Mike and Nate were on fire today

[superpunk]

We don't have the receivers to run a simple offense.

That is on the GM.

But, you also have to adjust to the hand you're dealt.

And not changing upon seeing that - yes - Terrell Owens and Roy Williams have no interest in running sharp routes.....

That is on the offensive coordinator and the head coach. The OC for not changing, the HC for not getting in the receiver's ***.

 

[Apollo Creed]

We don't have the receivers to run a simple offense.

That is on the GM.

But, you also have to adjust to the hand you're dealt.

And not changing upon seeing that - yes - Terrell Owens and Roy Williams have no interest in running sharp routes.....

That is on the offensive coordinator and the head coach. The OC for not changing, the HC for not getting in the receiver's ***.

Its gotta come up in the film room.

But I'm starting to wonder if our receivers even watch game film.

 

[adbutcher]

First of all, I have no agenda. I have watched every single Cowboys game since 1988 and have been to games in person. My agenda is the Cowboys.

Secondly, COACH TECMO gets no pass!!!!!!

No offense to anybody, but to say that all you need is just 7 plays and if the defense knows what is coming shouldnt matter is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

IT DAM WELL DOES MATTER IF THE DEFENSE KNOWS WHAT IS COMING!!!!

If Ray Lewis is calling out your play before the snap...it matters.

If the Raven corners are running the routes better their your own receivers....it matters.

When players from multiple teams you play say your offense is the most basic, simplistic offense they have played against all year.....it matters.

When you love to pass so much that you call 45 pass plays against the Ravens.....it matters.

When you cant figure out how to get Felix Jones are Roy Williams involved or even on the field....it matters.

Let me ask this then.....if it doesnt matter if the defense knows what play is coming, then why try to hide it???

Why does the OC hold the playchart infront of his mouth if it doesnt matter if the defense knows the play???

Why does the NFL use specific frequencies for each team's headset to prevent easdropping if it doesnt matter if the defense knows your play???

Why did the Patroits lose a 1st round pick and Belicheck get fined 500,000 for video taping sideline signals if it doesnt matter if the defense knows your plays???

Like Clove said, if all you need is 7 plays and it doesnt matter if the defense knows or not, then anybody can be an OC. What is important is that our players "have the will" to run those 7 plays.

Flame away..........My .02

 

[AKATheRake]

If there's no need to be tricking it up, then there's no need to run a reverse on 3rd and 1.

Fire Garrett.

 

[AKATheRake]

What kills me also is when Irvin and Newton are saying teams knew their plays that's complete BS. Yes teams knew there were a base bunch of plays that we liked to use, as all teams do, but they didn't know every play we were going to use.

Jimmy Johnson was known as a gambling coach when he needed to change the momentum of the game. When opponents would get an advantage and start countering what we were doing he did radical things at times to keep the opposition honest and take back control of the momentum. That to me indicates purposely unpredictability. I'm not Irvin and Nate but they are just trying to cover for their old teammate which is what good teammates do.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

What kills me also is when Irvin and Newton are saying teams knew their plays that's complete BS. Yes teams knew there were a base bunch of plays that we liked to use, as all teams do, but they didn't know every play we were going to use.

Jimmy Johnson was known as a gambling coach when he needed to change the momentum of the game. When opponents would get an advantage and start countering what we were doing he did radical things at times to keep the opposition honest and take back control of the momentum. That to me indicates purposely unpredictability. I'm not Irvin and Nate but they are just trying to cover for their old teammate which is what good teammates do.

If Jimmy Johnson was in that room with Irvin and Newton, and he heard them imply that oppemts knew his every move, he would take it personally and probably slap them upside the head. Jimmy Johnson Knew Norv's every move, and he would never let Norv get predictable, sorry! I like Irvin and Newton, but it's becoming obvious that their main agenda is to protect JG -- their former TEAMMATE --first and foremost. All I can give them credit for here is that they are being good TEAMMATES; but objective observers? ...NOT SO MUCH!

 

[DA FAN]

Mike and Nate talked about the conversation they had with Ed Reed regarding Garrett's simplistic offense. Mike said it doesn't matter how simple an offense it is because at the end of the day, it's about EXECUTION. Mike went on to say that their offense was simple. Everyone in the league knew what they were going to do but there is a difference in knowing what's coming and being able to stop it. Nate then chimed saying that there is nothing wrong with having a simple offense but the key is you have to have the players that are DETERMINED to make it work! They said that the it's all about winning the one-on-one matchups just about every time and that requires players that are determined to beat their man to make the offense work. Mike said if you only have 7 plays, that's all you need if you got the players with the will. No need to be tricking it up.

