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

[jobberone]

The redzone play-calling drove me nuts (or more nuts) on Sunday.
Just mind-numbing stuff.
Just one TD and we probably win.

There is truth to what xw says though. Same (or mostly the same) people would be whining if we went for it and failed.

But we should have been more aggressive, imo.

This is where the coaches have the advantage of knowing the QBs mentality, experience and the film room. They know better than we do when the QB missed a guy and when the receiver ran a poor route.

The problem is everyone wants chicken salad from chicken crap. And the idea we could have gotten someone better is questionable although they did err thinking Weeden could operate under game pressure. So who should they have gotten that people really know would have done a better job?

 

[DOUBLE WING]

The current setup where they are losing without Romo and with a limited Dez for 1 game? Most coaches lose in that situation.

Pittsburgh went 2-2 with a backup QB. Houston has three wins rotating two backup-caliber QB's. Arizona went 5-3 with Drew Stanton last year.

It's not impossible to win in this league with your backup QB, despite how difficult Jason Garrett is making it look.

Without Romo, we've lost three winnable games that could have easily been won with better coaching and better on-field execution (which I ultimately attribute to coaching).

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

At this point, I don't think too many people are going to get mad at Garrett doing whatever he can to get us a win.

Maybe when we were 2-2, yes. But 2-4 against the defending NFC Super Bowl representative?

But daring is what we need. Playing Weeden and Cassel straight up is the safe route. And so far we've been as safe as a chastity belt on a cloistered nun.

 

[black label]

consistently? He cant win one because hes scared of his own image

 

[tyke1doe]

Without Romo, we've lost three winnable games that could have easily been won with better coaching and better on-field execution (which I ultimately attribute to coaching).

We've lost four winnable games - Atlanta, New Orleans, NY Giants and Seattle.

 

[Zman5]

If I had a history of blind support for anything, your post would have more merit. Just because I disagree with most of the stupid play calling criticisms doesn't mean I have blind support. If you don't happen to agree with the actual criticisms of the coaches I have on record, that's fine, but let's not just pretend they don't exist because you want to go back to criticizing reflexively.

I know what Sturm is saying. He's wrong here. It does not matter what the perception of who was the superior team was yesterday. The reality was, we were stopping their offense, and they were stopping ours, and the game was very much still up for grabs. The smart play was still the high percentage play in that situation. At home, with sub-par QB play facing one of the better defenses in the NFC. The way it played out, it ought to be obvious that taking additional risks was very definitely *not* our only chance yesterday.

JG's not delusional. Since you assert that without evidence, I'll just dismiss it the same way.

Sturm isn't saying throw a hail mary every time. What he is saying is that, as the inferior team, there are times you need to play to win instead of curling up in a fetal position hoping some one else will save the day.

Take off your JG colored glasses before you read the article and you might actually learn something.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

We've lost four winnable games - Atlanta, New Orleans, NY Giants and Seattle.

Err, yeah, totally forgot about Atlanta. Good call.

And do I expect us to win all FOUR without Romo? Of course not, but you've got to get at least one. Splitting those would have been ideal.

 

[Zordon]

Sturm is ranting on Garrett right now on the radio.

 

[khiladi]

So Sturm is back on board the Garrett can't coach.. Took Romo to go down for him to see the obvious...

 

[Idgit]

Sturm isn't saying throw a hail mary every time. What he is saying is that, as the inferior team, there are times you need to play to win instead of curling up in a fetal position hoping some one else will save the day.

Take off your JG colored glasses before you read the article and you might actually learn something.

I know what he's saying. And he's wrong in this case. Nobody mentioned a Hail Mary. You've got drives stalling on bad basses on bubble screens and passes to Richard Sherman. Why are you resorting to Hail Mary's when we can't complete just ordinary passes? Playing to win. Lol. Like with the Giants, right? Deep downfield passes...to their Safeties. Because the (open) WR and the CB were in the adjacent zip code. Pick 6. And off-target first-down throws into double coverage. A couple other dropped picks that were too close for comfort. Got it. Playing to win.

And enough with the blanket assumptions that I'm just not seeing things right when I don't agree with you. You want to score a point, do it the hard way, by actually making an argument that's convincing. Rely on Sturm to do it if you have to, just make a point somewhere along the line so we have something to talk about.

 

[plymkr]

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.

Defense: 13 points allowed, 1 forced turnover in the red zone
Special teams: 4 field goals, one blocked field goal
Turnovers: none for Dallas
What more can this team do to support the qb position. I feel the essence of this article is Garret is failing at getting the most out of his backup qb's. Most other teams, or other coaches, can win with a backup qb and the defense and ST playing like Dallas' did.

How is it possible that Cassel passed for 97 yards but ran for 43 yards. He was on pace to out rush his passing numbers if he would have kept scrambling. 97 yards and no td's is horrible. That's unacceptable for a nfl qb. So the question remains. Do we have the worst possible set of back up qb's in the league? And/Or do we have a coach that stubbornly and stupidly will not alter his offense scheme to win the game. An example of a safe but aggressive play after the Hardy interception would be a planned qb run. Cassell was the leading rusher for the team for part of the game. Why not a boot leg after the Hardy pick? Why not a qb scramble up the gut of the defense? They weren't accounting for him as a runner and he was making them pay. A good coach, a less stubborn coach, would feel this in the game and use this bit knowledge to score points. Spread them out and if the defense is not covering the middle of the field then Cassell tucks it and runs. In the passing game Cassel is/was a liability, but in the game yesterday Cassell was a weapon ( lol ) as a runner. But they didn't use that when it counted. It worked on a couple plays when Cassel improvised. Improvisation! What an idea!!! They're going to try a stupid gimmicky play that was far dumber and more risky than a gimmicky play were they spread out the defense and Cassel runs for it. That's my beef with Garret. He has no feel for the game and what is working. He stubbornly sticks to his game plan and makes NO ADJUSTMENTS, no improvisation, no feel of the game play calling, nothing. Like an adjustment yesterday would be have Cassel keep running until the defense honors it. If they start accounting for a scrambling qb then that opens things up for the offense, if they don't account for it, Cassel runs for 8-10 yards a pop and then slides. Move the ball, keep their offense off the field. But Garret is too stubborn for that outside of the box, on the spot creativity.

Either he is too stubborn or he is simply too stupid to make improvisational, in game, feel of the game adjustments.

I'm starting to think it's both

 

[khiladi]

What makes people think Dallas went 'conservative'? Dallas WRs were running deep and Cassell looked... He was checking down after he was looking up field. Pretty much like every QB in this offense does, unless one is named Romo who can actually change the plays NOW after being forced to follow the playbook for years...

Dallas NEVER targets the short passing game.

 

[Sydla]

Yeah people are acting like fans are demanding Garrett should have gone 4-1 over the Romo-less stretch and that they needed to be aggressive - i.e. bombs, reverses, flea flickers, etc.

When in fact no one is saying that. Instead they are saying that a good coach should be able to squeeze out at least one, maybe two wins, over that 5 game stretch and that given the position we are in, it's not necessarily a bad thing to open the playbook here or there and maybe go away from your tendencies at times (not all the time, mind you).

 

[Alexander]

Sturm is ranting on Garrett right now on the radio.

He's obviously an irrational hater. Quickly turn off the radio.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

What's the seam?

 

[Sydla]

I know what he's saying. And he's wrong in this case. Nobody mentioned a Hail Mary. You've got drives stalling on bad basses on bubble screens and passes to Richard Sherman. Why are you resorting to Hail Mary's when we can't complete just ordinary passes? Playing to win. Lol. Like with the Giants, right? Deep downfield passes...to their Safeties. Because the (open) WR and the CB were in the adjacent zip code. Pick 6. And off-target first-down throws into double coverage. A couple other dropped picks that were too close for comfort. Got it. Playing to win.

