Omegasupreme
Active Member
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 89
Jason Garrett is a passive philosopher. He has made a whole theory of offense that when there is enough evidence that a defense is going to behave in a certain way, his offense will succeed if everyone makes the right adjustments at the right time for the right reasons.
How often is that truly expected to happen with any human theory involving human's behaving exactly what a law or perfect theory says?
So when the Cowboy offense has success, it is because everyone did everything right with each play. When the Cowboy offense does not have success, it is because someone did not make the right read of the defense and did not execute the perfect route or block that Jason designed.
So Jason is excused from all blame for lack of success because he can always say that the players did not follow the blueprint.
But what happens when the defenses have seen the same 1990's pass offense so many times on film that the defensive coordinators can predict what the Norv Turner/Don Coryell/Jason Garrett offensive scheme will behave when they bait or place their players in certain places? My guess is there will either be a lot of sacks or a lot of interceptions.
In 2011 Romo decided to keep the ball when his players were not open and Phillip Rivers decided to throw the ball anyway and got a ton of interceptions.
The strange thing about the Turner/Coryell/Garrett (TCG) offense is that it is supposed to be predicated on the threat of running the ball effectively. If a defense is not afraid of an offense running the ball or perhaps the Garrett coordinator calls a running play over right tackle on second down on 2 and 10 almost routinely, then the opposing defense can put its DBs in all of the possible locations where the TCG receivers will go. But when a smart coach like Turner (rather than a philosopher like Garrett) starts running the ball with reckless abandon, he can control and dictate the defenses reactions.
But there have been two things that have saved Jason Garrett since 2007 when there was really no game film on his tendencies and he was able to amass 51 TDs. He has Romo and he had a lot of injuries at RB. Romo improvises so well, that even when teams say that the Dallas offense is predictable (Dom Capers, Ray Lewis, and the Detroit Lions have said that what they saw on tape did not change in the game), Romo can scramble and make adjustments. How many times last year did Laurent Robinson know that he was not open and then looked for Romo while running secondary routes? I think because Robinson had some experience on the Chargers and other teams, that he knew that once a route is ineffective, the play should be salvaged. Garrett makes it seem like if the WR is not open that someone did not run the route or execution the right way so they essentially give up. Miles gets doubled and Dez just looks lost once a play breaks down. Witten is smart enough to know that the play sucks so he knows where Romo needs him to be.
But if you think about it. This is all Romo and the rest of the players succeeding where the scheme cannot. But Jason will get credit for Romo's 33 TDs last year and somehow dodge the 5 rushing TDs by saying it was Murray's injury. Frankly Murray padded the Dallas rushing stats by a few huge games but Dallas did not run the ball well at all. One of Jason's stock plays is to run the ball on 3rd and 20. So when the RB gains 11 yards it looks in the stats as if there was a strong running surge.
Garrett does not know how to run the ball effectively. How many times in the Garrett offense has Dallas had enormous trouble on short yardage or red zone? The Red zone issue has been an offseason discussion since 2008. Garrett will run playaction passes at absurd times.
The defense has gotten blamed for the last few years for not keeping other team's point totals below the Jason Garrett offense's point totals. Basically, Dallas is just not scoring enough points. Don Coryell, Joe Gibbs, Mike Martz and last year Bill Belichick recognized that if they thought that their defense was not a steadfast and immovable object then they just scored as many points as they could.
There were five games last year where Jason's offense could not score, could not amassed first downs, keep drives going, etc. When that happened, Dallas did not win and did not go to the playoffs. Patriots, Arizona, Lions, Jets, Giants (second game), Eagles all were in Jason's hands to produce points.
It is the most points that wins the game and other than 2007, Jason Garrett's offense produces just over 2 TDs per game. His running game does very little and his defenses and player execution are to blame.
Dallas is being conned.
How often is that truly expected to happen with any human theory involving human's behaving exactly what a law or perfect theory says?
So when the Cowboy offense has success, it is because everyone did everything right with each play. When the Cowboy offense does not have success, it is because someone did not make the right read of the defense and did not execute the perfect route or block that Jason designed.
So Jason is excused from all blame for lack of success because he can always say that the players did not follow the blueprint.
But what happens when the defenses have seen the same 1990's pass offense so many times on film that the defensive coordinators can predict what the Norv Turner/Don Coryell/Jason Garrett offensive scheme will behave when they bait or place their players in certain places? My guess is there will either be a lot of sacks or a lot of interceptions.
In 2011 Romo decided to keep the ball when his players were not open and Phillip Rivers decided to throw the ball anyway and got a ton of interceptions.
The strange thing about the Turner/Coryell/Garrett (TCG) offense is that it is supposed to be predicated on the threat of running the ball effectively. If a defense is not afraid of an offense running the ball or perhaps the Garrett coordinator calls a running play over right tackle on second down on 2 and 10 almost routinely, then the opposing defense can put its DBs in all of the possible locations where the TCG receivers will go. But when a smart coach like Turner (rather than a philosopher like Garrett) starts running the ball with reckless abandon, he can control and dictate the defenses reactions.
But there have been two things that have saved Jason Garrett since 2007 when there was really no game film on his tendencies and he was able to amass 51 TDs. He has Romo and he had a lot of injuries at RB. Romo improvises so well, that even when teams say that the Dallas offense is predictable (Dom Capers, Ray Lewis, and the Detroit Lions have said that what they saw on tape did not change in the game), Romo can scramble and make adjustments. How many times last year did Laurent Robinson know that he was not open and then looked for Romo while running secondary routes? I think because Robinson had some experience on the Chargers and other teams, that he knew that once a route is ineffective, the play should be salvaged. Garrett makes it seem like if the WR is not open that someone did not run the route or execution the right way so they essentially give up. Miles gets doubled and Dez just looks lost once a play breaks down. Witten is smart enough to know that the play sucks so he knows where Romo needs him to be.
But if you think about it. This is all Romo and the rest of the players succeeding where the scheme cannot. But Jason will get credit for Romo's 33 TDs last year and somehow dodge the 5 rushing TDs by saying it was Murray's injury. Frankly Murray padded the Dallas rushing stats by a few huge games but Dallas did not run the ball well at all. One of Jason's stock plays is to run the ball on 3rd and 20. So when the RB gains 11 yards it looks in the stats as if there was a strong running surge.
Garrett does not know how to run the ball effectively. How many times in the Garrett offense has Dallas had enormous trouble on short yardage or red zone? The Red zone issue has been an offseason discussion since 2008. Garrett will run playaction passes at absurd times.
The defense has gotten blamed for the last few years for not keeping other team's point totals below the Jason Garrett offense's point totals. Basically, Dallas is just not scoring enough points. Don Coryell, Joe Gibbs, Mike Martz and last year Bill Belichick recognized that if they thought that their defense was not a steadfast and immovable object then they just scored as many points as they could.
There were five games last year where Jason's offense could not score, could not amassed first downs, keep drives going, etc. When that happened, Dallas did not win and did not go to the playoffs. Patriots, Arizona, Lions, Jets, Giants (second game), Eagles all were in Jason's hands to produce points.
It is the most points that wins the game and other than 2007, Jason Garrett's offense produces just over 2 TDs per game. His running game does very little and his defenses and player execution are to blame.
Dallas is being conned.
ost: :laugh2:
