Sturm: Decoding Linehan - Bad to Worse

[CowboyRoy]

Is it a coaching mistake? If you think you can convert on the series, but likely only if you pass the ball, don't you try for the conversion there? Giving Brady even 30 seconds and a short field at the end on purpose of a half isn't smart.

Then you get a drop.

Then you get your interior OL beaten, despite the fact that it's supposed to be the strength of your team.

That's an offensive team just getting out-executed. And with Beasley and Leary we're talking some of our solid players here.

It's a perfect example of the kind of thing that gets called a coaching error in hindsight but which is really not executing well. Had we run it three times and gotten stonewalled, the coaches would be facing the same exact criticism for opposite reasons, and we both know it.

Amazing how all the coaching blunders by Garrett never work and they always blow up in his face. Yet you defend them without mercy. Keep those blinders riding high.

 

[cowboys2233]

Couldn't agree more with Bob Strum's comments, so frustrating watching Garrett stubbornly do the same thing week after week while the results get worse and worse...Status Quo is not working.

That "same thing" almost got us two wins with a really, really bad QB. It's hard to come up with an effective game plan when your QB can't do a single thing right. If he "opened up" the game plan with someone as incompetent as Weeden, he is opening up the opportunity for us to suffer a much bigger loss.

 

[cowboys2233]

I dont have a problem with that call. But, I asked in the game day thread, why no onside kick in the 3rd quarter? Why dont you go for it at the 5? It's 20-3 and 20-6 is meaningless. Everything is by the textbook. Also, there is a serious issue in using and understanding the personnel. We actually did run a pick route with TWIL and Witten on 3rd and 4. The problem - Witten was the one who was freed on the pick only to run horizontal to e the LOS 3 yards short of the 1st down (My all time throw objects at the TV route). Couple this with the Bootlegs they try to get Weeden in space to see better. Sounds good, but when you are late on throws and every receiver and defender is within 15 yards, it is a horrible play for him. Add that to the Michel and Escobar usage/or lack thereof, and I dont see how

There is also an amazing lack of any double moves with the WRs. In addition, many underneath routes run players into the same area and stop. It looks odd compared to the opponents and will move a chain every now and then, but that is all the opponent wants you to do a a Weeden or backup.

There are no quick counts, hard counts, rarely any motion (which should tip Weeden off as to man or zone and give the WR a better release),

No, 20-6 puts you within two scores. Going for it at the 5 would have resulted in a demoralizing loss of possession, while still down by three scores. You might not like the call but it was the right one.

 

[Idgit]

I dont have a problem with that call. But, I asked in the game day thread, why no onside kick in the 3rd quarter? Why dont you go for it at the 5? It's 20-3 and 20-6 is meaningless. Everything is by the textbook. Also, there is a serious issue in using and understanding the personnel. We actually did run a pick route with TWIL and Witten on 3rd and 4. The problem - Witten was the one who was freed on the pick only to run horizontal to e the LOS 3 yards short of the 1st down (My all time throw objects at the TV route). Couple this with the Bootlegs they try to get Weeden in space to see better. Sounds good, but when you are late on throws and every receiver and defender is within 15 yards, it is a horrible play for him. Add that to the Michel and Escobar usage/or lack thereof, and I dont see how

There is also an amazing lack of any double moves with the WRs. In addition, many underneath routes run players into the same area and stop. It looks odd compared to the opponents and will move a chain every now and then, but that is all the opponent wants you to do a a Weeden or backup.

There are no quick counts, hard counts, rarely any motion (which should tip Weeden off as to man or zone and give the WR a better release),

Well, that's a mouthful. And they're reasonable criticisms.

Not all of them are no-brainers (I was ok with cutting it to a two score game in the 3rd and trusting the defense to hold up, for example, but I'd have been ok with going for 7 there, too). The boots make the read easier for Weeds. Trouble is, he can't always execute them well, either, but when you're dealing with a limited player, you have to take you pick re: which limitations you're willing to endure.

I agree on the quick counts and the hard counts, etc. And you'd at least like to see some attempt at misdirection plays when we're stalled so badly. If he can't get to his 3rd and 4th read, then you'd like to see them vary up what the reads are when Witten and Beasley are doubled as a part of the game plan.