And enough with the blanket assumptions that I'm just not seeing things right when I don't agree with you. You want to score a point, do it the hard way, by actually making an argument that's convincing. Rely on Sturm to do it if you have to, just make a point somewhere along the line so we have something to talk about.

Frankly, people could ask the same thing of you.

 

[Alexander]

So the question remains. Do we have the worst possible set of back up qb's in the league? And/Or do we have a coach that stubbornly and stupidly will not alter his offense scheme to win the game. An example of a safe but aggressive play after the Hardy interception would be a planned qb run. Cassell was the leading rusher for the team for part of the game. Why not a boot leg after the Hardy pick? Why not a qb scramble up the gut of the defense? They weren't accounting for him as a runner and he was making them pay.

Situational playcalling intended to get your team a lead after a huge momentum swing? Get out of here with that nonsense. Playing it safe and getting that two point lead was the way to go.

 

[khiladi]

Why are people trying to defend this clown? Nobody asked for the Cowboys to post a winning record, but to win 2 GAMES... 2 freaking games, before Romo comes back...

I remember this forum like 3 games into the season talking about how Marinelli had this defense playing HoF football. Suddenly, these same people are saying the defense isn't producing TOs. And this time around Hardy gifts them a TO in red-zone territory and the special teams actually blocks a field goal.

Now it's back to, well we don't have Romo...

 

[Alexander]

Why are people trying to defend this clown? Nobody asked for the Cowboys to post a winning record, but to win 2 GAMES... 2 freaking games, before Romo comes back...

Two? How about just one?

 

[Kevinicus]

Defense: 13 points allowed, 1 forced turnover in the red zone
Special teams: 4 field goals, one blocked field goal
Turnovers: none for Dallas
What more can this team do to support the qb position. I feel the essence of this article is Garret is failing at getting the most out of his backup qb's. Most other teams, or other coaches, can win with a backup qb and the defense and ST playing like Dallas' did.

How is it possible that Cassel passed for 97 yards but ran for 43 yards. He was on pace to out rush his passing numbers if he would have kept scrambling. 97 yards and no td's is horrible. That's unacceptable for a nfl qb. So the question remains. Do we have the worst possible set of back up qb's in the league? And/Or do we have a coach that stubbornly and stupidly will not alter his offense scheme to win the game. An example of a safe but aggressive play after the Hardy interception would be a planned qb run. Cassell was the leading rusher for the team for part of the game. Why not a boot leg after the Hardy pick? Why not a qb scramble up the gut of the defense? They weren't accounting for him as a runner and he was making them pay. A good coach, a less stubborn coach, would feel this in the game and use this bit knowledge to score points. Spread them out and if the defense is not covering the middle of the field then Cassell tucks it and runs. In the passing game Cassel is/was a liability, but in the game yesterday Cassell was a weapon ( lol ) as a runner. But they didn't use that when it counted. It worked on a couple plays when Cassel improvised. Improvisation! What an idea!!! They're going to try a stupid gimmicky play that was far dumber and more risky than a gimmicky play were they spread out the defense and Cassel runs for it. That's my beef with Garret. He has no feel for the game and what is working. He stubbornly sticks to his game plan and makes NO ADJUSTMENTS, no improvisation, no feel of the game play calling, nothing. Like an adjustment yesterday would be have Cassel keep running until the defense honors it. If they start accounting for a scrambling qb then that opens things up for the offense, if they don't account for it, Cassel runs for 8-10 yards a pop and then slides. Move the ball, keep their offense off the field. But Garret is too stubborn for that outside of the box, on the spot creativity.

Either he is too stubborn or he is simply too stupid to make improvisational, in game, feel of the game adjustments.

I'm starting to think it's both

You should check out Aaron Rodgers' stats from last night. Everything else you said was spot on.