The Garrett bashing is trite, tired, and lacking in truth

[erod]

After they fired Ryan, because Garrett said he needed TOs to make his offense new effective... But that excuse didn't pan out..

TO was completely and entirely Jerry Jones' decision. Just like Mo Claiborne.

 

[khiladi]

Are you smoking right now? You brought up red zone percentages (same thing as efficiency). Furthermore, the burden isn't on me to pull stats (someone else did it anyway). Burden of proof is on the initial claim, not the contention.

I know I brought up, but you weren't addressing that and I never claimed those stats regarding red-zone weren't easily accessible.. You called the issue of bringing it up as shifting the goal post..

Further, my initial claim goes way back on multiple posts on this forum, including when the Cowboys we're going to hire Dan Reeves here and the year prior to Garrett getting play-calling duties stripped away.. In all these cases, it was in the context of a run game and trying to control the pace, to help take pressure off the defense.

I've always said Dallas numbers were masked by Romo's greatness and his ability to make things happen, particularly when they abandoned the 'game plan' and pushed the pace.

One of the consisten features of the Garrett led offense was being amongst the worst in first half scoring even against awhile teams.

 

[erod]

I personally think Romo should be in a West Coast offense, because he's better up tempo and he has a quick and accurate release. Plus, it moves the pocket and their is a lot of movement.

The offense he's working in, with long developing routes I think doesn't do as much justice to Romo.

Romo is an example of what could have been..

That is the biggest frustration with Garrett tenure. Just an absolute waste with all the instability and lack of direction. They sacrificed Romo, a one on a million, for the 'growth' of the Red-headed one..

I disagree because Romo is a tremendous play-action quarterback, and he's incredibly accurate on downfield crosses, seams, and sideline routes.

 

[khiladi]

TO was completely and entirely Jerry Jones' decision. Just like Mo Claiborne.

TO as in turnovers.. Roy Williams was brought here to assist the stagnant offense of Garrett's as an aside..

And It's hilarious how everybody was defending the Mo move as genius when it was made... Mo was brought in as a CB in Rob's man coverage schemes..

It wasn't a 'Jerry' alone decision..

 

[erod]

He sucks man. Those 8-8 teams were just loaded with talent across the board.

LOL, who?

Worst defense in Cowboys history. An embarrassment of an offensive line, probably the worst I've ever seen here.

Garrett stripped it down to build it up, and Romo's greatness won eight games anyway.

 

[khiladi]

I disagree because Romo is a tremendous play-action quarterback, and he's incredibly accurate on downfield crosses, seams, and sideline routes.

I think Romo succeeds in any offense, because he's just a tremendous QB. Play-action is a staple in any offense. I think West Coast, because of the movement in the pocket and his quick release. He's definitely a rhythm QB.

Just as an aside, when Garrett was in control, he rarely used play-action. They were amongst the lowest in the league in using it, if I remember correctly.

 

[erod]

I think Romo succeeds in any offense, because he's just a tremendous QB. Play-action is a staple in any offense. I think West Coast, because of the movement in the pocket and his quick release. He's definitely a rhythm QB.

Just as an aside, when Garrett was in control, he rarely used play-action. They were amongst the lowest in the league in using it, if I remember correctly.

But the plays he extends and gets downfield are what makes him who he is.

I hate the West Coast offense. I REALLY hate that high school crap that Chip Kelly plays. I like deep tailback power football with a QB who can make all the throws. Romo can.

 

[erod]

TO as in turnovers.. Roy Williams was brought here to assist the stagnant offense of Garrett's as an aside..

And It's hilarious how everybody was defending the Mo move as genius when it was made... Mo was brought in as a CB in Rob's man coverage schemes..

It wasn't a 'Jerry' alone decision..

I didn't like it at the time. I got the reasoning, but I wanted Fletcher Cox or David DeCastro.

 

[Dodger12]

Garrett stripped it down to build it up, and Romo's greatness won eight games anyway.

For a guy that walks on water you'd think he'd know how to use his QB. Folks need to dig a little deeper.

I disagree because Romo is a tremendous play-action quarterback, and he's incredibly accurate on downfield crosses, seams, and sideline routes.

