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

[Hoofbite]

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.

I don't think he's proven he can win. Winning with Bill B as your coach is the only acceptable outcome.

I guess he did have a good year with Todd Haley, but KC had a ridiculous running game. 6.4 YPC on 230 carries for Charles. Who's ever heard of that?

I guess he can win in the best of situations. Hard to be an NFL QB if you couldn't.

 

[xwalker]

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.

They had and aggressive offensive game plan in the Giants game and that ended with 3 INTs and a loss. They've lost all games when they tried to be aggressive with the backup QB.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

As usual, Sturm is right. Garrett has not coached well over these last five games. The evidence is not in any one play but in the aggregate result--a five-game losing streak, only the third such streak for this franchise over the past 20 years. And believe me, there have been some bad Cowboys teams over the past 20 years.

Teams with far less talent than the Cowboys have right now have managed to win games over this six weeks stretch.

 

[Sydla]

They had and aggressive offensive game plan in the Giants game and that ended with 3 INTs and a loss. They've lost all games when they tried to be aggressive with the backup QB.

There's a middle area here.

OK, so Cassel threw three bad picks as you tried to air it out. We all get that.

But that also doesn't mean you curl up like a little baby in the corner and do the exact opposite the next game.

Garrett and Linehan dropped the ball yesterday. They just did.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

They had and aggressive offensive game plan in the Giants game and that ended with 3 INTs and a loss. They've lost all games when they tried to be aggressive with the backup QB.

they've won 2 games being aggressive. no games being safe. thats the point. safe doesnt work at all no matter how you shake it. we at least scored 2 TDs in the Giants game being aggressive.

 

[xwalker]

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.

The Seahawks only scored 13 points and only beat the Cowboys and their backup QB by 1 point.

If the Cowboys with Romo and Dez fully healthy had won a 13-12 game against a team with a backup QB and a losing record, the Cowboys fans would say that it should never have been that close and the they should never have given the team with a backup QB a chance to win.

 

[gmoney112]

Hard to argue with any of that. They played the game as if Cassel throwing more than 10 yards was just going to be an automatic TO.

I understand being conservative, but you absolutely have to try and get in the end zone when you're handed the ball on the Seahawks 20 on a gift.

You also need to find a way, any way, to get first downs after you get the ball back. I was pretty amazed we ran the ball 3 straight times against this defense.

Yeah, Cassel isn't very good but when you've lost 5 straight and 4 were winnable ballgames, the coaching staff deserves criticism. Why was he flinging it around the field in NY, when we knew TO's were the only way we're losing that game, but he can't throw anything but a dump off when in Seattle's red zone? Yeah you can put a lot of it on Matt, but if the coaches emphasized taking a smart shot he'd do it.

You can argue for conservative playcalling, and against a team like the Giants, we probably win. If you had to plan for this Seattle team though, with a backup QB and our defense that's improving but not quite there, would you assume 12 points would win this game? Because that's exactly how we played it.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

There's a middle area here.

OK, so Cassel threw three bad picks as you tried to air it out. We all get that.

But that also doesn't mean you curl up like a little baby in the corner and do the exact opposite the next game.

Garrett and Linehan dropped the ball yesterday. They just did.

exactly. how the hale do they not see that reverting back to a Weeden offense is NOT WORKING?

geeez these guys man. they are suppose to be professionals and smarter than us but they think Weeden pu*sy offense is going to get it done? come on.

 

[xwalker]

There's a middle area here.

OK, so Cassel threw three bad picks as you tried to air it out. We all get that.

But that also doesn't mean you curl up like a little baby in the corner and do the exact opposite the next game.

Garrett and Linehan dropped the ball yesterday. They just did.

They lost 13-12 with a backup QB and Dez limited against a team with a really good defense. If the coaches were off it was not by much.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

In the Chat yesterday, I said that I felt like we made a mistake by not going for it on 4th and one in the first quarter. We are struggling to put drives together and score TDs. I think you have to take risk against a good team in our situation. Every team knows that we can't or won't throw the ball down field. It's not going to get easier for us. At that point in the game, we were working them in the run game. I think you take that chance to get 7. I agree with Sturm here.

 

[xwalker]

Hard to argue with any of that. They played the game as if Cassel throwing more than 10 yards was just going to be an automatic TO.

I understand being conservative, but you absolutely have to try and get in the end zone when you're handed the ball on the Seahawks 20 on a gift.

You also need to find a way, any way, to get first downs after you get the ball back. I was pretty amazed we ran the ball 3 straight times against this defense.

Yeah, Cassel isn't very good but when you've lost 5 straight and 4 were winnable ballgames, the coaching staff deserves criticism. Why was he flinging it around the field in NY, when we knew TO's were the only way we're losing that game, but he can't throw anything but a dump off when in Seattle's red zone? Yeah you can put a lot of it on Matt, but if the coaches emphasized taking a smart shot he'd do it.

