Is the Cowboys offense "overrated"?

[Cowboyny]

Definitely was not perfect, but the reality is that the offense played well enough to win 10-plus games last year. And reality is also that few offenses don't have lulls. The Rams last year scored 14 points in the first game against Houston (but still won because the Texans scored 9), 17 against Baltimore and 21 against Seattle (and still won all three of those games). Sometimes there are turnovers, sometimes there are games like the one against Philly where Lamb uncharacteristically dropped multiple passes.

My point of this discussion is to say the offense needs to improve as well not just the defense. Defense got all the criticism and rightly so last season but the offense had their struggles at times

 

[Cowboyny]

One of the bad habits our FO has had for years…saying, “Hey we were good last year on this side of the ball. Let’s run it back with the same people. We’ll be fine.” They wait until a problem is obvious instead of being proactive ahead of the problem.

I have been concerned all off-season that we didn’t upgrade this offense. Yes the defense needed a TON of help. But this FO is terrible about just assuming something good one year will be just as good or better the next.

Having a FO address problems after they are obvious instead of before - one of several reasons we have a 30 year drought.

At least Schott has acknowledged that the offense has to make changes the way they attack as teams started to figure out how to defend them. This is forward thinking. I do agree what you are saying, front office doesn’t think ahead until a problem happens the they try to fix it

 

[Acceptablename]

We keep on hearing how the Cowboy offense is elite, but yet there were games last season where they truly underperformed:

14 points at Chicago-yes they lost Lamb early, but if I remember Chicago had a banged up secondary
20 points at Philly-they were shutout in the 2nd half where their defense only surrendered 3 points
17 at home against the Cardinals-there is zero excuse to lay an egg at home against one of the worst teams.
17 at home against the Chargers-Chargers dominated them

These are just a few examples. Everyone keeps on talking about the defense cause it was so bad, but the offense deserves some criticism as well. They must be more consistent or it won't matter how the defense performs.

If we lose the games where is the offense is scoring below 20 and that happens four times will be 13 -4 I'm good with that we go to the playoffs

 

[gimmesix]

My point of this discussion is to say the offense needs to improve as well not just the defense. Defense got all the criticism and rightly so last season but the offense had their struggles at times

I don't think any fan, except maybe the most optimistic, doesn't believe the offense needs to improve. In fact, even the team has talked about it, trying to work on their red zone scoring. I don't think anyone has their head in the hole thinking the offense can't be better. The defense got all the criticism because it was historically bad and we would have won the East and made the playoffs if it had not been. We would have still lost in the playoffs, I believe, unless our defense was Seattle good.

 

[Reid1boys]

We keep on hearing how the Cowboy offense is elite, but yet there were games last season where they truly underperformed:

14 points at Chicago-yes they lost Lamb early, but if I remember Chicago had a banged up secondary
20 points at Philly-they were shutout in the 2nd half where their defense only surrendered 3 points
17 at home against the Cardinals-there is zero excuse to lay an egg at home against one of the worst teams.
17 at home against the Chargers-Chargers dominated them

These are just a few examples. Everyone keeps on talking about the defense cause it was so bad, but the offense deserves some criticism as well. They must be more consistent or it won't matter how the defense performs.

name me a team that scored 30 plus points every week. Maybe the 98 or whatever vikings, hell that 17-0 pats team I dont think did,the 83 Commanders,,,,, doubtful.

 

[Cowboyny]

I don't think any fan, except maybe the most optimistic, doesn't believe the offense needs to improve. In fact, even the team has talked about it, trying to work on their red zone scoring. I don't think anyone has their head in the hole thinking the offense can't be better. The defense got all the criticism because it was historically bad and we would have won the East and made the playoffs if it had not been. We would have still lost in the playoffs, I believe, unless our defense was Seattle good.

The key is balance, believe they are building the right way within the trenches, but they have to become more competitive against elite competition.

 

[Cowboyny]

name me a team that scored 30 plus points every week. Maybe the 98 or whatever vikings, hell that 17-0 pats team I dont think did,the 83 Commanders,,,,, doubtful.

Just saying I keep hearing the work elite regarding this offense and I don’t think they are there yet

 

[Cowboyny]

If we lose the games where is the offense is scoring below 20 and that happens four times will be 13 -4 I'm good with that we go to the playoffs

They have to be more competitive against the best teams. Last year if they had their struggles they had zero chance to win

 

[Cowboyny]

Keep hearing?? You didn’t witness them being the number 1 offense for the majority of the season?

Number 1 when they padded their stats against some of the worst teams.

 

[gimmesix]

The key is balance, believe they are building the right way within the trenches, but they have to become more competitive against elite competition.

Oh, I don't doubt if we had a top 10 defense and made the playoffs that the top contenders wouldn't take advantage of our weak links at offensive tackle. There is always a weak link on our team for the better teams to expose, which is why we have not made an NFC Championship Game in 30 years.

