Questioning offensive philosophy

[Idgit]

http://sportdfw.com/2012/09/13/is-jason-garrett-too-predictable-an-analysis-of-his-play-calling/

Try this.

And do you ignore the comments by people like Ray Lewis who claimed they knew exactly what play was being run? Suggesting this is merely fans seems to diminish the comments by more than one defensive player who has made statements like the one Lewis made.

That link basically says that, based on a really small sample (ie, one play on 2nd and 8 in the red zone, for example), we don't run in the red zone or at the goal line. That's undeniable, but it's also because we're ineffective doing it, so it's silly to expect the coach to do something we can't execute for no other reason than to be unpredictable.

Re: the Ravens comments from three years ago...I don't dismiss them entirely. I also don't weigh them all that heavily because I remember they were essentially in retaliation for Garrett having snubbed them in their coaching search that season, and because I remember Romo and Garrett getting the team back in position to score and potentially win that game twice before our defense (our Safety, really) inexplicably giving up two enormous late game back-breaking runs in order to secure that particular home loss. It was embarrassing, but we hardly lost that game only because of the predictability of our offense.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That link basically says that, based on a really small sample (ie, one play on 2nd and 8 in the red zone, for example), we don't run in the red zone or at the goal line. That's undeniable, but it's also because we're ineffective doing it, so it's silly to expect the coach to do something we can't execute for no other reason than to be unpredictable.

Re: the Ravens comments from three years ago...I don't dismiss them entirely. I also don't weigh them all that heavily because I remember they were essentially in retaliation for Garrett having snubbed them in their coaching search that season, and because I remember Romo and Garrett getting the team back in position to score and potentially win that game twice before our defense (our Safety, really) inexplicably giving up two enormous late game back-breaking runs in order to secure that particular home loss. It was embarrassing, but we hardly lost that game only because of the predictability of our offense.

So, Professor Plumb in the library with the candlestick.

Got it.

 

[Kangaroo]

the only difference btw arian foster and demarco murray is the oline. the texans have an outstanding line.

Took them 6 years before it was any good by the way you guys are *****ing about Garrett after 1 year and two games it took Kubiak 6 years to have 1 winning season

 

[visionary]

Took them 6 years before it was any good by the way you guys are *****ing about Garrett after 1 year and two games it took Kubiak 6 years to have 1 winning season

:laugh1: :laugh1:

has it even been 1 year?

he had no off season last year, so that doesnt count

he has a reworked OL this year and several new players, so this year shouldnt count

i think next year should be considered JGs rookie season

what say you?

 

[perrykemp]

he had no off season last year, so that doesnt count

he has a reworked OL this year and several new players, so this year shouldnt count

And if they add new players next year should it not count then also?

 

[jday]

(I posted this in another forum as well.)

This is heresy, but...

I do not and will never understand an offense (like Garrett's--and many others) that doesn't take every opportunity to help itself succeed. Why does Garrett hardly ever use play action or any other type of ball fake (other than the draw)? I think RG3 is a star in the making, but every play in Shanahan's offense sets up several others and makes his QB's job a lot easier. Romo's skill and athleticism is perfect for play passes and boot action. Instead, the Cowboys line up in the I and Romo passes from a straight seven step drop. I don't get it. Am I wrong? Can anyone set me straight?

I'm with you. I'm not a fan of Jason Garrett's playbook or play calling, at all. It is as though he is just calling plays based on situation alone and not trying to build towards anything. If you are going to run the strong side dive over and over, you have to throw in a weak side counter every now and again to keep the defense honest. If you are going to call a slant pass over and over until the defense figures out how to stop it, you have to call a play that looks slant, but double moves deep to keep the defense honest. Balance, I believe, is what Jason lacks in his play calling.

 

[Flinger]

You and I have talked about this before, VA, but I wish we could run the Shanahan/Kubiak offense. I get Houston games in my area and they usually don't play at the same time we do, so I see at least parts of their games quite a bit. And it is amazing how often Schaub -- who isn't half as good as Romo -- finds guys running open. I mean, wide, wide open. Why, because they run the ball effectively and play action off of it. I bet Romo's numbers would be absolutely insane in that offense and just as importantly, with less risk because so many throws are very high-percentage with big windows.

Boy, you make a good point.

I didn't get to see the game due to blackout in my area, but man, on ESPN - watching the highlights - it occurred to me to take clips of all of the passing TD's over the weekend. Receivers were wide open - seems like everywhere.

I was thinking - why does it seem like that never happens to the Cowboys anymore? Then, as I continued to watch them replayed, they would show the QB and I realized - those guys have all day to throw!

