Mickey and Broaddus fighting over Garrett again

[Chocolate Lab]

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.

If I have a big lead, and my defense is giving up a TD "on every single possession", why in the world would I maximize the number of possessions the other team gets?

And give it a rest with the "universal panacea" and "foolproof" talk. Everyone knows nothing is foolproof. It's about putting the odds in your favor.

Maybe Garrett should just go the George Costanza route and do the opposite of what his first instinct is. If he'd done that, we wouldn't have had the number of historic, epic, almost impossible late game collapses we've suffered the last three years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I have a big lead, and my defense is giving up a TD "on every single possession", why in the world would I maximize the number of possessions the other team gets?

And give it a rest with the "universal panacea" and "foolproof" talk. Everyone knows nothing is foolproof. It's about putting the odds in your favor.

Maybe Garrett should just go the George Costanza route and do the opposite of what his first instinct is. If he'd done that, we wouldn't have had the number of historic, epic, almost impossible late game collapses we've suffered the last three years.

Noone is saying that? Perhaps you should go talk to Broaddus who started this conversation. Speak for yourself and not for everyone. It is pretty obvious that someone does feel that way. I know you hate it when us educated types appear to have a point.

One thing that was not said was I recommended maximizing the opponents possessions. It's not lost on me that you whine about arguments that 'noone is making' and then attribute me with your binary logic which I do not subscribe to and abhor.

Fact is that first downs are what run clock and we could not get any running or passing. DERP Run the ball DERP DERP. Doesn't mean your hypothetical runs would have been first down. Running every down is not an option either so you still would to have exposed the team to Romo's awful decisions and quite frankly hiding from Romo doesn't seem like a legitimate option either. All accounts here are that he was checking out of runs although we have no way of knowing for sure.

Romo made two interceptions and one was a horrific bad decision that appears to be all on him. Watching opponents run deep ins over Ernie Sims zone 50 times and he provide no resistance has been fun as a I review the end zone views. But of course I should just fixate on DERP GARRETT ALL BAD DERP DERP!!!!!

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Noone is saying that? Perhaps you should go talk to Broaddus who started this conversation.

Broaddus said it was "foolproof"? Provide the quote where he said that.

Fact is that first downs are what run clock and we could not get any running or passing. DERP Run the ball DERP DERP. Doesn't mean your hypothetical runs would have been first down. Running every down is not an option either so you still would to have exposed the team to Romo's awful decisions and quite frankly hiding from Romo doesn't seem like a legitimate option either. All accounts here are that he was checking out of runs although we have no way of knowing for sure.

You don't even have to get first downs when a team is fighting not just the scoreboard but also the game clock. Every run play burns about 40 seconds off the clock. You can minimize what a few of those do, but only three of those are a couple of minutes off the clock. And those couple of minutes are crucial to a team trying to come back from a big deficit.

Romo made two interceptions and one was a horrific bad decision that appears to be all on him. Watching opponents run deep ins over Ernie Sims zone 50 times and he provide no resistance has been fun as a I review the end zone views. But of course I should just fixate on DERP GARRETT ALL BAD DERP DERP!!!!!

Here's a plan, why don't we just throw every single down? We'll get a ton of yards and probably points. We'll also throw a ton of INTs, too, but so what, we can blame those all on the QB. After all, no passing play ever throws an INT on the chalkboard. So we'll blame Tony every time and the OC/HC can escape all blame.

No, of course that's ridiculous. That's not coaching, that's just calling in plays out of a playbook without managing the game or the strengths and weaknesses of your players.

Finally, your constant angry suggestions that anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent, uneducated, or otherwise HERPY DERP DERP is really lame and an indication that you don't have much. Go tell Bill Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, or any number of great coaches that running the ball to use clock and protect a lead is ignorant thinking.

 

[RS12]

The Cowboys led the game 26-3 at halftime vs Green Bay. That would be a 23 point lead.

Selective memory never happens in the CZ.

 

[Wolfpack]

I still think 7.4 YPC sound like a foolproof 1st down to me. They got too cute with some play calling then panicked (as usual) and went into panic shotgun mode. Its very predictable.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Broaddus said it was "foolproof"? Provide the quote where he said that.

You don't even have to get first downs when a team is fighting not just the scoreboard but also the game clock. Every run play burns about 40 seconds off the clock. You can minimize what a few of those do, but only three of those are a couple of minutes off the clock. And those couple of minutes are crucial to a team trying to come back from a big deficit.

Here's a plan, why don't we just throw every single down? We'll get a ton of yards and probably points. We'll also throw a ton of INTs, too, but so what, we can blame those all on the QB. After all, no passing play ever throws an INT on the chalkboard. So we'll blame Tony every time and the OC/HC can escape all blame.

