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

[ABQCOWBOY]

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)".

I think that in that specific situation, you look at where we were and what we had to do to have the opportunity to score. The 4th and 1 (the specific situation I am talking about) was really a run play IMO. It's the strength of our offense and it's at a point in the game where I felt like our OL had their front 7 on their heels a little bit. I think that was the best opportunity of the day for us to score a TD. I don't think it's necessarily a case of beating the chest, so to speak. I think it's looking at the odds of being successful there while weighing our teams Offensive capabilities. JMO

 

[Sydla]

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

Good chance? I doubt that.

It's just one excuse after another for Garrett......... all the while we keep losing games. But I get it. It's everyone else's fault but his. QB stinks. WR is hurt. OL had some injuries. Turf was too warm and our cleats were sticking to it. Jones went cheap on the team dinner the night before and it gave Garrett and Linehan gas.

Honest question. At what point is it OK to actually judge Garrett? Because it seems, for the most part, that you take the position that it's just misguided to question him and his offensive staff at this point.

 

[xwalker]

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.

Thanks.

I don't have a problem with people having a strong disagreement with me. It would be no fun if everybody agreed.

It is nice when disagreements can be civilized.

 

[Idgit]

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

Yeah. And I disagree with that point. They weren't necessary, and they would have been foolish risks under the circumstances. And being underdogs have nothing to do with anything.

 

[xwalker]

I think that in that specific situation, you look at where we were and what we had to do to have the opportunity to score. The 4th and 1 (the specific situation I am talking about) was really a run play IMO. It's the strength of our offense and it's at a point in the game where I felt like our OL had their front 7 on their heels a little bit. I think that was the best opportunity of the day for us to score a TD. I don't think it's necessarily a case of beating the chest, so to speak. I think it's looking at the odds of being successful there while weighing our teams Offensive capabilities. JMO

Like I said, I didn't have a problem with them going for it, but I don't think there were overwhelming reasons on either side of the argument. There were downsides to either side of the decision. If they don't make, then they lose the chance to take the lead and basically lose the game on that one play.

It's similar to games that end in a tie where the team that scored last could have gone for the 2 point conversion but instead kicked an extra point for the tie. Most coaches go for the tie in that situation because historical data indicates that it's the best probability of winning.

I think the conversion rate on 4th down is fairly low, especially when it is not just a few inches.

 

[Sydla]

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:



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.

And you're free to continue to make excuses after excuses for the coaching staff.

Maybe you should look at more than just the boxscore. To say we were successful running the ball yesterday is a bizarre, and frankly, inaccurate comment.

 

[Everson24]

That's pretty interesting coming from Sturm who I really respect. Not only that but it's the kind of thing that probably makes its way back to Garrett.

I'm with Floaty at this point. Bring in Kellen Moore and let him sling it around. He gets a free pass from me (and several thousand others) on INT's and mistakes.

Just throw the ball around and try and make plays - that's all anybody asks at this point.

Almost any quarterbackis going to look bad in Garrett's offensive system. It is antiquated and still uses the same principals as the old Sid Gillman/Don Coryell scheme. That worked great in the 70's 80's and 90's when you had a great QB,offensive line and big fast receiving threats. Not so now. There are just too many good defenders on the field to limit your routes to vertical routes outside the numbers. Kellen Moore would look far worse in this system I can promise you that.

 

[NEODOG]

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.

Sorry..... Different play calling, along with scheme wins us 3 games

It's not rocket science..... I've seen better schemes in 3rd grade football

That is plainly on coaching.... We don't have #9 back there to make their lack of mental fortitude up

 

[Idgit]

And you're free to continue to make excuses after excuses for the coaching staff.

I know what Sturm said, but you're not responding to Sturm. You are responding to me, and a few times I've said that you take the FG there. But for some odd reason you keep throwing it into responses to me as if I keep saying it. I guess you think it strengthens your argument at this point.

Your condescending "raising the level of discourse" is both funny and bizarre. For example, claiming the running game was really working yesterday when in fact, it actually wasn't and was bouyed by some scramble runs by the QB is actually raising the level of discourse. It's critical analysis of a comment you made. It goes beyond the box score numbers and looks at what really was going on.

Unfortunately, evidence is more on the side of those that say this is just not a great coaching staff who while they have been hindered by some bad backup QBs, have done nothing to overcome that like I suspect truly good coaching staffs would.

