Mickey and Broaddus fighting over Garrett again

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. By all accounts, Garrett took over about halfway, or at the bye week. The Packers game was December 15.

It was November 23rd when they started the radio plays through him explanation. It's on Garrett even if it was a horribly dysfunctional circumstance.

 

[casmith07]

I like JG. I must be a homer.

Shotgun!

 

[StarMan2112]

Mickey is truly the ultimate shill.

Exactly why I don't bother to read his articles anymore.

 

[LatinMind]

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?

Let me break it down for you in the game situation that was the theme for that game.

Dallas got the ball back with 4:51 minutes. Murray even with their men up on the LOS was still getting 4 yrds a rush. The OL was just playing a really good game blocking. The packers players even said this. "Dallas did a favor not running the ball, they were kicking our butts". Dallas ran once and passed the rest. That running play took up the majority of those 91 seconds they had the ball. Dallas had 5 plays with the ball that drive. Dallas had the game won IMO when they got that first down throwing to Dez on that drive. I thought they saw that on first down they run Murray for 4 yrds. Next play they try to get cute and Mathews recognizes the play and makes Romo hold the ball that extra split second, INT. Key word for this is Mathews knew where Romo was going, Predictable by Garrett. Thats what Broaddus means. Yes the defense was bad, Dont you think Garrett should know this and shorten the game?

 

[50cent]

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.

The last drive of the 3rd qtr was a joke of a series and another example of how the offense kept the defense on the field during the season with poor heavy pass play calling. #selfdestruction

 

[dboyz]

The one thing I'll say about the Packers game is this. When your defense is that horribly awful, sometimes there are no good answers. If you expectedly pound the ball ahead at them, they stuff you and you punt, that is bad. If you put the ball in the air and get incompletes you stop the clock, and have the risk of interception. That is also bad. Fans in hindsight can chirp about either outcome.

Teams run to end games and they also pass and go for the jugular that way to end games. Seattle threw the ball plenty in the second half of the super bow. After the second half kickoff Seattle was up 29-0. Why even throw it at all after that? After that according to my quick count they had 14 runs and 12 passes and two qb scrambles. They basically were balanced and it was never close. The difference is Seattle has a great defense. Seattle did a lot of damage in the second half passing after they had a huge lead. No one criticized them for that as being reckless as I recall.

 

[jimmy40]

Mickey is truly the ultimate shill.

I'll give Mickey one thing, he tried for a long time to warn fans about Quincy Carter's issues, he did everything but call him a dope head and people wouldn't listen.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Let me break it down for you in the game situation that was the theme for that game.

Dallas got the ball back with 4:51 minutes. Murray even with their men up on the LOS was still getting 4 yrds a rush. The OL was just playing a really good game blocking. The packers players even said this. "Dallas did a favor not running the ball, they were kicking our butts". Dallas ran once and passed the rest. That running play took up the majority of those 91 seconds they had the ball. Dallas had 5 plays with the ball that drive. Dallas had the game won IMO when they got that first down throwing to Dez on that drive. I thought they saw that on first down they run Murray for 4 yrds. Next play they try to get cute and Mathews recognizes the play and makes Romo hold the ball that extra split second, INT. Key word for this is Mathews knew where Romo was going, Predictable by Garrett. Thats what Broaddus means. Yes the defense was bad, Dont you think Garrett should know this and shorten the game?

It was a called run. Romo audibled. Things happen.

 

[Idgit]

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.

I saw it at the time, too. I didn't have an issue with it, overall, but that drive under 5 minutes left after we got the reprieve on the pick the drive before...we blew it, for sure.

 

[Idgit]

It was a called run. Romo audibled. Things happen.

Things do happen, but that particular 'thing' probably cost us the game. It really shouldn't have happened, and I think it's ultimately on the coaching staff and head coach in particular.

That said, the collapse itself wasn't all Garrett. That game definitely turned at the half time when we lost the MLBs. I just blame him/Callahan/Romo for the final series.

 

[tantrix1969]

It was a called run. Romo audibled. Things happen.

It was a check play to be determined based on the defensive set, Romo ran the play as designed

 

[Zman5]

GB dared us to be pass happy, so we did what they wanted. In other words, we played into their hands. We did WHAT THEY WANTED us to do instead of what we wanted to do.