You can argue for conservative playcalling, and against a team like the Giants, we probably win. If you had to plan for this Seattle team though, with a backup QB and our defense that's improving but not quite there, would you assume 12 points would win this game? Because that's exactly how we played it.

I would fault the coaches much more for letting Cassel be too aggressive against the Giants than I would for them being conservative against the Seahawks.

 

[Wolfpack]

They had and aggressive offensive game plan in the Giants game and that ended with 3 INTs and a loss. They've lost all games when they tried to be aggressive with the backup QB.

They've lost all of their games with a backup QB period. The coaching a prime reason for that.

 

[Idgit]

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.

Play calling criticism all depends on the game situation and the call. I'm happy to talk specifics. And while, yes there are some very smart posters on the board, many of them aren't criticizing the play calling. Those that do, have very specific examples.

It's also the case that there are multiple bad or questionable play calls in every game. You get ~65 chances. Not all of them are going to be right. The question is whether or not so many of them are wrong that play calling is an actual liability, or are fans just second guessing? So much of the time, it's just second guessing.

On the series you're talking about, it's not like we weren't effective rushing the ball. We have the OL and we have the mindset that we're going to win games by controlling the line of scrimmage. People love it when it works. When it doesn't, it's immediately the coach playing scared. To be clear, it's immediately the HC who's playing scared and not the guy who's actually calling the plays. I'm sorry, but that's pretty convenient. How 'bout we ride those 4 virtual first round picks who are the strength of our team to a first down every now and then? How 'bout we roll the dice that they can get it done on 3rd and 2 once in a while, when we need it, and we don't trust our QB to throw a proper bubble screen in a pinch because he apparently can't throw a proper bubble screen in a pinch?

Everybody's lobbying to see Dez Bryant defend Richard Sherman some more. As if Linehan were just too stupid to see how great that looked. Anything less is coaching scared, I tell you.

Give me a break. Take the points, trust the defense. Because your offensive team isn't good enough right now to beat the Seahawks in a jump ball contest and you've got a QB who gave up last week's game throwing into double coverage on first down on one series and blowing a wide open WR in the end zone by trying to pass off a wounded duck instead of an actual pass. But, you know, he hadn't played a meaningful game in 13 months at that point, so he's ready to go this week in the red zone agains the Seahawks when everybody's covered. Gah.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

They lost 13-12 with a backup QB and Dez limited against a team with a really good defense. If the coaches were off it was not by much.

thats a fair point. however your offense cant score 1 measly TD? not 1? so i guess we play it safe and score field goals or play it aggressive score some TDs and loose by pick sixes or turnovers?

we have 3 games being aggressive. 4 games playing it safe. 1 game being aggressive with a back up QB. 4 games playing it safe with a back up QB.

 

[Sydla]

They lost 13-12 with a backup QB and Dez limited against a team with a really good defense. If the coaches were off it was not by much.

Your first two words are the most important.

They lost.

You argument at this point is basically a moral victory argument at this point. Hey guys, we lost to a good team by only one point without our QB!

But keep defending Garrett. I am quite confident that a few years from now when we look back at this time and Garrett's overall body of work, you'll realize how wrong you were.

 

[Alexander]

They've lost all games when they tried to be aggressive with the backup QB.

They have also lost playing ultra conservative with both backups.

 

[Zman5]

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.

Unnecessary risks? The whole point of this article was that some risks were necessary because we were the underdogs.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

They had and aggressive offensive game plan in the Giants game and that ended with 3 INTs and a loss. They've lost all games when they tried to be aggressive with the backup QB.

we have 3 games being aggressive. 4 games playing it safe. 1 game being aggressive with a back up QB. 4 games playing it safe with a back up QB.

they've lost all games playing it safe. it doesnt work anymore.

 

[xwalker]

Your first two words are the most important.

They lost.

You argument at this point is basically a moral victory argument at this point. Hey guys, we lost to a good team by only one point without our QB!

But keep defending Garrett. I am quite confident that a few years from now when we look back at this time and Garrett's overall body of work, you'll realize how wrong you were.

No, I'm not referring to a moral victory. I'm referring to playing the percentages. The general percentages indicate that you are likely to lose when you have a scrub backup QB playing. After that the probability of losing is the highest when the backup QB is aggressive and has turnovers.

They had to make the decision to be conservative before the game when a moral victory is impossible. After the game the decision was already made and has nothing to do with a moral victory.

 

[CATCH17]

If you go back to Weeden then drop the conservative approach and spread teams out and run something similar to what WEeden did in College.


WE are more than capable of going 4 and 5 wide.

Forget about passing under center and just do everything from the gun.

Run from the gun and pass from the gun.

Something has to change and this run run short pass punt has to go.