Mickey and Broaddus fighting over Garrett again

bkight13 said:
How could you have watched the game and come to any other conclusion than the Defense lost the game? You can't run out the entire second half and still score enough points to win the game with a Defense like that.
Click to expand...

They run the ball on that 2nd to last drive and they run the clock out. game over. Those that actually remember Dallas killed them with the run in the first half. 2nd half Garrett totally abandoned the run. completely.
 
NJ22 said:
How could Mickey be around the sport for all of these years and not understand how passing every down lost the GB game??? He kept saying how many points did GB score? Unreal. Well if you refuse to burn clock and give a team possession after possession when you have the worst defense in the league, more than likely they will score a lot of points.
Click to expand...

I said this at the time, and I stand by it.

Green Bay came out that 2nd half and loaded up the line of scrimmage, practically daring Dallas to throw the ball. The Cowboys were going to have a tough time running the ball successfully against the style of defense the Packers were playing at the time. It matters not that Dallas had run the ball well in the 1st half. Green Bay made adjustments, knowing full well that Garrett would respond by throwing the ball if that's what the defense showed him. Honestly, however, how much time was Dallas going to run off by going 3-and-out with the running game? They weren't going to run any more time off the clock than they did throwing the ball.

I honestly understand the "logic" of throwing the ball there. If they're sticking 8 in the box on 1st and 2nd downs, and you run it anyway, you're (most likely) facing a 3rd and long, and again most likely, a 3-and-out. By throwing on 1st and/or 2nd downs, you're most likely going to find yourself in a more manageable 3rd down scenario. Easier to convert and extend the drive than 3rd and long.

I really don't have an issue with that line of thinking, in general. I do, however, have a huge issue with not even making the attempt to run the ball on 1st down. See what happens. Maybe Dallas picks up more yardage than you would anticipate facing an 8-man front. But if you don't and then go pass-pass-pass, at least you tried, and have something to bolster your argument. So while I think the philosophy is somewhat sound, Garrett and Co. didn't do a good job of testing it out.
 
LatinMind said:
They run the ball on that 2nd to last drive and they run the clock out. game over. Those that actually remember Dallas killed them with the run in the first half. 2nd half Garrett totally abandoned the run. completely.
Click to expand...

blah. blah. blah....just because people keep saying that doesn't make it true. There were like 5 incompletions the entire second half. The Defense gave up 5 straight long and quick TD drives.
 
bkight13 said:
blah. blah. blah....just because people keep saying that doesn't make it true. There were like 5 incompletions the entire second half. The Defense gave up 5 straight long and quick TD drives.
Click to expand...

Its funny to me that fans complain about the Cowboys abandoning the run in general threads. But when one is brought up in a situation its always a response like this. lol
 
rpntex said:
I said this at the time, and I stand by it.

Green Bay came out that 2nd half and loaded up the line of scrimmage, practically daring Dallas to throw the ball. The Cowboys were going to have a tough time running the ball successfully against the style of defense the Packers were playing at the time. It matters not that Dallas had run the ball well in the 1st half. Green Bay made adjustments, knowing full well that Garrett would respond by throwing the ball if that's what the defense showed him. Honestly, however, how much time was Dallas going to run off by going 3-and-out with the running game? They weren't going to run any more time off the clock than they did throwing the ball.

I honestly understand the "logic" of throwing the ball there. If they're sticking 8 in the box on 1st and 2nd downs, and you run it anyway, you're (most likely) facing a 3rd and long, and again most likely, a 3-and-out. By throwing on 1st and/or 2nd downs, you're most likely going to find yourself in a more manageable 3rd down scenario. Easier to convert and extend the drive than 3rd and long.

I really don't have an issue with that line of thinking, in general. I do, however, have a huge issue with not even making the attempt to run the ball on 1st down. See what happens. Maybe Dallas picks up more yardage than you would anticipate facing an 8-man front. But if you don't and then go pass-pass-pass, at least you tried, and have something to bolster your argument. So while I think the philosophy is somewhat sound, Garrett and Co. didn't do a good job of testing it out.
Click to expand...

You do know that when you run the ball the clock keeps moving, right? Where as throwing incomplete passes over and over stops the clock over and over. Furthermore, if they were stacking the line, there would have been opportunities for big plays with the receivers, and there wasn't. Even the GB defense said they were shocked that the Cowboys quit running the ball.
 
LatinMind said:
Its funny to me that fans complain about the Cowboys abandoning the run in general threads. But when one is brought up in a situation its always a response like this. lol
Click to expand...

Because it is flat out wrong and people are still arguing over it. It doesn't matter how you get the points and yards, it's how many. The D sucked that day, just like the Denver game. How hard is it to blame the worst defense Dallas ever assembled?
 
rpntex said:
I said this at the time, and I stand by it.

Green Bay came out that 2nd half and loaded up the line of scrimmage, practically daring Dallas to throw the ball. The Cowboys were going to have a tough time running the ball successfully against the style of defense the Packers were playing at the time. It matters not that Dallas had run the ball well in the 1st half. Green Bay made adjustments, knowing full well that Garrett would respond by throwing the ball if that's what the defense showed him. Honestly, however, how much time was Dallas going to run off by going 3-and-out with the running game? They weren't going to run any more time off the clock than they did throwing the ball.