So, it occurred to me - show the clips of the passing TD's, immediately followed by clips of the QB's throwing them.

You would see 2 things - wide open receivers and QB's with all the time in the world to throw it. Something not seen often in Big D these days...

Problem with the clip idea - I'm just not technically savvy enough to pull that off and post it.

 

[visionary]

And if they add new players next year should it not count then also?

i was being sarcastic

 

[AmericasTeam31]

That link basically says that, based on a really small sample (ie, one play on 2nd and 8 in the red zone, for example), we don't run in the red zone or at the goal line. That's undeniable, but it's also because we're ineffective doing it, so it's silly to expect the coach to do something we can't execute for no other reason than to be unpredictable.

Re: the Ravens comments from three years ago...I don't dismiss them entirely. I also don't weigh them all that heavily because I remember they were essentially in retaliation for Garrett having snubbed them in their coaching search that season, and because I remember Romo and Garrett getting the team back in position to score and potentially win that game twice before our defense (our Safety, really) inexplicably giving up two enormous late game back-breaking runs in order to secure that particular home loss. It was embarrassing, but we hardly lost that game only because of the predictability of our offense.

My cousin lives in DFW area, and being from PA he is an Eagles fan. During the opener vs the Giants he was upsetting people around him (albeit friends of his) by calling the Cowboys plays out based strictly on formation and what little time he watches them. I know I can sit at my tv and tell you at least 75% of the calls before they happen based on down/distance and formation.

Garrett runs the definition of a PREDICTABLE offense. Anyone who can't see that is blind. If an Eagles loving fan who watches two Cowboys games a year can see it, why can't you?

 

[jobberone]

Well I can't give you any answers. You'd have to talk to Romo or Garrett, probably the QB coach, and possibly Callihan to get a 'real' answer that had any value.

But I can ask you some questions. What would be a good reason Romo doesn't do a lot of play action? Could it be because our running game is not that effective? Or perhaps Romo doesn't like to turn his back then try to pick up the receivers? Or the percentage of successful plays is higher for Romo to date playing out of the shotgun rather than do play action that much? Or when we do play action we get penetration to often to take the risk? Or Romo likes having more time to survey the field and he gets his passes out quicker and has less negative plays out of the shotgun? ie, Romo doesn't like it much and has more success not doing it on average in general.

As far as screens you can bet we didn't have anyone to pull as well as have the necessary timing yada to do it well enough to call that vs another play that has a good rate of success. The risks of a negative play and/or injury was unacceptable esp measured to the rate of success.

The success of Lombardi's sweeps pivoted on the speed, quickness and agility of Kramer and Gregg. Landry's screens necessitated such guards. Larry Allen was great early on. Nate Newton not so much.

I don't know how well our Gs do at that because I haven't seen it. Free and Smith should be able to. Costa don't know either. But it takes timing and working together to make it successful. Otherwise you're better off not running it if you can't do it right.

 

[Idgit]

So, Professor Plumb in the library with the candlestick.

Got it.

If this made some sense, I'd try to reply to it.

My cousin lives in DFW area, and being from PA he is an Eagles fan. During the opener vs the Giants he was upsetting people around him (albeit friends of his) by calling the Cowboys plays out based strictly on formation and what little time he watches them. I know I can sit at my tv and tell you at least 75% of the calls before they happen based on down/distance and formation.

Garrett runs the definition of a PREDICTABLE offense. Anyone who can't see that is blind. If an Eagles loving fan who watches two Cowboys games a year can see it, why can't you?

To be blunt: I don't believe you. I'd be happy to stand corrected if you care to do it in the chat room during the Tampa game, though. I'll be impressed if you're not just talking out of your Dan Snyder.

 

[TwoDeep3]

If this made some sense, I'd try to reply to it.

I think it makes perfect sense.

You discounted the information gathered because it was, in your terms, a small sample set, and then you suggested the comments by players from other teams had to do with Garrett turning them down.

So we'll just call it the Clue answer because you are so selective about what you'll accept as truth.


You reasoning is you don't believe Garrett is predictable, therefore it must be true.

I disagree.

 

[visionary]

That link basically says that, based on a really small sample (ie, one play on 2nd and 8 in the red zone, for example), we don't run in the red zone or at the goal line. That's undeniable, but it's also because we're ineffective doing it, so it's silly to expect the coach to do something we can't execute for no other reason than to be unpredictable.

Re: the Ravens comments from three years ago...I don't dismiss them entirely. I also don't weigh them all that heavily because I remember they were essentially in retaliation for Garrett having snubbed them in their coaching search that season, and because I remember Romo and Garrett getting the team back in position to score and potentially win that game twice before our defense (our Safety, really) inexplicably giving up two enormous late game back-breaking runs in order to secure that particular home loss. It was embarrassing, but we hardly lost that game only because of the predictability of our offense.

