Our offense symbolized in one picture

[CATCH17]

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?

Our fans know the offense is good. From a personnel standpoint it's as good any team in the league.


Our play designs are middle Schoolish though.

Go watch other teams besides the Cowboys and you'll see what actually confusing the defense can do.

It's so frustrating knowing we'll probably go home early again because we can't get anyone open on a route.

It will come down to imposing our will in the run game and hoping our Receivers make crazy plays or else we'll lose.

 

[TheCount]

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.'

Yeah, we've been great on offense - statistically. You've got me there.

The answer isn't to be "unpredictable", the answer is to scheme. Running a triple reverse on 3rd and 2 sure is unpredictable, but it's probably not a smart playcall.

Maybe if you have some sort of half decent scheme, your 2nd receiver can average more than 2.5 catches a game or whatever he's at.

 

[CATCH17]

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.'

We don't know because we've never tried to be unpredictable.

I just know if I was a professional football player I'd love knowing what my opponent is going to do most of the time and all I have to do is rely on my athletic ability.

 

[Idgit]

We don't know because we've never tried to be unpredictable.

I just know if I was a professional football player I'd love knowing what my opponent is going to do most of the time and all I have to do is rely on my athletic ability.

Unless, of course, you can't stop it, anyway. In which case, you'd probably hate it. Judging by our effectiveness per series on offense, that seems to be what's going on again this season.

Meanwhile, our defense is a lot better, but it's still middling. I'd rather see us making changes on that side of the ball if we're going to experiment anywhere.

 

[Idgit]

Yeah, we've been great on offense - statistically. You've got me there.

The answer isn't to be "unpredictable", the answer is to scheme. Running a triple reverse on 3rd and 2 sure is unpredictable, but it's probably not a smart playcall.

Maybe if you have some sort of half decent scheme, your 2nd receiver can average more than 2.5 catches a game or whatever he's at.

We've been good on offense in terms of the points we score when we have possession of the football. I know it's fun to pretend that that's some sort of arcane way of looking that the game, but I think it's pretty fundamental: points/offensive series. It's not exactly wizardry.

Why do you care about how many catches a WR2 averages/game when you don't seem to care about how many points your offense averages per possession, though? I guess I just don't get the logic of what you're trying to improve.

 

[windward]

Here we go.

I will be rooting for the Rams, Saints and Texans to win so we magically get better by proxy.

 

[Mansta54]

Deez nutz?

Lol

 

[Sarge]

Not that it matters, but every time I open up a can of chocolate ice cream I know what I'm getting as well.

 

[daschoo]

Every time you open a can or tin of Neapolitan ice cream, you get the exact same order of ice cream.

You know where the vanilla will be, and that the chocolate and strawberry are on the outside.

Compare this to our offense. When looking at our offense, you know exactly where Dez will be ( *Don't laugh, but he is our Chocolate). You know where Witten will be ( *again this isn't being racial, but he is our Vanilla) in the middle. T. Will is our Strawberry on the other side until he can further prove himself without body catches.

Opposing defenses look at our arrangement and know exactly where everyone will be, and what they do. We essentially tell the defense, "Hey look, this is what we do, this is how we align ourselves, and you will have to beat us".

At no point the Chocolate and Vanilla swap places, and at no point does the Strawberry swap places with the Vanilla.

This is the problem with our offense. One day we can hope that we will open this can of ice cream, and see chocolate in the middle, with vanilla on the outside.


Sorry guys, it is late and I am hungry.

You can buy Ice Cream in cans? Does that not hurt your hands?

 

[TheCount]

We've been good on offense in terms of the points we score when we have possession of the football. I know it's fun to pretend that that's some sort of arcane way of looking that the game, but I think it's pretty fundamental: points/offensive series. It's not exactly wizardry.

Why do you care about how many catches a WR2 averages/game when you don't seem to care about how many points your offense averages per possession, though? I guess I just don't get the logic of what you're trying to improve.

Didn't say it was arcane, said it lacked context. You're stuck on one number like it tells the whole story. You should know better and you do, but you want to play the "I have no idea what you mean" game instead.

