I refuse to believe we don't have talent

[CATCH17]

We had the third-best rushing offense last year and were ranked fifth in points per game. We also were ranked fifth in points per game the previous year. Overall, I believe our offense was top 10 both years.

There are things I do not like about Garrett and his offensive scheme. I don't think he's creative enough. However, I don't think this stinker of a season can be used as anything more than evidence that we can't win without a quality QB. We had chances in almost every game while Romo was out, but failed in games we would have likely won with him to be leading the East at least by a couple of games at this point.

.

Do you think how Garrett coaches is the most optimal way to coach a team and maximizes talent


Are you convinced on 4 & 3 with the season on the line that we have better plays to draw up than a heave and hope to Dez?

 

[gimmesix]

Do you think how Garrett coaches is the most optimal way to coach a team and maximizes talent


Are you convinced on 4 & 3 with the season on the line that we have better plays to draw up than a heave and hope to Dez?

No, I don't think it's the most optimal, because I think there are a lot of coaches who could have a top 10 offense with Romo, possibly even top two or three. However, with Romo, I think it's effective enough with a decent defensive effort. We can always complain about this or that, but I just see no overall reason to fuss about an offense that was among the top ones in the league at full strength.

If you're talking about the fourth down against Green Bay last year, I would have taken the underneath route and continued to work the ball downfield because it wasn't a high-percentage throw on a have-to-have-it down. However, I can't argue too much about a throw and catch that should have never been overturned by replay.

 

[coult44]

We had the third-best rushing offense last year and were ranked fifth in points per game. We also were ranked fifth in points per game the previous year. Overall, I believe our offense was top 10 both years.

There are things I do not like about Garrett and his offensive scheme. I don't think he's creative enough. However, I don't think this stinker of a season can be used as anything more than evidence that we can't win without a quality QB. We had chances in almost every game while Romo was out, but failed in games we would have likely won with him to be leading the East at least by a couple of games at this point.

Last year, fans were bowing and kissing the feet of Scott Linehan because of how this offense was playing. This year, he's suddenly an imbecile.

Defensively, I do believe we'd be better than we are if Romo had been healthy to control time of possession. Our pass defense is improved, although we're not getting the type of pressure we had hoped to see from Tyrone Crawford, Lawrence and Gregory. The primary area hurting us on defense is that lack of turnovers.

Now, I do believe there are better head coaches out there. I do get envious of some of the creative things other teams do while we merely run our offense. However, it seems Garrett believes that a well-ran offense doesn't need to be too creative to win. The previous two years back him up to some extent, but it just doesn't work when the engine is missing.

Is this Scott or Mickey?

 

[JW82]

Very true. Give Belicheck this same team, and they dominate the league. Tell me this team is not more talented tan the 03 Cowboys that Parcells won 10 games with. If you have to have probowlers at every position to win, there is a complete lack of coaching or creativity.

 

[gimmesix]

Is this Scott or Mickey?

Yes, I know that's the only answer you have because reality doesn't fit what you're selling.

I wasn't a fan of Garrett as an offensive coordinator because I thought his offense was overly predictable and his play-calls relied too much on the passing game. I'm still not a fan of the lack of creativity, but the offensive production the last two years doesn't support any beliefs that we've had a bad offense. In fact, they point out that we've had a top 10 offense. Could it be better (with Romo)? I think so, but I could be wrong.

Taking shots at how the offense is doing when we've primarily had to play two backup QBs is just cheap. We were 12-4 last year primarily because that offense was one of the top ones in the league, and because of an opportunistic defense. This year, the defense hasn't been opportunistic and the offense has missed two (and at times, three) of the primary components that makes it go.

Let me add that I do believe there are better coaches out there than Garrett. I also believe there are worse ones. I also believe last year showed that we can compete for a title with Garrett as head coach, but this team isn't near good enough to do it without Romo.

 

[Ender]

So to be clear are you saying the problem is the talent level and not the coaching or scheme? Maybe you spoke to this earlier and i missed it.

Im saying the problem is both. If this team was as talented as some of you all think, they would be able to overcome some coaching mistakes or scheme flaws. I dont know how old some of you are here, but in the 90's every team knew what we were doing, We weree was so talented they just could stop it.