I'm responding to you on the topic of Sturm's article. If you're not contesting that we shouldn't have gone for 7, then you probably should leave this particular topic where it is. It's not like we won't have a complain-about-Jason-Garrett thread anywhere else this week.

I'm sorry if you don't agree that we ought to be trying to have better quality conversations about the play calling around here. I'm not trying to condescend necessarily. I just get really really tired of saying a play should have been called a pass for no other reason than the run did not work.

Obviously, I completely disagree with you re: evidence of this being a bad coaching staff. When you see some actual evidence this week, why don't you tag me in the post @Idigt, and I'll come take a look. That said, I've pointed out myself areas where I'd be critical of the staff this season. That stuff gets ignored, of course, because it's easier to say I'm making excuses than it is to grant that not every problem on a football team is a play calling issue, but that's ok. This is what happens during every losing streak on a message board. It's blame the QB, blame the coaches, blame the owner. The reality, though, is that it's usually a compound problem that's requires more than one adjustment to get sorted out, assuming you've got the personnel to get it sorted.

 

[Idgit]

Sorry..... Different play calling, along with scheme wins us 3 games

It's not rocket science..... I've seen better schemes in 3rd grade football

That is plainly on coaching.... We don't have #9 back there to make their lack of mental fortitude up

You don't have to be sorry, dude. You're perfectly welcome to be wrong on the internet. You're hardly the only one who feels that way.

I should also probably point out that it's very unlikely that you've seen better schemes in 3rd grade football. I know you're saying that for dramatic effect, but it just sort of makes everything else you post here seem less likely to be very accurate.

 

[DandyDon1722]

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.

My question is did we run ANY pick plays? I'm being serious when I say I don't even know if it's in our playbook because of all the throws we ask the QB's to make - that's the easiest and most effective.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Like I said, I didn't have a problem with them going for it, but I don't think there were overwhelming reasons on either side of the argument. There were downsides to either side of the decision. If they don't make, then they lose the chance to take the lead and basically lose the game on that one play.

It's similar to games that end in a tie where the team that scored last could have gone for the 2 point conversion but instead kicked an extra point for the tie. Most coaches go for the tie in that situation because historical data indicates that it's the best probability of winning.

I think the conversion rate on 4th down is fairly low, especially when it is not just a few inches.

I don't think you can say that they lose the game on that one play. I think any number of outcomes are possible there but I do think that it's clear we are struggling to score TDs from anywhere on the field. A TD there doesn't guarantee a win either. We are not good enough to stay in a close game with a team like Seattle IMO. Really, with just about any team in the NFL. I know that you said you don't have a problem with it either way. I just think we are only going to see a few opportunities like that while Tony is gone. I think you have to take those in a situation like that and live with the results. I believe that if you can't make a yard, then you probably aren't going to be real successful putting up 7 in any situation.

 

[Sydla]

Of course it is a compound problem. I've said that numerous times over this entire losing streak. Cassel isn't some HoF QB that is being held back by Garrett and this staff.

Cassel stunk yesterday but the team wasn't helped either by the offensive coaching or the game plan. It's bizarre that people are trying to argue that Garrett and company apparently did an adequate job.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Almost any quarterbackis going to look bad in Garrett's offensive system. It is antiquated and still uses the same principals as the old Sid Gillman/Don Coryell scheme. That worked great in the 70's 80's and 90's when you had a great QB,offensive line and big fast receiving threats. Not so now. There are just too many good defenders on the field to limit your routes to vertical routes outside the numbers. Kellen Moore would look far worse in this system I can promise you that.

Deep down - I know man.

I'm on the Titanic grasping for a life jacket when the freezing water is going to get me anyhow.

 

[xwalker]

Good chance? I doubt that.

It's just one excuse after another for Garrett......... all the while we keep losing games. But I get it. It's everyone else's fault but his. QB stinks. WR is hurt. OL had some injuries. Turf was too warm and our cleats were sticking to it. Jones went cheap on the team dinner the night before and it gave Garrett and Linehan gas.

Honest question. At what point is it OK to actually judge Garrett? Because it seems, for the most part, that you take the position that it's just misguided to question him and his offensive staff at this point.

You and most fans judge Garrett vs Perfection instead of Garrett vs other realistic options at HC for the Cowboys.

Fans forget that even the best coaches are far from perfect. Belichick is so good that despite having an All-Pro QB, he still has to cheat. I don't even know who is the #2 rated HC but they all have warts. Sean Payton has had his share questionable decision over the years and has had personal problems of some sort. Harbaugh was good for awhile in SF but seemed to burn out players and ownership. Pete Carroll has been doing well but was a huge failure in his 1st NFL HC job when he had less talent. He was also on board with signing Matt Flynn to a 10M per contract when they got lucky and found Wilson.