"Dont confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"

gotcha

 

[jobberone]

I'm listening hard to people saying the offense is predictable not that it matters much what I think.

 

[Idgit]

I think it makes perfect sense.

You discounted the information gathered because it was, in your terms, a small sample set, and then you suggested the comments by players from other teams had to do with Garrett turning them down.

So we'll just call it the Clue answer because you are so selective about what you'll accept as truth.


You reasoning is you don't believe Garrett is predictable, therefore it must be true.

I disagree.

But in Clue, the answers are definite and can be determined with certainty after accumulating enough...clues. So it's just a weird, inaccurate way to make your point.

As to the sample set, it was obviously small. And it didn't come to any conclusion I'd dispute, anyway. I know it's predictable that we're going to pass in the Red Zone. And I also know why we do that. There's nothing selective about it. The only point is that doing something other than passing in those situations would be even less productive, so it's silly to want to do that, instead.

As to the Ravens players' comments from three years ago, let me flip the script. If I find Cowboys players' comments more recently that indicate our offense is, in fact, complicated or not predictable, are you going to take that as evidence that would change your opinion? Because if you say you would, I'll see if I can find something.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm listening hard to people saying the offense is predictable not that it matters much what I think.

Game before last people claimed the influence that Callahan had on Garrett. :laugh2:

 

[VACowboy]

But I can ask you some questions. What would be a good reason Romo doesn't do a lot of play action? Could it be because our running game is not that effective? Or perhaps Romo doesn't like to turn his back then try to pick up the receivers? Or the percentage of successful plays is higher for Romo to date playing out of the shotgun rather than do play action that much? Or when we do play action we get penetration to often to take the risk? Or Romo likes having more time to survey the field and he gets his passes out quicker and has less negative plays out of the shotgun? ie, Romo doesn't like it much and has more success not doing it on average in general.

As far as screens you can bet we didn't have anyone to pull as well as have the necessary timing yada to do it well enough to call that vs another play that has a good rate of success. The risks of a negative play and/or injury was unacceptable esp measured to the rate of success.

The success of Lombardi's sweeps pivoted on the speed, quickness and agility of Kramer and Gregg. Landry's screens necessitated such guards. Larry Allen was great early on. Nate Newton not so much.

I don't know how well our Gs do at that because I haven't seen it. Free and Smith should be able to. Costa don't know either. But it takes timing and working together to make it successful. Otherwise you're better off not running it if you can't do it right.

As I said, this isn't something that just hit me after the Seattle game. It's something I've noticed over the past couple of years. It's obvious our interior guys don't have the movement skill to support a stretch run game and boot play-action, but these are things that Tony Romo seems uniquely skilled to perform. (There's a reason Shanahan went after him hard out of college.) Garrett specifically said a coupla years ago he wanted a more mobile OL so the team could run more outside, more screens, etc. Why hasn't that happened?

Is the Washington OL really that much better than ours?

 

[Supercowboy1986]

true but they are very similar runners. my point is the main reason demarco doesn't have his production is the oline.

i always kinda of thought of foster as more of a finesse runner sorta like LT and thought of murray as more of a power back with some finesse moves but wants to and will run you over instead of going around you

 

[jday]

I know it's predictable that we're going to pass in the Red Zone. And I also know why we do that. There's nothing selective about it. The only point is that doing something other than passing in those situations would be even less productive, so it's silly to want to do that, instead.

Not that I'm really in this conversation, but the sentence above stood out to me. If I understand you correctly, you are admitting the Cowboys are predictable in the redzone out of necessity not design? In other words, the Cowboys do not have the OL to do anything but pass, because they definitely are not gonig to be able to move the DL enough to create space for our RB. Correct?

If so, I call BS. Even if your OL is weak, you still have to run the ball, even if you know it's not going to work, especially against a Secondary as strong as Seattle's. You can't give a defense the edge of knowing what you are going to do, even if running the ball means losing yards. In the red zone, being backed up could actually work in an offenses favor.

 

[Idgit]

"Dont confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"

gotcha

Not sure why this keeps escaping you guys, but the operative facts in this case aren't saying anything I don't already agree with. Also, not sure why it's confusing that for stats to be meaningful, the sample size needs to be statistically relevant, but it does. Seeing a 100% passing rate on one play doesn't tell us anything useful.

But, by all means, if you want to pretend that Garrett's predictable when he should be unpredictable, go ahead and continue. After all, Ed Reed said so after one game back in 2009.