CFZ Texas Coast, 70% the same, and the 2023 Offense

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,544
Reaction score
27,835
Was going to put this in another thread but that had devolved into a typical morass. I figured I would break this out so we could talk about the offense as a whole as opposed to whether or not a particular player is going to fail in it.

Changes on offense we know they are making:

Pass protection. MM early on after the season and canning Moore said pass protection was changing without going into specifics. MM recently said the RB are going to be used more here when our base 6 and 7 man protections have always used the RB already. This has me confused.

Verbiage: Apparently, Moore used the verbose old school Coryell call language. They are describing all of the options for all the routes and such in those calls. That is being reduced. Presumably, they are going to use the system where you give route combinations and similar concepts one word names. That way by calling combinations on both sides of the field plus the protection you can take Moore's 60 word barrage and reduce it to 3 words. Think they are doing it this way because of the next thing we know which is:

Option routes are out, route combinations are in: that was the narrative early but having heard a lot from the receivers this offseason, it is clear that they still have options on their routes but they are treated more as add ons as opposed to core features like they were previously. Instead the focus is on how the offense is designed to play off the defense to get each other open.

Simplify: This is a common term tossed out by all of the coaches and players. It speaks to the above point but it also speaks to how incredibly complex and diverse Moore was on run offense. Looking back, it certainly seems that Moore was willing to do anything to try to run the ball. We had the middle and outside ZBS stuff but we played a lot of the doubles/gap/combo/man looks, we played a lot of trap and pulling power stuff, and we even used the old school draw. At one point he had installed the counter tre with some play action off of it. Sturm has an excellent piece behind a paywall at the Athletic that details a lot of this. I appears that he is going in the direction of what plays they do best and what plays they are likely to emphasize. During the year he similarly breaks down formation use and you can see where Moore similarly used all kinds of formations.

I look at it from a broader sense and from the vantage point of what Schottenheimer did in Seattle. Seattle ran only a few formations and 95% of their runs were inside/outside zone and counters. All runs and passes came out of all formations and all had a bevy of playaction looks to take advantage of how the defense is playing them. Throw in the new verbiage and this is how you simplify. I'm not saying they are going to pick those runs, I am just saying they are going to pick a few runs and focus.

Detail: Various players have described a situation where there are fewer plays but they are "detailing" the heck out of them. I can think of plenty of categories to detail but the specifics will change how the offense functions.

There is a common refrain that they are keeping 70% of the offense but I think that belies what they are doing to change the offense.
 
Last edited:

Ranching

Well-Known Member
Messages
45,867
Reaction score
111,192
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Was going to put this in another thread but that had devolved into a typical morass. I figured I would break this out so we could talk about the offense as a whole as opposed to whether or not a particular player is going to fail in it.

Changes on offense we know they are making:

Pass protection. MM early on after the season and canning Moore said pass protection was changing without going into specifics. MM recently said the RB are going to be used more here when our base 6 and 7 man protections have always used the RB already. This has me confused.

Verbiage: Apparently, Moore used the verbose old school Coryell call language. They are describing all of the options for all the routes and such in those calls. That is being reduced. Presumably, they are going to use the system where you give route combinations and similar concepts one word names. That way by calling combinations on both sides of the field plus the protection you can take Moore's 60 word barrage and reduce it to 3 words. Think they are doing it this way because of the next thing we know which is:

Option routes are out, route combinations are in: that was the narrative early but having heard a lot from the receivers this offseason, it is clear that they still have options on their routes but they are treated more as add ons as opposed to core features like they were previously. Instead the focus is on how the offense is designed to play off the defense to get each other open.