There's no doubt the offense was ineffective this week, and when it doesn't work, it's easy to think than anything would have been better than what we did. I haven't gone and looked at the all-22 yet, either, so maybe it's worse than I was thinking it was when we watched the game. At the time, I thought they were doing a good job doubling Wit and picking up Beasley underneath, and that they'd gotten home or gotten pressure more than I'd like over Leary or by a delayed blitz up the middle. I saw Weeds struggling with timing, and they'd obviously kept things very simple for him. In short, there were a lot of things they could have tried, but I'm not sure there were a lot of obvious solutions available that we just didn't get to.

 

[Idgit]

No, 20-6 puts you within two scores. Going for it at the 5 would have resulted in a demoralizing loss of possession, while still down by three scores. You might not like the call but it was the right one.

I think so, too. Or at least, a reasonable one. But it *was* tempting to go for 7.

But, get the 3, stop them on the next series and score yourself and you're back in the game. I like that route better than risking a 4th down play like we had to end the game and then wanting to punch Weeden in his stupid face for the next quarter and a half.

 

[texbumthelife]

Is it a coaching mistake? If you think you can convert on the series, but likely only if you pass the ball, don't you try for the conversion there? Giving Brady even 30 seconds and a short field at the end on purpose of a half isn't smart.

Then you get a drop.

Then you get your interior OL beaten, despite the fact that it's supposed to be the strength of your team.

That's an offensive team just getting out-executed. And with Beasley and Leary we're talking some of our solid players here.

It's a perfect example of the kind of thing that gets called a coaching error in hindsight but which is really not executing well. Had we run it three times and gotten stonewalled, the coaches would be facing the same exact criticism for opposite reasons, and we both know it.

I gotta tell you man, I think pretty much exactly the opposite of what you're saying is true and you essentially just said "stay with status quo even though is hasn't come close to working." You have to try to win these games by scheming at this point. Sturm hits on it, but you have to be creative and find ways to get guys the ball. You can't go out there game after game getting beat the same way. That's not coaching, that's standing on the sideline clapping.

 

[Frosty]

No, 20-6 puts you within two scores. Going for it at the 5 would have resulted in a demoralizing loss of possession, while still down by three scores. You might not like the call but it was the right one.

That is the conservative book answer. Not the answer for a coach that understands his team needs a spark....anything to capture some momentum.....what did that FG do....NOTHING...it was the last points the team would see..... He let his Rocky moment slip away... Sometimes a Coach has to think outside the box and roll the dice....especially when the team is on the verge of losing 3 in a row.....Underdog teams should be unpredictable, sneaky and ready to take every advantage it can to make a David vs Goliath moment...This team needs a spark...not another loss.

 

[texbumthelife]

No, 20-6 puts you within two scores. Going for it at the 5 would have resulted in a demoralizing loss of possession, while still down by three scores. You might not like the call but it was the right one.

Your defense just got shredded by the Patriots and your offense finally shows life. If your level of trust in your offense is, "this is going to be a demoralizing loss of possession" than you've already failed as a coach. The game had already shifted away from the close to the vest defensive play of the first quarter. The risk/reward of 7 vs 3 or no points there, against the Patriots with a team desperately looking for a spark, says you have to go for it.

Then again, some of you are also still saying we should stick with status quo and not change anything. You'd rather rely on excuses like, "the injuries have completely crippled us" instead of having a coach go in there and admit what they're doing isn't working and change it up.

 

[dfense]

As if the offense would get better without Romo and Dez.

 

[TheDude]

I don't want to be labeled defending Weeden or doubting Sturm either. I am sure there are some a lot better watching tape than others. Although it can be very tricky. My statement was more of a general statement anyway. I see still all the time of running plays and passing plays by posters here. The stills seem to show that if a player cut one way or the ball was thrown to this receiver, that the play was an easy touchdown. I find that is very rarely accurate. These guys move so fast that video doesn't do it justice.

Well, that's a mouthful. And they're reasonable criticisms.