No, of course that's ridiculous. That's not coaching, that's just calling in plays out of a playbook without managing the game or the strengths and weaknesses of your players.

Finally, your constant angry suggestions that anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent, uneducated, or otherwise HERPY DERP DERP is really lame and an indication that you don't have much. Go tell Bill Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, or any number of great coaches that running the ball to use clock and protect a lead is ignorant thinking.

I am not calling anyone stupid. I am saying that the thought that running the ball more is guaranteed to win us ball games is stupid. You keep distancing yourself from it by telling me 'no one thinks that.'

Broaddus said that Garrett cost the team the game by not running the ball more. IOW, if Garrett had run the ball more we would have won. It is what it is. I am not saying that Broaddus is stupid but I do think that making that claim is stupid.

If you want to become more of a running team from a philosophical standpoint then that is great. But please don't act like its a sure thing.

I remember Parcells running the ball with second half leads, scuttling the offense and taking away Sean Paytons playcalling duties. I also remember Bledsoe throwing horrific interceptions that lost games. Parcells would have banished everyone involved to Siberia. Jimmy would have too for that matter. I don't see what invoking those two men's names is worth without them speaking for themselves.

There are four plays that I wish could be taken back. The first and second down in the last drive of the third quarter. The first was a swing pass to the outside, or a glorified pitch that was dropped. The second was a pass play. Then of course the interceptions especially the first one. Checked out of a run avoid a sack and throw blindly was bad juju.

GB needed 5 possessions to score 5 TDs. Are you sure that running the ball would have limited them to 4?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I still think 7.4 YPC sound like a foolproof 1st down to me. They got too cute with some play calling then panicked (as usual) and went into panic shotgun mode. Its very predictable.

They were running at a 4.5 clip in the second half and there were two holding penalties on running plays that don't get factored into the total.

 

[Nightman]

Selective memory never happens in the CZ.

They never had the ball with a 23 point lead.That was his point because the discussion is about offensive play calling. GB scored a TD on their first possession of the second half and on the second, third, fourth and fifth. And then they were running out the clock on the last drive.

Selective memory works both ways.

 

[TheDude]

I am not calling anyone stupid. I am saying that the thought that running the ball more is guaranteed to win us ball games is stupid. You keep distancing yourself from it by telling me 'no one thinks that.'

Broaddus said that Garrett cost the team the game by not running the ball more. IOW, if Garrett had run the ball more we would have won. It is what it is. I am not saying that Broaddus is stupid but I do think that making that claim is stupid.

If you want to become more of a running team from a philosophical standpoint then that is great. But please don't act like its a sure thing.

I remember Parcells running the ball with second half leads, scuttling the offense and taking away Sean Paytons playcalling duties. I also remember Bledsoe throwing horrific interceptions that lost games. Parcells would have banished everyone involved to Siberia. Jimmy would have too for that matter. I don't see what invoking those two men's names is worth without them speaking for themselves.

There are four plays that I wish could be taken back. The first and second down in the last drive of the third quarter. The first was a swing pass to the outside, or a glorified pitch that was dropped. The second was a pass play. Then of course the interceptions especially the first one. Checked out of a run avoid a sack and throw blindly was bad juju.

GB needed 5 possessions to score 5 TDs. Are you sure that running the ball would have limited them to 4?

That really sums it up. Even though the pitch to Murray should have been caught, it was high %. If a team needs to go 5/5 on TD/possesions to win - Turnovers are more egregious than a run vs pass play. (but root cause is still a jaw-droppingly bad defense)

 

[cml750]

Broaddus said it was "foolproof"? Provide the quote where he said that.



You don't even have to get first downs when a team is fighting not just the scoreboard but also the game clock. Every run play burns about 40 seconds off the clock. You can minimize what a few of those do, but only three of those are a couple of minutes off the clock. And those couple of minutes are crucial to a team trying to come back from a big deficit.



Here's a plan, why don't we just throw every single down? We'll get a ton of yards and probably points. We'll also throw a ton of INTs, too, but so what, we can blame those all on the QB. After all, no passing play ever throws an INT on the chalkboard. So we'll blame Tony every time and the OC/HC can escape all blame.

No, of course that's ridiculous. That's not coaching, that's just calling in plays out of a playbook without managing the game or the strengths and weaknesses of your players.

Finally, your constant angry suggestions that anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent, uneducated, or otherwise HERPY DERP DERP is really lame and an indication that you don't have much. Go tell Bill Parcells, Jimmy Johnson, or any number of great coaches that running the ball to use clock and protect a lead is ignorant thinking.

