Garrett's system equal opportunity QB killer

[CATCH17]

All quarterbacks throw bad passes. I figure everyone here know that, but based on some previous threads, I thought it needed to be said.

Knowing that all quarterbacks throw bad passes, offensive coaches play chess on the field to get the guys the QB is throwing to as open as possible. That's why you see plays like the one Philadelphia ran at the goal line that got McCoy wide open. It's also why a lot of teams Dallas has faced uses picks. The more open space, the easier the pass should be.

My main problem with Garrett is he doesn't seem to see the need to do things to cross up defenses and get his players wide open. He'd rather line our guys up against theirs and throw to the man who is most expected based on alignment to beat his man. So our players on offense have always got to be better than theirs on defense. When they are not, like Austin against Boykin last night, the QB has to throw into too many tight windows and eventually you are going to have mistakes. Creating mismatches by alignment and open space by movement eliminates some of those opportunities for mistakes.

Football is a game of strategy and Garrett seems to prefer to have his troops march in a straight line instead of employ guerrilla tactics with a few Jap plays thrown in for good measure. It saddens me to think that his scheme is returning for another year.

This absolutely makes me rage and I come on here and talk about it and people say "well it's really about execution."

Technically, yes. But you can't win every one on one battle consistently in the NFL.


That is why I want a coach that can get guys open by scheme and not because the defense gives us something.

If there were no salary cap and we had all the best players then this would be fine. The NFL probably wouldn't be as pass happy either because you could just have the best linemen and RB's and just truck over defenses.

But it's not and Garrett never has gotten that.

I would actually be for keeping him if he had good schemes but honestly, besides our record, it's the main reason I don't want him here. He doesn't make anyone better.

 

[gimmesix]

Lot of folks would be offended by the term "Jap". I married a Japanese and have 3 half Japanese kids. There's 5 right there. Other than that, you made some good points.

Did not mean it to be offensive. I was a reference back to what Parcells called it when he ran a trick play.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Did not mean it to be offensive. I was a reference back to what Parcells called it when he ran a trick play.

Parcells was in hot water for saying it, but apparently it is normal lingo for some.

 

[gimmesix]

This absolutely makes me rage and I come on here and talk about it and people say "well it's really about execution."

And I do think that's how Garrett sees it. If Orton had only executed that throw, etc.

And that's true to a point. Your players have to execute. But if you are always asking them to outexecute the other team instead of occasionally outsmarting the other team, you're asking too much. No player is 100 percent perfect in any game.

The more you outsmart the other team, the less your players have to be 100 percent perfect in outexecuting the other team.

 

[gimmesix]

Putting players in best position to succeed is the primary responsibility of coaches and play callers . I don't see this with JGs system. When we have taller receivers and who can go up and get the ball we hardly throw jump balls .( even in end Zone ) like the 2 point conversion. You don't throw low to a covered receiver , Witten was open in the middle but that's on Orton.

Don't think that was on Orton. Dez was the primary on that play, so unless he got doubled, Orton was supposed to go to him. That low throw was on Orton. I think he was trying to go with a back-shoulder fade instead of a jump ball.

 

[gimmesix]

Parcells was in hot water for saying it, but apparently it is normal lingo for some.

Well, I don't want to be in hot water, so I apologize to any it may have offended. It's not my normal lingo, just wanted to make a reference back to Parcells.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Well, I don't want to be in hot water, so I apologize to any it may have offended. It's not my normal lingo, just wanted to make a reference back to Parcells.

No, I wasn't implying that it was normal language for you. I remember when Parcells said it. He mentioned later that the term is used by many in the coaching world.

 

[gimmesix]

No, I wasn't implying that it was normal language for you. I remember when Parcells said it. He mentioned later that the term is used by many in the coaching world.

I didn't think you were. I just wanted to clarify why I included it.

I actually found it funny that Parcells took so much flak for a comment that was just part of his vernacular and not understood by him to be offensive. (Not funny that he used the comment, just his reaction to the backlash.)

It's kind of like quite a few years ago when we named a dog that we had "Tar Baby." He looked like he was covered with tar, which reminded us of the Brer Rabbit tales. Sometimes you just don't know or think about what the words you use can mean to others.

Anyway, back to football ...

 

[links18]

Well, okay, but my response to that is, why not? I know he's a backup, but he's been in the league a long time, played a lot of games, and is making a lot of money, based on the very idea of him being able to come through and make those kinds of throws in those situations.

Ok, but I think its as much a question of game situation awareness there. The one thing you couldn't have there was a turnover. An incompletion leaves you with three more chances to move the ball.