play-by-play... more evidence against Garrett...

[Stautner]

Lol, these are absurd.

Yeah, passing is more common than it used to be, but passing it more means risking a turnover.

As far as teams that pass the ball.
The cards did not have a running game prior to this season, so they HAD to pass the ball effectively. Same thing with the Colts (Addai hasn't been as good as he once was). The Steelers played what the defense gave them (the cards tried to stop the run, so they passed the ball-which makes sense, but that's an adjustment in one game). And the Pats, they don't have a runningback. Maroney is supposed to be the man, but he hasn't done much since his rookie season. Fred Taylor could be the man, but he's injured. Most of these teams pass the ball because they have to, we have 3 starting qulity backs (USE THEM!).

Just look at the Saints, they're running the ball a lot more now, because they can.

You NEVER abandon the running game(especially in a first and goal at the 1,2, or 3-Man, that was a stupid play), no offense wants to be one dimensional (and you risk the pick).

Of course we average more yards per pass than per rush. Who doesn't...
The average pass is between 6-15 yards, average run is 2 to 7 yards. This is just common sense, saying this doesn't support anyone's point.

I know you're trying to be analytical, but belittling his comments is just plain dumb. In your entire post you barely said anything worthwhile.

I don't think Garrett did abandon the run. The run just wasn't a big part of the game plan to begin with. And it was right to make passing the focus of the game plan against the Packers, although Garrett probably overdid it. Garrett's biggest problem though was not adjusting and running more when we had so much trouble keeping pass rushers off Romo's back. That's when he had to start mixing it up to take some pressure off Romo and the O-linemen, but he didn't do it and the Packers were able to tee off even more.

 

[Hoofbite]

Absurdly sillly!!!! We average 75% more yardage when we pass the ball per play. 3/4 of our runs this past Sunday were for 2 yards are less. Of course why let the irrefutable FACTS stand in the way of an argument.

Just about the most worthless and least relevant stat I have ever seen.

This is like saying that you should measure everything with a yard stick because its 3X longer than a 1 foot ruler.

Means nothing.

 

[DallasEast]

MORE evidence?!?!?

I'LL TAKE THE CASE!​

 

[Alexander]

I don't think Garrett did abandon the run. The run just wasn't a big part of the game plan to begin with.

That is a very good observation.

 

[30yrheel]

the nfl is a pass first league now. but it still seems as though garrett doesn't adjust to what the other teams' defenses are doing.
or is it romo calling audibles? it would interesting to know.
also, don't compare us to teams like indy and NE. they have the most elite qb's in the nfl over the last few years.

 

[AdamJT13]

Slapped this together real quick. Mostly out of personal curiosity. Rushed through it so there might be a few typos but found all the info from http://www.pro-football-reference.com/.

http://i5.***BLOCKED***/albums/y188/thehoofbite/Picture1.jpg

Oh yeah, red highlighting indicates a pass % greater than 55%.

Edit: Percentages based on season totals. Just thought I would throw that out there.

The percentages also don't include sacks or take scrambles into account. So the percentages of CALLED pass plays is greater than what's listed in the chart.

 

[Hoofbite]

The percentages also don't include sacks or take scrambles into account. So the percentages of CALLED pass plays is greater than what's listed in the chart.

You. Would.

 

[Stautner]

That is a very good observation.

I get lucky sometimes.

 

[AdamJT13]

I don't think Garrett did abandon the run. The run just wasn't a big part of the game plan to begin with.

In most cases, including the Green Bay game, Garrett's game plan seems to be staying fairly balanced, except when the situation dictates a pass. In those cases, we usually pass.

Look at the play-calling on each drive in the Green Bay game --

First possession -- Pass, pass, run, pass, run. Then on third-and-3, we tried a pass.

Second possession -- Run, pass, run, run. Then on third-and-9, we passed.

Third possession -- Run, pass. Then on third-and-18, we passed.

Fourth possession -- Pass, run. Then on third-and-4, we ran.

Fifth possession -- Pass (fumbled).

Sixth possession -- Two-minute offense. Pass, pass. Then a pass on third-and-10.

Seventh possession -- Run, pass. Then on third-and-19, we passed.

Eighth possession -- Pass, run, botched snap, pass. Then on third-and-13 (and third-and-23 after a penalty), we passed.