My point is simple, and without all he posturing and petty BS:

a) We've repeatedly heard, from multiple sources, that the scheme is simple.

b) We have consistently shown an inability to get multiple weapons consistently involved.

That's it.

 

[CATCH17]

Unless, of course, you can't stop it, anyway. In which case, you'd probably hate it. Judging by our effectiveness per series on offense, that seems to be what's going on again this season.

Meanwhile, our defense is a lot better, but it's still middling. I'd rather see us making changes on that side of the ball if we're going to experiment anywhere.

Teams can't stop our run game.. It's too strong. Our passing game is another story. It can be stopped fairly easy.

We need to scheme better. It just has to be done.


You want to build the perfect team. I want coaches to start making a difference.

 

[jblaze2004]

Funny you mention this. It looked like the EaGirls defense knew our offense better than our players on Turkey day. Even with the short week, they were well prepared. On most plays, their defenders were on our players like white on rice.

this is always the case. Thats why i hate jason garret's scheme. He isn't calling plays but you can be sure that this is his scheme/system with a few linehan sprinkles and i mean few sprinkles sprinkled in. In this system we rely on the player skill to beat his man. We don't run plays to get our playmakers the ball. We hope our playmakers get open so we can get them the ball. Look at the patriots, denver and the colts offense. They run plays to get players open. Heck the patriots are doing it without much star talent in the receiving core other than gronk.

 

[jblaze2004]

All teams have to do is do like the eagles did. Sell out vs the run, stop the run and make us pass. Stopping our pass offense isn't really complicated especially if you have atleast one good man corner.

 

[TimHortons]

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

No I mean literally the strawberry flavour is the best in neopolitan. It's definitive, no debate

 

[DABOYZ]

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

Imagine what he could do if he had an O-line that was worth a crap and a running game. Oh well now comes the dreaded month of December.

 

[Gaede]

If Garrett's philosophy is to get the best players and line up and just downright play better than the other team, then his true failure as a head coach is in personnel not play calling.

It shouldn't take more than 4 years to build a reasonable roster if you have a solid philosophy as he is supposed to have.

 

[DeaconMoss]

 

[Idgit]

Teams can't stop our run game.. It's too strong. Our passing game is another story. It can be stopped fairly easy.

We need to scheme better. It just has to be done.

You want to build the perfect team. I want coaches to start making a difference.

Our passing game is pretty effective relative to everybody else, too.

The problem really isn't scheme. I do want to build a stronger team, though. We still lack a lot of talent on defense. And I believe the coaches, on both sides of the ball, are already making a difference. Be better your players, the more difference it makes.

 

[CATCH17]

Our passing game is pretty effective relative to everybody else, too.

The problem really isn't scheme. I do want to build a stronger team, though. We still lack a lot of talent on defense. And I believe the coaches, on both sides of the ball, are already making a difference. Be better your players, the more difference it makes.

Yeah it is.. Because Romo is amazing at buying time and doing the sandlot thing.


Sitting and waiting for the perfect team is pointless. We don't need a perfect team to win the division, playoff games, and even the Superbowl unless you're as basic as we are.

 

[Idgit]

Didn't say it was arcane, said it lacked context. You're stuck on one number like it tells the whole story. You should know better and you do, but you want to play the "I have no idea what you mean" game instead.

My point is simple, and without all he posturing and petty BS:

a) We've repeatedly heard, from multiple sources, that the scheme is simple.

b) We have consistently shown an inability to get multiple weapons consistently involved.

That's it.

The number I'm stuck on, though, is points. It's a pretty good number to stick on. And I understand your point. But if the scheme is reported to be simple and yet is still obviously productive, there's not really a problem. And if multiple weapons aren't consistently involved (and I don't by that argument, but I don't really need to in this case), and the offense is still productive in terms of scoring points when it has the ball, again, there's not really a problem.

What you're saying is that you want to measure the offense on a metric other than points. The fact that I disagree with that is not 'me being stuck on a number,' it's you, using a measurement that's not a good indicator of whether or not the team can actually win games.