How can anyone defend these coaches?

[jobberone]

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.

Your figures are much different than 1 yard per carry. When you're getting that you go to plan B. You don't keep wasting offensive snaps and killing drives when you know you have a chance to score throwing it and you're going to need to score on most of your drives or your defense will lose the game. You can't get bogged down with the concept of a balanced attack when you have to score a lot of points to compensate for your defense.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

Is Tony's arm going to fall off from having to pass every down?

 

[perrykemp]

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.

My working theory on this jobberone is it isn't nearly as easy to comment on a message board like CZ when players end up doing what you expect from them. It's so much easier to comment when players/coaches/etc don't do what is expected of them.

I often reflect on my own posting and say to myself "Well damn, I just wrote 5 critical comments and only 1 positive one". You are right, we should credit Romo, the coaches, the team/etc for beating the Vikings. I EXPECTED them to. It just isn't as interesting to talk about -- it probably has a lot to do with the fact many of us are inherently problem-solvers (or we like to think we are anyway) and it's way more fun to dig into why something didn't work as to spend much time on why it did.

Am I crazy?

 

[Stash]

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.

And does not a great deal of the Cowboys offensive success come from one game (Denver) as well?

If we're using the aberration card, let's use it across the board for all outstanding performances, in the interest of fairness?

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.

Is it not true that Garrett has needed a running game helper on multiple occasions? Are we making the names Sparano and Reeves up? Has he not repeatedly been criticized for his failure in this area? We act like this is something new here?

And you're not going to tell me that teams are constantly doubling Dez and Witten all while stuffing the line against a run game that never comes.

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 we should ignore the one rush for 27 yards and simply focus on the other three?!?!

It's like nobody knows how the running game works?

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.

Romo is having a great season, but he can't do it all himself. But this brain trust seems to want to put it all on him, every week. A proven recipe for failure that has played itself out for what? 5 years now?

Anytime not asking to run " a lot", never did. But 9 times is pure bush league. I'd wager the old run and shoot teams tried harder. Fact is that you can't get better at something without trying to get better.

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

Thank goodness for worse than average teams.

 

[Stash]

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.

Oh, I will gladly give credit where it's due.

Romo is having a great season and Marinelli has done miracles with the defensive line.

 

[Stash]

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.

Again, 7.8 on 4 attempts for Murray.

Against a team gashed for almost 200 just one week before!

Show me anywhere where that should be completely abandoned?

It's inexcusable.

 

[big dog cowboy]

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%. 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.

Same question I asked yesterday. Doesn't make any more sense today.

 

[Doomsday101]

Again, 7.8 on 4 attempts for Murray.

Against a team gashed for almost 200 just one week before!

Show me anywhere where that should be completely abandoned?

It's inexcusable.

and stats can also be miss leading, 1 good run does not make a good running game. We were getting stuffed a number of times leaving ourselfs with 2nd and long. Dallas was able to move the ball in the air were Vikes had some injury problems so why sit there and go after the strenght of the Vikes instead of attacking their weakness. Fact is some off target ball and a boat load of dropped passes killed us not the fact that we could not run vs their front.

 

[Stash]

Your figures are much different than 1 yard per carry. When you're getting that you go to plan B. You don't keep wasting offensive snaps and killing drives when you know you have a chance to score throwing it and you're going to need to score on most of your drives or your defense will lose the game. You can't get bogged down with the concept of a balanced attack when you have to score a lot of points to compensate for your defense.

Again, your starting running back was averaging 7.8 yards per carry.

In no way does that constitute his being phased out.

None.

This is self-inflicted one-dimensional offense.

And another great way to help your defense? Control the ball and keep the opposing offense off the field.

A thought that occurs everywhere except in Dallas.

 

[jobberone]

My working theory on this jobberone is it isn't nearly as easy to comment on a message board like CZ when players end up doing what you expect from them. It's so much easier to comment when players/coaches/etc don't do what is expected of them.

I often reflect on my own posting and say to myself "Well damn, I just wrote 5 critical comments and only 1 positive one". You are right, we should credit Romo, the coaches, the team/etc for beating the Vikings. I EXPECTED them to. It just isn't as interesting to talk about -- it probably has a lot to do with the fact many of us are inherently problem-solvers (or we like to think we are anyway) and it's way more fun to dig into why something didn't work as to spend much time on why it did.

Am I crazy?

Not at all. You are likely to be more successful if you lend a critical eye (which includes positives and negatives) toward each step to a goal. Football is a little unique in that you have 16 games rather than 162 or 80+. So each game gets a lot of attention for an entire week or two before the next one. Some are going to be more critical about the negatives or perceived negatives and others less so. I'd look at both.

 

[jobberone]

Thank goodness for worse than average teams.

I see you have deliberately ignored the rest of the post. If you're going to ignore the data then we can't have a debate.