Ninth possession -- Pass, run, pass (fumbled).

After that, we were down 17-0 and passed on almost every play.


As you can see, other than third downs and the two-minute offense, we were pretty balanced (12 passes, nine runs, one botched snap on first or second downs). We passed on back-to-back first or second downs on the same non-two-minute possession only once, and we ran on back-to-back plays once.

If you want to finish with close to a 50-50 ratio -- unless you get a big lead and can pile up the rushes at the end of the game -- you actually need to run it more than you pass on first or second downs, because those two-minute situations and third-and-longs are going to force you to pass most of the time.

 

[cowboyjoe]

The percentages also don't include sacks or take scrambles into account. So the percentages of CALLED pass plays is greater than what's listed in the chart.

very interesting adam thanks;

 

[cowboyjoe]

In most cases, including the Green Bay game, Garrett's game plan seems to be staying fairly balanced, except when the situation dictates a pass. In those cases, we usually pass.

Look at the play-calling on each drive in the Green Bay game --

First possession -- Pass, pass, run, pass, run. Then on third-and-3, we tried a pass.

Second possession -- Run, pass, run, run. Then on third-and-9, we passed.

Third possession -- Run, pass. Then on third-and-18, we passed.

Fourth possession -- Pass, run. Then on third-and-4, we ran.

Fifth possession -- Pass (fumbled).

Sixth possession -- Two-minute offense. Pass, pass. Then a pass on third-and-10.

Seventh possession -- Run, pass. Then on third-and-19, we passed.

Eighth possession -- Pass, run, botched snap, pass. Then on third-and-13 (and third-and-23 after a penalty), we passed.

Ninth possession -- Pass, run, pass (fumbled).

After that, we were down 17-0 and passed on almost every play.


As you can see, other than third downs and the two-minute offense, we were pretty balanced (12 passes, nine runs, one botched snap on first or second downs). We passed on back-to-back first or second downs on the same non-two-minute possession only once, and we ran on back-to-back plays once.

If you want to finish with close to a 50-50 ratio -- unless you get a big lead and can pile up the rushes at the end of the game -- you actually need to run it more than you pass on first or second downs, because those two-minute situations and third-and-longs are going to force you to pass most of the time.

Hey adam have u noticed that almost on every 2nd down, we passed?

is that a tendency that garrett is getting into

maybe wes phillips needs to put in a few more plays on run plays when he breaks down film on opposing defenses on 2nd downs;

 

[Stautner]

In most cases, including the Green Bay game, Garrett's game plan seems to be staying fairly balanced, except when the situation dictates a pass. In those cases, we usually pass.

Look at the play-calling on each drive in the Green Bay game --

First possession -- Pass, pass, run, pass, run. Then on third-and-3, we tried a pass.

Second possession -- Run, pass, run, run. Then on third-and-9, we passed.

Third possession -- Run, pass. Then on third-and-18, we passed.

Fourth possession -- Pass, run. Then on third-and-4, we ran.

Fifth possession -- Pass (fumbled).

Sixth possession -- Two-minute offense. Pass, pass. Then a pass on third-and-10.

Seventh possession -- Run, pass. Then on third-and-19, we passed.

Eighth possession -- Pass, run, botched snap, pass. Then on third-and-13 (and third-and-23 after a penalty), we passed.

Ninth possession -- Pass, run, pass (fumbled).

After that, we were down 17-0 and passed on almost every play.


As you can see, other than third downs and the two-minute offense, we were pretty balanced (12 passes, nine runs, one botched snap on first or second downs). We passed on back-to-back first or second downs on the same non-two-minute possession only once, and we ran on back-to-back plays once.

If you want to finish with close to a 50-50 ratio -- unless you get a big lead and can pile up the rushes at the end of the game -- you actually need to run it more than you pass on first or second downs, because those two-minute situations and third-and-longs are going to force you to pass most of the time.

Having that breakdown puts things in perspective a bit. It looks like there was at least a token run in most possessions, although maybe not a great attempt to establish a strong running attack.

One thing that I think hurt us in addition to not having a strong runnnig attack was the kinds of passes we were attempting. Against Philly we had a lot of quick passes - slants, short outs, curls etc that help counteract a big pass rush. This game we seemed to stick to pass routes that take time to develop rather than adjust when the pass rush kept hurting us.

