Garrett's offense

[Cowfan75]

How the offense is used is still part of the offense. It's preposterous to argue that it's not, at least in part, "Garrett's offense".

At it's core, teams all use the same plays. It's how, when and where teams use these basic plays that make all the difference. The Cowboys have never been known in recent years for their creativity or ability to mask what they are doing. I've, personally, never argued that Garrett's offense was just a gaggle of plays that Garrett developed and only we ran. My criticism of Garrett (and frankly, I think many detractors here) and this offense has always been they just were never very creative in game plans and how they deployed plays.

Everyone runs curls and comeback routes. We seemingly do it at a higher rate than most. Everyone runs off tackle run plays. But others seemingly do a better job with formations and motion to do it.

That's all part of "Garrett's offense".

This.
You can't call it "Garrett's offense" when it works and just "how the offense is run" when it doesn't. Lol

 

[Future]

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.

If an offense is consistently using pre-snap motion, it is to see what the defense is in and then call a play. That's what Goff couldn't do in the Super Bowl and the Cowboys rarely, if ever, try to do.

It's not like motion in today's NFL is calling 28 toss in the huddle and then just having in pre-determined that the TE will move from the left to right of the formation. Motion is used to manipulate a defense and call the right play, not as an add-on to individual plays.

A playbook isn't exclusively a list of plays anymore. Pre-snap motions and reads will be based on offensive and defensive personnel and alignment. Like...If Dallas is in S11 and Defense is in a Nickel, single-high, slot goes in motion to determine man or zone. If man, play X, if zone, play Y, if LBs move, play Z, etc. etc. etc. All those "if" statements are what will go in the playbook. For Dallas, that's a fundamental change on how to run an offense.

 

[JayFord]

A curl route is still a curl route

But sending a dude in motion or using a new formation wouldn’t hurt

 

[OmerV]

If an offense is consistently using pre-snap motion, it is to see what the defense is in and then call a play. That's what Goff couldn't do in the Super Bowl and the Cowboys rarely, if ever, try to do.

It's not like motion in today's NFL is calling 28 toss in the huddle and then just having in pre-determined that the TE will move from the left to right of the formation. Motion is used to manipulate a defense and call the right play, not as an add-on to individual plays.

A playbook isn't exclusively a list of plays anymore. Pre-snap motions and reads will be based on offensive and defensive personnel and alignment. Like...If Dallas is in S11 and Defense is in a Nickel, single-high, slot goes in motion to determine man or zone. If man, play X, if zone, play Y, if LBs move, play Z, etc. etc. etc. All those "if" statements are what will go in the playbook. For Dallas, that's a fundamental change on how to run an offense.

A playbook is always filled with the plays and play designs. The fact that every play is not meant for every situation is not new. Different plays are always designed for different situations.

And what you are talking about is calling audibles, which is not unique to plays in which players go in motion. Whether motion is used or not the QB has to make a judgement and call an audible if he sees the need.

 

[OmerV]

A curl route is still a curl route

But sending a dude in motion or using a new formation wouldn’t hurt

Not at all. Like Kitna said, there really aren't new plays, it's just about how to call them, how to dress them up and when to call them.

 

[Sydla]

If an offense is consistently using pre-snap motion, it is to see what the defense is in and then call a play. That's what Goff couldn't do in the Super Bowl and the Cowboys rarely, if ever, try to do.

It's not like motion in today's NFL is calling 28 toss in the huddle and then just having in pre-determined that the TE will move from the left to right of the formation. Motion is used to manipulate a defense and call the right play, not as an add-on to individual plays.

A playbook isn't exclusively a list of plays anymore. Pre-snap motions and reads will be based on offensive and defensive personnel and alignment. Like...If Dallas is in S11 and Defense is in a Nickel, single-high, slot goes in motion to determine man or zone. If man, play X, if zone, play Y, if LBs move, play Z, etc. etc. etc. All those "if" statements are what will go in the playbook. For Dallas, that's a fundamental change on how to run an offense.

