Garrett's offense

[khiladi]

Garrett hasn’t been calling plays since 2014. He got the reigns taken away by Jerry himself. Jerry maintained the play-Book because he didn’t want to change the offense. That’s why Linehan was brought in, because his offense the terminology stayed the same. Jerry specifically said that this was the reason they decided Callahan wasn’t going to be calling pats anymore, because his changes were philosophically different.

Jerry said they wanted a play caller who would target Dez, like Linehan did in Detroit and also would run the ball, while alluding to the fact that despite giving lip service to running the ball, the coach of the offense, most probably Garrett, never did.

 

[OmerV]

A new HC likely brings in a new vision, new culture and new assistant coaches. It's not about removing Garrett in a vacuum here.

It's about the entire change that goes on through an organization when a new HC comes in. How many times have you seen a team be really successful by keeping the HC who has struggled to win anything of note but suddenly finds great success when he gets a couple of new assistants?

I can't really think of one good example. But that's what we are expecting here.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Moore and Kitna alone will be responsible for winning if that happens. Obviously building the talent to work with is a major component too. All anyone is hoping is for coaches that can use the talent better. And realistically, it's not as if we are asking these guys to take a bottom of the league team and turn them into contenders. The Cowboys are one of the winningest teams in the NFL over the last several years, and have won the division 3 of the last 5 years, and have been a rats hair from getting to the NFC championship game in each of those 3 years. The task is merely to help them take another step beyond what they have previously accomplished.

 

[sean10mm]

They also had a very talented roster. Your most unpredictable team scored a wopping 3 points in the SB. Guessing their unpredictability wasn't catching anyone by surprise.

It sure made the Cowboys defense look b!7)#made, along with most of the league. How many cheap rushing yards did they get on the Cowboys?

I mean, I don't think "Didn't fool Bill Belichick" is really a good basis for going WELL I GUESS THAT WAS A BUNCH OF BS!

The 2018 Rams were a perfect showcase for both the value of good offensive schemes/playcalling, and their limitations. Jared Goff has some talent as a passer, but mentally isn't on an elite level. So McVay made the most of what he had (this is the essence of good coaching by the way) by taking a simple scheme Goff could understand, spoon-feeding him his reads as much as possible over the radio, and then adding layers of fakes and deception and movement to make things hard on the defense. "Fake pass then run/fake run then pass" are simple ideas that have been around forever, but McVay really leaned into the idea of making the offense be simple on the surface, but making it a constant shell game.

But here's the thing: Goff was still a mentally limited QB. He's not a guy who can move the ball by spamming short passes with perfect timing to his 3rd/4th/5th read. That was the counter to what the Patriots were doing on defense, but Goff was not a player capable of doing that. And even if he was, his best short-range receivers were either out hurt (Kupp) or ineffective (Gurley.) McVay failed to adjust, but part of that failure was just baked into the situation he was in with Goff being who he was and Gurley being AWOL.

That didn't mean McVay's efforts were worthless. It was a huge part of how they got to the game in the first place, and how they dunked on the Cowboys on the way there.

 

[CouchCoach]

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.

No doubt, these coaches study the other coaches' tendencies and situational set ups like a boxer studying his opponent's style. That's why Belichick has always been anal about being predictable.

And you know who that rubbed off on? Parcells. He used to make me crazy changing what was working in anticipation of the other coach doing something. And he was a head games guy that would backfire on him. He had such fear/respect for Holmgren that when they had two Safety's, Pete Hunter being one, off the street he went at them with the run game and didn't want to hang Romo out but did so anyway creating the first live action bobblehead doll.

It was arrogant of him but he was one of the original control coaches. Back then, all successful teams ran the ball more than they passed the majority of the time and he didn't trust a QB not to call too many pass plays.

The funniest story about Landry's arrogance was in Harris and Waters book when he was designing that play on the chalkboard and one of them asked him "Coach how do you know he'll be there"? Landry did one of those slow turns and gave him a Landry look and just said "he'll be there" and turned back to the board. And he was there or they wouldn't have told that story.

 

[CouchCoach]

Sure we did, right in Anderson and Gurley's hands.

I suspected that, they were playing with two balls.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Amari Cooper was credited with saying "man this is crazy" last year. Then he and Dak changed the play. Why did that happen? In's, out's, comebacks, curls, and digs. With a couple of go routes thrown in. If you take out the go routes a CB could just (squat ) sit on the rest of those routes. Making them easy to stop. No rub routes. No tripple set formations. No creativity. Yet we still made the playoffs. So we don't need a huge whopping change, but we do need to quit being so conservative all the time.