Someone better tell Garrett that he has a tremendous play action QB because he certainly doesn't know it:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-play-action-offense

"We're not trying to make this about the NFC East, but that division just has some of the most interesting play-action offenses. Someone might want to alert Jason Garrett, because for some reason the Cowboys have ranked 30th, 32nd and 30th in play-action usage in his three full seasons as head coach. If Tony Romo wasn't effective with play action, then that would be understandable, but this offense has ranked seventh, fifth and eighth with play action the last three years. Garrett has one of the best play-action quarterbacks in the league and yet he uses it 12.5 percent of the time.

We showed above offenses are using play action on second down 21.4 percent of the time. The Cowboys have ranked 31st (12.0 percent in 2013), 32nd (8.9 percent in 2012) and 25th (14.9 percent) in second down play-action rate. Garrett doesn't seem to think play action on second down is feasible.

One hypothesis would be that in Garrett's first full year (2011) he was getting Romo back from a broken collarbone, so maybe there was an injury concern, but that's disproven by 2008-10 when Garrett was the offensive coordinator. Even then the Cowboys were only using play action on 14.3 percent of dropbacks. He just doesn't use it much, even when the offense ran effectively like last year when DeMarco Murrayled the league in rushing DVOA."

 

[Dodger12]

I disagree because Romo is a tremendous play-action quarterback, and he's incredibly accurate on downfield crosses, seams, and sideline routes.

And just to add to my earlier post, the 2014 stats show Dallas ranked 28th in play action attempts. Please send a note to Jason and tell him how good Romo is at play action because he's almost near the bottom.

 

[erod]

For a guy that walks on water you'd think he'd know how to use his QB. Folks need to dig a little deeper.



Someone better tell Garrett that he has a tremendous play action QB because he certainly doesn't know it:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-play-action-offense

"We're not trying to make this about the NFC East, but that division just has some of the most interesting play-action offenses. Someone might want to alert Jason Garrett, because for some reason the Cowboys have ranked 30th, 32nd and 30th in play-action usage in his three full seasons as head coach. If Tony Romo wasn't effective with play action, then that would be understandable, but this offense has ranked seventh, fifth and eighth with play action the last three years. Garrett has one of the best play-action quarterbacks in the league and yet he uses it 12.5 percent of the time.

We showed above offenses are using play action on second down 21.4 percent of the time. The Cowboys have ranked 31st (12.0 percent in 2013), 32nd (8.9 percent in 2012) and 25th (14.9 percent) in second down play-action rate. Garrett doesn't seem to think play action on second down is feasible.

One hypothesis would be that in Garrett's first full year (2011) he was getting Romo back from a broken collarbone, so maybe there was an injury concern, but that's disproven by 2008-10 when Garrett was the offensive coordinator. Even then the Cowboys were only using play action on 14.3 percent of dropbacks. He just doesn't use it much, even when the offense ran effectively like last year when DeMarco Murrayled the league in rushing DVOA."

That's just a stupid article. Dallas uses playaction with Romo constantly, virtually multiple times on every series.

Don't trust the media, especially the make-believe media. These are numbers dorks that figured out a way to do something they can't do for a living.

 

[JoeKing]

Is Garrett's job safe this year? Does the FO take into consideration all the injures we are dealing with before holding Garrett accountable for a terrible season?

 

[Dodger12]

That's just a stupid article. Dallas uses playaction with Romo constantly, virtually multiple times on every series.

Don't trust the media, especially the make-believe media. These are numbers dorks that figured out a way to do something they can't do for a living.

This is laughable. Do you have numbers that prove otherwise?

 

[erod]

This is laughable. Do you have numbers that prove otherwise?

Numbers don't prove much of anything much of the time. If you base your arguments on numbers, you've already lost the debate. Jeff George had good numbers. Troy Aikman didn't. Art Monk had great numbers. Drew Pearson didn't. Numbers lie like the devil.

How stupid was it for them to base numbers on "second down playcalling". That is preposterous.

As if all second downs are the same. 2nd and 3 isn't the same as 2nd and 12. 2nd down with a 14 point lead in the second quarter is much different than 2nd down behind by 21 in the fourth quarter. 2nd down against a team that loads the box isn't the same as a second down against Cover 2 scheme. There are a VAST amount of factors to consider beyond it being just "second down".

Sports don't boil down to numbers. Box-checkers who never played wish they did, but they don't.

But it makes for an easy website that doesn't require actual human interaction, which these pencil pushers avoid like the black plague.

 

[khiladi]

This is laughable. Do you have numbers that prove otherwise?