Not all of them are no-brainers (I was ok with cutting it to a two score game in the 3rd and trusting the defense to hold up, for example, but I'd have been ok with going for 7 there, too). The boots make the read easier for Weeds. Trouble is, he can't always execute them well, either, but when you're dealing with a limited player, you have to take you pick re: which limitations you're willing to endure.

I agree on the quick counts and the hard counts, etc. And you'd at least like to see some attempt at misdirection plays when we're stalled so badly. If he can't get to his 3rd and 4th read, then you'd like to see them vary up what the reads are when Witten and Beasley are doubled as a part of the game plan.

There's no doubt the offense was ineffective this week, and when it doesn't work, it's easy to think than anything would have been better than what we did. I haven't gone and looked at the all-22 yet, either, so maybe it's worse than I was thinking it was when we watched the game. At the time, I thought they were doing a good job doubling Wit and picking up Beasley underneath, and that they'd gotten home or gotten pressure more than I'd like over Leary or by a delayed blitz up the middle. I saw Weeds struggling with timing, and they'd obviously kept things very simple for him. In short, there were a lot of things they could have tried, but I'm not sure there were a lot of obvious solutions available that we just didn't get to.

All in all, the MOST disappointing is the Oline. Free was consistently atrocious, Leary was bad, Fred not good, Martin and Smith were just ok. THe pass blocking isnt too bad. Leary wasnt great and Free gets sent on his *** once or twice per game by the DT where the DE loops inside and other times form bad lunging. They continue to get manhandled on run plays. Wayy too many times you have a Olineman 3 yards in the backfield which makes the RB choose the cutback, which every team has straggled a defender to ensure cleanup. I need to look again, but I rarely see any pulling guards or much misdirection. Its almost like the Defense has been tipped to the play the way they shift into the running lanes before the snap. Something is horribly wrong and has been wrong all year.

.

 

[Idgit]

I gotta tell you man, I think pretty much exactly the opposite of what you're saying is true and you essentially just said "stay with status quo even though is hasn't come close to working." You have to try to win these games by scheming at this point. Sturm hits on it, but you have to be creative and find ways to get guys the ball. You can't go out there game after game getting beat the same way. That's not coaching, that's standing on the sideline clapping.

Yeah, it sounds like we disagree here. I'm not against some misdirection. And I've said I'd make some player moves like either giving Randle more of a workload or giving his early down snaps to Michael and using Randle in DMCs role. I'd look at using picks ourselves.

But, for the most part, what we've done actually has been close to working with the exception of the NE game. With the pass rush back, I can understand the impulse to not mess things up by trying too hard to mix things up offensively. There's a reason why coaches want to eliminate variables when they have a backup signal caller in. Getting antsy and going the other direction might not be the smartest move now that we're finally getting our players back in the lineup. Adding Dez and Gregory on top of Hardy and McClain is a pretty good talent infusion right about now, but an inopportune pick from a QB trying to do too much, or a WR making the wrong site adjustment because you're putting him in the lineup in favor of an ineffective Street could lose you a winnable football game.

I know it's not glamorous, but there is a reason for the simplification and the reluctance to change.

 

[Idgit]

All in all, the MOST disappointing is the Oline. Free was consistently atrocious, Leary was bad, Fred not good, Martin and Smith were just ok. THe pass blocking isnt too bad. Leary wasnt great and Free gets sent on his *** once or twice per game by the DT where the DE loops inside and other times form bad lunging. They continue to get manhandled on run plays. Wayy too many times you have a Olineman 3 yards in the backfield which makes the RB choose the cutback, which every team has straggled a defender to ensure cleanup. I need to look again, but I rarely see any pulling guards or much misdirection. Its almost like the Defense has been tipped to the play the way they shift into the running lanes before the snap. Something is horribly wrong and has been wrong all year.

I agree here. The OL hasn't been awful, but there's definitely something not right about it right now. On the run plays, it's the negative runs that are killing us because they're putting us in such disadvantageous second and third down situations for Big Red Sasquatch to check down in.

 

[Kevinicus]

I have to disagree with Sturm on this one. This isn't NFL open. This is a pick 6. That defender is trailing and Weeden is on the run, and likely won't get enough on the ball to zip it in there.

Brandon? Is that you?

