More aggressive offense next year

[XDez88BeastX]

Loved the offense last year. Run it until they stop it & then abuse th with aerial weapons to teach them a lesson.

 

[Bullflop]

We'll be obliged to rely upon the offense again early-on this year, especially so, before Hardy gets into the fray on defense. Hopefully, Lawrence, Crawford, Mincey and whoever else we might use will be able to hold down the fort. Let's not ignore the presence of some of our "green" youngsters on the d-line to join in as well.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

We've been a pass happy offense Romo's entire career except for last year. When we finally committed to the run, Romo was more efficient than even the great Aaron Rodgers, we had the most balanced offense in the league, and our offense was able to help our defense. We also had the best chance of winning a Super Bowl since the last time we won one. Yet people still want to go back to how it used to be.

 

[50cent]

Any idea? Come on now, Stop playing it to the extreme. Romo is boarderline top 5 in the league. There are several times when Romo throwing it is not only appropriate, but the correct decision.

Not being extreme. I've said this for years now, only to see 2 playoffs wins. I've also said, that Romo is a chip caliber QB if he is in the 27-30 passes/GM range. Anything over that is playing with fire. Romo is not built to win solely with his arm, but can make the key throws if asked to do less and win more consistently. I don't mind Romo throwing, but a run first game plan with him at the helm is the best gameplan.

 

[Brooksey]

Personally I think the offense ran the ball too often.

I think it cost the offense being as potent as it could have been.

I think the play calling was great last year. You saw what passing it 65% of the time did, 8-8.

 

[Vinnie2u]

Personally I think the offense ran the ball too often.

I think it cost the offense being as potent as it could have been.

I respectfully disagree.. Handing of the ball did many things... #1 kept the defence of the field.. #2 kept Romo healthy... #3 less Romo is more Romo...

 

[Galian Beast]

I'm not clear on the thesis of this thread. It seems a collection of loosely connected ideas. What's the bottom line? You think trading Dez is a good idea? But you want a more aggressive offense? But you're concerned the offence might not be good enough if the defence isn't stellar? What?

The thesis is that this team should be more aggressive on offense next year.

Does that relate to Dez? Go back and read what I said. I said the front office mismanaged the situation. They should have traded Dez or paid him for a long term deal. The 13 million he cost this year directly impacts how good the defense can be, and as a result how aggressive the offense can be.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No it didn't. The offense averaged 26.6 points per game in the first 8 games. They averaged 31.8 points per game in the last 8 games. They averaged 41.3 points per game over the final 4 games of the season.

I understand that the scoring increased over the last half of the season, BUT it doesn't mean there weren't "points left on the field". They ended up 5th in scoring, just like they did the prior season.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't think Dez's contract is keeping the defense from being very good. I think it's a mixture of the team having drafted offense first the past few years and the switching from 3-4 to 4-3.

They are drafting really well lately and I think the Cowboys could hav'e a legitimately good defense by midseason, if they draft appropriately.

First Dez was going to cost 14+ million a year, Murray 8+ million... together that would have been 22 million on two skill position players. Gronk is represents a much better cost-benefit ratio than either of them. Outside of Gronk they don't pay skill position players. And with good reason. You give a QB time and you run the ball well enough behind a good offensive line and the skill position players elevate to a higher level, especially if they have been in a system a while.

Cowboys will struggle putting a defense together, meanwhile Romo's time is running out.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think the play calling was great last year. You saw what passing it 65% of the time did, 8-8.

You've gone to the extreme.

Who says something in between wouldn't have worked better?

Again, this offense ended up 5th in scoring, just like it did the prior season.

 

[Galian Beast]

You think the Seahawks and Packers have imploded? Cardinals may have improved. Impossible to tell with the Eagles, but all that is still not easy.

Have the Packers imploded? No but they haven't gotten better either. They've lost a lot of players on defense, and their defense was already pretty poor. Seahawks will have trouble repeating next year after that loss in the super bowl. They're paying Lynch this year, and they'll have to pay Wilson next year. That team is done.

Eagles have definitely imploded and the Cardinals lost bowles, and they've lost players in that secondary.. There is a reason why they want Peterson, they have to improve that offense now. One of the most overrated teams from last year.

 

[Brooksey]

You've gone to the extreme.

Who says something in between wouldn't have worked better?

Again, this offense ended up 5th in scoring, just like it did the prior season.

I simply said I like the play calling last year and it beat the alternative. Extreme is an interesting choice of words from you.

 

[Brooksey]

The thesis is that this team should be more aggressive on offense next year.
.

It was aggressive when we had one on one matchup's, like 4th and 1 and throwing bombs in the playoffs. Stop it. Running the ball like we did, as many times as we did got us there.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I simply said I like the play calling last year and it beat the alternative. Extreme is an interesting choice of words from you.

I apologize, but I wasn't the one that offered "You saw what passing it 65% of the time did, 8-8".

At no place have I suggested that a pass/run ratio of 65/35 was optimum.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The thesis is that this team should be more aggressive on offense next year.

Does that relate to Dez? Go back and read what I said. I said the front office mismanaged the situation. They should have traded Dez or paid him for a long term deal. The 13 million he cost this year directly impacts how good the defense can be, and as a result how aggressive the offense can be.

The off season isn't over for the team nor Dez. As Jerr4y is fond of saying, maybe we should just keep oir powder dry over this contract thing.

Further, this team will have the ability to ramp up the passing game if needed. But why fix what ain't broke if the offense was hung up 29ppg? Still have to acquire the back that can post the yards. By himself of committee. But to messs with what makes this team balanced and effective seems to be a mistake to me.

 

[Stash]

Personally I think the offense ran the ball too often.

I think it cost the offense being as potent as it could have been.

I respectfully disagree. But if I gave one criticism, it's that they ran it predictably, with clear tendencies.

Far too often on first down, far too little on third and short.

Otherwise, I loved the commitment to it, and the positive results are obvious.

 

[Stash]

I'm not clear on the thesis of this thread. It seems a collection of loosely connected ideas. What's the bottom line? You think trading Dez is a good idea? But you want a more aggressive offense? But you're concerned the offence might not be good enough if the defence isn't stellar? What?

I thought it was all over the place too.

And I don't see that they've done anything wrong in the choices they've made, particularly since the Hardy move addresses their most glaring weakness.

They're now clearly in position to go best player available and do whatever they want. They can put all the resources they need to in continuing to improve an already improved defense.

 

[SDCowboy]

I'll say it, I want us to pass more this season. Especially screens.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I respectfully disagree. But if I gave one criticism, it's that they ran it predictably, with clear tendencies.

Far too often on first down, far too little on third and short.

Otherwise, I loved the commitment to it, and the positive results are obvious.

I think the results were very good, but they could have been better IMO.

 

[Fredd]

Dallas still has some work to do to clean up the defensive deficiencies, but once the defense is playing well, I submit that the offense being more aggressive can mean taking more shots down field...it may result in less ball control, a few less first downs, but it could also mean more points....of course, you do that if you know the defense can go out and force a 3&out if the offense doesn't have a good series...