Mickey and Broaddus fighting over Garrett again

[50cent]

You don't get to tell me what my point is. Milking the clock by running the ball is not a universal panacea for a defense that gives up TDs on every single possession. They had the ball and were running out the clock with 1:30 left. You really think 3 more runs would have made a difference? Or wait you of course would have revised it such that you were calling runs on the Romo interceptions.

There have been other games where they have attempted to run the clock out and failed to get first downs. It is very possible that they run the ball more, still not get first downs, and have the defense still choke away every single possession. The story after those games has been that he isn't playing to win like against the Patriots a couple of years ago.

If Romo hadn't thrown those interceptions and they actually execute the passing offense then it ends up like the buttwhooping the Saints put up on us a few weeks before. We can front on hypotheticals all day long.

You know why I think we lost that game? Because we had LBers like Sims and Lawrence out there that have no idea how to attack routes. They would run routes straight at Lawrence and he would shuffle his feet but sit like a deer in the head lights as the pass was completed and he offered no resistance. Ernie Sims would basically run back to his drop and then try and chase the ball like the blind dog in the butcher shop they like to talk about.

One thing I will say is that when things were really bad it wasn't Church, Wilcox, Carter or Claiborne getting dominated because they were still in there. Packers receivers attacked Lawrence, Sims, Heath, Webb, Scandrick, and Carr.

↑
And what if Murray runs out of bounds as he did on the next drive? My frustration lies in the thinking that running the ball is foolproof.

This is your initial quote. I'll answer, the clock would stop until the ref signaled to start game clock. The game clock would begin to run most likely while we were huddled up. As we approach the line with the game clock running, their offense would be on the sideline with less time to operate. Running the ball is full proof to keep the clock running the first 25 minutes of the 2nd half.

The rest of your argument is just to prove a point to yourself and you're the only dealing with hypotheticals. I never said run the ball to run the clock out. I've been one of diehards that thought the run could be used the first 3.5'qtrs to establish a dominate lead and not just used to run the clock out. We didn't have a 20+ point lead vs NE, so those are entirely two different circumstances and you know it.

I've also admitted not knowing if we could run the clock out with the run in 2013 if that's all the run game is good for because we only tried once last year and that was with our 4th string RB. And I only admit that for lack of a sample size in trying to do so. I do know that every incompletion stops the clock entirely and that when we did pass too much a couple got picked off. As for one of the INTS, it was clear to me that it was a run call and romo improvised. Thus Murray's reaction of, "whyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!" You're arguing in circles to be right at something. Your initial statement was wrong and has been proven to be so. Anything else is just playing make believe.

 

[Bleu Star]

22 minute mark. I give Broaddus respect for speaking the truth about Garrett.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/multim...Signings/ecc140bf-ba54-4edd-8e6c-96edeffc87ee

Garrett sucks... Any team that finds more value in "training" a head coach instead of bringing in a proven winner is suspect in my book. I can't wait to have my heart broken again for yet another year...

 

[Stash]

That one's not actually opinion. I'm simply saying that, logically, if we can accept the idea that factors other than coaching can contribute to a team losing NFL games--and I think we can all agree that that's a reasonable position to take--then the debate is not over just because Brian Broaddus points to a won/loss record. He'd actually have to make the point that it's the coaching that's causing or significantly contributing to the losses.

And some people would never admit to that being the case.

Much like some try to use pass defense as a get out of jail free card for failing to run the football.

Or jumping to the conclusion that running equals winning, when nobody ever said that it did.

I have no interest in rehashing debates of the past.

Been there, done that.

 

[Stash]

I think this is a sensible approach. Whatever we think about JG, it's time for the team to deliver.

Certainly agree with this.

 

[TheDude]

My central point is that running the ball is not foolproof. I am not a sophist so I like any evidence that brings the truth to light.

For most of the game, they restart the clock after setting the ball or whenever the refs feel appropriate but the clock is still stopped. There is no evidence that running the ball would have limited the number of possessions that GB got to the point of them not having the lead and the ball with over 1:30 left. You take also ignores the gross misexecution by Free, Bryant, Murray and especially Romo.

