I had never heard this about the run or lack of it last Sunday

[GimmeTheBall!]

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_...s-cowboys-offense-one-dimensional?eref=fromSI

I knew it was secondary. I just didn't know the extent. This was severe.

It does make sense that pretty much dropping the running game Sunday let the Packers key in on Romo. I just had no idea we had run that few times. wow.

 

[Asklesko]

A picture says a thousand words.

 

[EPL0c0]

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_...s-cowboys-offense-one-dimensional?eref=fromSI

I knew it was secondary. I just didn't know the extent. This was severe.

It does make sense that pretty much dropping the running game Sunday let the Packers key in on Romo. I just had no idea we had run that few times. wow.

3 of those 14 run plays were by Romo after he scrambled b/c the WRs were well covered and the protection had collapsed. 58 total plays, 11 by the RBs, that's 47 on Romo (pass or run). 47/11.

There were only 11 runs by design to the RBs....

 

[RainMan]

I'm not in the anti-Garrett crowd (as I am in most cases, I'm a wait-and-see type guy), but my primary complain with Garrett is that he does appear easily rattled as a play caller. It's either that, and he lacks conviction and can get swayed away from what he wants to do when trailing by even the smallest of deficit, or he simply does not place much value on the running game. Or maybe a little of both.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I'm not in the anti-Garrett crowd (as I am in most cases, I'm a wait-and-see type guy), but my primary complain with Garrett is that he does appear easily rattled as a play caller. It's either that, and he lacks conviction and can get swayed away from what he wants to do when trailing by even the smallest of deficit, or he simply does not place much value on the running game. Or maybe a little of both.

Either BTB or Bob Sturm made the point that you DO NOT want to line up toe to toe with Garrett in a shoot-out aerial assault game. However, you have a great advantage over him if you can get it to a 13-7 kind of game because he cannot hold to a plan for a grind-it-out slug fest if all of his weapons are available.

When his opposition is going to trench warfare where every inch counts, he wants to line 'em up by rank and file to fire en masse at your defended positions like muzzle loading armies of old.

I have very little faith right now that Garrett as an OC will ever win a 10-7 game or a 10-9 game from behind with his team healthy.

 

[Idgit]

Either BTB or Bob Sturm made the point that you DO NOT want to line up toe to toe with Garrett in a shoot-out aerial assault game. However, you have a great advantage over him if you can get it to a 13-7 kind of game because he cannot hold to a plan for a grind-it-out slug fest if all of his weapons are available.

When his opposition is going to trench warfare where every inch counts, he wants to line 'em up by rank and file to fire en masse at your defended positions like muzzle loading armies of old.

I have very little faith right now that Garrett as an OC will ever win a 10-7 game or a 10-9 game from behind with his team healthy.

Why ever? Even if that criticism is relevant, what's to say he can't identify his own trends as a coordinator and make the relatively simple changes in play calling to win a slugfest by Bob's definition?

 

[Doomsay]

Why ever? Even if that criticism is relevant, what's to say he can't identify his own trends as a coordinator and make the relatively simple changes in play calling to win a slugfest by Bob's definition?

I think that the critique is relevant coming from the DC that just schooled him. Although it's hard to quantify it doesn't seem like Jason has had the confidence or willingness to stick with the run in these types of situations - always hoping for the long developing TO-like deep strike to put quick points up on the board, rather than grind it out, just not his style despite the situation on the field.

 

[Martice]

I think that the critique is relevant coming from the DC that just schooled him. Although it's hard to quantify it doesn't seem like Jason has had the confidence or willingness to stick with the run in these types of situations - always hoping for the long developing TO-like deep strike to put quick points up on the board, rather than grind it out, just not his style despite the situation on the field.

JG's style of play calling reminds me of a NBA player in his contract year. The more points, the better he looks. At least that's what he thinks....

 

[JohnsKey19]

So the opposing coordinator who just schooled Garrett basically said the game became easier to coach from a defensive standpoint since JG essentially abandoned the run. Who needs more evidence than that?

C'mon guys, this is Football 101!

 

[dbair1967]

Either BTB or Bob Sturm made the point that you DO NOT want to line up toe to toe with Garrett in a shoot-out aerial assault game. However, you have a great advantage over him if you can get it to a 13-7 kind of game because he cannot hold to a plan for a grind-it-out slug fest if all of his weapons are available.

When his opposition is going to trench warfare where every inch counts, he wants to line 'em up by rank and file to fire en masse at your defended positions like muzzle loading armies of old.

I have very little faith right now that Garrett as an OC will ever win a 10-7 game or a 10-9 game from behind with his team healthy.

Didnt we just win a physical 20-16 game on the road vs a good Eagles team?

 

[casmith07]

Obviously it became one-dimensional...great observation by Capers

Seriously, though, the headline is inflammatory as well. "Cowboys Offense is One-Dimensional!!"

That's not even what Capers said.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Didnt we just win a physical 20-16 game on the road vs a good Eagles team?

That game makes the point precisely. Garrett relies heavily on the big play when the chips are down rather than a grind it out offense.

