Gemini Dolly;5047635 said:
I think if Quincy had a good o-line, a good defense, a running game, and good coach he could have been elite. Or is that just for Romo?
The problem here is this.
Romo needs a good defense.
This is said for the simple fact that if we are going to keep the same oline, and cut the running game out with that out, in order for the team to be successful, it must have a good defense to counter the predictability and the flaws of running an inefficient offense. Here you want to do all you can to create turnovers.
Romo needs a good Line.
I did not separate rush attack and line, because with a good line, comes a good rushing attack. This is said because if we are not going to address the defense to compensate for the inefficiency of the offense, we should address the offensive line so that it does not continue to be the predictable, one-dimensional monster that it has evolved to be.
It's not that we need, one, two, and three. It's that we need to fix one to either play at it's full capacity, or fix the other to compensate for the flaws in the other.
Inefficiency of the offense.
From my understanding, Garrett runs a form of the Coryell passing offense (I may be wrong). This involves routes in the passing game of medium to long range, using a timing based system. Difference between this and the "west-coast" being Coryell was a more vertical passing game, and west coast used more of a horizontal passing game. The coryell offense also requires a strong running game. I assume this sets up confusion with the defense with play actions leaving guys open down the field.
*Timing based vertical passing game
*strong running game
Both of the above require a decent oline. Oline benefits the passing game as it gives the quarterback time to read the field on those medium to long range routes. The Oline benefits the running game as it opens up holes for the running back, so they may establish that attack. It is almost essential to have the line playing well in order for the offense to click.
So the argument is fix the line so that the offense is clicking on all cylinders, and running as efficient as possible. If we are not going to fix the line to make it run as efficiently as possible, then fix the defense and create turnovers.
It's really either/or and that fact that both arguments are being made gives notice to how badly the team has been playing, whether it be from the skills of the players or the lack of ingenuity of the people coaching to compensate for their short comings. I think more the latter is the problem, but that's not changing, so the discussion at hand should be what can the team do to win with what they have, and I think the best thing to do for both long term and short term is to fix the oline, as it benefits both the running game and passing game and the team in it's long term longevity. I think the defense can create turnovers through scheme.
This is a strong draft for the trenches and at safety so it is imperative that 'boys get this one right as it puts us in the path to compete next year and the year after.
