Mickey and Broaddus fighting over Garrett again

[LatinMind]

Still don't see that your data is relevant. What am I missing?

Out if curiosity, is it adjusted for possessions, or just raw quarterly scoring data?

Youre trying to tell me that this teams offense did its job because they scored alot. If that was the case and there wasnt a problem how come Callahan or Garrett arent coaching the offense?

You dont think them 3 and outs all through the middle of the game killed an injury depleted team? Sometimes you dont need to be technical with possessions or scoring data or whatever technicality you want to point at like what youre doing now. Anybody with common sense and two eyes could see that this offense was bad last yr.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Anybody with common sense and two eyes could see that this offense was bad last yr.

Aparently not. I watched all 16 games and didn't see a bad offense. It may not have been a picture of perfect execution at times but saying it was a bad offense is straight up not correct.

 

[Nightman]

What im getting at is you cant say this offense was potent when most of their scoring came in desperation. You can preach and boast all the scoring stats you want. But what you cant deny is this team when games were close or they had a chance to put the stake in a teams heart the offense was just as bad as the defense. Usually in the middle part of games. If you cant comprehend that the team leading the nfl in 3 and outs played just as much of a key role in how bad this team was overall then theres no sense in continuing a debate. If you cant understand that a offense going quarters at a time without having first downs is going to destroy an already bad defense then you dont need to be in the debate to begin with. Because youre lying to yourself. Im not saying this defense was just a cluster F. But this offense was just as bad. Especially with the talent they have on offense its actually worse.

That last part is just comical. In the GB game they scored on 8 of their first 10 possessions. Their first and only 3 and out came with 1:00 minute left in the 3rd quarter. For the year they were 5th in points and 16th in yards. It's not even in the same Universe with how bad the Defense was.

 

[LatinMind]

Aparently not. I watched all 16 games and didn't see a bad offense. It may not have been a picture of perfect execution at times but saying it was a bad offense is straight up not correct.

When you have a team who has a 30%+ 3 and outs and almost a little more then half of their drives fail to gain 15 yrds for the season its bad.

 

[LatinMind]

That last part is just comical. In the GB game they scored on 8 of their first 10 possessions. Their first and only 3 and out came with 1:00 minute left in the 3rd quarter. For the year they were 5th in points and 16th in yards. It's not even in the same Universe with how bad the Defense was.

The Den game they only punted once. But the season is 16 games not 1 or 2. Dallas was the #1 team in offense in the 4th quarter. Thats no coincidence. And they had the most turnovers in the nfl in the 4th quarter as well. Suprise? That paints a pretty picture of what the offense was last yr.

 

[Nightman]

The Den game they only punted once. But the season is 16 games not 1 or 2. Dallas was the #1 team in offense in the 4th quarter. Thats no coincidence. And they had the most turnovers in the nfl in the 4th quarter as well. Suprise? That paints a pretty picture of what the offense was last yr.

No it doesn't. If I recall they play 4 quarters in the NFL. I've never seen a team's 2nd and 3rd Quarters combined record.

 

[Idgit]

Youre trying to tell me that this teams offense did its job because they scored alot. If that was the case and there wasnt a problem how come Callahan or Garrett arent coaching the offense?

You dont think them 3 and outs all through the middle of the game killed an injury depleted team? Sometimes you dont need to be technical with possessions or scoring data or whatever technicality you want to point at like what youre doing now. Anybody with common sense and two eyes could see that this offense was bad last yr.

I'm not telling you anything at this point. Just trying to understand. So I take it the data was not weighted by possession, then? You're just looking at raw scoring data by quarter and assuming that despite the points volume or the number of drives longer than four plays that the offense was bad? Or am I still misunderstanding your argument?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What im getting at is you cant say this offense was potent when most of their scoring came in desperation. You can preach and boast all the scoring stats you want. But what you cant deny is this team when games were close or they had a chance to put the stake in a teams heart the offense was just as bad as the defense. Usually in the middle part of games. If you cant comprehend that the team leading the nfl in 3 and outs played just as much of a key role in how bad this team was overall then theres no sense in continuing a debate. If you cant understand that a offense going quarters at a time without having first downs is going to destroy an already bad defense then you dont need to be in the debate to begin with. Because youre lying to yourself. Im not saying this defense was just a cluster F. But this offense was just as bad. Especially with the talent they have on offense its actually worse.