Of course i'm trying to remember the entire conversation and I may be leaving something out but that was the gist of it. Mike was fired up. He kinda absolved Garrett from blame a little and put it back on the players. I wish we could get Mike on the sidelines as a coach. Nate too!

I have read and heard this so many times. It was awesome to know this... oh man, the early 90s.... Only if we could relive them....


There's a couple of problems though.

1) If JG knows the players are not good enough, then he needs to adapt.
2) If the players are not good enough, then we need to bring some in that can EXECUTE this simple plays.

 

[InmanRoshi]

So we hired an offensive coordinator with an Ivy League degree and overpaid him $3 million a year to run vanilla plays and schemes that you could hire the offensive coordinator at Northwest South Dakota A&T to call for $100k? Sounds eerily similar to the experiences I've had with Ivy League graduates.

Execution demands perfection in a simple scheme. Garrett doesn't have the cajones or the will to demand perfection from his players. He's not a Lombardi/Parcells/Jimmy Johnson caliber of motivator, psychologist or leader of men. He's a poindexter and a beta male, and if he can't outsmart the other team with Xs and Os on the whiteboard he's useless.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Garrett can not be absolved of blame simply by putting the nice, neat, execution bow on it.

Part of his job is to adapt to defenses, which he never seemed to be able to do, to adapt to his players strengths, which he never seemed to be able to do, to make sure his players KNEW their assignments and KNEW what to do in that simple offense, which he didn't seem to do.

If it's only the execution of the plays a good bit of that still falls on his shoulders cause he should know whether or not his players are capable of executing those simple plays. If they're not, and he either doesn't reconize this or refuses to do something about that issue, he's just as much to blame as anyone else.

 

[khiladi]

Sorry.. Don't buy it...

Anybody that is anybody can tell, that while Norv may have used simple formations, he was anything but predictable. And even when he was predictable, his predictability was in running the ball, having his OL move forward. Norv employed heavy play-action, which made the timing-based offense work, because safeties bought...

Jason Garret's offense is more akin to the K-gun and run-and-shoot formations of the past. It is nothing like Norv's...

 

[khiladi]

Sha-freaking-zaam.

For every instance of playcalling that people want to piss and moan about, there are 2-3 instances of the opposite.

Actually, that 33 yrd TD was an aberration... 5 3 and outs against the Ravens, up until the fourth quarter. 2 4 and outs.. 2 INTs...

 

[MWILL]

In order to be a good O.C. you have to know your personel and adjust accordinly.

Garrett CLEARLY didn't put his players in the positions to make plays on a consistant basis.

Garrett needs to go.

Irvin and Nate needs to understand that this is 2009 and not the 90's. The game changed and so has the Athletes.

 

[Arch Stanton]

In order to be a good O.C. you have to know your personel and adjust accordinly.

Garrett CLEARLY didn't put his players in the positions to make plays on a consistant basis.

Garrett needs to go.

Irvin and Nate needs to understand that this is 2009 and not the 90's. The game changed and so has the Athletes.

So you know the game better than Mike and Nate?

Cool.

 

[jazzcat22]

Mike and Nate talked about the conversation they had with Ed Reed regarding Garrett's simplistic offense. Mike said it doesn't matter how simple an offense it is because at the end of the day, it's about EXECUTION. Mike went on to say that their offense was simple. Everyone in the league knew what they were going to do but there is a difference in knowing what's coming and being able to stop it. Nate then chimed saying that there is nothing wrong with having a simple offense but the key is you have to have the players that are DETERMINED to make it work! They said that the it's all about winning the one-on-one matchups just about every time and that requires players that are determined to beat their man to make the offense work. Mike said if you only have 7 plays, that's all you need if you got the players with the will. No need to be tricking it up.

Of course i'm trying to remember the entire conversation and I may be leaving something out but that was the gist of it. Mike was fired up. He kinda absolved Garrett from blame a little and put it back on the players. I wish we could get Mike on the sidelines as a coach. Nate too!

He's right. EXECUTION plain and simple. Everyone knew what the offense was going to do in the 90's. They just couldn't stop them. Because everyone executed and did what they were supposed to do. Norv Turner's playbook, supposedly was not all that complex. They had what, basically 3 draw plays out of several different formations. They they executed them almost to perfection most of the time.

 

[TwoDeep3]

It's not like every team has a Michael Irvin on it. He was a special player, it's not like you can dial 1-800-Irvin, and get a WR like him.

How about the other 90% of teams that do not have a player like Irvin? How are they able to win?