This is one of biggest issues I have with JG's offensive philosophy. We take what the opposing team wants us to take instead of imposing our will and take WHAT WE WANT to take from them.

 

[TheCount]

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.

It's even more basic than that. You don't get to be an "offensive minded coach" in the NFL, unless you're a coordinator. As a head coach, you are responsible for the performance of the team, not the performance of half the team.

You don't get to point fingers at the end of the season. If Garrett wanted to be responsible for just the offense, he should have turned down the promotion. Being the head coach of a team isn't just about giving great press conferences.

 

[Nightman]

Let me break it down for you in the game situation that was the theme for that game.

Dallas got the ball back with 4:51 minutes. Murray even with their men up on the LOS was still getting 4 yrds a rush. The OL was just playing a really good game blocking. The packers players even said this. "Dallas did a favor not running the ball, they were kicking our butts". Dallas ran once and passed the rest. That running play took up the majority of those 91 seconds they had the ball. Dallas had 5 plays with the ball that drive. Dallas had the game won IMO when they got that first down throwing to Dez on that drive. I thought they saw that on first down they run Murray for 4 yrds. Next play they try to get cute and Mathews recognizes the play and makes Romo hold the ball that extra split second, INT. Key word for this is Mathews knew where Romo was going, Predictable by Garrett. Thats what Broaddus means. Yes the defense was bad, Dont you think Garrett should know this and shorten the game?

I don't need a breakdown, you were wrong then and are still wrong now. We needed yards, first down and points to win that game, not off tackle dives. We scored on 8 of our first 10 possessions. Completed passes are better than runs, as they get more yards, first downs and eat the clock. The Defense takes 100% of the blame for that loss and the Denver loss.

 

[BHendri5]

Broaddus is a dumb ***. Don't drink the Kool -aid as dumb parcels would say. Mickey is right in what he is saying. If you guys want to use the GB game then go back and rewatch the game, I do not care what the GB players were saying after the game, they would have made some stops, we may have use some clock, but our defense was not slowing them down any, so however less the time was, then GB was going to score that much faster against our defense.

 

[Idgit]

Broaddus is a dumb ***. Don't drink the Kool -aid as dumb parcels would say. Mickey is right in what he is saying. If you guys want to use the GB game then go back and rewatch the game, I do not care what the GB players were saying after the game, they would have made some stops, we may have use some clock, but our defense was not slowing them down any, so however less the time was, then GB was going to score that much faster against our defense.

Yeah. I think I have to listen to it, because reading it, it sure sounds like Mickey has the right idea and Broaddus is coming with a pretty simplistic interpretation of why teams win or lose in the NFL.

 

[50cent]

The one thing I'll say about the Packers game is this. When your defense is that horribly awful, sometimes there are no good answers. If you expectedly pound the ball ahead at them, they stuff you and you punt, that is bad. If you put the ball in the air and get incompletes you stop the clock, and have the risk of interception. That is also bad. Fans in hindsight can chirp about either outcome.

Teams run to end games and they also pass and go for the jugular that way to end games. Seattle threw the ball plenty in the second half of the super bow. After the second half kickoff Seattle was up 29-0. Why even throw it at all after that? After that according to my quick count they had 14 runs and 12 passes and two qb scrambles. They basically were balanced and it was never close. The difference is Seattle has a great defense. Seattle did a lot of damage in the second half passing after they had a huge lead. No one criticized them for that as being reckless as I recall.

Here's where I disagree. We KNOW what happen(s)(ed) with all of the passes in your scenario. One did turn into an INT, while we ASSUME that Dallas just goes 3 and out on 3 straight runs. Why does everyone in defense of pass pass pass (not accusing you) always bring up this FANTASY SCENARIO OF ALWAYS GOING 3 and out if we call 3 straight runs? Who's to say, those 3 straight run calls don't result in a first down? Well never know because we hardly ever do it or give it a chance.

Yea yea pass pass pass clan that will bring up DET, that was with Randle not our pro-bowl back. Don't go there. Also, no one is suggesting Dallas call all runs in the 2nd half either. Just more runs than passes.