 

[ItzKelz]

The "Timing" of the playcalling is what sucked last year.............

Playcalling itself sucked. When defensive backs are sitting on comebacks on 3rd downs because they know that is the OCs go to; you got problems.

 

[Future]

I'm talking about the "scheme" - the "system", not the mindset.

These things aren't separate. If they are, you're going to have a crappy offense with no identity.

Pre-snap motions and shifts are not tweaking plays. It is completely re-designing an offense. Otherwise, it's window dressing.

 

[Future]

Amari Cooper was credited with saying "man this is crazy" last year. Then he and Dak changed the play. Why did that happen? In's, out's, comebacks, curls, and digs. With a couple of go routes thrown in. If you take out the go routes a CB could just (squat ) sit on the rest of those routes. Making them easy to stop. No rub routes. No tripple set formations. No creativity. Yet we still made the playoffs. So we don't need a huge whopping change, but we do need to quit being so conservative all the time.

Tony Romo changed the play to Jesse Holley in the SF game years ago from, you guessed it, comebacks. That nonsense has been a staple of JG's offense.

 

[cowboy_ron]

I suspected that, they were playing with two balls.

 

[OmerV]

These things aren't separate. If they are, you're going to have a crappy offense with no identity.

Pre-snap motions and shifts are not tweaking plays. It is completely re-designing an offense. Otherwise, it's window dressing.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Again, a slant is a slant, and a run up the middle is a run up the middle, and a post pattern is a post patter whether a player goes into motion before he gets into his set position and the ball is snapped or not. Obviously that's something the coaches will have to embrace, so if you want to call it a change in philosophy, that's fine. And that's what Moore was hired to do. But to adjust the plays to fit with that does not require a radical shift. The same base plays can still be part of it.

What you apparently aren't understanding is that the same scheme can look very different depending on how it is used. A team can use the same scheme and playbook and be either run heavy or pass heavy, for example. It's just a matter of which plays go into the game plan and how aggressive a team chooses to be. The approach with using that scheme is the key.

 

[Future]

Sorry, but you are wrong. Again, a slant is a slant, and a run up the middle is a run up the middle, and a post pattern is a post patter whether a player goes into motion before he gets into his set position and the ball is snapped or not. Obviously that's something the coaches will have to embrace, so if you want to call it a change in philosophy, that's fine. And that's what Moore was hired to do. But to adjust the plays to fit with that does not require a radical shift. The same base plays can still be part of it.

You are not talking about changing the plays. You are talking about changing pre-snap looks to disguise plays.

That is a complete philosophical change, not tweaking the playbook.

 

[OmerV]

You are not talking about changing the plays. You are talking about changing pre-snap looks to disguise plays.

That is a complete philosophical change, not tweaking the playbook.

lol - that's what I've been talking about all along. Disguising plays better and doing a better job of game planning and play calling. Did you somehow miss that?

And disguising plays does not represent a dramatic philosophical change because the team still wants to do the same things, they just want to hide their intentions better. If, for example, they were to make Zeke more of a decoy and less involved as a runner, or go to a spread offense as the base scheme, those would be dramatic changes in philosophy. But the Cowboys are still likely to do the same things, but with the distraction of pre-snap movement.

And it does not take a dramatic shift in the scheme or playbook. It's largely cosmetic stuff to deceive, but the underlying play itself will still be the same.

 

[Future]

lol - that's what I've been talking about all along. Disguising plays better and doing a better job of game planning and play calling. Did you somehow miss that?

And disguising plays does not represent a dramatic philosophical change because the team still wants to do the same things, they just want to hide their intentions better. If, for example, they were to make Zeke more of a decoy and less involved as a runner, or go to a spread offense as the base scheme, those would be dramatic changes in philosophy. The Cowboys are likely still planning to do much the same things as they have been doing, but just disguise them better.

And it does not take a dramatic shift in the scheme or playbook. It's largely cosmetic stuff to deceive, but the underlying play itself will still be the same.

No, I didn't miss it. But disguising plays isn't a matter of tweaks to the playbook.

It's not cosmetic, it's a philosophical change. Moving to an offense with a lot of pre-snap motion and disguising is a complete overhaul of the playbooks. Motion and the like is attached to formations, packages, and reads, not specific plays. That's a completely opposite approach of "line up and beat them" that we've always had under JG.