They have a player of that magnitude. This is not about Hall of Fame numbers as much as it is an individual that sells out to be the best and by demonstration and vocal leadership causes the rest of thye team to do so.

Ray Lewis is an example. A guy who holds himself and his team to a higher standard.

 

[CoCo]

Why is it so hard to have a reasonable conversation on this site?

Why is it that folks take a legitimate point, position it at its extreme, and then take the fallibility of it on that extreme position as proof it is altogether invalid.

Is there anyone here who would argue that playcalling has NO bearing on the success of an offense? Is there anyone here who would argue that Jason Garrett has zero responsibility for the teams offensive failures?

Of course not.

Some think Garrett's 2008 shortcomings should cost him his job in Dallas. Others are inclined to believe he can correct them in 2009 and beyond. That's certainly fair enough. No one knows for sure!

But when folks argue at the extremes, suggest Garrett is an idiot and vice-versa, it accomplishes nothing. Truly, are people just not capable of recognizing the validity to both sides of an argument?

It would seem so.

 

[khiladi]

So you know the game better than Mike and Nate?

Cool.

Mike also wants TO to stay and thinks he still got it... Aren't you one of those that think TO sucks and needs to be gone? Mike surely doesn't...

No, Garrett is just their boy and their defending their boy...

 

[NextGenBoys]

Why is it so hard to have a reasonable conversation on this site?

Why is it that folks take a legitimate point, position it at its extreme, and then take the fallibility of it on that extreme position as proof it is altogether invalid.

Is there anyone here who would argue that playcalling has NO bearing on the success of an offense? Is there anyone here who would argue that Jason Garrett has zero responsibility for the teams offensive failures?

Of course not.

Some think Garrett's 2008 shortcomings should cost him his job in Dallas. Others are inclined to believe he can correct them in 2009 and beyond. That's certainly fair enough. No one knows for sure!

But when folks argue at the extremes, suggest Garrett is an idiot and vice-versa, it accomplishes nothing. Truly, are people just not capable of recognizing the validity to both sides of an argument?

It would seem so.

Wish others would see things like you do.

I am one of Garrett's biggest defenders, but I have never said playcalling doesnt matter, or that he only needs to call 7 plays or whatever. I do think that people make his play calling too big of a deal, when in the end it comes down to the players making plays on the field. He could have done a better job of playcalling, I agree with that. But after one bad year for people to want him fired or to go elsewhere I think is absolutely ridiclous. Young coaches learn just like young players learn. He will learn from this year and will be a very good coordinator. But in my opinion, he will be an even better head coach. And I want that to be here in Dallas, not in Denver or Detroit.

 

[CoCo]

Wish others would see things like you do.

I am one of Garrett's biggest defenders, but I have never said playcalling doesnt matter, or that he only needs to call 7 plays or whatever. I do think that people make his play calling too big of a deal, when in the end it comes down to the players making plays on the field. He could have done a better job of playcalling, I agree with that. But after one bad year for people to want him fired or to go elsewhere I think is absolutely ridiclous. Young coaches learn just like young players learn. He will learn from this year and will be a very good coordinator. But in my opinion, he will be an even better head coach. And I want that to be here in Dallas, not in Denver or Detroit.

I'm in favor of Garrett staying as well. I'm willing to give him another year to do his part to get this offense back to where it should be.

At the same time I can respect an opinion that prefers we go a different direction. I truly can. I don't KNOW that I'm right. Why then would I act that way?

But when that opinion is held up as the ONLY sane one, treats Garrett with definitive disrespect as an OC, or misrepresents legitimate discussions like simplistic playcalling then to me it has ceased to become about discussion and understanding and instead has become about building support for your opinion, legitimate or not by whatever means are necessary.

That's what too much of this Garrett discussion has become IMO.

 

[Hostile]

Why is it so hard to have a reasonable conversation on this site?

Why is it that folks take a legitimate point, position it at its extreme, and then take the fallibility of it on that extreme position as proof it is altogether invalid.

Is there anyone here who would argue that playcalling has NO bearing on the success of an offense? Is there anyone here who would argue that Jason Garrett has zero responsibility for the teams offensive failures?

Of course not.

Some think Garrett's 2008 shortcomings should cost him his job in Dallas. Others are inclined to believe he can correct them in 2009 and beyond. That's certainly fair enough. No one knows for sure!

But when folks argue at the extremes, suggest Garrett is an idiot and vice-versa, it accomplishes nothing. Truly, are people just not capable of recognizing the validity to both sides of an argument?

It would seem so.

Because Parliamentary Procedure is no longer a value in our society.