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

[sonnyboy]

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.

Not exactly. It's slightly high.

Here's the point many here are trying to make.

When you looked at this game, Packers defensive against the Cowboys Offense, it screamed for a heavy dose of the run game.
This game more than any we played looked like one where we would or should end up with a 50/50 spilt.
Then when you factor in who the game played out, it more clear we should have been favoring the run.
It was low scoring and we had problems protecting Romo against a defense that blitzed far more than it had leading up to the game.

I'm not sure of Jones' health status. But this is clearly a game we could've used 3-4 quick pitches to him to attack the edges of that defense.

 

[sonnyboy]

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?

I think you're talking about one of my favorite plays we run. It gets heat on this site but I believe it's been very effective.
Not sure I remember us using it much at all against GB.

I think people don't like it because it's different. I love it. I'm no expert but from what I've noticed our OL blocks as they would on most other run plays.

The only difference from what I see a slight pass action from Romo. He gives the defense a pass look with a straight drop back and then quickly hands off after only a couple steps.

If you really focus on the play you'll notice that the OL and RB do what they would on most running plays. They're not as compromised as they are on a traditional Draw play that's slower developing and relys more on deception.

I like it because it has to give the Safties and LBs a moment of pause affording our key blockers a slight edge.

 

[Alexander]

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.

The only complaint I have about Garrett is similar to yours.

He relies on success to dictate his direction and relies on that success to keep his playcalling balanced. He, like Andy Reid, apparently believes so strongly in the pass that any adversity will send him off the reservation. This is why getting a conscience for him (Dan Reeves) would have been so helpful. He had that with Tony Sparano before as well.

 

[JBond]

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.

Too emotional? Not sure. Would he be better off upstairs instead of the sidelines?

 

[Alexander]

When you looked at this game, Packers defensive against the Cowboys Offense, it screamed for a heavy dose of the run game.

That and the fact we ran on them for over 200 yards last year makes me think we wanted to do the exact opposite this year hoping the Packers wouldn't be prepared to handle it. It seemed they were setting it up all week, starting with the notion that Felix Jones would be off returns because of a supposed increase in workload.

I have a sinking feeling we were looking for the killshot early with the passing game and simply didn't plan to run much until we got ahead. We missed the FG and never got that advantage. There still should have been some sort of adjustment at halftime. We missed opportunities early (the Austin drop for one) but that still doesn't justify to keep beating our heads against a brick wall.

It just seems at times Garrett is very rigid and adversity sends him into some sort of lala land where he become pass happy. It is almost like he gets too tricky from the initial series and when that frustration isn't offset by some success and there is resistance, he slips into his habit of pass first.

 

[tyke1doe]

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?

I might not have been educated at Princeton, but even with my non-Ivy league degree I know more than Garrett about where the emphasis of the offense should lie.

 

[EPL0c0]

I was a bit curious and looked up the 1994 Thanksgiving day GB @ DAL gamebook. It was a 31-42 shootout.

it was a 32/26 run/pass ratio...WEIRD!!

 

[khiladi]

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

And Indianapolis doesn't run play-action?

 

[Alexander]

Too emotional? Not sure. Would he be better off upstairs instead of the sidelines?

I wouldn't discount how the players and assistants feel either. That's where having the "running game coordinator" or someone of that mindset would help. Houck is not that assertive and we know that the other asst. (Ray Sherman) has a lot of faith in his receivers. I also think Romo has his own level of confidence and lets his voice be known as well. We have heard from Choice who wants to run more, we know Barber does, I wonder how the OL feels about taking the game on their shoulders.

I think they have a lot of faith in him and what he does (at least as far as Romo is concerned) that they respond that way. I definitely think getting him away from that noise would help, even though I am sure he's got that natural tendency to throw first and ask questions later.

 

[khiladi]

Whether pass-first or run-first, the issue is keeping an opposing defense off-balance. Garrett just doesn't do it well, meaning he is just isn't that great a coach. Theory can only get you so far....

 

[Alexander]

Whether pass-first or run-first, the issue is keeping an opposing defense off-balance. Garrett just doesn't do it well, meaning he is just isn't that great a coach. Theory can only get you so far....

Geniuses usually are lacking in the common sense department.

 

[NinePointOh]

Not exactly. It's slightly high.

"Slightly" above the median is still perfectly normal, especially when facing lots of 3rd-and-longs. We could have run draws on 3rd-and-10+, but that wouldn't have increased our chances of winning the game.

On 1st downs in the 1st half, we threw 5 times (including the two-minute offense) and ran 4 times.

Here's the point many here are trying to make.

When you looked at this game, Packers defensive against the Cowboys Offense, it screamed for a heavy dose of the run game.
This game more than any we played looked like one where we would or should end up with a 50/50 spilt.
Then when you factor in who the game played out, it more clear we should have been favoring the run.
It was low scoring and we had problems protecting Romo against a defense that blitzed far more than it had leading up to the game.

That's great, but at some point you have to think about down and distance and the score instead of adhering rigidly to some inflexible ratio you thought up in advance. We ran the ball an approximately average number of times for most of the game and got 0 points. Once we fell behind by 3 scores with 10 minutes to play, we had to throw -- and if not for Folk's missed FG and Romo's goalline interception (one play where I certainly would have run instead of passing), we might have tied the game that way.

I'm not sure of Jones' health status. But this is clearly a game we could've used 3-4 quick pitches to him to attack the edges of that defense.

Jones did run around the end 3 times against Green Bay. The problem was, he got 0, 2, and 4 yards on those carries.