 

[Sydla]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Moore and Kitna alone will be responsible for winning if that happens. Obviously building the talent to work with is a major component too. All anyone is hoping is for coaches that can use the talent better. And realistically, it's not as if we are asking these guys to take a bottom of the league team and turn them into contenders. The Cowboys are one of the winningest teams in the NFL over the last several years, and have won the division 3 of the last 5 years, and have been a rats hair from getting to the NFC championship game in each of those 3 years. The task is merely to help them take another step beyond what they have previously accomplished.

Lots of platitudes. No real discernible progress on the field.

And yes, the Cowboys are basically counting on Kitna and Moore to have a big impact and save Garrett's job.

 

[Sydla]

No, I didn't miss it. But disguising plays isn't a matter of tweaks to the playbook.

It's not cosmetic, it's a philosophical change. Moving to an offense with a lot of pre-snap motion and disguising is a complete overhaul of the playbooks. Motion and the like is attached to formations, packages, and reads, not specific plays. That's a completely opposite approach of "line up and beat them" that we've always had under JG.

Yeah I think people thinking these are easy changes are totally underestimating what it takes to make changes like have been rumored to be taking place. There have been rumors of utilizing different packages (a reason they wanted Pollard), more spread principles to spread teams out from loading the box against us, and more pre-snap motion. That's not a tweak to the playbook, it's a pretty radical change from what we have done.

I think some just think, add a couple of motions to the existing plays we run and presto............ new offense! Gonna roll! Kick *** baby! Just because a slant is a slant or a dive play is a dive play doesn't mean it's an easy and simple change to run the same basic play but with different personnel packages and/or more motion.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Garrett has an offense?......His offense had the longevity of a Ford Edsel.

 

[OmerV]

No, I didn't miss it. But disguising plays isn't a matter of tweaks to the playbook.

It's not cosmetic, it's a philosophical change. Moving to an offense with a lot of pre-snap motion and disguising is a complete overhaul of the playbooks. Motion and the like is attached to formations, packages, and reads, not specific plays. That's a completely opposite approach of "line up and beat them" that we've always had under JG.

We will have to agree to disagree. Sure it requires changes, but you aren't changing the base plays, so it isn't a complete overhaul. And yes, it is cosmetic because the pre-snap motion does not change the play design once the ball is snapped, it just makes it harder to predict before the ball is snapped.

You seem to have this notion of tons of people hurrying and scurrying all over the place before the snap. It will be much more subtle than that.

If motion is not attached to specific plays, how do you put it in the playbook? lol Of course it is attached to specific plays, which will also be attached to specific formations and packages. The current offense functions the same way - they can run specific plays from different formations and packages. That's how it is for all teams, and will continue to be for the Cowboys. It's just a matter of better disguising those plays.

And, of course, calling plays better.

 

[OmerV]

Yeah I think people thinking these are easy changes are totally underestimating what it takes to make changes like have been rumored to be taking place. There have been rumors of utilizing different packages (a reason they wanted Pollard), more spread principles to spread teams out from loading the box against us, and more pre-snap motion. That's not a tweak to the playbook, it's a pretty radical change from what we have done.

I think some just think, add a couple of motions to the existing plays we run and presto............ new offense! Gonna roll! Kick *** baby! Just because a slant is a slant or a dive play is a dive play doesn't mean it's an easy and simple change to run the same basic play but with different personnel packages and/or more motion.

I didn't say they are easy. Obviously it will take a lot of work to get all the players used to motion and shifts. But it still isn't changing the base plays, it is just moving people before they get set to disguise things rather than have them start off in the place they will end up in with the motion anyway.

If, for example, Zeke is going to run a deep post pattern while split out wide, he could either start out wide, or start in the backfield and go in motion to get wide. Either way he is still starting from the same place when the ball is snapped, and he is running the same pass pattern and looking for the same throw. The difference is only in that he went in motion to get there, which is just a tweak of the same pass pattern already in the playbook.

 

[Sydla]

I didn't say they are easy. Obviously it will take a lot of work to get all the players used to motion and shifts. But it still isn't changing the base plays, it is just moving people before they get set to disguise things rather than have them start off in the place they will end up in with the motion anyway.

If, for example, Zeke is going to run a deep post pattern while split out wide, he could either start out wide, or start in the backfield and go in motion to get wide. Either way he is still starting from the same place when the ball is snapped, and he is running the same pass pattern and looking for the same throw. The difference is only in that he went in motion to get there, which is just a tweak of the same pass pattern already in the playbook.

Except your last example isn't totally on point. Because the motion might be predicated on a read Prescott or even Zeke has to make, etc.

This conversion (and frankly, we really have no idea what the hell they are doing) is far more complicated than you are making it out to be.