I honestly understand the "logic" of throwing the ball there. If they're sticking 8 in the box on 1st and 2nd downs, and you run it anyway, you're (most likely) facing a 3rd and long, and again most likely, a 3-and-out. By throwing on 1st and/or 2nd downs, you're most likely going to find yourself in a more manageable 3rd down scenario. Easier to convert and extend the drive than 3rd and long.

I really don't have an issue with that line of thinking, in general. I do, however, have a huge issue with not even making the attempt to run the ball on 1st down. See what happens. Maybe Dallas picks up more yardage than you would anticipate facing an 8-man front. But if you don't and then go pass-pass-pass, at least you tried, and have something to bolster your argument. So while I think the philosophy is somewhat sound, Garrett and Co. didn't do a good job of testing it out.
Click to expand...

I knew when they were up by 23 they would cough it up because even in the 2nd qtr they had gotten away from the run. Running the ball not only chews up valuable clock unlike an incomplete pass but wears on the Defense. If they ran for 1st 2nd down every series GB would not have had time to come back. When you have a 23 pt lead all you want to do is limit the possessions you give the other team. Parcells won 10 games in 03 by running the ball 35 times Per game Even though the YPC was awful because you shorten the game which keeps your d off the field as much as possible. Just can't afford to stop the clock with an incomplete never mind the INT risk as you saw against GB. Look at Murray's carries in the second half it was like 5/29 I believe. That is not like he was getting tackles for loss every play. It was the single worst play calling I have ever seen. They did everything possible to give it away. As they did against Detroit a few years ago as well as this year.
 
1st time I've heard the first two years of Garrett's tenure compared to the 1st two years of Jimmy's era.
That addressed the talent gap, but avoided the game management disasters.
 
Broaddus is right on this one, you are blind if you don't see the game managements gaffes Garrett has had that have led to losses. And it's usually football 101 type mistakes, so I'm not buying the "learning on the job" excuse. He made idiotic decisions.

But I like how we've trimmed away a lot of the fat while he's been head coach. I'm not sure how much he's had a hand in that, because this team is still owner under Jerry Jones and he's as hands on as it gets, but people like to give Garrett that credit.
 
Versus Hall of Famer Tom Brady, Garrett thinks it's best to bleed clock and give the ball back to them.

Versus Spare-off-the-street Matt Flynn, Garrett thinks it's best to be aggressive and score more.

Kind of says it all right there.
 
In my perfect world Garrett is the GM and Schiano as HC . I like Garrett's philosophy on how to build a team and think Schiano who shares a similar philosophy, got his NFL training in TB and will be better in his next stop. Sadly, neither will ever happen.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
Versus Hall of Famer Tom Brady, Garrett thinks it's best to bleed clock and give the ball back to them.

Versus Spare-off-the-street Matt Flynn, Garrett thinks it's best to be aggressive and score more.

Kind of says it all right there.
Click to expand...

don't forget one game being at home and the other on the road.
 
Wasn't Callahan the offensive coordinator for that game? Didn't Garrett take over playcalling or however they called it in the media following this game?
 
Mickey said when you're an "offensive minded coach", and if the defense is the problem, "then you're probably not capable of fixing it." That's true, but Mickey's talking as if Garret has actually brought something to the table regarding our offensive production. If anything, I think he has been detrimental to our offense and is the main reason our offense hasn't flourished as much as everyones expected.

If Garret is this "offensive minded coach", then how in the heck doesn't he understand the most simplistic things regarding offense. For one, how about running the ball more, ever heard of something called balance? We have a great RB in Murray, yet Dallas was ranked 31st in rush attempts last year. That Green Bay game last year was a classic example of Garret's ineptitude on offense, he's probably the only coach in the NFL that could've lost that game.

Garret also doesn't know how to utilize his weapons, and I'm not just talking about Demarco Murray. You got Dez Bryant who's one of the best WRs in the NFL, and you don't do anything to get the man better looks. Ok, ok, maybe you did do 'something', about halfway through the year you finally moved Dez around and put him in the slot, which is a complete joke it took that long. Then you got Witten running 3 yard curls all year long on 3rd and long situations, talk about frustrating watching it.

Maybe I'm just being unrealistic, but with the weapons we have there's no reason we shouldn't be a top 5-7 offense. I know defense is the main culprit, but it was frustrating watching non stop 3 and outs through the year. Yes some of it is on the players needing to step up, but I think a lot of our problems on offense came from Garret's anemic play calling. I for one, am glad Linehan is taking over OC duties because he had Calvin moving all around, and he also had Bell and Bush tearing it up out of the backfield.
 
FuzzyLumpkins said:
Wasn't Callahan the offensive coordinator for that game? Didn't Garrett take over playcalling or however they called it in the media following this game?
Click to expand...

No. By all accounts, Garrett took over about halfway, or at the bye week. The Packers game was December 15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 7,660 (members: 226, guests: 7,434)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,136
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top