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

[xwalker]

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).

There are 256 regular season games each year with 32 teams. You're obviously going to find some examples of teams winning with backup QBs. Nevertheless, is is not historically a high probability of winning.

I know some fans believe they are entitled to win regardless of circumstances but that is not how the world works.

 

[Sasquatch]

We're not looking for consistent winning. We're looking for two wins in five games.

Or one. I will settle for one at this point. Anything to staunch the bleeding.

 

[Derinyar]

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

Ah the Patriots, Saints and GB offensive plan. I like it.

 

[DC Cowboy]

Dan

well at least someone else see it to garrett is a dud

Dang I tried not to put it all on Garrett and more Linehan but after reading this ....

 

[Sydla]

There are 256 regular season games each year with 32 teams. You're obviously going to find some examples of teams winning with backup QBs. Nevertheless, is is not historically a high probability of winning.

I know some fans believe they are entitled to win regardless of circumstances but that is not how the world works.

Again, no one is talking about winning a lot of games here with backup QBs. They are talking about winning one or maybe two out of 5.

The fact they are 0-5 says alot about the QBs but also says a lot about the coaching staff too.

 

[xwalker]

Again, no one is talking about winning a lot of games here with backup QBs. They are talking about winning one or maybe two out of 5.

The fact they are 0-5 says alot about the QBs but also says a lot about the coaching staff too.

If they had won 1 and got blown out in 4 then it would be a worse coaching job than keeping it close in 4-1/2 games.

It is unfortunate that they have not faced any teams with backup QBs to get a better comparison of the coaching.

 

[Sydla]

If they had won 1 and got blown out in 4 then it would be a worse coaching job than keeping it close in 4-1/2 games.

It is unfortunate that they have not faced any teams with backup QBs to get a better comparison of the coaching.

One win with 4 blowouts would have this team in better shape today for the playoffs than they are in right now with 4.5 close game losses.

So frankly, I'd rather have the 4 blowouts and be sitting at 3-4 than the moral victories you want to chalk up with how close we played it in 4.5 games with our backup QB.

 

[NextGenBoys]

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.

Wow great post. Its hard to be better than Sturm, but you made a fan good case for it

 

[xwalker]

One win with 4 blowouts would have this team in better shape today for the playoffs than they are in right now with 4.5 close game losses.

So frankly, I'd rather have the 4 blowouts and be sitting at 3-4 than the moral victories you want to chalk up with how close we played it in 4.5 games with our backup QB.

That is not the point. The issue is specific to coaching. If they were blown out in 4 games that would be terrible coaching.

 

[Idgit]

Blanket assumptions? Show me where you have genuinely criticized JG and called him out?

Look it up. Post history is only a google search away.

 

[Idgit]

Frankly, people could ask the same thing of you.

That's their prerogative.

Pick a blanket statement of yours I've criticized, and I'll try to back it up, if you really care to.

 

[Idgit]

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

Good post, btw.

I agree that this loss was pretty much entirely on the offense. I think the problem is that we're mostly inept on offense rather than we're not creative or aggressive enough. We did go for it on 4th down this week. We did try the play with Lucky again. We did try the halfback pass play on their side of the field. We did try to rely on the OL and the power running game for a series after we went three and out the series before with the missed screen to Beasley and the check down to McFadden.

The problem is, we're just not very good on offense. At some point, when you're playing a good opponent, you have to acknowledge that maybe they're just better defensively than you are on offense. And maybe they're well coached, too. Maybe some problems can't be solved by 'being more aggressive' or by 'playing not to lose.' Maybe sometimes you lose because your team isn't good enough.

I know, I know. We're Dallas and we don't like to admit that. But it was pretty apparent offensively this week. We were close, but not quite good enough to get it done. I think the execution we saw was explanation enough.

 

[Zman5]

Look it up. Post history is only a google search away.

No posts from you where you directly blame JG for anything bad or say anything negative about him.

 

[Frosty]

They were aggressive in the Giants game.

Very true and it gave life to a dreadful offense.....then they went back to the same ol conservative play calling.....why you are 2-4 and on the verge of 2-5...scratch the 2-6

 

[Frosty]

Good post, btw.

I agree that this loss was pretty much entirely on the offense. I think the problem is that we're mostly inept on offense rather than we're not creative or aggressive enough. We did go for it on 4th down this week. We did try the play with Lucky again. We did try the halfback pass play on their side of the field. We did try to rely on the OL and the power running game for a series after we went three and out the series before with the missed screen to Beasley and the check down to McFadden.

The problem is, we're just not very good on offense. At some point, when you're playing a good opponent, you have to acknowledge that maybe they're just better defensively than you are on offense. And maybe they're well coached, too. Maybe some problems can't be solved by 'being more aggressive' or by 'playing not to lose.' Maybe sometimes you lose because your team isn't good enough.

I know, I know. We're Dallas and we don't like to admit that. But it was pretty apparent offensively this week. We were close, but not quite good enough to get it done. I think the execution we saw was explanation enough.

Didn't hear anyone saying this team wasn't talented enough or good enough in training camp.....not being that excuse....other teams are winning with backup QB's and multiple injuries.....Seattle saw Lucky play last week and was prepared for it this week....that is preparation......geuss the Cowboys coaches didn't think Seattle watch game film....

 

[Idgit]

Didn't hear anyone saying this team wasn't talented enough or good enough in training camp.....not bying that excuse....other teams are winning with backup QB's and multiple injuries.....Cowboys fell off a cliff

Just because they didn't say it then, doesn't mean it's not why we're losing games now. Look at the offense v. that SEA defense and tell me where the plays are to be made with the QB we had on the field. I wasn't seeing a lot of open receivers getting looks or dropping passes. The few downfield looks we got were underthrown fairly significantly. And when we needed a play in the passing game at the end of the day, there were none to be made.

 

[xwalker]

Very true and it gave life to a dreadful offense.....then they went back to the same ol conservative play calling.....why you are 2-4 and on the verge of 2-5...

It lost them the game with 3 Ints that they likely would have won with a more conservative approach. They had 233 yards rushing. They didn't need the QB throwing it up for grabs.

 

[JDSmith]

Fans always want the problem to be coaching, because they believe coaching is easy to fix. Just bring in some genius and all of the problems will be solved. It's much more difficult to face the reality that your season hinges on your QB, and they are REALLY hard to find.

If it's always about scheme or philosophy it's easy to fix - just make and adjustment, yell more, go for it on fourth down. But if it's about not having guys who are good enough then you are kind of screwed. Right now, at QB we are not good enough. This is life without a top 5 QB. The team plays its collective *** off and loses anyway.

Right now we're at an extreme deficit at the most important position on the field. No scheme will fix that, no adjustment will cure the problem. But the team keeps competing with the guys we can field, and I haven't seen any hint of them giving up in spite of the fact that our QB is on the sidelines and the guys we have to replace him are, relatively speaking, scrubs.

 

[xwalker]

Just because they didn't say it then, doesn't mean it's not why we're losing games now. Look at the offense v. that SEA defense and tell me where the plays are to be made with the QB we had on the field. I wasn't seeing a lot of open receivers getting looks or dropping passes. The few downfield looks we got were underthrown fairly significantly. And when we needed a play in the passing game at the end of the day, there were none to be made.

You didn't know that other coaches have magic plays that they call when then need to win.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Or one. I will settle for one at this point. Anything to staunch the bleeding.

Yes! This. One would've been great. I'm not greedy.

We are sitting here debating whether or not certain plays should've been called. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.