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

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

Well I wonder why Sturm and some of the posters do not see that Dallas is just trying to stay afloat until Romo's return. Had it not been for Dez playing cb, at least two giveaways would have probably put the game out of reach.
There is no coaching mess and Sturm knows it. That's why I do not respect anyone in the media. All they do is find a niche audience and pander to their sychophants. Truth is Giants have 1 less loss than we do. Ditto Philly (who we play sunday BTW) and Washington? Don't even get me started. People want to act as if Tony Romos grow on trees. So Dallas is in a bad space, so what we knew this when Tony went down (or did he?? If so wheres the mess? I'd say wherever he clocks in to work) The season may have ended when Tony went down, maybe not. But I see the way people respond to adversity as a telling trait much more than wins and losses and this Sturm guy who so many of you AHEM respect, leaves a lot to be desired. He doesn't have to be a cheerleader but he doen't have to be a shock jounalist either.
Calm down the Giants Eagles and Commanders have left the door wide open. Lot of football yet to be played. Anybody notice just how good our defense has become?? Or is noticing positives outlawed?????

 

[gmoney112]

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.

I do. But, conservative might be too lax an adjective for that game plan. They devised that plan out of fear and the game time decisions all point to that.

Unfortunately no one remembers how close you were, and after a 4 game skid you need to pick up a win, any way you can.

We had chances. We not only failed to take advantage, we didn't even try.

 

[Sydla]

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.

One, we actually weren't as effective running the ball as you think. If you subtract Cassel's runs, we were a rather pedestrian 3.2 yards per carry from the TBs. So no, you can't argue that we were running the ball well there and it made sense to just run into a stacked front seven that was crashing the run knowing what Garrett would do.

Two, why do you keep referring to this take the points angle to me or Dez plays. Again, I've never suggested we shouldn't have taken the points there and instead gone for it on 4th down. But I think a competent staff can find ways to try to get Dez mroe involved, even with a mediocre QB.

Three, you Dez/Sherman point highlights another failure on the coaching staff, as Aikman pointed out. Dez was having issues with Sherman but when Dez lined up early in the slot, Sherman didnt' cover him. But the staff never went back to that. They kept lining him up wide and Sherman was right there. A good staff adjusts.

Garrett and the offensive coaches laid a turd yesterday. But I understand some fans just simply take a real long time to come around to the fact that their head coach just really isn't that good.

 

[Alexander]

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

The moral of the story is that, by and large, the conservative approach is 0-4, the aggressive approach is 0-1.

The issue right now is that playing conservative is not putting points on the scoreboard and with the exception of the Atlanta game, this offense has not scored more than three TDs since Romo has been out.

 

[xwalker]

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.

No sure what type of math you're attempting.

They have lost all games with a backup QB including the game where they were aggressive and the games where they were conservative.

They've lost 2 with Cassel as the QB with one game being conservative and 1 game being aggressive.

They lost 13-12 against the Seahawks and had chances to win the game. If they had thrown INTs like they did in the Giant game, they would have had zero chance to win the game.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

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.

i know im responding a lot to you because i think you make nice counter arguments (even if i may not agree) and good discussion so please dont mistake this for me calling you out and trying to incite a flame war or attacking you. i have a lot of respect for your posts. just wanted to make that clear if needed.

that being said. if you want to play the percentages game we have lost all our games being safe.

 

[Sydla]

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.

You are absolutely right.

But you also expect the coaching staff to not be an added anchor to a team trying to squeeze out a win.

Again, don't confuse the whole notion of "aggressiveness" here. I am not suggesting we shuold have been winging it around like we have Aaron Rodgers back there.

But there were selective points during that game where they could have and should have been a bit more aggressive. And by that, I don't mean crazy down the field plays. By that I mean, maybe throw a slant or quick hitter on first or second down when the defense clearly is thinking run because they know exactly what a this conservative staff will do.

 

[CATCH17]

The moral of the story is that, by and large, the conservative approach is 0-4, the aggressive approach is 0-1.

The issue right now is that playing conservative is not putting points on the scoreboard and with the exception of the Atlanta game, this offense has not scored more than three TDs since Romo has been out.

I would rather go 0-5 and try to win than go 0-5 and play not to lose.


The thing is... We need a mixture of both but Garrett lives in extremes. He's either all in one way or all in another.


We have no situational awareness.

 

[xwalker]

They have also lost playing ultra conservative with both backups.

No doubt.

They kept the Seahawks game close and had chances to win it. If they had thrown INTs, they would have had Zero chance to win.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

The moral of the story is that, by and large, the conservative approach is 0-4, the aggressive approach is 0-1.