I laughed at this because I have nightmares of Swaim motioning back into the formation telegraphing a run. LOL.

 

[Dre11]

Garretts offense has also been one of the best in the league under romo and is still pretty good with Dak. The concepts are really good, get down field, get the qb easy completions, few plays behind the line of scrimmage etc. Better playcalling with a few more route combinations will change how people view the offense but the scheme is solid and has been solid for years. Most people don't even know what scheme we run they just read that it's predictable, like you can't predict anyother team by simply watching tape.

I wish I could like this a thousand times. These offenses across the league are very similar, terminology is the biggest difference.

 

[Dre11]

Fans misunderstand that there is, for the most part, a universal route tree.
Situational play calling is a different subject. There needs to be near perfect execution regardless.

Goodness gracious you nailed it.

 

[Dre11]

Way to predictable
Just a different person calling plays helps with that some but adding different looks and motion will help too

The Rams dominated our defense.

 

[conner01]

The Rams dominated our defense.

Has very little to do with improving the offense

 

[Dre11]

Has very little to do with improving the offense

That's my point. Our offense was decent vs Rams.

 

[ondaedg]

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.

Losing to the Patrioits in the super bowl doesn't make them predictable...

 

[conner01]

That's my point. Our offense was decent vs Rams.

Better helps the defense and we’ve added help to the defense with Quinn and the draft

 

[charron]

Losing to the Patrioits in the super bowl doesn't make them predictable...

No. Watching tape and understanding their offense makes less more predictable.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

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.

We did see the reverse with Landry, who was enormously successful with good assistant coaches like Ditka, Stallings, etc. But several left to be head coaches or go to higher positions with other teams, and the SB appearances stopped.

Of course everybody was clamoring for "cupcake" coach Wade Phillips to leave, and we got Garrett, and what happened? Still no SBs.

No team ever won the SB with the leading rusher, or lost the first two games of the season, and won the SB - until Dallas did it. So it's entirely possible that just adding assistant coaches will result in more success. Also have to remember Garrett was very green as far as coaching goes when he got here, people say "he's had 9 years, he should be winning more". But things like losing Romo suddenly, the bad calls like the Dez "no catch", etc. are hard for any team to overcome.

Yes a new head coach usually does bring in new assistants, new culture and so on. But that usually sets a team back a year or two at least, and with T. Smith's creaky back, Lee probably here only a year more, players like Awuzie, Jarwin, Woods, J. Smith and so on just entering their prime years, to change up the coaching "vision" and "philosophy" would set back what's been done already.

Don't misunderstand me, Garrett has to continue to improve the team to stick around, but I just feel at this point IF it's all going to "come together", changing things up at this time just isn't the way to go. Should have been done a couple of years ago, but now is not the time. If the team falls apart and goes 6-10 or such without lots of key injuries, then you HAVE to make a change, you're going backwards and again with the young guys about to hit contract renewal years, time's a wasting, as they say, your hand has been forced.

I've said before, this year is critical for Garrett to improve, I'm willing to give him this year, just like Taco and other players, but that's about it...

 

[xwalker]

Kitna said something that I have been trying to get across in some of these threads. It seems some think Garrett has created his own offense that is different than all others, and he will protect his baby at all costs. This is often used as a reason to believe Moore will be handcuffed.

Kitna's words …

”At the younger levels, the greatest thing is you have to learn how to teach and communicate really well,” Kitna said. “There’s really no new plays, it’s how you call them, how you dress them up and when you call them that’s important.”

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.

Yes, I posted about fans concept of "Garrett's Offense" last week.

People that post "It's still Garrett's offense" don't even know what that really means.

As I said previously, they could hire Joe Montana as OC and he could run a West Coast Offense using "Garrett's Playbook". It would just be a matter of which plays were practiced and used during games and the nuances of how those plays are executed.

 

[Sydla]

We did see the reverse with Landry, who was enormously successful with good assistant coaches like Ditka, Stallings, etc. But several left to be head coaches or go to higher positions with other teams, and the SB appearances stopped.