 

[Ender]

I know we have holes. That is how the NFL is set up.

The Patriots have holes up and down that roster and they get by with Brady and great coaching to maximize talent.

Well considering that Tom Brady is probably the best QB in history, definitely the best over the past few decades, this is some what of an understatement. Tom Brady could probably make any team instant play off contenders.

 

[CATCH17]

Well considering that Tom Brady is probably the best QB in history, definitely the best over the past few decades, this is some what of an understatement. Tom Brady could probably make any team instant play off contenders.

You're right.. But so could Romo and we're struggling every year to get in.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Well considering that Tom Brady is probably the best QB in history, definitely the best over the past few decades, this is some what of an understatement. Tom Brady could probably make any team instant play off contenders.

Without Brady they went 11-5 with Matt Cassell.

 

[birdwells1]

We have talent. We have a HC who can't keep it focused. Could you imagine what would have happened to Dez if that was Jimmy or Parcells during Thursdays game? Red was busy clapping and thinking of the next team field trip. Cassel isn't so bad that doing a few new things couldn't have won some games. You have to put your players in the best situation for them. He just keeps trudging along with what worked last year minus the players that made last year work. No plan "B".

Garrett systems does work when everything is perfect, no injuries, every man has to win their matchup. Without Dez did you see how easy it was to take Beasley and Witten out of the offense? Not to mention the fact that Williams pretty much disappeared. All because they didn't have the #1 wr that going to demand a double team that allows everyone else to make plays. Man Brady was without his top 4 receivers in the game last night and almost won in Denver, that's because the system isn't predicated on having this certain player to command a certain amount of attention, they run pick plays, use the wrs like running backs on short routes, use running backs like wr. The Patriots make you cover every receiver and every part of the field because Brady will through it to anyone anywhere. The fact that you don't throw a few short routes to Street or Williams just to let the defense know that you aren't afraid to use them makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Garrett systems does work when everything is perfect, no injuries, every man has to win their matchup. Without Dez did you see how easy it was to take Beasley and Witten out of the offense? Not to mention the fact that Williams pretty much disappeared. All because they didn't have the #1 wr that going to demand a double team that allows everyone else to make plays. Man Brady was without his top 4 receivers in the game last night and almost won in Denver, that's because the system isn't predicated on having this certain player to command a certain amount of attention, they run pick plays, use the wrs like running backs on short routes, use running backs like wr. The Patriots make you cover every receiver and every part of the field because Brady will through it to anyone anywhere. The fact that you don't throw a few short routes to Street or Williams just to let the defense know that you aren't afraid to use them makes no sense at all to me.

You can't call a system good or even say it works when every thing has to be Perfect. There is rarely such thing as perfect when it takes eleven guys to run a single play. Especially because eleven other guys are trying to ruin the play. But I get your point. The systems both offense and defense need to
work if you don't have perfection but enough guys did their job for it to be positive. JG doesn't have that. If one guy doesn't beat the guy across from him a miracle has to happen for it to work. That isn't a good system and he's proven either "A" he refuses to change or "B" he doesn't know what to do to change. I go with "B".

 

[Jarv]

Im saying the problem is both. If this team was as talented as some of you all think, they would be able to overcome some coaching mistakes or scheme flaws. I dont know how old some of you are here, but in the 90's every team knew what we were doing, We weree was so talented they just could stop it.

Fair enough. ..

I started watching in the late 60s. Football took a big hit in the 90s with the advent of free agency. Players may love it but personally i hate it as a fan. Teams hated and i mean hated each other. Players spent their careers on one team and towed the lines or they were benched. Prima donos had little leverage and we weren't handicapping ourselves with the cap. That's why our team in the early to mid 90s dominated. Heck our backups were better than a lot of starters...hence the 90s comparison you make about executing and knowing what we were doing and others can't stop it just doesn't fly now....i wish football was like it was before FA....but that's unfortunately not the case anymore and we need to be more creative in how we manage our team now. Belichick and a few others figured it out...we need to also...we have FA and a cap....no team can be that much more talented than another to the extent were vanilla football can be played anymore.

