How can anyone defend these coaches?

[Doc50]

What is with this "first place in the NFC East" business?

How bad the Eagles, Giants, and Commanders are has nothing to do with the coaching of this team.

Hey, that sounds like common sense.......I guess we should expect that from you.

But this bold unorthodox position may place you under some harsh scrutiny around here.

 

[dallasdave]

You're right. How can I possibly argue against Jimmy. Jimmy's overall record is 89-68. He had playoff appearances three times with the Cowboys and two with the Dolphins winning one playoff game there. His winning % was 53% in Miami and his great drafting was good but had some embarrassments, too. Landry had 20 st8 winning seasons still a record and not likely to be broken anytime soon. If you add in the 7-7 record in 65 then that's 21 st8 non-losing seasons in a row. Landry was 270-178 and that includes a 25-53 record the first six years of the Cowboys'. Landry took his team to the NFL championship game pre-merger or the NFC CC game or SB 12 times from 66-82 which will never be equaled IMHO. That's 12 out of 17 years. You can make an argument that Tom should have won a few more overall championships out of that but just getting there is an unbelievable feat I think.

BTW, Tom didn't ruin either of those two players. Henderson ruined what should have been a HOF career with cocaine. Hardly Tom's fault wouldn't you say. And Thomas ruined his own career with the help of a militant Jim Brown. People are responsible for their own behavior.

I loved Jimmy Johnson but he ain't no Tom Landry nor was he anything compared to Don Shula either. You can have the last word.

No Jimmy was no Tom Landry or Don Shula, he was much better than both and his winning percentage on the Superbowl shows that clearly. And as far as Henderson and Thomas Jimmy would have reached and helped them, Jimmy looked after his stars. Look back and the trouble started after Jimmy left(Irvin, ect.) Jimmy knew how to keep his stars under control and got rid of grunts who were problems. I watched Tom for years, I liked him as a coach but he was could and aloof, and not in touch with the players. Winning the Superbowl is the real test , and winning championships. Jimmy did both in pro and college. Tom should have won more Superbowls in 29 years, he did lose 3, how many did Jimmy lose????

 

[Dodger12]

You are right there is no comparison in a few years Jimmy won 2 Superbowls and Tom won 2 Superbowls in 29 years. Also Jimmy built the team that won 3 Superbowls and Tom lost 3 Superbowls. Jimmy did so much more in a short period of time its not even funny. Jimmy left a team that was still great and when Tom was fired he had the worst team in the league. Jimmy was hard coach but never let top talent players be ruined, he got rid of bottom rung players. Tom let Hollywood Henderson go, and ruined Duane Thomas who was a top 3 back in the 1970's. You are right Jimmy is in a class by himself the only coach to win a Superbowl and a National Championship.

I think you're being a bit unfair Double D. Both Johnson and Landry were incredible coaches and are probably very similar in many respects. Landry and Tex were able to identify and develop players that fit their scheme. They could draft a TE and turn him into a HOF tackle. Jimmy would do the same thing and convert a player like Woodson from college LB to safety. A good argument could be made for either one being a better coach. Both were great in their day and Tom did it over the long haul; 20 straight winning seasons is a record that will never be broken.

 

[dallasdave]

Hey, I've got two and a half seasons of 8-8 backing up what I'm saying.

I'm more than secure in my position.

They haven't got enough fingers for this dike.

Stasheroo you are right as usual, and this dike is going bust big time. You can't just beat below .500 teams in the playoffs there will be teams with winning records. You have made this as clear as day . I think you may be talking to a brick wall. Stay thirsty my friend.

 

[jobberone]

Murray 7.8 yards per 4 carries, defend decision to abandon him?



With a franchise low in attempts, you cannot make that statement. This team did not even attempt to run the ball against steam that gave up almost 200 yards the prior game. Inexcusable.

But go on and try to tell us what a tough out this 1-7 team was ad what a quality victory we should be celebrating. Sorry, not buying any of what you're trying to sell.



Upset about bold-faced lies told in an effort to excuse total ineptitude.

Upset when some want to make excuses for a rut of mediocrity and sell them to everyone else.

