Sturm's Morning After: Cowboys have a coaching mess; Garrett ignores reality of the underdog

[xwalker]

Fans always want the problem to be coaching, because they believe coaching is easy to fix. Just bring in some genius and all of the problems will be solved. It's much more difficult to face the reality that your season hinges on your QB, and they are REALLY hard to find.

If it's always about scheme or philosophy it's easy to fix - just make and adjustment, yell more, go for it on fourth down. But if it's about not having guys who are good enough then you are kind of screwed. Right now, at QB we are not good enough. This is life without a top 5 QB. The team plays its collective *** off and loses anyway.

Right now we're at an extreme deficit at the most important position on the field. No scheme will fix that, no adjustment will cure the problem. But the team keeps competing with the guys we can field, and I haven't seen any hint of them giving up in spite of the fact that our QB is on the sidelines and the guys we have to replace him are, relatively speaking, scrubs.

Wow. Awesome post.

 

[Idgit]

No posts from you where you directly blame JG for anything bad or say anything negative about him.

Ok. Well, support that, or let's just stop the conversation. I can't debate it if you won't support it.

But for argument's sake, I'll say again what I've said at various points throughout the offseason and here during the early part of the season. Not improving the QB2 spot was a bigger mistake then not addressing the RB position. And Garrett and the team have not addressed the ST coverage teams after 8 weeks here, and it's killing us. Both in terms of blocking on punt returns and covering on both kickoffs and punt returns.

Also, throwing the ball agressively downfield with Matt Cassel against the Giants last week was a tactical mistake that probably cost us that football game. I say 'probably' there, because we also gave up the ST score, and that also costs teams football games.

Also, the OL that was supposed to be the strength of the team was not prepared for the start of the season. Some of that was injury, but not all of it.

 

[Frosty]

Just because they didn't say it then, doesn't mean it's not why we're losing games now. Look at the offense v. that SEA defense and tell me where the plays are to be made with the QB we had on the field. I wasn't seeing a lot of open receivers getting looks or dropping passes. The few downfield looks we got were underthrown fairly significantly. And when we needed a play in the passing game at the end of the day, there were none to be made.

Just don't understand the flip flopping going on.....everyone claimed this team was Super Bowl bound, Garrett built this team from the ground up.....and NOW everyone is saying the Cowboys are just not talented enough to WIN one FREAKING GAME without Romo....... something is wrong someplace....and 2-5 points a big finger at the STAFF

 

[Idgit]

Just don't understand the flip flopping going on.....everyone claimed this team was Super Bowl bound, Garrett built this team from the ground up.....and NOW everyone is saying the Cowboys are just not talented enough to WIN one FREAKING GAME without Romo....... something is wrong someplace....and 2-5 points a big finger at the STAFF

I don't see any flip flopping. The offense, last week, against the SEA defense was clearly not good enough to score many points with a limited QB and with the players we had on the field. It's one side of the team, one game, one specific circumstance, and with one of the best QBs in the game on the bench.

I still think we've got one of the better rosters in the NFC, overall, with our QB in there. But that's not what we're talking about. And even this summer, people readily acknowledged Tony Romo was the one player we couldn't afford to lose. They were right.

 

[JDSmith]

And even this summer, people readily acknowledged Tony Romo was the one player we couldn't afford to lose. They were right.

And when pressed to name one player we couldn't afford to lose anyone who didn't say Romo said Dez.

 

[Philmonroe]

Fans always want the problem to be coaching, because they believe coaching is easy to fix. Just bring in some genius and all of the problems will be solved. It's much more difficult to face the reality that your season hinges on your QB, and they are REALLY hard to find.

If it's always about scheme or philosophy it's easy to fix - just make and adjustment, yell more, go for it on fourth down. But if it's about not having guys who are good enough then you are kind of screwed. Right now, at QB we are not good enough. This is life without a top 5 QB. The team plays its collective *** off and loses anyway.

Right now we're at an extreme deficit at the most important position on the field. No scheme will fix that, no adjustment will cure the problem. But the team keeps competing with the guys we can field, and I haven't seen any hint of them giving up in spite of the fact that our QB is on the sidelines and the guys we have to replace him are, relatively speaking, scrubs.

Yeah this is true but with the not winning since September people not trying to hear much of nothing unless it assigns blame to somebody and or bring out their old,talking points from before last year. That's what its come to because I'd bet 2 dollars if we somehow win a game or two this board would have a way different tone to it than the constant back and for thing between members. That's what losing streaks will do to you and the fan base.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Unfortunately, Garrett is a dud just like Jerry Jones the GM has been a dud in the past twenty years.

How many times has the team made the playoffs in the past twenty years? I believe it is five or six times. That's about 20%. I believe Garrett has also made the playoffs one time in the past five years of his coaching tenure. That is also 20%.

