Scott Linehan

[Plankton]

So offensive coordinators don't matter? Someone should tell the owners--they are getting ripped off.

Not that I would speak for RS, but I think what he's saying is that there is a lot more nuance and circumstance involved with whether a play call works or not, and fans are not in a position to know the answer to it. In other words, it's easier for a fan to say that someone sucks at playcalling, when the typical arbiter for a good play call is one that works.

If the players just aren't good enough, it doesn't matter if you have Bill Walsh, Paul Brown or Tom Landry calling the plays. I wouldn't group Garrett with them, and I am the furthest thing from a Garrett defender, but I think criticizing playcalling is something that fans are not in a position to do with any credibility.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Going from Garrett to Callahan to Linehan doesn't matter because any and all issues we've had on offense over recent years has been due to a lack of talent.

You want to pretend the talent's always been there. So you blame the play caller.

I see, but don't know how much more talent we've added on offense from last year to this year. So if we if we see a noticeable commitment to the run which leads to more success I would probably credit the playcalling more than the addition of lineman

 

[Risen Star]

I see, but don't know how much more talent we've added on offense from last year to this year. So if we if we see a noticeable commitment to the run which leads to more success I would probably credit the playcalling more than the addition of lineman

There was nothing wrong with the offense last year.

The OL is much improved this year. The natural maturation process of Tyron, Frederick and hopefully Leary as well as adding a huge talent in Martin. They should run the ball more. Certainly more than what Garrett did with the complete slop he had along the line a few short seasons ago. We didn't run it more because we couldn't run it more. We didn't have the talent.

I don't need to wait and see on Scott Linehan. He's got a long track record in the NFL and he hasn't been any more reliant on the run game than Garrett has been.

 

[jobberone]

Going from Garrett to Callahan to Linehan doesn't matter because any and all issues we've had on offense over recent years has been due to a lack of talent.

You want to pretend the talent's always been there. So you blame the play caller.

I agree with this up to a point. I think you'll see a difference this year for two reasons.

1. The OL can block better....ie the talent is better. So are the WRs and RBs looking at the whole.
2. Not considering short yardage/GL plays I think the playcalling can make a difference; although I agree you have to have the talent. You just play to the talent's strengths.

I can't say its 80/20 talent/playcalling or what. But both are important; just to varying degrees.

 

[TimHortons]

There was nothing wrong with the offense last year.

The OL is much improved this year. The natural maturation process of Tyron, Frederick and hopefully Leary as well as adding a huge talent in Martin. They should run the ball more. Certainly more than what Garrett did with the complete slop he had along the line a few short seasons ago. We didn't run it more because we couldn't run it more. We didn't have the talent.

I don't need to wait and see on Scott Linehan. He's got a long track record in the NFL and he hasn't been any more reliant on the run game than Garrett has been.

I agree with everything you've said to a certain extent. The one aspect where I believe the play calling hurt us was the lack of screen plays Garrett called. Yes it still has something to do with talent, but even when our OL was pretty solid last year we rarely ran them

 

[Denim Chicken]

There was nothing wrong with the offense last year.

The OL is much improved this year. The natural maturation process of Tyron, Frederick and hopefully Leary as well as adding a huge talent in Martin. They should run the ball more. Certainly more than what Garrett did with the complete slop he had along the line a few short seasons ago. We didn't run it more because we couldn't run it more. We didn't have the talent

Our run game was effective last year when we used it. We went away from in many games when it was working early. If I see that we are sticking with the run throughout the game instead of abandoning it, I'm going to give credit where due--the man calling the plays.

 

[Arkyvarminter]

Agree as well.


It's early but it looks like we have a real play caller for the first time in years.

Jason Garrett actually being stripped of his playcalling is the best offseason move we made.

Wait till we get really behind and then we'll see how much input Garrett has...

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

The willingness or lack thereof to call the long pass play could be the most under rated consistancy in the book.

 

[odog422]

In this post you ask for a tangible benefit of JG's offensive contribution to this team.

In the next breath you say throw out the stats. You know stats. Those tangible objective things.

You serious bro?

And I also said, clearly the stats aren't what they seem, otherwise, he would still be calling plays. So yeah, I'm serious bro.

 

[dfan32]

Garrett just sucked. You don't constantly talk about BPA when drafting and acting shocked when you go OL, if you thought the OL was holding your play-calling back.

If it was OL, JJ would have kept JG as play-caller, saying he finally got the OL he needed.