Our scoring drives in that game?

Starting on their 47 after a penalty:
Pass
MB3 for 2 yards
Pass
Ogletree end around
Pass
Pass
Run

The field goal before halftime:
8 straight pass attempts including one sack

Next field goal, ball on their 42:
Pass
run
Pass
Pass

Last TD:
Run
Run (Holding)
Run (1st and 20)
Pass (2nd and 24)
Pass to Miles

The thing is that Garrett will inevitably fall to his QBing predisposition if you bottle up the run in any shape or form. Not that it's a bad thing, but it has lost us games in the past and will continue to lose us games in the future if he doesn't learn from said mistakes.

The Washington game of last year should have been the last time he went so pass heavy it was laughable, but we've seen it against Denver and now against a very beatable and beat up Green Bay. They were missing 3 * linebackers and we did nothing to go after it in the running game.

Nope, forget the bread and butter 22 set and let's go shotgun the whole * game. There are quite a few members here who could call a solid defensive game against a shotgun offense that didn't threaten run.

 

[dbair1967]

Nope, forget the bread and butter 22 set and let's go shotgun the whole * game. There are quite a few members here who could call a solid defensive game against a shotgun offense that didn't threaten run.

Yeah, New England and Indy are clearly teams that members here would have no problem slowing down.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Yeah, New England and Indy are clearly teams that members here would have no problem slowing down.

Good point, yet the fact stands that their DC flat out called it as I've described it. Easier to call a defensive game when you see the other team in shotgun with a two receiver set.

The counter point can be made also that if, yeah playing the BIG if card here, Roy doesn't fumble, the pass to Miles is two inches lower, or Martellus keeps running rather than jumping earlier the game plan of Garrett works.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Good point, yet the fact stands that their DC flat out called it as I've described it. Easier to call a defensive game when you see the other team in shotgun with a two receiver set.

The counter point can be made also that if, yeah playing the BIG if card here, Roy doesn't fumble, the pass to Miles is two inches lower, or Martellus keeps running rather than jumping earlier the game plan of Garrett works.

No, the point being conveniently missed here is that every freaking time they ran the ball there defenders in the back field (Jolly on every single snap) and we were losing yards. The goal is to make a first downs, not to dig yourself a deeper hole, and the OL play was horrendous.

 

[NinePointOh]

For all but our last two drives of the game, we had 20 passing plays and 12 rushing plays (a 62-38 ratio, which is perfectly normal). If you also exclude the drive at the end of the first half in the two-minute offense, it was 17 passing plays and 12 rushing plays -- less than a 59-41 ratio.

When we truly became one-dimensional was on the two drives we had after falling behind 17-0 with 10:00 to play in the game. After that point, we had 24 passes and 2 scrambles. Consequently, those were actually the most successful drives we had all game -- first we drove 76 yards to the 1 yard-line where Romo threw an interception, and then we drove 63 yards and scored a touchdown.

You could easily argue that we should have run a dive on the 1st-and-goal from the 1, but other than that play, our problem wasn't that we called too many pass plays. The problem was the players and referees making stupid mistakes. The pass-run ratio was typical until the very end, and I'd have to question the judgment of anyone who says they'd call lots of running plays while down 3 scores with 10:00 to play.

 

[CF74]

Welcome to the last three days of moaning...

 

[slomoxn]

Why ever? Even if that criticism is relevant, what's to say he can't identify his own trends as a coordinator and make the relatively simple changes in play calling to win a slugfest by Bob's definition?

Up to now he has never made those changes. Consistently he has abandoned the run in close games and actually hindered the team as a result. No guts to grind it out.

 

[Biggems]

what bugs me the most is, it was 0-0 until Roy fumbled and they scored a FG to end the half.......even then, it was only 3-0. There was no reason not to run the ball. It wasnt like we were down 21-0 early in the game.....

i have been very critical of Garrett and his playcalling. IMO, the offensive talent we have has overcome a lot of his shortcomings as an OC. At least in the GB game, he finally got Roy running the correct type of routes. But, he still only has Witten running those 3 yd curls.

I have been begging for Choice all season long, and when he is in there, he does a great job. Unfortunately, Garrett wont get him in there. He would rather play Barber and Jones (who were both not completely healthy), than Choice. I know a lot of it had to do with Choice and his poor pass protection, but thats why you bring in Anderson or a TE to help. When running and catching the ball, Choice was doing great things for us. Then, when both of the other RBs were completely healed, they could have returned to the lineup.

 

[odog422]

No, the point being conveniently missed here is that every freaking time they ran the ball there defenders in the back field (Jolly on every single snap) and we were losing yards. The goal is to make a first downs, not to dig yourself a deeper hole, and the OL play was horrendous.

Maybe because when we run the ball we always try to "sell" pass first. We have the OL moving backwards or giving ground rather than firing out routinely.

This point has been discussed this week in a few threads, but run blocking is largely attitude. Attitude developed through repetition. If we are constantly passing, and on the majority of run plays, blocking as if passing initially, why should we be surprised that the OL is inconsistent on the occasions we do ask them to drive block?