The defense gives up 30 points in the second half and its Garrett's fault? I don't buy that scapegoating oversimplification.

There really is no way to argue conclusively against most play calls. The execution was the main culprit. There was only 1 possession that was marginally questionable and if Murray catches the ball, the whole drive likely would have been different.

One of my faults with Garrett is from 2008-2012 the team was one of the slowest starting offensive teams in the league. We were in the bottom 3 for First half points in 2012 and the last to score over 13 points in the first half (1 time all year). That actually was an improvement in general in 2013.

An example of a play call that was completely mindless was the 2010 with :07 left before half and at their own 20, Dallas throws a screen to choice - at best it picks up 10 yards and the half ends at worst D'angleo Hall strips the ball and scores a TD. There are some scenarios where the reward is so marginal or de minimis that the risk should be minimized. Cant say this game was an example on the offensive side...the defense was fascinatingly bad

 

[Idgit]

And some people would never admit to that being the case.

Much like some try to use pass defense as a get out of jail free card for failing to run the football.

Or jumping to the conclusion that running equals winning, when nobody ever said that it did.

I have no interest in rehashing debates of the past.

Been there, done that.

If you don't want to rehash debates, maybe you shouldn't refer to opposing arguments as 'get out of jail free' cards or suggest the people who argue with you aren't willing to admit to coaching mistakes. Just a thought.

But, yes, let's just agree it's past time for the JG Cowboys to deliver on more than just offense and ST.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And some people would never admit to that being the case.

Much like some try to use pass defense as a get out of jail free card for failing to run the football.

Or jumping to the conclusion that running equals winning, when nobody ever said that it did.

I have no interest in rehashing debates of the past.

Been there, done that.

Brian Broaddus said that not running the ball more cost the team the game ie if we had run the ball more we would have won the game.

That is what the entire discussion is about.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Any team that finds more value in "training" a head coach instead of bringing in a proven winner is suspect in my book.

I always love this line. Tell me, what proven winner HC would you hire today for our beloved team? No fantasy names just legit ones please.

 

[junk]

There really is no way to argue conclusively against most play calls. The execution was the main culprit. There was only 1 possession that was marginally questionable and if Murray catches the ball, the whole drive likely would have been different.

One of my faults with Garrett is from 2008-2012 the team was one of the slowest starting offensive teams in the league. We were in the bottom 3 for First half points in 2012 and the last to score over 13 points in the first half (1 time all year). That actually was an improvement in general in 2013.

An example of a play call that was completely mindless was the 2010 with :07 left before half and at their own 20, Dallas throws a screen to choice - at best it picks up 10 yards and the half ends at worst D'angleo Hall strips the ball and scores a TD. There are some scenarios where the reward is so marginal or de minimis that the risk should be minimized. Cant say this game was an example on the offensive side...the defense was fascinatingly bad

Garrett just isn't very experienced. He's lacking the skills that come from years of being around game planning and play calling. There is much more to the game than trying to drive down and score every time. One thing I admired about Parcells' press conferences was that I felt like I learned something every time I listened to one. Listen to him harp about field position. And he'd call a game to win the field position battle. Sometimes an offensive series is simply playing the field position game. A HC/OC can protect his defense. A HC/OC can put the other team's offense in a less advantageous position.

I wasn't a Wade fan, but I do think he got it right when he tried to bring Reeves in. Pure speculation, but I think Wade saw this inexperience/weakness in Garrett and tried to bring in Reeves to help with that. Wish it had worked out.

 

[Bleu Star]

I always love this line. Tell me, what proven winner HC would you hire today for our beloved team? No fantasy names just legit ones please.

Jon Gruden
Lovie Smith
David Shaw (Stanford - NFL coaching exp)
Kevin Sumlin

All are instant upgrades over trainee.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Jon Gruden
Lovie Smith
David Shaw (Stanford - NFL coaching exp)
Kevin Sumlin

All are instant upgrades over trainee.