The issue right now is that playing conservative is not putting points on the scoreboard and with the exception of the Atlanta game, this offense has not scored more than three TDs since Romo has been out.

exactly! the argument for playing it safe has been found lacking. playing it safe is not working out what so ever. the proof is in the pudding as they say.

 

[Sydla]

Well I wonder why Sturm and some of the posters do not see that Dallas is just trying to stay afloat until Romo's return. Had it not been for Dez playing cb, at least two giveaways would have probably put the game out of reach.
There is no coaching mess and Sturm knows it. That's why I do not respect anyone in the media. All they do is find a niche audience and pander to their sychophants. Truth is Giants have 1 less loss than we do. Ditto Philly (who we play sunday BTW) and Washington? Don't even get me started. People want to act as if Tony Romos grow on trees. So Dallas is in a bad space, so what we knew this when Tony went down (or did he?? If so wheres the mess? I'd say wherever he clocks in to work) The season may have ended when Tony went down, maybe not. But I see the way people respond to adversity as a telling trait much more than wins and losses and this Sturm guy who so many of you AHEM respect, leaves a lot to be desired. He doesn't have to be a cheerleader but he doen't have to be a shock jounalist either.
Calm down the Giants Eagles and Commanders have left the door wide open. Lot of football yet to be played. Anybody notice just how good our defense has become?? Or is noticing positives outlawed?????

We all see that Dallas is trying to stay afloat. So that's a bizarre comment.

But the fact is, we are sinking. And we are sinking because we have poor QB play but, I know this is hard for some to take, we've been let down by coaching as well.

 

[Alexander]

No doubt.

They kept the Seahawks game close and had chances to win it. If they had thrown INTs, they would have had Zero chance to win.

And the idea Sturm even mentions is that there are situations that dictate conservative and situations that dictate aggressive. After the Hardy play, that would be a case of seizing the game by the throat and effectively ending it with a TD. Instead, they took about as passive a way out as they possibly could.

I understand playing things close to the vest to "give yourself a chance to win". But when you have an opportunity like that, why should that not beg for going for the decisive points? Were they really that intent on asking the defense to stop them for the remainder of the game, trailing by only a point?

 

[Deep_South]

No doubt.

They kept the Seahawks game close and had chances to win it. If they had thrown INTs, they would have had Zero chance to win.

That's true, but there are two sides to this coin. Had we thrown a TD pass, most likely we would have won the game.

 

[xwalker]

You are absolutely right.

But you also expect the coaching staff to not be an added anchor to a team trying to squeeze out a win.

Again, don't confuse the whole notion of "aggressiveness" here. I am not suggesting we shuold have been winging it around like we have Aaron Rodgers back there.

But there were selective points during that game where they could have and should have been a bit more aggressive. And by that, I don't mean crazy down the field plays. By that I mean, maybe throw a slant or quick hitter on first or second down when the defense clearly is thinking run because they know exactly what a this conservative staff will do.

They did run some slants. Cassel has to make the decision where the ball goes. The coaches can't do that for him.

The first pass attempt to Dez was on a slant but Cassel didn't lead him enough. If a receiver has to reach back for a slant then it's probably going to be incomplete. Weed struggled trying to throw slants also.

My only real complaint is that the Cowboys don't run enough pick plays.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't believe that we can rely on the idea of winning out once Tony comes back. I think we have to find a way to win some games in his absence or we are missing the playoffs. Of course, anything can happen and it's not impossible that Tony comes back without missing a beat and right on time. However, I suspect that the way this will work is that Tony comes back as soon as rules allow, regardless of how healthy he is. I honestly have no idea what Tony will be able to do once he returns. However, I think we are giving ourselves a very small window if we count on the fact that Tony can win out. To me, it really doesn't matter how we win some games. We have to win a few before Tony comes back. We have to take advantage of opportunities that we probably would never consider, and rightly so, if Tony were QBing this team. JMO

 

[Wolfpack]

I would rather go 0-5 and try to win than go 0-5 and play not to lose.


The thing is... We need a mixture of both but Garrett lives in extremes. He's either all in one way or all in another.


We have no situational awareness.

NONE. He decides what approach he wants the week before and thats it, no changing anything. No adjustments at all. Nothing unplanned. He takes risks when he doesn't need to and then plays cautious when he needed to roll the dice. Its like he is always a game (or a half) behind. Next week I am sure he will go for it on every single 4th down just to show the media that he gets it.

You could leave a cardboard image of him out there and it would provide as much field generalship..you would just to put a speaker on him to play the clapping sounds.

 

[Sydla]

They did run some slants. Cassel has to make the decision where the ball goes. The coaches can't do that for him.