CL, you are on a roll my friend. Keep on saying it like it is!!!! Our moron on the sideline cost us that game and many more with idiotic decisions from the sideline. Anyone who can't admit that is just a Garrett apologist. Hopefully Jerry will include Clock Management for Dummies in Garrett's training literature this year.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Even a 23 point lead was not safe with that defense. They gave up TD on every possession.

We scored 10 points on our first three drives before we started throwing interceptions. With a defense that bad you had to score points even with that lead. The second half started with that 60 yard run and underneath coverage that was obviously inept.

Laurence was a ST guy and at best got backup reps for two weeks to that point. Sims has no conception of route combinations after years in the league. Holloman was a rookie whose instincts needs more reps. I want to know why they did not at least call man sometimes to give those kids a chance to compete. If you play man under with safety help over the top those kids at least had a shot to compete but as it was you had guys with no experience or repetition trying zone coverage which frankly is asinine. Instead you had a lot of guys reacting late or looking like deer caught in the headlights trying to figure out what NFL athletes are running in front of them.

 

[Idgit]

CL, you are on a roll my friend. Keep on saying it like it is!!!! Our moron on the sideline cost us that game and many more with idiotic decisions from the sideline. Anyone who can't admit that is just a Garrett apologist. Hopefully Jerry will include Clock Management for Dummies in Garrett's training literature this year.

Our team was out scored, what, 13 to 34 in the second half? Sorry, but that's not all bad decisions from the sidelines.

Don't understand why a significant proportion of our fans so consistently underestimates how bad the defense was last year. It really is sufficient explanation for what happened. How can that not be satisfying enough?

 

[cml750]

Our team was out scored, what, 13 to 34 in the second half? Sorry, but that's not all bad decisions from the sidelines.

Don't understand why a significant proportion of our fans so consistently underestimates how bad the defense was last year. It really is sufficient explanation for what happened. How can that not be satisfying enough?

Well to rehash this for the umpteenth time, we all but abandoned the run in the second half with a big lead and we knew we had a bad defense. We played the second half like we were way behind instead of way ahead. Incomplete passes stop the clock, runs don't. If you don't think that is bad coaching then I don't know what to tell you, and yes that is on the head coach. You seem to have a little bit of Mickey Spagnola syndrome. lol

 

[Idgit]

Well to rehash this for the umpteenth time, we all but abandoned the run in the second half with a big lead and we knew we had a bad defense. We played the second half like we were way behind instead of way ahead. Incomplete passes stop the clock, runs don't. If you don't think that is bad coaching then I don't know what to tell you, and yes that is on the head coach. You seem to have a little bit of Mickey Spagnola syndrome. lol

I've already said play calling definitely played a role in that game, so I probably can't be any clearer on that count.

I'm also saying getting outscored 34 to 13 in a half obviously isn't all on the offensive playcalling. If you can't see that, maybe you'd benefit from a little of that Mickey Spagnola syndrome I keep hearing so much about.

 

[LatinMind]

Our team was out scored, what, 13 to 34 in the second half? Sorry, but that's not all bad decisions from the sidelines.

Don't understand why a significant proportion of our fans so consistently underestimates how bad the defense was last year. It really is sufficient explanation for what happened. How can that not be satisfying enough?

The offense was bad too. lead the league in 3 and outs. If Dallas wasnt in its hurry up offense there was a 35% chance it was a 3 and out last yr.

 

[Idgit]

The offense was bad too. lead the league in 3 and outs. If Dallas wasnt in its hurry up offense there was a 35% chance it was a 3 and out last yr.

No it wasn't. The 3-and-out percentage didn't keep us from scoring more points/offensive possessions than 29 other teams.

 

[LatinMind]

No it wasn't. The 3-and-out percentage didn't keep us from scoring more points/offensive possessions than 29 other teams.

It didnt? I suggest you you go look at the drive charts on every game this past yr. Most of Dallas scoring came in the first quarter or the 4th quarter. Dallas offense was one of the worst in the nfl in the middle of the game. You can quote stats on scoring all you want. But you cant lie to yourself in what you see. Anybody that saw Dallas last yr was pulling their hair out on how bad this team was on offense in the 2nd and 3rd quarters

 

[Idgit]

It didnt? I suggest you you go look at the drive charts on every game this past yr. Most of Dallas scoring came in the first quarter or the 4th quarter. Dallas offense was one of the worst in the nfl in the middle of the game. You can quote stats on scoring all you want. But you cant lie to yourself in what you see. Anybody that saw Dallas last yr was pulling their hair out on how bad this team was on offense in the 2nd and 3rd quarters

Clearly you're suggesting that matters for some reason. It's not clear what you're getting at.

 

[LatinMind]

Clearly you're suggesting that matters for some reason. It's not clear what you're getting at.

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.

 

[Idgit]

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.

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?