Most of their scoring did not come in desperation. They came back from behind to win against the Raiders and struggled to score points against KC, Minnesota and Philadelphia but they were able to score early points against the Commanders, Lions, Broncos, Rams, Bears, Packers, Giants, Chargers, and Saints. They were very good on first and second downs. They did score a lot of points.

But because they sucked on third down they could not control games. Far too many whiffs on blocks, dropped or errant passes, missed assignments and penalties.

The defense certainly could not control anything. So despite having some of the leagues' best teams play, you have the story of our season: building leads and choking them away.

It's a wonder we won 8 games and went 5-1 in the division. The Giants and Commanders are terrible which warms my heart though.

 

[LatinMind]

I'm not telling you anything at this point. Just trying to understand. So I take it the data was not weighted by possession, then? You're just looking at raw scoring data by quarter and assuming that despite the points volume or the number of drives longer than four plays that the offense was bad? Or am I still misunderstanding your argument?

What do you have more memories of from last yr? Sustained drives that ended in scores? Or desperation drives that Dallas was forced into at the end of games?

 

[Idgit]

What do you have more memories of from last yr? Sustained drives that ended in scores? Or desperation drives that Dallas was forced into at the end of games?

I remember a relatively productive offense that struggled converting third downs but was really effective in the red zone for a change. Saddled with a bend-but-break defense which cost us the playoffs.

I'd be surprised if anybody who watched all the games recalled anything different.

 

[rpntex]

I think there's some truth in what both Broaddus and Mickey said. I don't think its simply as black and white as fans want you to believe.

That is exactly my opinion. I finally got around to listening to the audio podcast, and the exchange wasn't anywhere close to being as contentious as the Garrett detractors want it to appear. Broaddus thinks it should be a "black & white" issue---playoffs or gone. Mickey was saying that it's not a B & W issue, and that context is important. We needn't look any further than last season. All season long people were saying "playoffs or done", but when Romo was hurt, and the "win or go home" game rested on Orton's shoulders, Garrett got a reprieve and his fate no longer hinged on making the playoffs.

Anyone who believes it's as simple as "playoffs or gone" is being foolish, knowing Jerry Jones's feeling about Garrett, and the precedent he set last year. There are potential circumstances where Garrett gets extended, regardless of the W-L record/playoff situation, and there are circumstances where he gets fired, even if he makes the playoffs.

 

[LatinMind]

I remember a relatively productive offense that struggled converting third downs but was really effective in the red zone for a change. Saddled with a bend-but-break defense which cost us the playoffs.

I'd be surprised if anybody who watched all the games recalled anything different.

The defense forced a punt and got Dallas back the ball on the 32 with almost 2 mins left in the final game. The defense didnt throw that INT. If you do want to get technical, the offense blew that.

When you have a defense that finished the season with 5 guys who started the yr as starters what do you expect from that defense? If the offense had an identity and the coaches had a offensive plan that worked Dallas wouldve been in the playoffs despite the defense.

If you dont see that then i dont know what else to tell you.

 

[jobberone]

The defense was horrible. The offense did poorly on third down and didn't control the game as well as they should have. They both have some problems but the O is light years ahead of the D injuries or not.

 

[CATCH17]

Youre trying to tell me that this teams offense did its job because they scored alot. If that was the case and there wasnt a problem how come Callahan or Garrett arent coaching the offense?

You dont think them 3 and outs all through the middle of the game killed an injury depleted team? Sometimes you dont need to be technical with possessions or scoring data or whatever technicality you want to point at like what youre doing now. Anybody with common sense and two eyes could see that this offense was bad last yr.

This is the truth.

Just because Romo is good at making plays outside of eye offensive system doesn't mean the system is good because it's not.