This team just squeaked out a win at home against an NFL bottom feeder and will soon be publicly humiliated for the world to see by an actually good team en route to another 8-8 or worse wasted season.

Not going to apologize for not being happy with this being the current state of my favorite team.

Any not going to try to make lame excuses for it either.

You're not interested in having a debate stash. I understand your frustration but you've gone overboard with it. I told you yesterday I'm not happy but there are reasons why they didn't run the ball. We don't have a decent run game. It got worse with losing Waters. That's enough of an answer for most people. You threw up a sample size of 4. Here's a better one: 183 for 681 and 5 TDs. That's 3.7 Y/A. That's 26th in the league today. OTOH, we're scoring 29 ppg good for 4th in the NFL. So what's your beef? Our problem is inconsistency on offense and a porous defense with the number 31 ranked pass defense in the NFL. Only Philly is worse. It's not our lack of running game that is costing us the most. It hurts that's for sure.

Don't you know Dallas would prefer closer to a 60/40 ratio and be able to have a more balanced attack? Or do you just attribute not running the ball to Garrett being stupid? I'm not certain they couldn't run the ball more but I can make a better argument as to why they aren't rather than why they should run more considering all the variables.

I think they were starting to run the ball better with Waters in there but that train has left the station. They'll either have to figure out a way to run the ball better with the players they have or sustain drives better with less mistakes throwing. They are handicapping themselves being one dimensional but if the other team is going to cheat and dare Romo to throw then they are likely to lose more often than win that battle.

We are winless against teams with winning records and haven't lost to those who don't. They had better find a way to change that. Finding a running game would be good. Finding a better pass rush and mostly finding a complete passing defense would help more.

 

[dallasdave]

You're not interested in having a debate stash. I understand your frustration but you've gone overboard with it. I told you yesterday I'm not happy but there are reasons why they didn't run the ball. We don't have a decent run game. It got worse with losing Waters. That's enough of an answer for most people. You threw up a sample size of 4. Here's a better one: 183 for 681 and 5 TDs. That's 3.7 Y/A. That's 26th in the league today. OTOH, we're scoring 29 ppg good for 4th in the NFL. So what's your beef? Our problem is inconsistency on offense and a porous defense with the number 31 ranked pass defense in the NFL. Only Philly is worse. It's not our lack of running game that is costing us the most. It hurts that's for sure.

Don't you know Dallas would prefer closer to a 60/40 ratio and be able to have a more balanced attack? Or do you just attribute not running the ball to Garrett being stupid? I'm not certain they couldn't run the ball more but I can make a better argument as to why they aren't rather than why they should run more considering all the variables.

I think they were starting to run the ball better with Waters in there but that train has left the station. They'll either have to figure out a way to run the ball better with the players they have or sustain drives better with less mistakes throwing. They are handicapping themselves being one dimensional but if the other team is going to cheat and dare Romo to throw then they are likely to lose more often than win that battle.

We are winless against teams with winning records and haven't lost to those who don't. They had better find a way to change that. Finding a running game would be good. Finding a better pass rush and mostly finding a complete passing defense would help more.

If Garrett really was a great coach why did go pick Jimmy Johnson's brain last year to see how to run a team. Jason admitted spending hours with Jimmy Johnson.

 

[Tabascocat]

A quick question.......

Dallas knows that Minn has a weak secondary and were going to attack it from the start. I am sure they knew it was going to be mostly pass plays going in.

So, my question is....why even have Demarco suit up? He is coming off an injury and may or may not have been 100%. Waters was not going to play making the run game that much worse. The risk outweighs the reward for this game. Just a bad decision to not let him rest one more week if they knew they would not run the ball much in this game IMO.

 

[dallasdave]

Hey, that sounds like common sense.......I guess we should expect that from you.

But this bold unorthodox position may place you under some harsh scrutiny around here.

This is good

 

[Doc50]

Not to poop on Jimmy's parade, but he came to the NFL with a wealth of knowledge about players in the draft because he had recently recruited them all in college. He was able to capitalize on that familiarity and win the talent-picking battle over the next 4 years. You'll notice when comparing drafts at Miami that his familiarity and success had waned by then.

