The offensive line caused problems, but it would be fairly difficult to find the same level of talent. You cannot tell me that four Pro Bowl players just suddenly became bad. They lost Sparano, who I think kept them on their toes and knew what he wanted to do with them.
There is some disconnect and I think much of that means Houck is not on the same page with Garrett. The style of offense we ran this past season was predicated on the passing game. It got even worse once the whining started after Roy Williams was added. And the "scheme" issues you hear Romo and Owens talk abut simply means that the downfield attack did not mesh well with it. It worked for a while, but when teams adjusted, we could not just drop the entire playbook and start over midseason. If anything Sparano kept Garrett grounded and had a lot of influence on how the plays were called and above all, designed. We did great playing teams that did not blitz exotic blitzes or stunt much. They could absorb their man one on one and Romo would pick them apart, like he did Cleveland. Then Arizona was a watershed game that taught everyone how to attack, which was to simply move around a lot and take advantage of a slow moving offensive line. I am also sure Houck did not mind extra pounds on the linemen, which was the direct opposite of Sparano, who wanted mobility.
It is clear how suddenly our young depth also took a turn south as well. At this time last year, we had Doug Free and Pat McQuistan as heir apparents. Now they are afterthoughts and we are banking on Montrae Holland?
