Garrett's offense

[Denim Chicken]

When was the last time you saw people gushing over the game plan and game called by the Cowboys?

They always called a really good first 15 or so when on script. I'm hoping that Moore can improve upon situational play calling when they get past the preconceived plays.

 

[OmerV]

Most forget and actually never really knew what a HC does. What does he/she do... 1) hires other coaches and puts good people around him that he trusts and who trust him and 2) keeps the team focused through the good and the bad. It doesn't take a Lombardi to keep them focused through the good but it takes a certain skill and belief to keep them focused through the bad like losing early in the season, the Zeke affair and losing the starting and backup QB's.

This is true. I've seen some slam Garrett as someone who does nothing because he no longer calls the plays or serves as OC, but the reality is many coaches don't do that. Jimmy didn't do that. Ballichick doesn't do that. Obviously I'm not suggesting Garrett is the same level coach as those guys, but the fact that he doesn't call plays or serve as a coordinator is not the reason why he isn't at that level. I don't think anyone can fairly and reasonably suggest Garrett doesn't work hard or care or provide his time, effort and input. But a person can do all that and still not be a top coach.

 

[Diehardblues]

Sure it would. I didn't mean to suggest talent isn't a big factor as well, but that's the case regardless of the offensive scheme. The context of this discussion was simply about the offensive scheme though.

I understand but you did mention comparisons to the Rams executions of similar play calls and schemes which appears difficult to fully evaluate without discussing or at least mentioning the execution by the talent which is a factor.

 

[Diehardblues]

This is true. I've seen some slam Garrett as someone who does nothing because he no longer calls the plays or serves as OC, but the reality is many coaches don't do that. Jimmy didn't do that. Ballichick doesn't do that. Obviously I'm not suggesting Garrett is the same level coach as those guys, but the fact that he doesn't call plays or serve as a coordinator is not the reason why he isn't at that level. I don't think anyone can fairly and reasonably suggest Garrett doesn't work hard or care or provide his time, effort and input. But a person can do all that and still not be a top coach.

Even if HC aren’t calling the plays , they are often setting the tone to the OC.

 

[Sydla]

The point is that Moore as OC will address some of how the offense is used, but the context of the thread was the system itself.

But the "system" involves how plays are deployed. It's preposterous to argue otherwise. Part of McVay's "system" is that he uses a variety of formations and motions to disguise what he's trying to do and how to attack a defense.

It's peculiar that we are trying to separate the type of play called from how the play is called. It's all part of an "offensive system".

 

[OmerV]

I understand but you did mention comparisons to the Rams executions of similar play calls and schemes which appears difficult to fully evaluate without discussing or at least mentioning the execution by the talent which is a factor.

I only mentioned the Rams to indicate that they use the same plays but disguise them better. I wasn't trying to downgrade their talent and execution. I fully agree that disguising plays better wouldn't matter if they didn't execute.

 

[OmerV]

Even if HC aren’t calling the plays , they are often setting the tone to the OC.

In what way? If you are talking about behind the scenes in the film and game planning sessions, likely Garrett is involved. But once the game starts there can only be one coach running the offense. The HC and OC can't both be giving instruction.

 

[CouchCoach]

It's just more of "if Garrett has anything to do with it, it can't be good" thinking about this "handcuffing Moore" nonsense. I am not a Garrett fan but he doesn't have a bad offensive playbook and it is not his, it is a combination of other play books but plays are plays, even the WCO plays were standard plays, just with variations.

It's not the plays called, it's when and where they're called and above all, the execution of the play. Do you ever hear the announcers say "great play call" if the play is not executed?

None of us know the effect of Moore and Kitna on the offense and how it might differ but it will all still come down to execution.

 

[OmerV]

But the "system" involves how plays are deployed. It's preposterous to argue otherwise. Part of McVay's "system" is that he uses a variety of formations and motions to disguise what he's trying to do and how to attack a defense.

It's peculiar that we are trying to separate the type of play called from how the play is called. It's all part of an "offensive system".

You are working way too hard to find a point of contention. My very obvious point is the basic scheme doesn't have to change that much - the "basis scheme" being the playbook with plays, formations, blocking schemes, routes etc .., just how the team functions within that scheme.

I talked about motions to disguise plays in the very first post in this thread. That doesn't require an entirely new play of scheme or system, that's the "dressing it up" that Kitna talked about.

 

[Diehardblues]

In what way? If you are talking about behind the scenes in the film and game planning sessions, likely Garrett is involved. But once the game starts there can only be one coach running the offense. The HC and OC can't both be giving instruction.

The HC during the game can dictate the scheme without calling specific plays.

 

[Sydla]

You are working way too hard to find a point of contention. My very obvious point is the basic scheme doesn't have to change that much - the "basis scheme" being the playbook with plays, formations, blocking schemes, routes etc .., just how the team functions within that scheme.

I talked about motions to disguise plays in the very first post in this thread. That doesn't require an entirely new play of scheme or system, that's the "dressing it up" that Kitna talked about.

