I think I finally understand Garrett

[jobberone]

I think those numbers are outdated, and against the schedule we played, unrealistic even with a very good defense. You hold a team under 24, you should have a chance to win, and that's basically what happened this year.

The point is, the offense never won a shootout, so there were no specific games where the offense was able to overcome mistakes by the defense.

They are not outdated as of a few months ago. Just to be certain I looked up scoring again:

1. Median pts scored was in the 379 range where we scored 439 which was 5th in the NFL. So yes the offense was good enough. Last year we were at the median 376.
2. Median pts surrendered was 382 and we gave up 432.

So who failed the team this year?

 

[romothesavior]

You have a point. The offense did fail the team on occasion but not often. Certainly it did well enough if the defense had been average we likely would have won enough games to go to the playoffs. I hang the failure of the team this year on the defense. We scored the necessary ppg to feel decent about the offense. It does need to improve and become more consistent.

I think the majority of the offense's problems stem from a complete lack of balance. The philosophy needs to change. Run the ball more. Other than that, I really have no major complaints with the offense. I agree that we scored enough points to feel comfortable with the offense.

 

[Future]

They are not outdated as of a few months ago. Just to be certain I looked up scoring again:

1. Median pts scored was in the 379 range where we scored 4th 439 which was 5th in the NFL. So yes the offense was good enough. Last year we were at the median 376.
2. Median pts surrendered was 382 and we gave up 432.

So who failed the team this year?

By outdated I mean that expecting to keep teams under 17 all the time is unrealistic. The NFL average ppg was much closer to 24, and only 3 teams in the league held opponents to 17 ppg or less, and all three had the privilege of playing aginst both the NFC and AFC East/South, which are loaded with absolutely anemic offenses. League average was much closer to 24.

Besides, those numbers don't include D/ST touchdowns or field position, and I'm not sure why you would use median instead of average...

Off the top of my head, I think we had 4 D/ST touchdowns. Thats down to 411 right there. I think there were 2 TD drives that started inside the opposing 20 maybe? Thats down to under 400. How many FGs did we kick after getting a short field? We scored 14 garbage time points against Chicago, that takes you down probably into the 370 range.

And I never said the defense didn't fail the team. It was bad. But to suggest that the offense is above blame is wrong.

 

[jobberone]

I think the majority of the offense's problems stem from a complete lack of balance. The philosophy needs to change. Run the ball more. Other than that, I really have no major complaints with the offense. I agree that we scored enough points to feel comfortable with the offense.

I don't know yet. I just haven't had time to think about it myself nor look for others thoughts. There is no balance in running any more but there are certainly situational needs to run the ball and you must always make the defense respect your ability to run as well. Having said that there are times this year I thought they should have run the ball more.

 

[jobberone]

By outdated I mean that expecting to keep teams under 17 all the time is unrealistic. The NFL average ppg was much closer to 24, and only 3 teams in the league held opponents to 17 ppg or less, and all three had the privilege of playing aginst both the NFC and AFC East/South, which are loaded with absolutely anemic offenses. League average was much closer to 24.

Besides, those numbers don't include D/ST touchdowns or field position, and I'm not sure why you would use median instead of average...

Off the top of my head, I think we had 4 D/ST touchdowns. Thats down to 411 right there. I think there were 2 TD drives that started inside the opposing 20 maybe? Thats down to under 400. How many FGs did we kick after getting a short field? We scored 14 garbage time points against Chicago, that takes you down probably into the 370 range.

And I never said the defense didn't fail the team. It was bad. But to suggest that the offense is above blame is wrong.

You're right it was 23.9. The goal is not to limit each opponent to 17 ppg or less. The goal is to average that. Last year the median was 348 which is 21.7 ppg. It has been creeping up on both sides of the ball.

Those are generalized goals. The goal is to score more points than the opponent each game. The entire point is that the offense scored more points than all but 4 teams. So the offense could get better but it is way above the median. It is the defense which needs to improve our you can kiss next year goodbye, too.

 

[Future]

You're right it was 23.9. The goal is not to limit each opponent to 17 ppg or less. The goal is to average that. Last year the median was 348 which is 21.7 ppg. It has been creeping up on both sides of the ball.

Those are generalized goals. The goal is to score more points than the opponent each game. The entire point is that the offense scored more points than all but 4 teams. So the offense could get better but it is way above the median. It is the defense which needs to improve our you can kiss next year goodbye, too.

You don't say LOL

I agree that the defense has to be better, but I just think it doesn't get enough credit for helping out the offense the number of times it actually did.

 

[khiladi]

When you give the offense 4 TOs against a struggling Detroit defense and essentialy gift-wrap them a TD with a Sean Lee INT and still lose, you can't blame the defense even if the last drive, Megatron ate us alive.

 

[slomoxn]

We all have differing views on Garrett's coaching abilities but for me his talent acquisition has been pretty good since he has taken over. Getting them to play to their level is what he needs to do or learn to do though.

As far as this quote, it sounds line he is looking at production vs cost on some of the players and having a real debate as to whether some of the players on this team may be worth their salary. Just my thoughts on it..

 

[Frozen700]

1. Nobody is going to hold your hand.
2. Ware is going to stay
3. Garrett is going to stay
4. Sadly, youre probably going to stay.


Eventually you should give up on crying about this... Or not. Either way, Im tired of hearing all the crying and just going to join the masses and put you on ignore.

That's how you know someone is sensitive and hurt.

Put me on ignore, no need to announce it. You are just seeking attention

 

[Verdict]

Man, if you didn't nail it right there. How the heck can we know when our owner acts as his own GM and listens to anyone within ear shot of him?

Ultimately it falls on the GM regardless of the driving force behind any personnel decision. He's the guy with the ultimate authority. Every move is made with his blessing. Being a "listener" doesn't absolve you of that responsibility.

As an aside, it'd be nice to have a GM who didn't need to listen so much. Like have an actual clue what he's doing. You're always going to want and need input from your entire staff but a GM with an actual vision for the future is just what the Dr. ordered for the recovery of the Dallas Cowboys. Not one being led by his ear by his underlings.

I am not taking issue with your thought process behind the statement you are making in this post, because at first blush, it sounds reasonable. But in reality, if you are honest with yourself, it is simply not possible for a GM to do all of the film study, all of the background checks, etc. By necessity, GMs really delegate most of that authority to other people. All GMs not just ours. It is not really possible to do EVERYTHING.