You and most emotional fans probably won't admit it, but Garrett is much better than Wade Phillips as a HC. Wade ruined the team mentality with his complete lack of discipline and overall ineptness as a Head Coach.

In reality Garrett is probably middle of the pack of NFL Head Coaches.

 

[TheCount]

That is exactly the kind of move a risk-adverse coach like Garrett would never do.

All NFL coaches are, by nature, risk adverse. There wouldn't be many coaches in the NFL that would look past Weeden, past Cassel and wave Moore into a game.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Moore is a developmental QB prospect IMO. There is no way that anybody can expect a QB with as little experience as Moore has, to come in and play better then Cassel or Weedon. Could it happen? Sure, anything can happen but I don't think the chances are very good that it would. JMO

 

[xwalker]

I don't think you can say that they lose the game on that one play. I think any number of outcomes are possible there but I do think that it's clear we are struggling to score TDs from anywhere on the field. A TD there doesn't guarantee a win either. We are not good enough to stay in a close game with a team like Seattle IMO. Really, with just about any team in the NFL. I know that you said you don't have a problem with it either way. I just think we are only going to see a few opportunities like that while Tony is gone. I think you have to take those in a situation like that and live with the results. I believe that if you can't make a yard, then you probably aren't going to be real successful putting up 7 in any situation.

NFL teams have access to advanced metrics and have expert consultants in that area. I know for certain that the Cowboys invest significantly in that area.

I'm fairly certain that probabilities from that data would indicate that not going for it in a close game gives the higher probability of winning.

I realize that as a fan it's easy to envision them making the 4th down conversion because after all it's just 1 stinking yard; however, IIRC, it's about a 20% change of making it on 4th and 1 and being inside the Red Zone probably lowers that probability even more.

 

[Sydla]

You and most fans judge Garrett vs Perfection instead of Garrett vs other realistic options at HC for the Cowboys.

Fans forget that even the best coaches are far from perfect. Belichick is so good that despite having an All-Pro QB, he still has to cheat. I don't even know who is the #2 rated HC but they all have warts. Sean Payton has had his share questionable decision over the years and has had personal problems of some sort. Harbaugh was good for awhile in SF but seemed to burn out players and ownership. Pete Carroll has been doing well but was a huge failure in his 1st NFL HC job when he had less talent. He was also on board with signing Matt Flynn to a 10M per contract when they got lucky and found Wilson.

You and most emotional fans probably won't admit it, but Garrett is much better than Wade Phillips as a HC. Wade ruined the team mentality with his complete lack of discipline and overall ineptness as a Head Coach.

In reality Garrett is probably middle of the pack of NFL Head Coaches.

Actually I don't. It's really a simple question. Is Garrett good enough to win a SB? It's not about being perfect or the greatest ever or better than Jimmy Johnson or whatever else you want to come up with.

And no, you'd be wrong. Garrett is likely a better coach than Phillips. But that's like arguing which would you prefer to eat......... a spoonful of cat turds or a heaping plate of dog poop? Both would be awful, just the cat poop might be a bit more tolerable.

Great coaches do make mistakes. But they typically have far more successes than failures, far more good calls than bad calls, far more good games than bad games, far more sound game plans than bad ones. So when a guy like McCarthy or Payton makes a mistake, you temper that with the understanding that these guys have shown time and time again they are great coaches. When Garrett makes a mistake or has a bad game, you don't have the resume or safety net to fall back on. He made that mistake or had that bad game because it's likely he's just not a very good head coach, a middle of the pack coach like you suggest.

And I firmly believe we are on a 0-5 streak because he's just not a very good head coach. That doesn't mean I think it's 100% his fault. But he has a hand in this mess just like the QBs do, the front office does for even having these bad QBs, etc.

I would be very happy to see Garrett fired at season's end and see Jones go out and get a quality coach to give Romo a fighting chance at a SB run these last few years of his career here.

 

[xwalker]

All NFL coaches are, by nature, risk adverse. There wouldn't be many coaches in the NFL that would look past Weeden, past Cassel and wave Moore into a game.

The High School coach that always goes for in on 4th down and always does an on-side kick can't get past the High School level despite a really strong effort on his part including doing a lot of radio interviews which he turns into an open campaign for an NFL or College coaching job.