 

[punchnjudy]

I do think that if you're stuck with a backup QB for a seven game stretch, you have to do two things: already have a QB who's capable of having putting up game winning numbers and accepting the fact that he'll probably suck roughly 40%-60% of the time and you'll likely lose those games. I don't think there's an approach that nets you a high likelihood of winning any particular game, but that approach will get you a few wins over a 7 game stretch if the team's any good.

If a guy is a backup, he probably sucks, but there are guys who are too limited to ever put up game winning numbers (the consistent suckers...those guys shouldn't be in the league unless they're young), and there are guys who are boom/bust types that will win you a game here and there. Remember how Quincy would look like a jv QB one week and then randomly put up good numbers? That's how they managed to win some games under his tenure. Cassel, even as recent as 2013, was a guy who could put up good numbers one week, and scare the crap out of all his fans the next week, but that's ok if you're just trying to play .400-.500 ball to stay alive. That guy might not exist anymore, but I think that's the best way to pick up a few wins during a long stretch because a good team should win when the QB is productive and has good stats. That year he managed to win 3 out of his 6 starts and a 4th game where he had 33 attempts for 240 yards, and it was an almost even mix of quality and crappy performances.

If that guy doesn't exist anymore, then there's nothing Dallas can do, but I do think you need a guy who's capable of putting up strong numbers, just incapable of doing it all the time (or else he'd be a starter), and you basically just have to leave him to it.

 

[texbumthelife]

Ok. Well, support that, or let's just stop the conversation. I can't debate it if you won't support it.

But for argument's sake, I'll say again what I've said at various points throughout the offseason and here during the early part of the season. Not improving the QB2 spot was a bigger mistake then not addressing the RB position. And Garrett and the team have not addressed the ST coverage teams after 8 weeks here, and it's killing us. Both in terms of blocking on punt returns and covering on both kickoffs and punt returns.

Also, throwing the ball agressively downfield with Matt Cassel against the Giants last week was a tactical mistake that probably cost us that football game. I say 'probably' there, because we also gave up the ST score, and that also costs teams football games.

Also, the OL that was supposed to be the strength of the team was not prepared for the start of the season. Some of that was injury, but not all of it.

A significant amount of the blame for the issues you just stated lies with Garret. How do you reconcile that?

Also, how do you and X reconcile the fact that other teams are winning all over the league with back-up QB's regularly, yet this team is on a 5 game skid.

My biggest issue isn't as much the five losses in a row, it is how they have transpired. This team has been flat-out out-coached for weeks in a row. I agree, you need to limit mistakes with a backup QB in there, but you have to have the ability as a coaching staff to adapt to a changing atmosphere IN GAME. When the other team starts to figure you out and you stop being able to move the ball, something has to change. You can't rest on your laurels. Thats not coaching.

I am generally with you and especially X on almost everything, but I can't side with anyone absolving Garret of a great deal of responsibility in the uneven, spotty and mistake riddled mess of a team. Furthermore, these are issues that have plagued this team for years. They had Garrett on the hot seat after three 8-8 seasons. A 12-4 season doesn't erase that.

Is it all on Garrett? Absolutely not. There is a great deal of blame to go around coupled with the injuries. Garrett's inability to adapt and/or make decisions under pressure has handcuffed this team far more than the QB position in my opinion.

 

[texbumthelife]

I do think that if you're stuck with a backup QB for a seven game stretch, you have to do two things: already have a QB who's capable of having putting up game winning numbers and accepting the fact that he'll probably suck roughly 40%-60% of the time and you'll likely lose those games. I don't think there's an approach that nets you a high likelihood of winning any particular game, but that approach will get you a few wins over a 7 game stretch if the team's any good.

If a guy is a backup, he probably sucks, but there are guys who are too limited to ever put up game winning numbers (the consistent suckers...those guys shouldn't be in the league unless they're young), and there are guys who are boom/bust types that will win you a game here and there. Remember how Quincy would look like a jv QB one week and then randomly put up good numbers? That's how they managed to win some games under his tenure. Cassel, even as recent as 2013, was a guy who could put up good numbers one week, and scare the crap out of all his fans the next week, but that's ok if you're just trying to play .400-.500 ball to stay alive. That guy might not exist anymore, but I think that's the best way to pick up a few wins during a long stretch because a good team should win when the QB is productive and has good stats. That year he managed to win 3 out of his 6 starts and a 4th game where he had 33 attempts for 240 yards, and it was an almost even mix of quality and crappy performances.

If that guy doesn't exist anymore, then there's nothing Dallas can do, but I do think you need a guy who's capable of putting up strong numbers, just incapable of doing it all the time (or else he'd be a starter), and you basically just have to leave him to it.