Gruden isn't leaving ESPN we've been over that every off season a thousand times.
Smith has a job.
Shaw - no clue about him but not sure he is a proven winner in the NFL since he has never been HC so that disqualifies him.
Sumlin isn't leaving A&M (turned down all NFL interviews)

The question was what proven winner HC would you hire today for our beloved team? and while I give you credit for the response I just don't see a valid answer.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

↑
And what if Murray runs out of bounds as he did on the next drive? My frustration lies in the thinking that running the ball is foolproof.

This is your initial quote. I'll answer, the clock would stop until the ref signaled to start game clock. The game clock would begin to run most likely while we were huddled up. As we approach the line with the game clock running, their offense would be on the sideline with less time to operate. Running the ball is full proof to keep the clock running the first 25 minutes of the 2nd half.

The rest of your argument is just to prove a point to yourself and you're the only dealing with hypotheticals. I never said run the ball to run the clock out. I've been one of diehards that thought the run could be used the first 3.5'qtrs to establish a dominate lead and not just used to run the clock out. We didn't have a 20+ point lead vs NE, so those are entirely two different circumstances and you know it.

I've also admitted not knowing if we could run the clock out with the run in 2013 if that's all the run game is good for because we only tried once last year and that was with our 4th string RB. And I only admit that for lack of a sample size in trying to do so. I do know that every incompletion stops the clock entirely and that when we did pass too much a couple got picked off. As for one of the INTS, it was clear to me that it was a run call and romo improvised. Thus Murray's reaction of, "whyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!" You're arguing in circles to be right at something. Your initial statement was wrong and has been proven to be so. Anything else is just playing make believe.

You quote me saying that running the ball is not foolproof and then fail to demonstrate how. I know you think Martyball was the elixir for all things Cowboys but I do not buy it. Your bluster in the end that it is disproven is simply hot air. I still contend that we could have ran the ball and had more penalties, or failed to convert first downs, and still had the defense give up TDs on every drive.

Taking out all the poorly executed plays and inserting runs for the epitome of self serving hypotheticals. You do notice that I keep trying to go back to how the defense played. It was a historically bad defense that made McKown and Flynn look like Brees and Brady. That is what actually happened.

I agree that Romo screwed up the game royally with those two horrible picks. Do you even know what you are arguing anymore? I get a sense of a forest being missed for the trees. If you want to blow up the team ditch Romo and scorched Earth it then fine but that is the only logical conclusion I can see with where you are going with this.

 

[Nightman]

You quote me saying that running the ball is not foolproof and then fail to demonstrate how. I know you think Martyball was the elixir for all things Cowboys but I do not buy it. Your bluster in the end that it is disproven is simply hot air. I still contend that we could have ran the ball and had more penalties, or failed to convert first downs, and still had the defense give up TDs on every drive.

Taking out all the poorly executed plays and inserting runs for the epitome of self serving hypotheticals. You do notice that I keep trying to go back to how the defense played. It was a historically bad defense that made McKown and Flynn look like Brees and Brady. That is what actually happened.

I agree that Romo screwed up the game royally with those two horrible picks. Do you even know what you are arguing anymore? I get a sense of a forest being missed for the trees. If you want to blow up the team ditch Romo and scorched Earth it then fine but that is the only logical conclusion I can see with where you are going with this.

I guess none of these guys ever saw Parcells take the air out of the ball anytime we had even a small second half lead. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but a team is usually better off being more aggressive unless they have a top defense. We did not have a good defense last year and I have no problem with the play calls. We needed to keep scoring. Execution was a big problem on offense, but the defense was getting shredded on every drive.

 

[Stash]

If you don't want to rehash debates, maybe you shouldn't refer to opposing arguments as 'get out of jail free' cards or suggest the people who argue with you aren't willing to admit to coaching mistakes. Just a thought.

But, yes, let's just agree it's past time for the JG Cowboys to deliver on more than just offense and ST.