You really believe that not being consistent at converting 3rd and 1's because your OL sucks would not effect your playcalling in some way?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And I also said, clearly the stats aren't what they seem, otherwise, he would still be calling plays. So yeah, I'm serious bro.

So you only want tangible evidence that supports your claim. Got it.

 

[dfan32]

I'm really going to miss the 1/2 yard route to Witten on 3rd and 7.

Yeah because most of the time, a sack would be much better than a 1/2 yard gain or an incompletion!

 

[BoysfanfromCanada]

Not that I would speak for RS, but I think what he's saying is that there is a lot more nuance and circumstance involved with whether a play call works or not, and fans are not in a position to know the answer to it. In other words, it's easier for a fan to say that someone sucks at playcalling, when the typical arbiter for a good play call is one that works.

If the players just aren't good enough, it doesn't matter if you have Bill Walsh, Paul Brown or Tom Landry calling the plays. I wouldn't group Garrett with them, and I am the furthest thing from a Garrett defender, but I think criticizing playcalling is something that fans are not in a position to do with any credibility.

I have zero playcalling experience, but when a team has a 24 point lead and they decide to pass their way to a loss rather than run the game to a win, well, I think I can safely say the playcalling failed there

 

[dfan32]

Yeah because most of the time, a sack would be much better than a 1/2 yard gain or an incompletion!

I'm suggesting that Romo had to dump it off or get pummeled and it was more often not a called play.

 

[Plankton]

I have zero playcalling experience, but when a team has a 24 point lead and they decide to pass their way to a loss rather than run the game to a win, well, I think I can safely say the playcalling failed there

Thanks for making my point.

In that game, had the passing in the second half led to more points and a win, I doubt that you nor anyone else would be saying that the play calling was an issue. The assessment by fans as to whether play calling is good is largely based on the result, nothing else.

 

[odog422]

So you only want tangible evidence that supports your claim. Got it.

Restate to fit your take however you like. You've yet to say anything that refutes what I've said. If the stats were representative of positive direction, as I said in my original post, he would still be calling plays and it wouldn't be Linehan's offense. Or maybe you think taking away from your strengths - at least, according to the tangible stats - is the way to go.

 

[BoysfanfromCanada]

Thanks for making my point.

In that game, had the passing in the second half led to more points and a win, I doubt that you nor anyone else would be saying that the play calling was an issue. The assessment by fans as to whether play calling is good is largely based on the result, nothing else.

If we were the 07-10 Patriots, and just smashing teams just for the fun of it, I'd agree. But the team is rarely in a blow out situation, especially since that 13-3 season, and we've given up big leads recently too. I'm pretty sure everyone was on edge as that lead got smaller and smaller, even the announcer's were flabbergasted that we weren't running the ball to kill the clock. Heck, Murray's reaction to that 3 and out showed the entire roster wasn't exactly happy with the play calling.

For the most part I agree, us armchair quarterbacks don't know a fraction of what we think we do, and there's alot of other info including injuries to certain players that dictates play calling, but Jason Garrett has had some stinkers that I think we can all agree could easily have been avoided.

 

[khiladi]

You really believe that not being consistent at converting 3rd and 1's because your OL sucks would not effect your playcalling in some way?

I believe when you need 5 yards to go and you call a 2 yard out pass pattern to the sidelines, it has nothing to do with your OL, but your garbage play-calling. And I also believe that being bottom of the league in play-action pass, like it was with Garrett as play-caller, had nothing to do with the OL, especially when in games where you are running the ball well, play-action was still unheard of. I also believe play-calling was an issue when consistently with Garrett at the helm, we were bottom of the league in first-half scoring, only to move up the numbers in the second-half, when we essentially abandoned the ridiculous play-calling and went up-tempo and Romo running-and-gunning.

 

[Doomsday101]

It wasn't just the play calling but the execution. We've run those bubble screens in the past but we just didn't seem to execute them very well.

I agree, reason Linehan is here is because he and Garrett have worked together in the past the offense is the same offense. Now of course any OC will put his own twist to what he does but by and large this is the same offensive system. Linehan was accused of not running as much as some would like in Det. In the end it comes down to execution having an OL that allows the QB time in the pocket and WR to be able to run the routs and of course to be able to open holes for the RB.

 

[Doomsday101]

“My first exposure to coaching was under him,’’ Garrett said, via the Dallas Morning News. “He and I have very similar philosophies about offensive football and how we do things. There are some terminology things that are common to both of our offensive systems, and certainly they are philosophically similarly in foundation.

http://fansided.com/2014/03/30/jason-garrett-weighs-scott-linehan-calling-plays/#!bF9Zxb