 

[Ender]

You're right.. But so could Romo and we're struggling every year to get in.

romo is awesome but he's not on Tom Bradys level.

 

[Ender]

Without Brady they went 11-5 with Matt Cassell.

They had a good team with players who won multiple superbowls, we dont.

 

[Ender]

Fair enough. ..

I started watching in the late 60s. Football took a big hit in the 90s with the advent of free agency. Players may love it but personally i hate it as a fan. Teams hated and i mean hated each other. Players spent their careers on one team and towed the lines or they were benched. Prima donos had little leverage and we weren't handicapping ourselves with the cap. That's why our team in the early to mid 90s dominated. Heck our backups were better than a lot of starters...hence the 90s comparison you make about executing and knowing what we were doing and others can't stop it just doesn't fly now....i wish football was like it was before FA....but that's unfortunately not the case anymore and we need to be more creative in how we manage our team now. Belichick and a few others figured it out...we need to also...we have FA and a cap....no team can be that much more talented than another to the extent were vanilla football can be played anymore.

Yet every year we see a hand full of teams win less than 4 games. Some teams are just more talented than others every year, free agency hasnt changed that,

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think we have serious problems with our talent at the offensive skill positions particularly with Dez struggling in his return from a foot injury. Street isn't very athletic, TWill has had another disappearing act. They very obviously don't trust Whitehead. Turbin is maybe our best RB. I agree with the notion that DMC doesn't have great vision running in a ZBS. QB is an obvious train wreck.

Defense needs help up the middle and outside. Hayden still gets 40 snaps a game and does little more than a couple batted balls and a fair amount of tackles 5 yards down field. Mincey is regressing. Church and Hitchens are marginal athletes who create mismatches for a lot of backs and TE to exploit in the middle of the field. The game is too fast for Wilcox. Carr and Claiborne are not good at the zone calls our DC has had the most success with over his career.

Our OL remains elite. Our TE are okay as well. I like Hardy, Gregory, Crawford, Crawford, Irving, DLaw, Lee, McClain, and the rookie. Dez needs to play better but he is very talented. We really miss Scandrick helping out in the middle of the field.

We have talent but then so do a lot of teams. We have far too many holes.

 

[cowboyuptx]

Garrett gets one more year to turn it around... And after a 12-4 season, followed by a nightmare injury riddled season, I think he deserves one more season to see if he can turn it around... If the team was quitting on Garrett, then I'd sing a different tune, but the team respects Garrett and plays hard...

 

[PoundTheRock]

The team has some serious holes (DT, CB and S really stand out), but don't let anyone convince you they don't have enough horses to win. Teams all around the league have to compensate for deficiencies. This isn't 1992. The Cowboys have a bad offensive scheme. And yes, it was still bad last year. The Cowboys just managed to stay inordinately healthy on that side of the ball and the talent they had overcame it. The defense I'm not nearly as down on. Are there better coordinators than Rod Marnelli? Certainly. Can't convince me he's terrible given the personnel he has though. That's the difference between the offense and the defense. The defense where this team actually has a big deficiency.

 

[gimmesix]

Im saying the problem is both. If this team was as talented as some of you all think, they would be able to overcome some coaching mistakes or scheme flaws. I dont know how old some of you are here, but in the 90's every team knew what we were doing, We weree was so talented they just could stop it.

And if we hadn't had that talent, fans would have been complaining about how predictable the offense is, that the timing-based scheme doesn't work, etc. Instead, Norv Turner was an offensive genius and Jimmy Johnson was a great head coach.

Few head coaches succeed without having the talent to do it. We had the talent last year and came within a poorly overturned call of possibly playing for the NFC championship. It's no coincidence that the team's struggles this year following losing the NFL's leading rusher in free agency, it's near-MVP quarterback for all but nearly four games and its star receiver for five of those same games.

Not saying these players are as good as our 1990's Triplets, but imagine how those teams would have played missing Emmitt, Aikman and Irvin at the same time.

 

[egn22]

Thats really brave of you to believe that dallas has talent.

??? It's not really a matter of opinion, we absolutely have talent. Not sure what you're getting at