Our offense symbolized in one picture

[CF74]

Huh? 8-4 is considered "just a few hairs above. .500"? That's news to me.

When u can't beat 1/2 the teams above .500 you play, then what does it mean exactly?

 

[Beast_from_East]

When u can't beat 1/2 the teams above .500 you play, then what does it mean exactly?

If Garrett beat half the teams we played above 500, he would have a statue outside the stadium by now.

I have not looked it up lately, but at the start of the season Garrett was like 4-19 in his career against teams that finished over 500....................that is like around 15% for his coaching career.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Romo punked the best defensive player in the game for a TD. He won in a place only one other team has won in 3 years. He led last quarter victory drives 4 times so far this year. His QB rating and performance is up there with the elites of the league.

There's not enough hate in the world to explain that away

He might not have to lead the team to victory 4 times with heroic drives if they would make things a little easier.

 

[CF74]

If Garrett beat half the teams we played above 500, he would have a statue outside the stadium by now.

I have not looked it up lately, but at the start of the season Garrett was like 4-19 in his career against teams that finished over 500....................that is like around 15% for his coaching career.

Well he is anchored to Romo and having to rebuild the team at the same time, so there's that...

 

[Blackspider214]

Have you actually read my posts in this thread?

You're missing my point- this offense is not near as bad as many of the fans on this board make it out to be. In fact, it's not only not bad, but rather one of the better offenses in the league. I'm not saying it's perfect. But the ridiculous hyperbole, like "we are as innovative as using a string and a can for a telephone", is just complete BS.

Are you arguing that we're not one of the better offenses in the league?

When we play crappy teams, yes. When we play good teams, no. And that has been Garrett's signature here. Folds in big games because the offense disappears. Hence why we never make the playoffs.

 

[Idgit]

The question shouldn't be, "have they been productive?" It should be, "can they be MORE productive?" And if so, how much? Some of us think the answers are yes, and quite a bit. And we thought that for quite a while now.

That is a better question. Though when you're in the top ten or top five in the league in an area, you have to be careful that you don't also make things worse by changing them up. I'm more comfortable changing up things in areas where we're among the worst in the league, instead of messing too much with things we do better than most other teams already. I do agree, though, that there are things we're doing on offense right now that were working early in the year and are not working as well the last few weeks, and we need to be looking at what we can do to improve on those areas.

Last week, for example, the three series in a row where we had the miscue between Tony and Wit, the early snap, and the Beasley fumble. Those three third-down miscues in a row (along with our inability to play contain early on running downs on defense) I think pretty much cost us that game. Yet the play calls were fine. Had Tony hit a wide open Witten, or Beasley held on, those were big plays. The issue wasn't so much predictability, it was bad execution. It's bad execution that gets teams beat more than play calling. People just blame the play calling be default when something doesn't work or when we throw when they were thinking run or run when they were thinking throw.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Well he is anchored to Romo and having to rebuild the team at the same time, so there's that...

Yea, we should bench Romo for that Weeden guy.............................how exactly did that work out again?

 

[dfan32]

Strawberry is the best of the 3

So the strawberry represents our average yards per first down ? All these teams yelling, "omaha" in audibles should try yelling, "Neopolitan!"

 

[Szczepanik]

There is no need to change up the offense entirely, but to solely rely on our playmakers winning their matchups mano to mano isn't consistent against the better teams.

We are a very good offense regardless yes. We could easily be as good as Green Bay, New England, or Denver if we would just make a few creative adjustments. There isn't enough tape in this world to give a defense an idea of how to defend Dez in the slot. Want to know? Because we rarely ever use him there.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

That is a better question. Though when you're in the top ten or top five in the league in an area, you have to be careful that you don't also make things worse by changing them up. I'm more comfortable changing up things in areas where we're among the worst in the league, instead of messing too much with things we do better than most other teams already. I do agree, though, that there are things we're doing on offense right now that were working early in the year and are not working as well the last few weeks, and we need to be looking at what we can do to improve on those areas.