This is also why I harped on this stupid idea of running the ball to fulfill some mathematical ratio.

Jason was supposedly genius, but didn't understand that one of the main points of a running attack is to keep the defense off its heels in what your going to do. A play-action will get corners to bite opening up the passing game. It will cause the defensive line to second guess, giving the QB more time and so on..

He has been awful here..

I'm actually shocked with the 2014 numbers.. They did move up, but not as much as I thought... Mind-boggling..

 

[Idgit]

This thread has spiraled so far away from a realistic discussion, it's difficult to even know where to jump in and try to ride the snake.

 

[texbumthelife]

Im not piling on Garrett, but if he is the same coach he was last year, than he is the same coach he was for three straight 8-8 seasons. Clearly he is not completely at fault for the teams stupidity and lack of execution, but, just like he got a ton of kudos last season, he deserves a share of the blame this season. This team has looked mentally unequipped and unprepared. Call it what you want, but that falls to the coach.

 

[Dodger12]

Numbers don't prove much of anything much of the time. If you base your arguments on numbers, you've already lost the debate. Jeff George had good numbers. Troy Aikman didn't. Art Monk had great numbers. Drew Pearson didn't. Numbers lie like the devil.

Well, we're not really talking about performance numbers, per se, but rather the frequency we call play action because I agree with your earlier statement that Romo is a great PA QB. But what the number do tell me and my initial point to you was that we haven't used PA enough with Romo. But the guy is just as successful without PA as he is with PA. Romo is incredible and the fact that Garrett doesn't know how to use him or consistently win with him is an indictment on Garrett.

Also, I don't know where you are on the Weeden spectrum but I wonder if you've defended his 100 plus QB rating, you know, since numbers don't prove much of anything to you.

How stupid was it for them to base numbers on "second down playcalling". That is preposterous.

As if all second downs are the same. 2nd and 3 isn't the same as 2nd and 12. 2nd down with a 14 point lead in the second quarter is much different than 2nd down behind by 21 in the fourth quarter. 2nd down against a team that loads the box isn't the same as a second down against Cover 2 scheme. There are a VAST amount of factors to consider beyond it being just "second down".

In 2014, they don't show the PA rates by down and the numbers remain fairly constant:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/2014-play-action-offense

"A couple changes to this year's article: We aren't showing play-action rates by down, because they have essentially remained constant for five years, particularly on second and third down. On the big table below, we're also not fleshing out the details by listing both play-action DVOA that includes scrambles and play-action DVOA that doesn't include scrambles, because you have probably fallen asleep reading this sentence. This year's play-action DVOA listed below always includes both passes and scrambles. The only team with a DVOA difference greater than 4% was the New York Jets"

 

[Dodger12]

Jason was supposedly genius, but didn't understand that one of the main points of a running attack is to keep the defense off its heels in what your going to do. A play-action will get corners to bite opening up the passing game. It will cause the defensive line to second guess, giving the QB more time and so on..

He has been awful here..

I'm actually shocked with the 2014 numbers.. They did move up, but not as much as I thought... Mind-boggling..

Completely agree and I was pretty shocked at the numbers myself, especially for 2014.

 

[texbumthelife]

Numbers don't prove much of anything much of the time. If you base your arguments on numbers, you've already lost the debate. Jeff George had good numbers. Troy Aikman didn't. Art Monk had great numbers. Drew Pearson didn't. Numbers lie like the devil.

How stupid was it for them to base numbers on "second down playcalling". That is preposterous.

As if all second downs are the same. 2nd and 3 isn't the same as 2nd and 12. 2nd down with a 14 point lead in the second quarter is much different than 2nd down behind by 21 in the fourth quarter. 2nd down against a team that loads the box isn't the same as a second down against Cover 2 scheme. There are a VAST amount of factors to consider beyond it being just "second down".

Sports don't boil down to numbers. Box-checkers who never played wish they did, but they don't.

But it makes for an easy website that doesn't require actual human interaction, which these pencil pushers avoid like the black plague.

You generally have well thought out takes, but...

This asinine distaste for the sports media is out of control. There are legitimate writers, like myself, on this site. This is a personal attack and needs to be cleaned up, yesterday.

Also, any evidence to the contrary of your argument is admissible. You don't get to determine what is credible. Believe it or not, there are people "pushing pencils" who could run circles around you with their knowledge and dedication to studying the game.