I think one of the most important attributes Jimmy had was fostered by his degree in psychology -- he knew how to motivate on an individual basis.

But Landry's longevity, consistency, and continued success is certainly more valuable to the legacy of the Dallas Cowboys than Jimmy's relatively short stay. Wish he could have lasted another 10-15 years.

 

[Plankton]

If Garrett really was a great coach why did go pick Jimmy Johnson's brain last year to see how to run a team. Jason admitted spending hours with Jimmy Johnson.

I am far from a Garrett homer, but great coaches and leaders seek counsel from others all of the time. Johnson is someone that Garrett is very familiar with, and obviously someone that he admires quite a bit.

It's good that Garrett doesn't think that he knows it all, and can learn something from a successful leader.

 

[Stash]

You're not interested in having a debate stash. I understand your frustration but you've gone overboard with it. I told you yesterday I'm not happy but there are reasons why they didn't run the ball. We don't have a decent run game. It got worse with losing Waters. That's enough of an answer for most people. You threw up a sample size of 4. Here's a better one: 183 for 681 and 5 TDs. That's 3.7 Y/A. That's 26th in the league today. OTOH, we're scoring 29 ppg good for 4th in the NFL. So what's your beef? Our problem is inconsistency on offense and a porous defense with the number 31 ranked pass defense in the NFL. Only Philly is worse. It's not our lack of running game that is costing us the most. It hurts that's for sure.

How about we talk about Murray, who is averaging almost 5 yards a carry? And over 7 yesterday. The fact is that neither Garrett nor Callahan care to run the football. They're both pass happy and everyone can clearly see that.

Don't you know Dallas would prefer closer to a 60/40 ratio and be able to have a more balanced attack? Or do you just attribute not running the ball to Garrett being stupid? I'm not certain they couldn't run the ball more but I can make a better argument as to why they aren't rather than why they should run more considering all the variables.

Why it comes to the running game, Garrett is proven stupid. That's why he needed Sparano, why he needed Reeves, and why they tried with Callahan, based on the Jets running game. But when both do these guys simply want to pass, they'll try any excuse. And some will apparently still buy it.

I think they were starting to run the ball better with Waters in there but that train has left the station. They'll either have to figure out a way to run the ball better with the players they have or sustain drives better with less mistakes throwing. They are handicapping themselves being one dimensional but if the other team is going to cheat and dare Romo to throw then they are likely to lose more often than win that battle.

Teams aren't stuffing the box daring Dallas to throw. They have no fear because the Cowboys will shut down their own running game better than they ever could. Cowboys defenders want it both ways. Dez struggles because of double teams, Witten disappears in games because of double teams, oh and the other teams are stacking the box too. Like they're playing with 15 guys on defense.

We are winless against teams with winning records and haven't lost to those who don't. They had better find a way to change that. Finding a running game would be good. Finding a better pass rush and mostly finding a complete passing defense would help more.

No arguments here, other than not thinking the pass rush is as bad as self-inflicted abandonment of the run at the earliest opportunity

 

[Dodger12]

You don't always have to run the ball to win although I'm a big proponent of running the ball effectively. There is nothing factual about the bolded. Walsh didn't use the run to set the pass up most of his career but the other way around.

Except we're not a west coast team. But, even if we were, teams that run the west coast offense don't abandon the run like we do. Shanahan ran as much as he passed with Terrell Davis and now he has Alfred Morris. The 9ers had Roger Craig and later Ricky Waters and Frank Gore. The Eagles had Brian Westbrook and Shady McCoy. Reid is handing the ball off to Jamaal Charles almost 20 times per game and he has over 700 yards for the season thus far. On the drive that led to "The Catch", the 9ers gained close to 50 yards on the ground with Lenvil Elliott and Ricky Patton (who????) and no one is going to confuse those guys with quality running backs. We completely abandon the run and we should in no way, shape or form confuse our running philosophy, or lack there of, with Walsh's or a west coast offense.