Last week, for example, the three series in a row where we had the miscue between Tony and Wit, the early snap, and the Beasley fumble. Those three third-down miscues in a row (along with our inability to play contain early on running downs on defense) I think pretty much cost us that game. Yet the play calls were fine. Had Tony hit a wide open Witten, or Beasley held on, those were big plays. The issue wasn't so much predictability, it was bad execution. It's bad execution that gets teams beat more than play calling. People just blame the play calling be default when something doesn't work or when we throw when they were thinking run or run when they were thinking throw.

Just because you are at the top of some thing doesn't mean you don't look at the flaws and try and improve on them. That's how you get knocked of the mountain. Complacency.

 

[CF74]

Yea, we should bench Romo for that Weeden guy.............................how exactly did that work out again?

Yeah 1 game against arguably the best D in the NFC is a great measuring stick never mind a #1 WR with a bad case of the dropsies early in the game..

It's a timing based offense and not only were they bringing the heat, they were jamming WR's at the line and disrupting one weeks worth of chemistry..

-Learn the game.

P.S. Not much drop off from Romo and 1% of the price which would free up money to fix the D...

 

[Teren_Kanan]

I'm confused.

What flavor is Murray?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I'm confused.

What flavor is Murray?

 

[cowboys1981]

Let me guess, the offense is vanilla.
Garrett is the strawberry and what we did on Thursday looks like Chocolate that is of a warm variety with odor.

It's not our flavor. You should've put up Rocky Road lol.

I kid! I kid!

Hurry up Thursday!!

 

[CATCH17]

Can you explain how we've ended up 8-4 and have one of the best offenses in the league if we're soooo predictable that every defense knows exactly what we're doing?

Simple.. Because we impose our will in the run game.

Our big passing plays mostly come from Sandlot football.

 

[TheCount]

That is a better question. Though when you're in the top ten or top five in the league in an area, you have to be careful that you don't also make things worse by changing them up. I'm more comfortable changing up things in areas where we're among the worst in the league, instead of messing too much with things we do better than most other teams already. I do agree, though, that there are things we're doing on offense right now that were working early in the year and are not working as well the last few weeks, and we need to be looking at what we can do to improve on those areas.

Last week, for example, the three series in a row where we had the miscue between Tony and Wit, the early snap, and the Beasley fumble. Those three third-down miscues in a row (along with our inability to play contain early on running downs on defense) I think pretty much cost us that game. Yet the play calls were fine. Had Tony hit a wide open Witten, or Beasley held on, those were big plays. The issue wasn't so much predictability, it was bad execution. It's bad execution that gets teams beat more than play calling. People just blame the play calling be default when something doesn't work or when we throw when they were thinking run or run when they were thinking throw.

Play calling and offensive scheme are not one and the same. You're also focusing on one game, where as I was making an observation that this is one several times the predictability thing has come up. Your only counter was the NFL.com Team Stats page, which is not a discussion.

 

[TheCount]

I'm confused.

What flavor is Murray?

He's the container, obviously!

 

[Idgit]

Just because you are at the top of some thing doesn't mean you don't look at the flaws and try and improve on them. That's how you get knocked of the mountain. Complacency.

Yeah. But if there's a hole in your boat and you're taking on water, you're not usually looking at ways to upgrade your rigging, either. I'm all for improving, wherever we can with whatever time and resources we've got. I'm just not convinced the way to do that is to be more unpredictable on offense so that we're throwing on some running downs and vice-versa. We've got a team that is capable of enforcing it's will on opponents. I think there's a lot to be said for that.

 

[Idgit]

Play calling and offensive scheme are not one and the same. You're also focusing on one game, where as I was making an observation that this is one several times the predictability thing has come up. Your only counter was the NFL.com Team Stats page, which is not a discussion.

My counter is that you've said nothing to indicate being more 'unpredictable' is going to equate to being 'better.' And I'm support that argument by pointing out we've been pretty good on offense over time here while being 'predictable.'

 

[Szczepanik]

I'm confused.

What flavor is Murray?

He is container. Without the container, everything falls apart anyways.