That's fine. We can agree on that for sure.

 

[Stash]

Brian Broaddus said that not running the ball more cost the team the game ie if we had run the ball more we would have won the game.

That is what the entire discussion is about.

And he also said several other things.

Among them that all of Garrett's supposed 'cultural changes' haven't resulted in additional wins.

And for the record, I absolutely feel that abandoning the run yet again in that Green Bay game cost the team that game.

And it's a pattern I've seen all too often under Garrett.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion about it.

 

[jnday]

Gruden isn't leaving ESPN we've been over that every off season a thousand times.
Smith has a job.
Shaw - no clue about him but not sure he is a proven winner in the NFL since he has never been HC so that disqualifies him.
Sumlin isn't leaving A&M (turned down all NFL interviews)

The question was what proven winner HC would you hire today for our beloved team? and while I give you credit for the response I just don't see a valid answer.

I don't think it is hard to see that any coach he named would have been an upgrade. For those you say that would not not coach in the NFL, that haven't been asked to coach the Cowboys. I am sure that there are many teams that they wouldn't consider. It wouldn't matter who he named, you were going to find a reason why they wouldn't coach the Cowboys. From your point of view, Garrett is the only option for coaching the Cowboys. You may have trouble believing it, but there are many college coaches that would do better than Garrett. For that matter, most high school coaches are better at time management during a game. They would get fired if they wasn't . Those standards don't apply to Garrett though.

 

[Idgit]

Jon Gruden
Lovie Smith
David Shaw (Stanford - NFL coaching exp)
Kevin Sumlin

All are instant upgrades over trainee.

Of that list, I'd have interest in Smith, possibly. Shaw, in particular, is in his dream job already and isn't going anywhere.

jnday, you're not going to find most high school coaches are better at time management during a game, either. Nor that they have less job security than any coach in the NFL. That's silly. The reason Jason still has a job and a shot at a significant extension is because he does a lot of things right, and he does a lot of things well that Jerry Jones really likes. You might not see it, or agree with it, but it's true.

 

[jnday]

Of that list, I'd have interest in Smith, possibly. Shaw, in particular, is in his dream job already and isn't going anywhere.

jnday, you're not going to find most high school coaches are better at time management during a game, either. Nor that they have less job security than any coach in the NFL. That's silly. The reason Jason still has a job and a shot at a significant extension is because he does a lot of things right, and he does a lot of things well that Jerry Jones really likes. You might not see it, or agree with it, but it's true.

My point being is that that I have never seen high school coaches have such poor time management skills. That is a point that is far from silly. You don't know the level of coaches that I have seen coach high school ball. I can't remember the whole crowd shaking their head in disbelief over such horrible clock management. I have seen that reaction from Cowboy fans with some of Garrett's decisions.the reason Jason has a job is due to him being Jerry's pet. It has nothing to do with him having success so far in his career . Jerry has said that they have alot invested in training Garrett. I have never heard if another pro coach that had to be trained for the HC job. Please , name a few. Name other HCs that this statement was used in reference to. Since you used the term "silly" please back up your statement.

 

[TheDude]

Of that list, I'd have interest in Smith, possibly. Shaw, in particular, is in his dream job already and isn't going anywhere.

jnday, you're not going to find most high school coaches are better at time management during a game, either. Nor that they have less job security than any coach in the NFL. That's silly. The reason Jason still has a job and a shot at a significant extension is because he does a lot of things right, and he does a lot of things well that Jerry Jones really likes. You might not see it, or agree with it, but it's true.

A brief Seance and my Risen Star Ouija board says this may not be a true badge of accomplishment.

 

[cml750]

Broaddus is right and Mickey is a just a homer who naively defends anything the team does. Garrett's inexcusable game / clock management has cost us at least two games a season. Not only can he not motivate the team to win season ending win or go home games against division rivals no less, it was due to his poor management skills we were even playing win or go home games in the first place. We should have been at least 10-6 the last three seasons.