 

[rpntex]

Tell that to the head coach you're trying to defend who is publicly agreeing with me.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

DeMarco Murray 7.8 yard average on his 4 carries.

Defend getting away from that.

Thanks in advance.

I actually agree with the stance that we need to run the more AND more effectively. I think it's a bigger priority, however, to move the chains, and running the ball yesterday wasn't going to get it done.

YPC is such a misleading stat, there's no need to defend getting away from it. One big gainer skews the stats to the point where it makes an ineffective running game look good. Instead, most coaches look at the trends before the averages. Aside from one great run by Murray, Dallas did not run the ball effectively.

Dallas' called running plays (doesn't include the Romo scramble) looked like this:

-2 (Murray on 1st down, put Dallas in a 2nd and 12 situation)
27 ( Murray on 1st down)
3 (Randle on 2nd and 10, put Dallas in a 3rd and 7)
-3 (Dunbar on 1st down, put Dallas in a 2nd and 13 situation)
6 (Murray on 3rd and 1)
2 (Dunbar on 2nd and 5)
0 (Murray on 3rd and 1)
-5 (Dunbar on 2nd and 10)

That is FIVE carries out of eight that resulted in 2 yards or less. That's not effective, and the end result from continuing to try and pound the rock would be shorter possessions, thus putting the defense back on the field without time to rest on the sidelines. Running the ball more will actually end up being counterproductive if we don't run it more effectively. In cases like yesterday, it's a matter of making the defense "hit your best pitch" (to borrow a baseball metaphor). If your curve isn't working, you don't keep throwing it.

I agree with one poster who spoke of play design. Dallas has to be a better job of narrowing down the running game to what plays tend to work, and shelve those that don't. Such as the shotgun draw plays---once or twice a game, in the right down and distance scenario, it can be a very effective play. Aside from that 1-2 times per game, I think we're more effective running with Romo under center.

 

[khiladi]

Well, running can also tired the defense down, meaning the bigger runs happen later in the game... AP carried the whole defense across the TD in the 4th... Of course, he's AP but still...

 

[jobberone]

How about we talk about Murray, who is averaging almost 5 yards a carry? And over 7 yesterday. The fact is that neither Garrett nor Callahan care to run the football. They're both pass happy and everyone can clearly see that.
========================================================

Why it comes to the running game, Garrett is proven stupid. That's why he needed Sparano, why he needed Reeves, and why they tried with Callahan, based on the Jets running game. But when both do these guys simply want to pass, they'll try any excuse. And some will apparently still buy it.

Teams aren't stuffing the box daring Dallas to throw. They have no fear because the Cowboys will shut down their own running game better than they ever could. Cowboys defenders want it both ways. Dez struggles because of double teams, Witten disappears in games because of double teams, oh and the other teams are stacking the box too. Like they're playing with 15 guys on defense.


No arguments here, other than not thinking the pass rush is as bad as self-inflicted abandonment of the run at the earliest opportunity

Yes he has a 4.8 Y/C. Small sample size though but that is part of your argument. Most of that comes from the StL game with 26 175 for 6.7 Y/C. You can argue that makes your argument or its an aberration because 69 284 4.1Y/C which isn't bad. His median is more like 2.9 which ain't good.

You're making the argument that Garrett and/or Callahan are pass happy. You're wrong about that. They are taking what the defense gives them as well as using what they have best. Your argument is basically they are too stupid to understand they need a more balanced attack. Mind is they are definitely not stupid and there are reason for them to not run the ball. Part of that may be we need to score a lot of points to overcome our lousy defense. You'd have to ask them why. Bet Murray wants to know.

I haven't seen the all-22 on any of the games so all I can do is say what I've noticed during the games. Yesterday they were blitzing up the middle a lot on both passing and running downs. Yesterday Murray ran 4 times for 31 yards. That's 7.75 Y/A. However, you failed to mention 27 came on one rush. So that's 3 rushes for 4 yds and one for 27. The rest of the guys rushed 4 times for -3 yds. That's -0.75 Y/C to go along with Murray's median of 1.33 Y/C.

