Is being a top Game Day HC all that important anymore?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exactly. Read up on what the German Army in WW2 had to endure with its wacko chain of command. The army was led by an amateur in an expensive bunker fully removed from reality.

Some of the top generals were actually removed from command so that a more comfortable general could be put in place, one who would not balk at the odd blunders.

I have read quite extensively on WW2. Who do you think had the most impact on our success? Marshall, Bradley, Patton, McArthur? They all contributed. Further Bradley and Marshall were not the type A control freaks that you claim are necessary.

 

[jnday]

• And this is why I say that you are an intellectual coward. You are afraid to examine whether or now what you believe to be true is indeed true. You assume that the meme 'running solves a horrid defense' is true.
  
  We won the top battle because GB was able to score so quickly. 3 times in the second half they scored in under 2 minutes. The second drive was the longest and that was 5 and a half minutes. They took the lead with over 2:46 to go.
  
  I will assume you want to keep the 2 scoring drives. That is 22 plays and about 11 minutes. That leaves the remaining 3 drives. I guess you could have gotten an extra 7 or so running plays out of them so we can have a 20+ minute time of possession in the second half. In theory we could have made it close however this is quite presumptuous. It very easily could have gone like the dropped passes and penalties like we had on the ball control plays we actually did attempt to run.

  You made a statement indicating that you knew with certainty what the result would have been if they ran the ball more in the second half. You don't know , I don't know , nobody knows what the result would have been. You can guess, but you can't prove your point. I don't have a problem with you stating your opinion on what you think the results would have been, but it would be impossible for you to know the results of something that didn't even happen. You can crunch numbers all you want, but there is no need. The point of disagreement doesn't require it. I know you like to impress yourself with your deep, intellectual reasoning, but you can't know the results of something that did not happen. It doesn't take much thinking to know that.

 

[TrailBlazer]

In game decisions are one of the few things that we can definitely quantify while the vast majority of things that a HC does in terms of preparation and execution we as fans have zero way of knowing.

With typical fan hubris, we channel Mike Tirico and inflate the importance of what we can see and disregard or discount that which we cannot.

On a side note, running the ball more would not have limited GB to 4 possessions in the second half and we still would have lost that game.

How do you know? If romo doesn't throw 2 picks in the final 4 minutes, and Dallas runs the ball instead, it's probably a different ball game. Probably wouldn't have had so many possessions. Stands to reason, right?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How do you know? If romo doesn't throw 2 picks in the final 4 minutes, and Dallas runs the ball instead, it's probably a different ball game. Probably wouldn't have had so many possessions. Stands to reason, right?

True but the bottom line is that running the ball does not guarantee anything. That is the point I am trying to make.

People want to blame Garrett but personally I blame the players lack of execution. We did call ball control passes that were dropped. We did check out of runs and throw into the face of a blitz. We did hold on run calls. We also managed to score 10 points. Can you guarantee that running the ball scores ten points? They only need 3 possessions baring that.

The issue here is that people prefer the dumbed down scapegoat. Had Romo not checked out of that blitz and thrown that pick we still would have needed to score. If not then they still have the ball and are in a position to score.

Reality is a series of plays and decisions by both teams. Instead what we get here is DERP RUN MOAR DERP.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

• 
  You made a statement indicating that you knew with certainty what the result would have been if they ran the ball more in the second half. You don't know , I don't know , nobody knows what the result would have been. You can guess, but you can't prove your point. I don't have a problem with you stating your opinion on what you think the results would have been, but it would be impossible for you to know the results of something that didn't even happen. You can crunch numbers all you want, but there is no need. The point of disagreement doesn't require it. I know you like to impress yourself with your deep, intellectual reasoning, but you can't know the results of something that did not happen. It doesn't take much thinking to know that.

I have never made any comment about certainty. Try again.

What we can talk about is possible outcomes. I have news for you: running the ball more does not necessarily win the game. that has indeed been bandied about by your crew.

 

[5Stars]

• 
  You made a statement indicating that you knew with certainty what the result would have been if they ran the ball more in the second half. You don't know , I don't know , nobody knows what the result would have been. You can guess, but you can't prove your point. I don't have a problem with you stating your opinion on what you think the results would have been, but it would be impossible for you to know the results of something that didn't even happen. You can crunch numbers all you want, but there is no need. The point of disagreement doesn't require it. I know you like to impress yourself with your deep, intellectual reasoning, but you can't know the results of something that did not happen. It doesn't take much thinking to know that.

How cute...you say that nobody knows this or that, yet you come here trolling about how Romo will never do this or that.
And, then you proclaim that the results of something that did not happen, and from the other side of your mouth, Romo will never win a SB. Your logic is so messed up. I wonder what education you have?

 

[jnday]

I have never made any comment about certainty. Try again.

What we can talk about is possible outcomes. I have news for you: running the ball more does not necessarily win the game. that has indeed been bandied about by your crew.

I have no crew . I am a loner . Running the ball eats up more time off the clock . That is no secret. It's football 101. You asked in a previous post for proof that running would have limited the Packer's drives to four. Can you provide proof that running wouldn't have limited the Packer's drives in this game ? No ,you can not. The only way for you to prove your position was if the Cowboys had ran the ball more. You are guessing, nothing more. There is no way for anybody for anybody to prove what might have happened.