 

[gdjackson2]

Excellent read

 

[texbumthelife]

Yeah, it sounds like we disagree here. I'm not against some misdirection. And I've said I'd make some player moves like either giving Randle more of a workload or giving his early down snaps to Michael and using Randle in DMCs role. I'd look at using picks ourselves.

But, for the most part, what we've done actually has been close to working with the exception of the NE game. With the pass rush back, I can understand the impulse to not mess things up by trying too hard to mix things up offensively. There's a reason why coaches want to eliminate variables when they have a backup signal caller in. Getting antsy and going the other direction might not be the smartest move now that we're finally getting our players back in the lineup. Adding Dez and Gregory on top of Hardy and McClain is a pretty good talent infusion right about now, but an inopportune pick from a QB trying to do too much, or a WR making the wrong site adjustment because you're putting him in the lineup in favor of an ineffective Street could lose you a winnable football game.

I know it's not glamorous, but there is a reason for the simplification and the reluctance to change.

With all due respect, what we've done was close to beating a previously winless, and since winless Saints team. It didn't come close to beating the Falcons, don't let that final score fool you.

You just can't play scared or tight. We've tried it and lost three games in a row. There is no argument against that, really. It hasn't worked. There is no reason to believe it will. Of course getting talent back is a huge lift, but in the meantime you've got to try new things. If the defense was surrendering 500 yards and 35 points a game while running the same vanilla cover 2 scheme, ala the Kiffin year, change would be needed. It's no different on offense. Lastly, I don't think being aggressive and opening it up hampers your quarterback, I think it helps him--in the event he's not worthless and completely without care.

I am with you on the Michael front though. I really have no desire to and there is no evidence as to why we should see McFadden any more. He;s not getting it done. The only thing he's been effective at is subduing Randle as soon as he's close to being in a rhythm. As long as we are throwing guys like Butler and Cassel in there, why not give Michael a shot. The only reason I can see is that Garrett has a personal grudge against him, perhaps he wasn't on board with the trade.

Either way, Garrett needs to sack up, make some moves and show this team some life. He needs to lead and inspire them by more than just clapping. He needs to light a fire and show he believes in them. I don't think he's done that. I think he's shellshocked without Dez and Romo and completely incapable of being creative in their absence.

 

[texbumthelife]

I agree here. The OL hasn't been awful, but there's definitely something not right about it right now. On the run plays, it's the negative runs that are killing us because they're putting us in such disadvantageous second and third down situations for Big Red Sasquatch to check down in.

I think at least half of that is play calling. They mentioned it on Sunday, we have been much better this year going North and South, but they will run that zone stretch or quick toss every other run play, whether it is working or not.

Bottom line is, every aspect of this teams needs to adapt. Murray is gone-adapt. Romo and Dez are hurt-adapt. You can't just say "next man up" and then wince when they don't just line up and beat the guy across from them. Dez and Romo, and Murray to a lesser extent were elite players, who won the 1-on-1 matchups. Now we have we scheme ways to get guys open. That's coaching.

 

[Idgit]

With all due respect, what we've done was close to beating a previously winless, and since winless Saints team. It didn't come close to beating the Falcons, don't let that final score fool you.

You just can't play scared or tight. We've tried it and lost three games in a row. There is no argument against that, really. It hasn't worked. There is no reason to believe it will. Of course getting talent back is a huge lift, but in the meantime you've got to try new things. If the defense was surrendering 500 yards and 35 points a game while running the same vanilla cover 2 scheme, ala the Kiffin year, change would be needed. It's no different on offense. Lastly, I don't think being aggressive and opening it up hampers your quarterback, I think it helps him--in the event he's not worthless and completely without care.

I am with you on the Michael front though. I really have no desire to and there is no evidence as to why we should see McFadden any more. He;s not getting it done. The only thing he's been effective at is subduing Randle as soon as he's close to being in a rhythm. As long as we are throwing guys like Butler and Cassel in there, why not give Michael a shot. The only reason I can see is that Garrett has a personal grudge against him, perhaps he wasn't on board with the trade.

