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

[xwalker]

X I'm not going to say you're wrong but the very essence of Sturm's article is that in the situation we're in we have to take risks to make up for deficiencies so taking a chance in that position felt like the right thing to do.

It was a game that ended up at 13-12. If they missed out on 3 points by not making it on 4th down they basically guarantee themselves a loss.

If they were down by a full TD or more then I would say definitely go for it; however, I'm fairly certain that the probabilities would indicate playing it safe was the right call in this situation.

 

[Sydla]

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.

Totally disagree.

Again, no one is suggesting to get super aggressive with the ball in all these situations. But Garrett and Linehan were completely risk adverse yesterday in key spots. And it cost us a win. We ran the ball three straight times between the tackles late in the 4th against a Seattle defense that was selling out on the run. That's a time to work a pass in there. Not a bomb or anything crazy, but something to pick up a few yards and maybe get the Seahawks back on their heels just a bit.

But correctly, Seattle and their staff knew exactly what Garrett would do............ play as conservative as he always does. And it worked. Seattle gets a quick stop, and the rest is history.

Garrett is a miserably mediocre head coach.

 

[visionary]

Next "Landry"

 

[Sydla]

With Romo hurt, we don't have a QB who can win games for us. We can try every ratchet in the set, some of them more than once if we want to. None of them are going to fit.

The only way we win is play better football around the QB until Romo gets back. That means continue to play solid defense, and not give up big plays, turn the ball over, and blow ST coverages. It doesn't meant taking stupid low-percentage chances in the red zone.

People are losing their minds because of the losing streak, I think.

Why is trying to hit Witten on a seam pass or running a slant or rub play in the red zone low percentage?

People are losing their minds because while Cassel stinks, he and the team get no help from the coaching staff either.

 

[Howboutdemcowboys31]

The play calling has left a lot to be desired. With that said, I highly doubt we called a timeout to discuss a check down to mcfadden. Cassell made that choice that's on him. And if it was the only option then some of it has to go on the WR

 

[LocimusPrime]

Garrett listens to The Kenny G's greatest hits album on his to way to work, when ask if he wants mild, hot, or extreme hotsauce he chooses mild. He drinks a cup of green tea to get that "extra boost" during the day. He turns off Kung ** Panda cause its too violent. Hes not gonna take any risks.

 

[JohnsKey19]

Next "Landry"

The fedora just rolled over in its grave.

 

[Idgit]

Totally disagree.

Again, no one is suggesting to get super aggressive with the ball in all these situations. But Garrett and Linehan were completely risk adverse yesterday in key spots. And it cost us a win. We ran the ball three straight times between the tackles late in the 4th against a Seattle defense that was selling out on the run. That's a time to work a pass in there. Not a bomb or anything crazy, but something to pick up a few yards and maybe get the Seahawks back on their heels just a bit.

But correctly, Seattle and their staff knew exactly what Garrett would do............ play as conservative as he always does. And it worked. Seattle gets a quick stop, and the rest is history.

Garrett is a miserably mediocre head coach.

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.

 

[xwalker]

You still don't get it.we had lost 4 straight with a QB who can't sustain drives.when you have 4 the and short in the red zone you go for it hope to get a first down or even a TD.we are playing the game as if we are 4-2 instead of 2-4.

Coaches need to manage the game based on the best probability of winning that game, not on the season win/loss record.

When you've seen bad teams be very aggressive in the past it's normally in games they have almost no chance to win. This was not one of those games. It was a 13-12 final score which indicates the Cowboys kept if very close and were even ahead on the scoreboard at one point.

I would not have hated it if they went for it on 4th down but there is nothing to prove that kicking the field goal was the wrong decision. If they didn't make the 4th down in a game that ended up at 13-12, they basically guarantee themselves a loss with that one play.

