Is the OL More Physical Under Garrett?

[percyhoward]

It's been suggested that we're running the ball more and with more success because of a newfound physicality in the offensive line resulting from practices in pads. Hudson Houck sure thinks so. But while it's true that we're running more often, we aren't running with any more success than before.

In the last 4 games, Dallas has 528 yards on 134 rushes, or 3.9 yards per rush. In the first 8 games, Dallas had 672 yards on 171 rushes, or 3.9 yards per rush. No difference in the average pre- or post- coaching change.

At first glance, the run blocking hasn't improved at all. On closer inspection, the straight-ahead run blocking has actually gotten worse.

Rushes by Type (Last 4 Games)
QB RUNS
17 rushes, 93 yards (5.5 avg)

WR RUNS
4 rushes, 66 yards (16.5 avg)

TOSSES/LATERALS
5 rushes, 65 yards (13.0 avg)

SHOTGUN RUNS
15 rushes, 103 yards (6.9 avg)

NORMAL RUNS (handoffs to RB w/QB under center)
93 rushes, 201 yards (2.2 avg)

Our 2.2 per-carry average on normal runs actually got a great boost from playing the Colts. In the three previous games, Kitna was under center and handed off to a running back 52 times, and we gained a total of 60 yards on those plays.

Also, the short-yardage success Dallas had earlier in the year is over. Since Garrett took over as HC, the Cowboys have been in short-yardage situations 22 times, and have converted by running only 5 times in 13 tries, opting for a pass 9 times.

Practicing in pads has not turned the offensive line into a straight-ahead smashmouth juggernaut. And as for pass blocking, Romo was sacked once every 31 attempts, Kitna has been sacked once every 20 attempts. Considering the difference in mobility between the two QB's, there hasn't really been a drop off there, but no dramatic improvement either. Sacks seem to be down because we're passing less.

Creative play calling in the running game--not more physical play up front-- is what has made that possible.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Amazing what putting on pads will do.

Hard to be a physical team when you have 6 day breaks between any form of contact.

SN, I fully expect someone from the Dallas media to 'borrow' this sometime soon. Just like your last work percy. Plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery. Keep up the good work man.

 

[CATCH17]

Everything is better.


The defense still sucks but they at least give effort.

 

[theogt]

Everything is better.

Except for, as shown by PH's research, the offensive line play.

The difference over the past four games has been largely luck. We've had the ball bounce our way on calls and turnovers. Over the first four games of the year, the opposite was true. In a hyper-competitive sport, luck tends to have a big impact.

 

[percyhoward]

Everything is better.

On the whole, yes.

The run blocking isn't, though. We're just running more often and with a little more imagination.

 

[percyhoward]

The difference over the past four games has been largely luck. We've had the ball bounce our way on calls and turnovers. Over the first four games of the year, the opposite was true. In a hyper-competitive sport, luck tends to have a big impact.

For the fumbles, you're right about luck. For the picks we've been getting, I think you have to credit all the zone coverage to a large extent.

Also, our penalties and INT's are way down since we've made a conscious effort to run more and pass less. Only 6 penalties on run plays all year.

25 on pass plays.

 

[theogt]

For the fumbles, you're right about luck. For the picks we've been getting, I think you have to credit all the zone coverage to a large extent.

What INTs would you credit to this? I can't think of any. Maybe Lee's second INT, but again I credit that more to luck than anything.

Also, our penalties and INT's are way down since we've made a conscious effort to run more and pass less. Only 6 penalties on run plays all year.

25 on pass plays.

How many of our INTs in the first half of the season were due to luck? At least half a dozen it seems were due to tipped passes. Sure, passing less will cut down on that, but an INT off a tipped pass is by and large luck.

In any given game, you'll have 2-3 passes by a QB that could have been an "almost INT" in which luck determines the outcome. Whichever way those INTs go can have a huge impact on the game.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Abandon all hope ye who doubt Pads Wednesday, ties, and digital clocks.

 

[percyhoward]

What INTs would you credit to this? I can't think of any. Maybe Lee's second INT, but again I credit that more to luck than anything.

I think you mean his first one, because he was in man on Tamme on the 2nd one and almost fell flat on his face. Great play by Lee to keep his feet, and especially great play by Jenkins to peel off of Wayne and tip it up.

 

[theogt]

I think you mean his first one, because he was in man on Tamme on the 2nd one and almost fell flat on his face. Great play by Lee to keep his feet, and especially great play by Jenkins to peel off of Wayne and tip it up.

I don't recall at all if he was in man or zone. I just assumed it was zone because he was just sort of hanging out in space. The implication being that, if we're in zone, you're more in a position to react to tipped balls or errant throws.