Either way, Garrett needs to sack up, make some moves and show this team some life. He needs to lead and inspire them by more than just clapping. He needs to light a fire and show he believes in them. I don't think he's done that. I think he's shellshocked without Dez and Romo and completely incapable of being creative in their absence.

Well, it's pointless to speculate. They've changed to Cassell, now, so we'll see what that does.

For my part, I think the players are fine and that they understand exactly what the limitations are right now. The defense is still singing the praises of Garrett and the coordinators after the NE loss, and they seem to think we're on the verge of putting something together still. This current dip might be an opportunity to show how the coaches handle adversity, too. I don't like the losses any more than anybody else. I just think the way to improve is to keep fixing the defense and to keep addressing the little things that have gotten us beat.

I do disagree with you on ATL game, though. That was a very winnable game where the lack of turnovers and the lack of depth at DE hurt us more than the QB play did.

 

[texbumthelife]

Well, it's pointless to speculate. They've changed to Cassell, now, so we'll see what that does.

For my part, I think the players are fine and that they understand exactly what the limitations are right now. The defense is still singing the praises of Garrett and the coordinators after the NE loss, and they seem to think we're on the verge of putting something together still. This current dip might be an opportunity to show how the coaches handle adversity, too. I don't like the losses any more than anybody else. I just think the way to improve is to keep fixing the defense and to keep addressing the little things that have gotten us beat.

I do disagree with you on ATL game, though. That was a very winnable game where the lack of turnovers and the lack of depth at DE hurt us more than the QB play did.

Personally, I think relying on the defense with its talent largely back and letting the offense just rest on its laurels, is indicative of a coach who doesn't know how to win. I still think Garrett is a play not to lose coach and it just frustrates me to no end. I don't think you'll find many Superbowls won by coaches with that mentality.

If anything, the coaches should be saying, we've got our defense largely back in tact. Now is when we can start taking some chances, go down the field, RUN A DAMN SCREEN, do something, anything that's creative and shows some life. The last thing I would want to ever hear as an offensive player (mind you I played defensive back), is the coach saying, "Let's just lean on the defense and keep playing tight to the vest so we don't make mistakes. We probably won't win, but we won't lose so bad." -- That's what kicking that FG to get to 20-6 said.

Im getting heated, I apologize. I honestly feel completely fooled by this coaching staff right now. I don't see any difference in Garrett than those 8-8 teams.

 

[texbumthelife]

Can anyone tell me why this team, with one of the best pass blocking lines in the NFL STILL doesn't run any double move routes? You want to create separation or penalties down the field, that is one of the best ways.

 

[Idgit]

Personally, I think relying on the defense with its talent largely back and letting the offense just rest on its laurels, is indicative of a coach who doesn't know how to win. I still think Garrett is a play not to lose coach and it just frustrates me to no end. I don't think you'll find many Superbowls won by coaches with that mentality.

If anything, the coaches should be saying, we've got our defense largely back in tact. Now is when we can start taking some chances, go down the field, RUN A DAMN SCREEN, do something, anything that's creative and shows some life. The last thing I would want to ever hear as an offensive player (mind you I played defensive back), is the coach saying, "Let's just lean on the defense and keep playing tight to the vest so we don't make mistakes. We probably won't win, but we won't lose so bad." -- That's what kicking that FG to get to 20-6 said.

Im getting heated, I apologize. I honestly feel completely fooled by this coaching staff right now. I don't see any difference in Garrett than those 8-8 teams.

I don't mind. It's just a nice philosophical chat. And we don't all have to agree.

Garrett's actually too conservative on offense for my liking, too. give me 1-2 trick plays per game. I think they add flavor and a bit of uncertainty to things.

He's shown he's not above being aggressive, but he's only going to do it when he's got a good team and the advantage. Otherwise, he likes to limit the variables to the point that, I agree, it's boring. But I know why he's doing it. The way they're working Michael in, for example, is completely boring. They have him slotted for short yardage back, and they want to give him a series or two, conditions permitting, in the second half. And for two weeks now, the conditions have not permitted. He's a firey player, though. who knows if giving him a carry or two might not bring some swagger to the offensive team sometime in that third quarter? The cost of giving him a couple of carries is not high, given how much we were struggling. It's frustrating to watch sometimes.