But it actually does have to change quite a bit. Because it's not simply about, "OK, here we run the WR in motion unlike before with this play and presto, new play design!" It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

[JoeKing]

Their are too many cooks in the kitchen to be calling it Garrett's offense, but I understand there has to be a fall guy if the offense fails, so for that reason I understand why it is called, Garrett's offense. I think this season is Garrett's last stand and will sink or swim accordingly to how this season goes. I'm encouraged by how the players seem to be responding to Kellen Moore's approach to the Offensive Coordinator position and I know Jon Kitna will be a positive cog in the offense.

 

[OmerV]

The HC during the game can dictate the scheme without calling specific plays.

The scheme is really dictated in the game plan. Of course, the head coach can always go to the OC at any point he may see fit that there needs to be an adjustment based on what is going on during the game, but for the most part head coaches who are not coordinators leave the play calling up the coordinator to leave him to run the offense in accordance with the pre-approved game plan.

 

[Diehardblues]

It's just more of "if Garrett has anything to do with it, it can't be good" thinking about this "handcuffing Moore" nonsense. I am not a Garrett fan but he doesn't have a bad offensive playbook and it is not his, it is a combination of other play books but plays are plays, even the WCO plays were standard plays, just with variations.

It's not the plays called, it's when and where they're called and above all, the execution of the play. Do you ever hear the announcers say "great play call" if the play is not executed?

None of us know the effect of Moore and Kitna on the offense and how it might differ but it will all still come down to execution.

Landry never admitted to calling a bad play. Just poor execution. But defenses often play a role in thwarting those executions as well as the talent level executing them.

But I always thought that was an arrogant statement by Tom. While that might have been the case in most instances there certainly were some where the call itself appeared the wrong one in that particular situation or possibly that was one the defense read too well.

 

[OmerV]

But it actually does have to change quite a bit. Because it's not simply about, "OK, here we run the WR in motion unlike before with this play and presto, new play design!" It's a bit more complicated than that.

Motion, shifts and misdirection can be incorporated into the very same plays and formations, and obviously calling the right plays in the right situations matters. None of that constitutes a big scheme change.

 

[sean10mm]

This is one of those topics that can get hung up on semantics.

There is the "system" meaning just how you organize and name plays. That's basically a kind of bookkeeping. Some systems call a go route a fly, or a streak, or a 9. In that boring sense most systems are identical. The only offense where the "bookkeeping" part REALLY makes a difference in how the players play is the Earhadt-Perkins (Patriots) system, which makes it much easier to use the entire playbook at a fast pace.

People also use "system" to mean the thought process or philosophy behind how you call plays within the actual game. What made the WCO innovative in the 1980s wasn't really how they named plays or whatever, but the emphasis on using short passes as interchangeable with run plays and stretching the defense sideline-to-sideline. More traditional offenses emphasized stretching defenses vertically by establishing the run to bring defenders into the box, which sets up the vertical pass game, so the WCO looked completely different.

 

[Diehardblues]

The scheme is really dictated in the game plan. Of course, the head coach can always go to the OC at any point he may see fit that there needs to be an adjustment based on what is going on during the game, but for the most part head coaches who are not coordinators leave the play calling up the coordinator to leave him to run the offense in accordance with the pre-approved game plan.

Of course but like in calling whether to go for it on a 4th down ,2 minute drills ,in Redzone or key 3rd downs for example , a HC might dictate whether he’d like to see us run or throw the ball even dictating not taking a chance in certain situations without actually calling the specific play or changing the game plan which is often dictated by flow and results in the game.

Dictating situational schemes doesn’t mean calling the plays.

 

[OmerV]

Of course but like in calling whether to go for it on a 4th down ,2 minute drills ,in Redzone or key 3rd downs for example , a HC might dictate whether he’d like to see us run or throw the ball even dictating not taking a chance in certain situations without actually calling the specific play or changing the game plan which is often dictated by flow and results in the game.

Dictating situational schemes doesn’t mean calling the plays.

Garrett certainly makes the calls on going for it or not on 4th down, or going for 2 or an XP after a TD. It's hard to know how much input he might have on other things, but that applies to any head coach that isn't a coordinator. How often did we definitely see Jimmy go to Wannstedt or Norv Turner and tell them to make specific changes? How many times do we see Bellichick do that. That doesn't mean it is or isn't happening, it just means we don't know. That is no different than with Garrett. Red zone plays the team feels will be effective against a particular opponent will be part of the game plan, and game plans don't assume everything will go perfectly and that there will be no ebbs and flows.

 

[Future]

Bottom line is it doesn't take a major overhaul, or a dramatic departure from everything the Cowboys have done in the past to make a big difference, yet it seems many fans think that it does. I remember reading after the Rams game that the majority of the plays the Rams run were also in the Cowboys playbook, but the difference was the Rams disguised them better with motion and misdirection.

Motion and misdirection require an entirely new playbook.

The Rams are also not nearly as creative as people like to say they are. They run 1 personnel package, and as more teams catch on to what the Patriots did, they'll struggle more. That Rams offense has every bit the potential to be the Cowboys offense of 07.

 

[CATCH17]

I think most people are wanting more creativity. Things to keep the defense on their toes. Not the, “we’ll impose our will even though you know what we’re doing” mentality.

Exactly.

The rams imposed their will on us but at the same time we had no idea where the ball was.