2 or less to go, we picked up the first down.

Actually I didn't admit 1st down wasn't predictable. I said it is an "either or" down, meaning the defense is looking for either a run or a pass. They are ready for anything, so at the very least it's not unexpected.

Now, if you want me to comment on every possible down/yardage combination, I think I'll pass. You are getting a little ridiculous with that expectation.

Perhaps the better thing for you to focus on is my discussion on when runs were expected. My primary point here has been that we had opportunities to take advanage of the defense gearing up for the run and didn't do it. Anything 5 yards or more carries the potential for a pass. 2 yards or less carries a strong probability of a run, especially when a team has demonstrated success running the ball. THAT's the time to hit them with a play action and take a shot.

And yes, those were plays I had a problem with. Gambling we could sustain long, 12+ play drives by grinding out 1st downs on the ground is a tough proposition, especially for a team with issues on the O-line with penalties. So, when you still have another down to work with, and the situation is tailor made to freeze the defense with a play fake, why not take a shot? You have a do-over in your pocket - so, why not take advantage of what your running game has set up for you?

 

[EPL0c0]

Run game looked pretty darn good. Frankly, w/o Haynesworth in there, running the ball up the gut should have been a no brainer. And that there is the problem w/ Garrett.

If not for Jerry, Garrett would have had Romo attempting 50 passes.

 

[NinePointOh]

Actually I didn't admit 1st down wasn't predictable. I said it is an "either or" down, meaning the defense is looking for either a run or a pass. They are ready for anything, so at the very least it's not unexpected.

Wait, so you're honestly trying to criticize the team for throwing sometimes on 1st-and-10? I would have thought you'd recognize that running on every 1st-and-10 would make us more predictable and not less, but far be it from me to ascribe rationality where none may exist.

Now, if you want me to comment on every possible down/yardage combination, I think I'll pass. You are getting a little ridiculous with that expectation.

You offered up your own commentary about 1st-and-10 without any prompting. I simply asked whether you would classify two of the other most common situations in which we passed in the first half as predictable. Since you said we "only" passed in predictable situations, the answer is obviously yes. If you're unwilling to justify calling 2nd-and-5 a "predictable" passing situation, why keep repeating it?

Perhaps the better thing for you to focus on is my discussion on when runs were expected. My primary point here has been that we had opportunities to take advanage of the defense gearing up for the run and didn't do it. Anything 5 yards or more carries the potential for a pass.

2 yards or less carries a strong probability of a run, especially when a team has demonstrated success running the ball. THAT's the time to hit them with a play action and take a shot.

Just a few posts ago, you were trying to claim that throwing on "3rd and long" was "the primary" example of predictability. Now, after looking at the play-by-play (apparently for the first time), your definition has conveniently shifted to "anything longer than 4 yards, regardless of the down" and you're only concerned with 2nd-and-short? How do you expect anyone to know which parts of your arguments to pay attention to if you can't even make up your own mind?

And yes, those were plays I had a problem with. Gambling we could sustain long, 12+ play drives by grinding out 1st downs on the ground is a tough proposition, especially for a team with issues on the O-line with penalties. So, when you still have another down to work with, and the situation is tailor made to freeze the defense with a play fake, why not take a shot? You have a do-over in your pocket - so, why not take advantage of what your running game has set up for you?

So your main complaint about the game is about not taking a shot on two or three running downs, in situations where we picked up the first down any way? Personally, I can find much more glaring problems with our performance, like all of those drive-killing incomplete passes. Those certainly kept a lot more points off the board than a handful of runs that went for first downs.