So your argument breaks down when you really look closely rather than emotionally. Who's going to run the ball a lot when you're gaining 0.58 Y/A on 8 of 9 attempts?

We don't run the ball well. Romo is 66% 2553yds 7.4 Y/A 20 TD 6 INT 100 rating. We throw it well.

Frankly I'm amazed we are 5-4 and have been in all the games we've played.

 

[Stash]

I actually agree with the stance that we need to run the more AND more effectively. I think it's a bigger priority, however, to move the chains, and running the ball yesterday wasn't going to get it done.

YPC is such a misleading stat, there's no need to defend getting away from it. One big gainer skews the stats to the point where it makes an ineffective running game look good. Instead, most coaches look at the trends before the averages. Aside from one great run by Murray, Dallas did not run the ball effectively.

Dallas' called running plays (doesn't include the Romo scramble) looked like this:

-2 (Murray on 1st down, put Dallas in a 2nd and 12 situation)
27 ( Murray on 1st down)
3 (Randle on 2nd and 10, put Dallas in a 3rd and 7)
-3 (Dunbar on 1st down, put Dallas in a 2nd and 13 situation)
6 (Murray on 3rd and 1)
2 (Dunbar on 2nd and 5)
0 (Murray on 3rd and 1)
-5 (Dunbar on 2nd and 10)

That is FIVE carries out of eight that resulted in 2 yards or less. That's not effective, and the end result from continuing to try and pound the rock would be shorter possessions, thus putting the defense back on the field without time to rest on the sidelines. Running the ball more will actually end up being counterproductive if we don't run it more effectively. In cases like yesterday, it's a matter of making the defense "hit your best pitch" (to borrow a baseball metaphor). If your curve isn't working, you don't keep throwing it.

I agree with one poster who spoke of play design. Dallas has to be a better job of narrowing down the running game to what plays tend to work, and shelve those that don't. Such as the shotgun draw plays---once or twice a game, in the right down and distance scenario, it can be a very effective play. Aside from that 1-2 times per game, I think we're more effective running with Romo under center.

I think you just illustrated the dynamic of just about every running game in the NFL.

You're not going to get 10 yards a clip.

You'll get 4, 2, 6, 17, 0, 1, 19, 7, 3, etc.

That's how it happens.

But this team wants to ignore the run until they have to have it to score from the goal line or to try to control the clock to win a game.

And then they have the nerve to somehow be surprised when they fail?

I can point to plenty of specific circumstances where this very thing occurred under Garrett's direction.

His inability to utilize the running game at the NFL level is painfully clear.

 

[Stash]

We don't run the ball well. Romo is 66% 2553yds 7.4 Y/A 20 TD 6 INT 100 rating. We throw it well.

Frankly I'm amazed we are 5-4 and have been in all the games we've played.

Thank the losing teams who are worse than our 8-8.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm glad we won but my gosh we are poorly coached.

It's so sad that we're wasting so many players careers.

I did not see coaching as the problem. I saw poor play as the problem. Players still have to execute when they do we function very well when we don't then we struggle.

 

[jobberone]

Thank the losing teams who are worse than our 8-8.

Yes, but you should also give credit to Romo and the rest of the gang including the coaches. But then right now all you're doing is spouting negativity some of which I've shown doesn't even reflect reality.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think you just illustrated the dynamic of just about every running game in the NFL.

You're not going to get 10 yards a clip.

You'll get 4, 2, 6, 17, 0, 1, 19, 7, 3, etc.

That's how it happens.

But this team wants to ignore the run until they have to have it to score from the goal line or to try to control the clock to win a game.

And then they have the nerve to somehow be surprised when they fail?

I can point to plenty of specific circumstances where this very thing occurred under Garrett's direction.

His inability to utilize the running game at the NFL level is painfully clear.

This team was getting stuffed as well. Vikes one big strenght in on the defensive front and too many times we took negitive yards. Dallas moved the ball through the air I would rather not bang my head aginst a wall and not go to the weakness which for Minn was in their secondary. I agree about the run I also think there are games where it becomes difficult to run and a team is foolish to continue to try to run when they are not having the success.