 

[jobberone]

Again, your starting running back was averaging 7.8 yards per carry.

In no way does that constitute his being phased out.

None.

This is self-inflicted one-dimensional offense.

And another great way to help your defense? Control the ball and keep the opposing offense off the field.

A thought that occurs everywhere except in Dallas.

Again you deliberately ignored the data choosing to stick to your 7.8 Y/C when he got 27 on one run and basically the other runs were 1 yd or less. The figures are in a post above that I took the time to ferret out for you and all. You're spinning now because the data doesn't support your argument.

 

[CATCH17]

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.

Doomsday I know by now you don't know good coaching from bad coaching. You and Jason Garrett think players should always go and out athlete their opponent. Well that is a road that leads straight to mediocrity.

One of these days Dallas will have a coach that plays to win and they will have an owner that doesn't accept mediocrity and look at it as a positive.

Right now though mediocrity is fine and coaching that gives us absolutely no game day advantages is alright as well. Replace the Flashy stadium, take away the Silver and blue, add some orange and black and we're pretty much like the Bengals. The standard is far too low here.

 

[Doomsday101]

Doomsday I know by now you don't know good coaching from bad coaching. You and Jason Garrett think players should always go and out athlete their opponent. Well that is a road that leads straight to mediocrity.

One of these days Dallas will have a coach that plays to win and they will have an owner that doesn't accept mediocrity and look at it as a positive.

Right now though mediocrity is fine and coaching that gives us absolutely no game day advantages is alright as well. Replace the Flashy stadium, take away the Silver and blue, add some orange and black and we're pretty much like the Bengals. The standard is far too low here.

and by now I know you don't care for Garrett and been moaning since day 1. Fact is they don't coach dropped passes. You sit there acting as if you can coach you don't fricken have a clue. Players not coaches execute when they do they move the ball pretty damn easy when they don't then they stall. Sorry your own hatred blinds you but you don't have a clue.

 

[visionary]

Doomsday I know by now you don't know good coaching from bad coaching. You and Jason Garrett think players should always go and out athlete their opponent. Well that is a road that leads straight to mediocrity.

One of these days Dallas will have a coach that plays to win and they will have an owner that doesn't accept mediocrity and look at it as a positive.

Right now though mediocrity is fine and coaching that gives us absolutely no game day advantages is alright as well. Replace the Flashy stadium, take away the Silver and blue, add some orange and black and we're pretty much like the Bengals. The standard is far too low here.

i hope that 333 posts later you have learnet your lesson

on this board there is clearly there is no dearth of those who refuse to see the obvious

 

[CATCH17]

and by now I know you don't care for Garrett and been moaning since day 1. Fact is they don't coach dropped passes. You sit there acting as if you can coach you don't fricken have a clue. Players not coaches execute when they do they move the ball pretty damn easy when they don't then they stall. Sorry your own hatred blinds you but you don't have a clue.

I disagree and think you pretty much have no clue and i'd bet if Dallas had a better coach we wouldn't be sitting with our current record.

Coaching matters in the NFL and we don't have a coach that even comes close to getting the most out of what he is an "expert" at.

 

[Doomsday101]

I disagree and think you pretty much have no clue and i'd bet if Dallas had a better coach we wouldn't be sitting with our current record.

Coaching matters in the NFL and we don't have a coach that even comes close to getting the most out of what he is an "expert" at.

That is fine coming from you. Bottom line when players execute this team can move the ball and put points on the board when they fail to execute ie drop balls or make poor throws then they stall. Coaching does matter the failure of execution falls to the HC and his staff. If players are failing to do the job then it is up to the coaches to put in the extra time to get them to execute properly but it is not that damn hard to see when a WR is fricken open and he drops it forcing us into a punt instead of the drive continuing .

As for your view of Garrett well that is your view I don't put much stock into it.

 

[blindzebra]

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.

Check out his receptions. He is also the best pass blocker we have. So no it was not a bad decision.

 

[Doomsday101]

i hope that 333 posts later you have learnet your lesson

on this board there is clearly there is no dearth of those who refuse to see the obvious

What is obvious is the fan base from every team who loses on sunday complains about Play calling and the Refs I do not expect this teams fans to be any different but does not make them correct either.

 

[visionary]

What is obvious is the fan base from every team who loses on sunday complains about Play calling and the Refs I do not expect this teams fans to be any different but does not make them correct either.

did you not see the posts by hoofbite about our running and passing tendencies out of specific formations?

did you not read the post by another poster that the vikings play by play announcers were saying that vikings players on the sideline were calling out our plays?

a couple of seasons ago ray lewis and ed reed said the same thing before the game

this is not a one game issue

how much more evidence do we need? how many more years of spinning our wheels before we admit that RHG runs a predictable offense?