Simplify: This is a common term tossed out by all of the coaches and players. It speaks to the above point but it also speaks to how incredibly complex and diverse Moore was on run offense. Looking back, it certainly seems that Moore was willing to do anything to try to run the ball. We had the middle and outside ZBS stuff but we played a lot of the doubles/gap/combo/man looks, we played a lot of trap and pulling power stuff, and we even used the old school draw. At one point he had installed the counter tre with some play action off of it. Sturm has an excellent piece behind a paywall at the Athletic that details a lot of this. I appears that he is going in the direction of what plays they do best and what plays they are likely to emphasize. During the year he similarly breaks down formation use and you can see where Moore similarly used all kinds of formations.

I look at it from a broader sense and from the vantage point of what Schottenheimer did in Seattle. Seattle ran only a few formations and 95% of their runs were inside/outside zone and counters. All runs and passes came out of all formations and all had a bevy of playaction looks to take advantage of how the defense is playing them. Throw in the new verbiage and this is how you simplify. I'm not saying they are going to pick those runs, I am just saying they are going to pick a few runs and focus.

Detail: Various players have described a situation where there are fewer plays but they are "detailing" the heck out of them. I can think of plenty of categories to detail but the specifics will change how the offense functions.

There is a common refrain that they are keeping 70% of the offense but I think that belies what they are doing to change the offense.
Situational play calling will make the difference. No more throwing 3 times inside the 10 yard line...I hope.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,544
Reaction score
27,835
It sure seemed like there was a lot of confusion among the WRs last season. Maybe it was because the lingo/terms were too numerous, and the overall pass offense was too complex?
Tolbert describes going up to the line and thinking how he is supposed to line up, what technique to use, and then how he is supposed to stem his route and by the time he has it figured the ball is already snapped.

Moore put a lot of pressure on their players in terms of volume and because of it could not focus on detail. They are going with less volume and more detail with the idea of cutting out the mistakes and confusion.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,544
Reaction score
27,835
Yep, we need a back to pick up the blitz
This is one of my biggest concerns. I would much rather have one of the TE play the F and pass protect in that role than Deuce Vaughn. I am fine with giving him a shot but asking him to do more than cut guys that outweigh him by 50% of his body weight seems bound to fail. Mass and momentum is what it is.

Pollard is an adventure in that role but mixing it up should help.
 

big dog cowboy

THE BIG DOG
Staff member
Messages
101,164
Reaction score
110,275
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
AWSEOME JOB!!!!!!!!! :D

giphy.gif
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,544
Reaction score
27,835
They are suppose to have a lot of the same looks that are different plays, so that in theory means less predictable.
Think the old Seattle offense when Wilson was back there. That is exactly what Schott ran. A few plays run out of several formations.

That Sturm article is awesome as it details how we were predictable by formation. We didn't run a lot of stretch out of shotgun and when we did we were not good at it. It was bread and butter for Seattle. They used it akin to how Callahan used to use it. I am trying not to get my hopes up but I am a big fan of the stretch/counter/playaction offensive core.
 

Techsass

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,517
Reaction score
6,076
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
There was talk that Dallas was predictable and defenses knew what was coming.. Is that gonna change..
Defenses have been saying that for a long time now going back to Garret's days here. We've changed OCs & HCs, but you still hear it. I'm not so sure if it's just a slight to throw out there to the media. If we are that obvious, then it's past time to correct it.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
39,710
Reaction score
36,794
Think the old Seattle offense when Wilson was back there. That is exactly what Schott ran. A few plays run out of several formations.