Of course everybody was clamoring for "cupcake" coach Wade Phillips to leave, and we got Garrett, and what happened? Still no SBs.

No team ever won the SB with the leading rusher, or lost the first two games of the season, and won the SB - until Dallas did it. So it's entirely possible that just adding assistant coaches will result in more success. Also have to remember Garrett was very green as far as coaching goes when he got here, people say "he's had 9 years, he should be winning more". But things like losing Romo suddenly, the bad calls like the Dez "no catch", etc. are hard for any team to overcome.

Yes a new head coach usually does bring in new assistants, new culture and so on. But that usually sets a team back a year or two at least, and with T. Smith's creaky back, Lee probably here only a year more, players like Awuzie, Jarwin, Woods, J. Smith and so on just entering their prime years, to change up the coaching "vision" and "philosophy" would set back what's been done already.

Don't misunderstand me, Garrett has to continue to improve the team to stick around, but I just feel at this point IF it's all going to "come together", changing things up at this time just isn't the way to go. Should have been done a couple of years ago, but now is not the time. If the team falls apart and goes 6-10 or such without lots of key injuries, then you HAVE to make a change, you're going backwards and again with the young guys about to hit contract renewal years, time's a wasting, as they say, your hand has been forced.

I've said before, this year is critical for Garrett to improve, I'm willing to give him this year, just like Taco and other players, but that's about it...

Because we probably hired the wrong coach. I don't quite get the people that look at the transition from Phillips to Garrett and view Garrett's lack of success as some sort of flaw or issue with the program. The easier and more likely answer is that they replaced a mediocre coach in Phillips with a coach that was only slightly better.

I don't think anyone, other than maybe a small handful of people, is arguing that he should be fired right now. If you were going to fire him, it should have been done in January. At this point, though, you have to ride with Garrett.

There should be zero excuses now. If this season is another non-playoff year or we spit the bit in the early round of the playoffs again, I don't want to hear any excuses like how we need to give Garrett more time to grow with his new offensive staff, etc.

Enough.

 

[Sydla]

Yes, I posted about fans concept of "Garrett's Offense" last week.

People that post "It's still Garrett's offense" don't even know what that really means.

As I said previously, they could hire Joe Montana as OC and he could run a West Coast Offense using "Garrett's Playbook". It would just be a matter of which plays were practiced and used during games and the nuances of how those plays are executed.

LOL.

You guys do realize that how you use plays and "nuances" of those plays are all part of the offensive scheme right?

This idea that all offenses are basically the same because hey, they all run dive plays and all use the same passing tree concepts is hilarious.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

The easier and more likely answer is that they replaced a mediocre coach in Phillips with a coach that was only slightly better.

And if Garrett's replaced you think JJ will hire a great coach like Payton or such?

We will never have a great head coach as long as JJ is in charge, griping about Garrett or wishing for his replacement with a great coach isn't happening, so what's the point of firing and hiring one mediocre head coach after another?

Since that's not happening the best we can do is hope for hiring of assistant coaches like Richard....

 

[Sydla]

And if Garrett's replaced you think JJ will hire a great coach like Payton or such?

We will never have a great head coach as long as JJ is in charge, griping about Garrett or wishing for his replacement with a great coach isn't happening, so what's the point of firing and hiring one mediocre head coach after another?

Since that's not happening the best we can do is hope for hiring of assistant coaches like Richard....

I have no idea who he would get to replace him. But the reality is that just continuing with Garrett and spitting out season after disappointing season with the hope that maybe Garrett gets lucky is idiotic. It just is.

I mean think about how stupid this sounds. Let's assume that this season is again another disappointment (non-playoff year or get bounced yet again in the first round). That would be 9 years now with Garrett. In what world would it make sense to just continue down that path with him? You've changed the roster over and over. You've fired and hired multiple assistants. And nothing would have worked.

So at what point do you then look at the HC?

It's all about this season. If Garrett can navigate this team to a conference title game, it's time to move on. Enough is enough.