The first pass attempt to Dez was on a slant but Cassel didn't lead him enough. If a receiver has to reach back for a slant then it's probably going to be incomplete. Weed struggled trying to throw slants also.

My only real complaint is that the Cowboys don't run enough pick plays.

So because of one failed slant pattern, they can't go back to it? And they didn't run as many slants as you think either.

This just gets back to the point. They coached scared yesterday. They just did. They are a mediocre offensive staff and it's not just this year, it's a full 5 years of evidence on Garrett. They dont seem adept at altering their game plan as a game unfolds. They don't seem to make strong adjustments consistently. As I said earlier, as an example, Aikman pointed out that if Dez went in the slot, Sherman wouldn't cover him. And yet, we stopped doing that it appears and watched as Dez tried to work against Sherman coming off a serious foot injury.

We'll probably do the same thing Sunday........ try to run at the Eagles front seven, hope to keep the game close and lose in nauseating fashion.

 

[xwalker]

And the idea Sturm even mentions is that there are situations that dictate conservative and situations that dictate aggressive. After the Hardy play, that would be a case of seizing the game by the throat and effectively ending it with a TD. Instead, they took about as passive a way out as they possibly could.

I understand playing things close to the vest to "give yourself a chance to win". But when you have an opportunity like that, why should that not beg for going for the decisive points? Were they really that intent on asking the defense to stop them for the remainder of the game, trailing by only a point?

They would go from being behind on the scoreboard to ahead on the score board with the field goal. Even if they score a TD there, it's still a 1 score game.

I think the defense had forced multiple punts by the Seahawks at that point in the game so expecting them to do it again does not seem out of the question.

I would have been fine with it if they went for it on 4th down but I don't think there is overwhelming evidence to say that they definitely should have done it.

It is fun for fans/media to have the movie tough guy mentality of "I would just go for it (while beating chest)".

 

[xwalker]

So because of one failed slant pattern, they can't go back to it? And they didn't run as many slants as you think either.

This just gets back to the point. They coached scared yesterday. They just did. They are a mediocre offensive staff and it's not just this year, it's a full 5 years of evidence on Garrett.

We'll probably do the same thing Sunday........ try to run at the Eagles front seven, hope to keep the game close and lose in nauseating fashion.

There is a good chance that Cassel is not accurate on slant patterns in practice.

 

[Idgit]

One, we actually weren't as effective running the ball as you think. If you subtract Cassel's runs, we were a rather pedestrian 3.2 yards per carry from the TBs. So no, you can't argue that we were running the ball well there and it made sense to just run into a stacked front seven that was crashing the run knowing what Garrett would do.

Two, why do you keep referring to this take the points angle to me or Dez plays. Again, I've never suggested we shouldn't have taken the points there and instead gone for it on 4th down. But I think a competent staff can find ways to try to get Dez mroe involved, even with a mediocre QB.

Three, you Dez/Sherman point highlights another failure on the coaching staff, as Aikman pointed out. Dez was having issues with Sherman but when Dez lined up early in the slot, Sherman didnt' cover him. But the staff never went back to that. They kept lining him up wide and Sherman was right there. A good staff adjusts.

Garrett and the offensive coaches laid a turd yesterday. But I understand some fans just simply take a real long time to come around to the fact that their head coach just really isn't that good.

One, I don't make a habit of subtracting runs and then concluding the running game was therefor less effective. But, really, we'd just run the ball twice, and had gotten 7 yards against that front the play before. Going for it with a run on 3rd and 2 is not at all crazy in that situation. Remember, the drive before was killed by Cassel missing on the bubble screen to Beasley and the check down to McFadden on 2nd and 3rd downs.

Two, I'm talking about not taking points off the board because what we're talking about in this thread is Sturm's article, and he's specifically suggesting we should have gone for it on 4th down:

So, if you find yourself in a spot in a game like this and you have a chance to either take the game by the horns or you can carefully run 3 plays and then kick a field goal to go up by 2 points with 14 minutes to play, I would respectfully beg you to roll the dice just a bit and try to get that 7 points. Then, maybe even go for 2 points. You simply owe it to yourself and to that locker-room to be bold and courageous and to dare to win the game.

Three, did they in fact not go back to that look? Are you sure? Or did they maybe try a different adjustment as a result, and you just don't know what it was because all you're doing is quoting something you heard Troy Aikman say on a telecast and then making an assumption off of that?

You can call them turds as much as you want, it doesn't make them turds. Yesterday's game was not lost on coaching decisions or on play calling. You're free to think that it was if that makes you feel better or worse or whatever it is you're aiming for. I don't really care. But if we're going to talk about the coaching, we can hopefully at least raise the level of the discourse.