 

[jnday]

How cute...you say that nobody knows this or that, yet you come here trolling about how Romo will never do this or that.
And, then you proclaim that the results of something that did not happen, and from the other side of your mouth, Romo will never win a SB. Your logic is so messed up. I wonder what education you have?

I have often wondered about yours. Facts are there for you to see, but you are blind or your reading comprehension sucks. Which one is it? You are really stuck on Romo. It hits too close to home. Maybe it is because other then a few homers , the rest if the world agrees with me. Me and Fuzzy are discussing what could have happened in one game. Romo has several seasons of games to support my opinion. I have said many times that Romo lovers love to talk trash, but they won't put their money where their mouth is. How much do you believe in Romo?

 

[TheFinisher]

Of course it's important, but if it helps you feel better about the handicap we have at HC then by all means...

 

[Dodger12]

You made a statement indicating that you knew with certainty what the result would have been if they ran the ball more in the second half. You don't know , I don't know , nobody knows what the result would have been.

Nobody except the GB Packers who commented about our abandoning the run in the second half after the game. Football 101 and there's a reason why the probability of us winning that game was astronomical. Add in the fact that GB had a guy playing QB who was sitting on his couch a few short weeks prior and those probabilities go off the charts. We took better than a 3 TD lead in the 1st half running the ball down their throats. I can't even believe the GB game is is being debated. It's mind numbing. The only person that has excused the GB game is Mickey, the team's resident apologist. I'm starting to think that Fuzzy and Mickey are one in the same.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have no crew . I am a loner . Running the ball eats up more time off the clock . That is no secret. It's football 101. You asked in a previous post for proof that running would have limited the Packer's drives to four. Can you provide proof that running wouldn't have limited the Packer's drives in this game ? No ,you can not. The only way for you to prove your position was if the Cowboys had ran the ball more. You are guessing, nothing more. There is no way for anybody for anybody to prove what might have happened.

You participate in group think. Sorry that you have not seen the collective mind in action since Buck and Aikman told you to think that way 6 months ago. Broaddus has carried that banner as well recently. Many of you along the way have made claims not running the ball 'cost us the game.' It is what it is.

I am not arguing the principle that running the ball uses more clock. I am trying to quantify it and apply it to the game situation. that is why I am talking about how long GB drives were, the points we scored, and how much time would be required to limit them to 4 possessions.

 

[jnday]

You participate in group think. Sorry that you have not seen the collective mind in action since Buck and Aikman told you to think that way 6 months ago. Broaddus has carried that banner as well recently. Many of you along the way have made claims not running the ball 'cost us the game.' It is what it is.

I am not arguing the principle that running the ball uses more clock. I am trying to quantify it and apply it to the game situation. that is why I am talking about how long GB drives were, the points we scored, and how much time would be required to limit them to 4 possessions.

This us not a simple math equation . You can figure all the numbers that you want. Everything changes when you figure in the running game, but you can't figure it accurately because there is no way of knowing his many rushing attempts and how many yards would be gained.

 

[cml750]

Nobody except the GB Packers who commented about our abandoning the run in the second half after the game. Football 101 and there's a reason why the probability of us winning that game was astronomical. Add in the fact that GB had a guy playing QB who was sitting on his couch a few short weeks prior and those probabilities go off the charts. We took better than a 3 TD lead in the 1st half running the ball down their throats. I can't even believe the GB game is is being debated. It's mind numbing. The only person that has excused the GB game is Mickey, the team's resident apologist. I'm starting to think that Fuzzy and Mickey are one in the same.

Well stated and true my friend!!! Some people lose all their common sense when defending the Cowboys at all cost.

 

[Doomsay]

Nobody except the GB Packers who commented about our abandoning the run in the second half after the game. Football 101 and there's a reason why the probability of us winning that game was astronomical. Add in the fact that GB had a guy playing QB who was sitting on his couch a few short weeks prior and those probabilities go off the charts. We took better than a 3 TD lead in the 1st half running the ball down their throats. I can't even believe the GB game is is being debated. It's mind numbing. The only person that has excused the GB game is Mickey, the team's resident apologist. I'm starting to think that Fuzzy and Mickey are one in the same.

Agreed, 0 credibility for anybody who supported, or who is now attempting support, Garrett's game management in that or any number of entirely winnable games over the past few years. Off-season hopefulness doesn't change past reality.

 

[LatinMind]

Used to be in the past when teams could still hide things a HC might have to adjust on the fly; but nowadays is that really his job anymore? the DC and OC are there to do that. How many times does a HC have to make a critical decision? When to go for it on 4th down; Or go for the FG. Outside of that just how much does a HC really do on a game day anymore?

I dont think it is. I think more importantly you need the coordinators and scouting dept. And a good GM. IMO people who are around the HC mean more in todays NFL. But i do believe if you have have a elite HC that team will have more success spread out over a long time like the Patriots because teams will lose coordinators and scouts. But you have coaches like Carroll and the jim harbaugh and people are all their jocks right now. But these guys have some serious talent around them that have made it easier.

 

[Corso]

I have seen all the stories since he passed & he surely was one fine coach. Before my time but I enjoy reading about guys like that.

I'd like to see Coach Popovich write a book.
Maybe something autobiographical like most do... I don't care.
That guy could write a children's book and I would read it.
Shoot- I'd love for him to write about his favorite wine pairings. I'd devour it!

To get inside that guy's head for but a moment would be a privilege.

Garrett likes to go hang out with successful coaches- he should live with Pop until the guy kicks him out like he's his hippie son!