Based on performances of each unit, making a decision to rely on the defense more than the offense was probably a much better decision from a probability perspective.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

I'm not one to claim I can read the mind of the writer but, from what I understand from a few sentences here and there, Sturm is questioning the coaching staff's ability to place the game in the hands of the players in key moments.

Players play. To win the game, Dallas needed two to three big plays from the offense when given the opportunity. The coaching staff selected to play it safe. The way the rest of the team played, I think the coaching staff owed it to them to take those two to three chances; it might have been the difference in the outcome.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

we would of won the last two games with Weeden.

Garret is making mistakes - he is listening to idiots.

 

[Philmonroe]

Nobody would say that X.

For God's sake, first play after the pick run a play action pass for a TE down the seam and lets at least try to win the game....if the play isn't there check down to a running back. Is that too much to ask? Garrett is an imbecile.

You giving people too much credit. There's a reason why dude said what he said because when you lose everybody crapping on the moves going by what "they" would've done even though most of us closest we've been to coaching is EA Sports lol. I just think we need better players at WR and QB because as we see last year the plays work we need better personnel.

 

[xwalker]

I would stick with Cassell and adjust some of my offenses philosophies that don't work.


Cassell is not the problem. He is proven in this league. You can win with him.


I don't want Garrett to have the excuse of a guy like Kellen Moore who has never played.

Just run picks plays until they get called for it and then keep doing it some more.

 

[CATCH17]

Why is trying to hit Witten on a seam pass or running a slant or rub play in the red zone low percentage?

People are losing their minds because while Cassel stinks, he and the team get no help from the coaching staff either.[/quote]


This.

 

[Sydla]

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.

First of all, I have not stated that he should have gone for it on 4th down. He was right in taking the FG there and taking the lead. That's not my issue.

You can write it off as thinking people are just disagreeing because it didn't work but in reality there are some pretty smart people here who understand football. And I know it's hard for some to grasp but sometimes, even if the play or a series of plays doesn't work (or does for that matter) it could actually be because the play calls were not very smart.

I said the moment they got the ball back in the 4th that they had to pass it at least once because Seattle was going to (correctly, mind you) sell out on the run. And what did Garrett do? He obliged Seattle there. That's an uber conservative coach at a key spot in the game. Seattle said, "I hope you run it 3 times right up the gut" and Garrett said, "You got it, guys! Here you go!". That 's just an obvious example of Garrett being way too conservative. As it always happens, when things get tight or uncomfortable for him, he panics and curls into a shell.

It's just the reality of the situation and it's a staple of Garrett's. Has been for 5 years.

This team will not beat Philly if Garrett again coaches scared. But I fear he will again.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

I remember all the Garrett fans on here a few years back. You couldn't criticize him without getting crucified by a few specific individuals, and those individuals seem to rarely post anymore. Interesting.

 

[Alexander]

X I'm not going to say you're wrong but the very essence of Sturm's article is that in the situation we're in we have to take risks to make up for deficiencies so taking a chance in that position felt like the right thing to do.

The Steelers stole a game with Vick when Haley decided to let him turn it loose. Sometimes you have to trust the players. Seems to me that is a problem with the staff right now with the QB, it does not matter if it is Weeden or Cassel.

 

[CATCH17]

Garrett listens to The Kenny G's greatest hits album on his to way to work, when ask if he wants mild, hot, or extreme hotsauce he chooses mild. He drinks a cup of green tea to get that "extra boost" during the day. He turns off Kung ** Panda cause its too violent. Hes not gonna take any risks.

I drink Green Tea as well

 

[Deep_South]

The problem with playing it safe is this is not lost on the opposing teams, who then mobilize their resources to stop your safe plays.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

He gets what fans want to hear. If he made a detailed analysis of why being more aggressive with a backup QB is not historically the best move, the fans would blast him.

those fans who would blast the idea of being aggressive now don't have any credible ammo on their side. we have seen what this team does when it plays safe, risk adverse offense. it looses every single time this season.