 

[Bagman]

Yep, with no proven backup at QB or RB an extended injury could derail offense and basically the season despite an improved defense.

There's very, very few teams with a "proven" back up QB. Veteran yes, but proven ?

 

[CowboysLakerBamaFan]

I don't know about overrated but fans seem to always count on PROgression or a great thing staying the same and never consider the possibility of REgression. It's part of the bias of hope. The tackles and the possibility of Williams going down are real concerns but let's see how it all unfolds and whether coaches can adjust.

This is the biggest thing.

Everyone here just assumes the defense MUST be better than last year, because the defense was SO bad last year....and they're probably right.

But they don't use the same logic on the offense. They don't acknowledge that last year just about everything went right for the offense.... and nobody anticipates that it simply might not click like last year

I think it's low key very likely the defense goes from horrid to slightly below average...and the offense goes from great to more like a top 12, not quite in top 10 offense.

Think about Detroit's offense the year after their Great Year a couple years ago

 

[big dog cowboy]

Yep, with no proven backup at QB....an extended injury could derail offense and basically the season despite an improved defense.

You just described the entire NFL. Ask the Chiefs.

 

[Vtwin]

Mobility and a rushing attack absolutely matters inside the 10.

To clarify, I didn't mean mobility as a weapon didn't matter inside the 10. I meant that Prescott's decreased mobility doesn't matter as much in close. It's not like he's on crutches out there. He is no Josh Allen or prime John Elway but he is still very capable of seeing an opening and lumbering his way a few yards to a TD or a gain improving the odds for the next down.

Yes, I understand that top RZ teams typically have good rushing attacks. The Rams were 16 total yards better than the Cowboys on the season with the same number of carries and the same ypc. The Eagles and Bengals had less total yards. The Eagles on more carries while the Bengals had significantly less carries. Both with a lower ypc then the Rams and Cowboys.

Hurts and the tush push was definitely a factor in their rz success. We saw them run it 3 or 4 straight times to bull their way in from the ten. I consider them an outlier of sorts in this discussion.

A legitimate question might be, why did the Rams have more success in the rz with an immobile QB but essentially the same production from the rushing game as the Cowboys? Why did the Bengals have more success in the rz with a markedly worse rushing attack?

It seems like the crux of your argument is that the Cowboys very respectable rushing attack became pedestrian once it got to the rz which put all the pressure on the QB. I'm having trouble accepting that logic as nothing really changes for the defense with regards to defending the rush. The condensed field makes it easier to defend the pass but that doesn't translate to the rushing defense. Unless of course the defense commits to defending the rush at the expense of the pass defense.

The logic seems to suggest a probable reason for the dropoff in the running game in the rz is more likely to be the defense choosing to focus on that and taking their chances on Prescott beating them which because of the characteristics I pointed out earlier he struggles to do.

Stafford and Burrows are more confident and better at handling the short windows and making the quick decisions.

 

[Acceptablename]

They have to be more competitive against the best teams. Last year if they had their struggles they had zero chance to win

That is certainly where their weaknesses show losing to better teams. Still we win our division.

 

[Diehardblues]

There's very, very few teams with a "proven" back up QB. Veteran yes, but proven ?

I’d consider a veteran to be proven. Good enough to have once been a starter.

I felt much better with Rush. You’d think with an aging veteran injury prone QB we’d place more priority and investment in a backup .

 

[Diehardblues]

You just described the entire NFL. Ask the Chiefs.

I hear ya but there are several teams with veteran QB’s who have been good enough to be a starter at some point and other teams with young QB’s either drafted high or a heir apparent .

How nice would it be to have a Cousins or Murray as back up for example. There’s a few others .
Just saying..

 

[big dog cowboy]

I hear ya but there are several teams with veteran QB’s who have been good enough to be a starter at some point and other teams with young QB’s either drafted high or a heir apparent .

How nice would it be to have a Cousins or Murray as back up. There’s a few others .
Just saying..

Ask the Bengals how it worked out having a super bowl winning QB on the roster after Burrow went down.

Cowboys don't have the salary cap space for a Cousins or Murray. Even if they did, do you think they could carry the Cowboys to even a championship game?

 

[Diehardblues]

Ask the Bengals how it worked out having a super bowl winning QB on the roster after Burrow went down.

Cowboys don't have the salary cap space for a Cousins or Murray. Even if they did, do you think they could carry the Cowboys to even a championship game?

If I recall correctly Flacco made quite an impact almost keeping them in contention.

And I’m talking about winning a few games until Dak returned . And who knows how far they could carry us. Maybe that’s part of the problem is we don’t want any real competition .

Not sure why we wouldn’t invest for in a back-up with a veteran QB who hasn’t been healthy in consecutive seasons for almost a decade?

 

[Khartun]

It was painful to watch you tap dance all over the place once you realized how stupid your original comment was

I thought it was hilarious.