Are there any others you'd credit to zone coverage vs. man?

 

[percyhoward]

I don't recall at all if he was in man or zone. I just assumed it was zone because he was just sort of hanging out in space. The implication being that, if we're in zone, you're more in a position to react to tipped balls or errant throws.

Are there any others you'd credit to zone coverage vs. man?

Not without going back and looking at each one. Maybe it's just a coincidence that we're playing more zone and getting more INT's--I'd have to study each pick individually.

Lee was in open space on both of his picks. On the 2nd one, it was because the TE lost him completely.

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Without question.

 

[theogt]

Not without going back and looking at each one. Maybe it's just a coincidence that we're playing more zone and getting more INT's--I'd have to study each pick individually.

Yeah, I was only thinking off-hand of the two Ball INTs, the two Lee INTs and the McCann INT. Couldn't remember others off-hand. Shocking when there are so many INTs you can't recall all of them in a four game stretch.

Lee was in open space on both of his picks. On the 2nd one, it was because the TE lost him completely.

Right, but in the first one he wasn't just "hanging out" in space. He was playing it correctly and actively. On the second he was truly just "in the right spot at the right time."

 

[TD-33]

On the second he was truly just "in the wrong spot at the right time."

.
.
.
.
.

 

[RCowboyFan]

The problem with stats is, they never show the complete picture. When comparing running, you got to compare also the negative plays. Second, Running started picking up last two games. First two games, kind of was same old same old, but less Negative plays. Plus first two games under Garrett, they played against a great DL or at least very good DL.

No Doubt Colts game skewered the stats or avg probably a lot. Fact of the matter is, to naked eye, one can see, they are more effective running, wether avg. is improved big time or not.

What has improved a lot, that hasn't been mentioned a lot it Pass blocking. Which I think is benefit of Better commitment to Running.

 

[Doomsay]

On the whole, yes.

The run blocking isn't, though. We're just running more often and with a little more imagination.

Which was your original point, I think. Great stats, thanks.

 

[TheCount]

Well those are some embarrassing numbers. Goes to show the poor line play is a real problem though, not just a by product of poor coaching or an aberration. It's been bad for years actually.

 

[Doomsay]

Well those are some embarrassing numbers. Goes to show the poor line play is a real problem though, not just a by product of poor coaching or an aberration. It's been bad for years actually.

Maybe this offseason...maybe?

 

[percyhoward]

The problem with stats is, they never show the complete picture. When comparing running, you got to compare also the negative plays. Second, Running started picking up last two games. First two games, kind of was same old same old, but less Negative plays. Plus first two games under Garrett, they played against a great DL or at least very good DL.

No Doubt Colts game skewered the stats or avg probably a lot. Fact of the matter is, to naked eye, one can see, they are more effective running, wether avg. is improved big time or not.

What has improved a lot, that hasn't been mentioned a lot it Pass blocking. Which I think is benefit of Better commitment to Running.

Well, I compared the negative plays, and found that only 5.5% of our runs have lost yardage in the last four games, compared to 9.9% in the first eight games. But then I threw in the "no gain's" and they're at 14% now, compared 9% in the first eight. So whatever we gained in allowing fewer penetrations of the backfield, we lose right back in not getting any push. It all adds up to not getting the job done, as the ypc reflects.

In these four games, we've played against two good defensive lines, and two bad ones. So nothing that would stand out there, either. In fact, the run D's we played in the first eight games were slightly better (allowing 4.3 yards per rush) than the ones we've faced in the last four games (4.4) although we haven't seen our per-carry average go up at all.

I hope that's a more complete picture.

 

[percyhoward]

Goes to show the poor line play is a real problem though, not just a by product of poor coaching or an aberration.

It is a real problem, but it also shows how better play calling can overcome poor line play.

Whether it's something that Garrett started emphasizing with the Minnesota game, or maybe Kitna just runs more, I don't know. But there is a commitment to QB runs that wasn't there earlier in the season. There is no hesitation when Kitna pulls it down and runs with it, just like there was no hesitation with Romo doing the same thing against the Vikings. Don't remember seeing it before that game.

The other two big changes are the balanced play calling, and the fact that we're seeing a higher percentage of runs that aren't the "normal" run plays. By throwing it less, we're avoiding penalties and keeping more manageable downs and distances. That in turn allows us to have to throw even less, despite the low per-carry average.

Even though we're throwing less, we now have a more dynamic offensive attack. I hadn't seen any indication that this would be possible with Garrett, but then again maybe without Romo going down it wouldn't have been, and hopefully when Romo comes back it still will be.