As for this notion that teams pass for the lead and run to kill the game, I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think either Baltimore or Seattle came into the game with that sentiment on their SB runs. Even with their defenses, neither team thought that 40+ passes was the why to go.

I'm not calling you out in particular, just the overall thought that many have assuming well always go 3 and out if teams put 8 in a box and that running the ball is somehow useful only the killing the clock late in games and can't be an key factor in establishing a dominate lead early in games.

I'll have to go back and watch/research Sea 2nd half vs Den because I could have sworn SEA called a lot of passes with the run option for Russel (roll outs/ high %short routes) to keep the clock running. I could be wrong, but even if we ran those type of roll outs vs GB with Romos legs, there's no way GB comes back. Two different styles of play design factor in the equation.

There's a lot of blame to go around when you blow a 20+ pt lead, but my opinion that game vs GB the offense, it's play calling and design was just as guilty as the defense that game.

 

[Coy]

I am 100% on the side of Broaddus.

 

[TheDude]

It is amazing what you see going back and watching the game/coaches film after time goes by. It is undeniable the defense was a steaming pile. But the mistakes on the offensive side of the ball in the 4th quarter were probably more on Romo than on Garrett (last 2 possessions ended in INTs). Also, GB didnt play 8 in the box as often as you think,

Dallas 36, GB31
4:17 - 1stdown Ball on Dallas 20.
Dallas I formation, GB 9 in the Box - Play action Incomplete deep at left to Dez (GB 45) . The ball was underthrown and tipped away by CB. It was a TD if complete deeper
4:08 - 2nd and 10. GB plays 2 deep, Shotgun, Romo sacked for -2yards after scrambling for 30yards. GB TO #1
3:57 - 3rd and 12. Shotgun. GB 2 deep. Complete slant to Dez for 13. 1st down
3:02 - 1st and 10. GB 2 deep but safety is coming forward at snap. Single back 2TE 2WR. Murray for 4 yards. GB TO#2
2:58 - 2nd and 6. Dallas goes 3WR, 1 TE, Bunch formation tight right and Miles WR on far left. GB has roughly 10 in the box stacked right. I dont like the formation as the run has been working in the tradition formation. Now, at the snap the Oline botches assignment. Matthews comes clean as Tyron and Leary block down the line to the stacked side. I think Tyron has to be responsible here. Romo spins away, throws to Austin who has a step, but the mechanics are horrible/Farvesque. Flat footed and soulders open, and it drifts behind Austin for the INT.It was designed as an ISO for Austin as Murray or the other WRs aren't looking the ball quickly. A completion ends it.

Dallas 36, GB 37
1:31. Shotgun 5 WR. GB 2 deep. 9 yards to Beasley
1:24. Int on a curl out route Beasley. It really looks like Beasley rounded the route and slowed up. He wasn't looking at the wide CB on Dez to see if he needed to sit in the zone...he kinda did both. There was no pressure on Romo and with a TO left, seems like there might have been other options.

The worst drive was the 2nd/last drive of the 3rd quarter. Up 29-17.
1:04 - 1st and 10. 3WR, Single back. GB 2 deep. Incomplete to Murray in the flat
0:59 - 2nd and 10, 12 package. GB 2 deep. Incomplete to Hanna on a curl
0:55 - 3rd and 10, GB single deep, Leary complete misses the stunt/dely blitz by Matthews up the gut and blocks down on the NT. Romo sacked for -13. Oddly, Austin runs a pick on Beasley's man and Beasley was wide open on the crossing route. It would have gone for 20 yards.

There was no excuse for 0 runs up 12 late in the 3rd. But the other drives had nice plays and either an Oline breakdown or Romo short throw/mechanics ended the drive

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

Green Bay had yet to prove they could stop the run. They were overloading the box before then and Murray still gouged them.

It's something that dates back to 2009, ironically against the Packers and Dom Capers. If you stack the box and/or show blitz...Garrett/Romo will refuse to try and run the ball. Capers said so himself after the game stating that if the Cowboys had run the ball against the blitz, he would have been afraid to keep on blitzing because all you have to do is get the ball carrier past the blitzer and you have a giant gain.

Yet, 4 years later Garrett and Romo still don't get it.

Running the ball against 8 in the box isn't a crazy theory by any means.






YR