That Sturm article is awesome as it details how we were predictable by formation. We didn't run a lot of stretch out of shotgun and when we did we were not good at it. It was bread and butter for Seattle. They used it akin to how Callahan used to use it. I am trying not to get my hopes up but I am a big fan of the stretch/counter/playaction offensive core.
I think that was part of the problem is that there were certain times when defenses knew what we were going to do, so it wasn't a question of figuring out the play but just being able to stop it. This goes back to the Garrett philosophy of outexecuting. Moore was much, much better at creating matchups, but didn't really trick defenses into believing there were multiple possibilities from a given formation.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
39,710
Reaction score
36,794
Defenses have been saying that for a long time now going back to Garret's days here. We've changed OCs & HCs, but you still hear it. I'm not so sure if it's just a slight to throw out there to the media. If we are that obvious, then it's past time to correct it.
It goes back to the Garrett days because every OC we've had since the Garrett days used some form of the scheme he installed based on his philosophy. His philosophy comes out of those 1990s teams that he was a part of where some of our offensive players said of the defenses they faced, "They know what's coming, but they can't stop it." Garrett believed in emphasizing execution and winning your assignment straight up. He wanted his Cowboys to be like the 1990s Cowboys, but it's almost impossible now to build teams that are solid from top to bottom and can just win with execution. Moore's main change to Garrett's philosophy was creating some mismatches with movement.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,621
Reaction score
16,508
Defenses have been saying that for a long time now going back to Garret's days here. We've changed OCs & HCs, but you still hear it. I'm not so sure if it's just a slight to throw out there to the media. If we are that obvious, then it's past time to correct it.
That is why I say we just need to wait and see it, and it may take 8 games or so to see if it is better ,same, or worse.

And from what you mentioned, I dont think it was smart to say anything about the changes, or any details on them lol.
look at what we know now, and other dc's will have more info than we do.

But regardless it could give cowboys an advantage in the early games.
 

zekecowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
2,454
That is why I say we just need to wait and see it, and it may take 8 games or so to see if it is better ,same, or worse.

And from what you mentioned, I dont think it was smart to say anything about the changes, or any details on them lol.
look at what we know now, and other dc's will have more info than we do.

But regardless it could give cowboys an advantage in the early games.
Looks to me like defensive coordinators from other NFL teams will have a subscription to the Athletic, Bob Sturm!
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,544
Reaction score
27,835
It goes back to the Garrett days because every OC we've had since the Garrett days used some form of the scheme he installed based on his philosophy. His philosophy comes out of those 1990s teams that he was a part of where some of our offensive players said of the defenses they faced, "They know what's coming, but they can't stop it." Garrett believed in emphasizing execution and winning your assignment straight up. He wanted his Cowboys to be like the 1990s Cowboys, but it's almost impossible now to build teams that are solid from top to bottom and can just win with execution. Moore's main change to Garrett's philosophy was creating some mismatches with movement.
And this is why I say that the 70% line is misleading. The playcall alone is going to make a world's of difference before you consider the design.
 

CowboyFrog

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,334
Reaction score
11,287
Think the old Seattle offense when Wilson was back there. That is exactly what Schott ran. A few plays run out of several formations.

That Sturm article is awesome as it details how we were predictable by formation. We didn't run a lot of stretch out of shotgun and when we did we were not good at it. It was bread and butter for Seattle. They used it akin to how Callahan used to use it. I am trying not to get my hopes up but I am a big fan of the stretch/counter/playaction offensive core.
Great example!
 

Jarntt

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,943
Reaction score
6,556
I think Schottenheimer plays a bigger role than most are assuming. I think this means more PAP which is good because I always thought it fit Dak. The quick read and step and throw seems to be one of the things Dak (at least IMO) seems to do really well. While PAP isn't exactly quick because of the fake, my point is that after the fake it is usually a quick decision. I want quicker drops and get the ball out. I also like Dak rolling. For whatever reason, he doesn't seem as comfortable as most QBs doing the classic (watch Brady) step up in the pocket. It probably goes back to his more mobile days or maybe just how strong the DTs are in our division. I think a lot of this new generation of QBs learn not to step up and trust the pocket, but to get outside and use their legs. So when you halfway do this it often just leads to throwing off balance and without good footwork and also tends to take away half of the field. I am excited for a slightly simpler offense. I think we have the talent and I think we need to put Dak in the best position we can to succeed. He has done it before and can do it again. Obviously a good OL and running game is a huge part of that as in obvious in Philly and was here a few years back
 
Top