 

[jobberone]

That's evidence alright. In FAVOR of Garret. Like the Steelers and Cards in the Super Bowl who passed 3/4 of the time....and the Colts and Patriots who pass 60% of the time. Today's game is Pass-Run-Pass. Glad we don't have a neanderthal running our offense.




Absurdly sillly!!!! We average 75% more yardage when we pass the ball per play. 3/4 of our runs this past Sunday were for 2 yards are less. Of course why let the irrefutable FACTS stand in the way of an argument.




This statement officially puts somebody in the "I'm forever helpless stupid camp" with a warning sign on the outside saying, "It's so stupid in here you could catch the stupid virus. Stay out." Go back forty years in time and become a Woody Hayes fan please. Your sensibilities don't belong in the modern era of the NFL.

I don't have the stats handy but we are absurdly bad on third and long. I don't care when we pass or not as long as we don't get into third and long. If that means running on first and second downs then do it. We are just as successful converting third and short and we are bad converting third and long.

 

[Stautner]

I don't have the stats handy but we are absurdly bad on third and long. I don't care when we pass or not as long as we don't get into third and long. If that means running on first and second downs then do it. We are just as successful converting third and short and we are bad converting third and long.

When Romo first became the starting QB I remember always having confidence we were going to convert on 3rd and long. That was something we did so well at that time. Now I never feel good about it.

 

[AdamJT13]

Hey adam have u noticed that almost on every 2nd down, we passed?

No. Here are the second-down plays before we trailed 17-0 (and not including one second down in the two-minute offense) -- pass, run, pass, run, pass, run, pass, run, pass, pass.

We alternated passes and runs until the final play.

 

[khiladi]

The Cardinals offense stagnated going into the play-offs, so they put emphasis on running the ball more. The Patriots have a short passing game which is essentially a run game and the Colts run probably the best play-action in the game. Our problem is we don't keep teams off balance and who knows how many of our runs are the same shot-gun draw. Further, we have no idea how many times Romo calls audible out of that shotgun to that run.

 

[AdamJT13]

I don't have the stats handy but we are absurdly bad on third and long.

We're right about average at converting third-and-11 or more. We've converted five out of 31, which ranks 17th percentage-wise. The problem is that we've had 31 of them, which is the fourth-most. The Colts have had only nine of them all season, and the Patriots have had only 10.

We're sixth-best in converting third-and-11 to third-and-15, at 29.4 percent (five of 17). We haven't converted a single third-and-16 or more, which isn't unusual (13 other teams haven't either, and 12 more teams have converted only one). But again, the problem is that we've had the fourth-most of them (14).

So, yes, staying out of third-and-long would help greatly, as it does any offense. But it's not because we're "absurdly bad" at getting out of those situations, we're just really bad at getting INTO those situations.

 

[SLATEmosphere]

I'm down to trade Choice this year if we arn't going to use him. I'd rather use that pick to help get a safety or LT.

 

[Stautner]

I'm down to trade Choice this year if we arn't going to use him. I'd rather use that pick to help get a safety or LT.

I understand the thought process, but right now I'm not sure that Choice isn't our best hope for a consistent RB. Barber and especially Felix are end up injured some, and both are specialists in a way, whereas while Choice may not have that one noticeable quality that gets your attention, he seems to be productive no matter what role he needs to play at the time.

 

[jobberone]

We're right about average at converting third-and-11 or more. We've converted five out of 31, which ranks 17th percentage-wise. The problem is that we've had 31 of them, which is the fourth-most. The Colts have had only nine of them all season, and the Patriots have had only 10.

We're sixth-best in converting third-and-11 to third-and-15, at 29.4 percent (five of 17). We haven't converted a single third-and-16 or more, which isn't unusual (13 other teams haven't either, and 12 more teams have converted only one). But again, the problem is that we've had the fourth-most of them (14).

So, yes, staying out of third-and-long would help greatly, as it does any offense. But it's not because we're "absurdly bad" at getting out of those situations, we're just really bad at getting INTO those situations.

Worse than 1 in six times is absurdly bad even if it ranks near the 50th percentile (it's still in the bottom half of the league).

We used to be much better at converting 3 and long (thinking of 2007).