Five winnable games in a row. Not five blow outs. Not five lopsided games. Five game we could have, and three we should have won. That with two different quarterbacks. Two different starting running backs. Two different starting LG's. One with an all-world WR. The common denominator isn't the players. Cassel has won games in this league. The common denominator is the system and the men behind the headsets.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

The coaches are always wrong when they don't win regardless of the probabilities involved.

If they had gone for it and didn't make it, the same people saying they should have gone for it would be saying it was the wrong call to go for it.

I don't buy that. In the state the Cowboys are in Garrett would earn more respect from fans and peers showing he has some stones rather than just a fancy degree. His smarts hasn't won a single game in his career yet, number 9 from no whereville has carried the HC.
Every one understands the risk in 4th and what ever. Go down swinging.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Five winnable games in a row. Not five blow outs. Not five lopsided games. Five game we could have, and three we should have won. That with two different quarterbacks. Two different starting running backs. Two different starting LG's. One with an all-world WR. The common denominator isn't the players. Cassel has won games in this league. The common denominator is the system and the men behind the headsets.

The common denominator is, other than the Patriot game, a break here and there and the Boys could have won all of these games since Tony went down. It's not like they are getting blown out.

 

[Idgit]

A significant amount of the blame for the issues you just stated lies with Garret. How do you reconcile that?

I don't reconcile it. I consider it all his responsibility. I just don't know how to say that in a way that anybody actually believes me, apparently.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Yeah, I thoroughly disagree with this. Taking unnecessary risks with Matt Cassel against the SEA secondary when they're compressed in the red zone is a bad bet. The fact that the Cowboys were underdogs is irrelevant. The only question is, 'do you have a play that you can convert with?' If you've got one, call it. If you don't, you take the fg. In this case, it's Sturm who doesn't fully understand what the underdog role required yesterday. And he should, since he saw what the downfield risk taking got us just last week against a much lesser secondary.

One more defensive stop wins that game. If you're betting the outcome on one of the two units we fielded yesterday, who you putting it all on? I'm saying 'defense,' with some enthusiasm on this one.

At what point do you say screw the odds and just open things up? 2-7? 2-8? He's coaching not to lose and it aint workin. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see him down the road.

 

[texbumthelife]

The common denominator is, other than the Patriot game, a break here and there and the Boys could have won all of these games since Tony went down. It's not like they are getting blown out.

And clock management. And gameday adjustments. If you have a coach who relies on breaks to win, you're going to lose. Period.

 

[texbumthelife]

I don't reconcile it. I consider it all his responsibility. I just don't know how to say that in a way that anybody actually believes me, apparently.

My bad. I guess I misread. I admittedly, didn't read the whole thread. Haha

 

[texbumthelife]

At what point do you say screw the odds and just open things up? 2-7? 2-8? He's coaching not to lose and it aint workin. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see him down the road.

Apparently to some folks the fact that we have been close is good enough.

 

[Idgit]

My bad. I guess I misread. I admittedly, didn't read the whole thread. Haha

Fair enough.

 

[xwalker]

I don't buy that. In the state the Cowboys are in Garrett would earn more respect from fans and peers showing he has some stones rather than just a fancy degree. His smarts hasn't won a single game in his career yet, number 9 from no whereville has carried the HC.
Every one understands the risk in 4th and what ever. Go down swinging.

About 99% of fans have no clue about anything.

Garrett's education is over-referenced. He got and English degree from Princeton. An engineering degree from Texas would be 1000x more difficult.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I'm ok completely disagreeing with you on this. It's more of the same as far as I'm concerned: if the play didn't work, then it was a bad call. If it works, it's a brilliant one. That's just not how I evaluate play calling. I'm ok with running the ball on 3rd and 2 with our OL against their DL if we think we've got a play we can win with. I'd be ok throwing it to Witten, too, but it's not like I was seeing a lot of open receivers downfield yesterday. Sure, with Romo I'm ok having him give Dez a jump ball or three. Or trusting that he can read his BFF's mind and get the ball where it needs to be. I haven't seen anything from Cassel that makes me want to take that chance when the alternative is putting points on the board that will give our defense the lead again.

Garrett *did* play it really conservative yesterday, at home, vrs. the two-time NFC champs, with his backup QB, and a defense that was corralling their offense the entire day. Forcing the ball into that secondary on the compressed side of the field on the arm of Matt Cassel would not be the decision of a great football coach. It would have gotten us picked, or nothing. Then you'd all be complaining about the mediocrity of that since you essentially get to have it both ways after a loss.

That doesn't change the fact that there's a dumb way and a smart way to handle that situation yesterday with that down/distance/game situation. You take the points, take the lead, and rely on your defense.

Seattle isn't playing like two time champs. They really stink just like we do.