The RKG

[Dodger12]

btw, Denver, new England, Pittsburgh all would be considered passing teams, as they passed way more than they ran the ball. surprising specially with Pittsburgh having Bell as their RB. so fox, bilicheck and tomlin must be crappy coaches.

Denver and NE were in the top 10 in ruching attempts in 2012 and 2013. That's surprising to me with regards to Denver. Under Bruce Arians, the Steelers were more of a running team until his contract wasn't renewed and Todd Haley has been on the hot seat as the OC as there were reports of friction between Ben and his OC.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I don't know how one can argue that Garrett wasn't pass happy. I mean, we're all fans and we all watched the games. In 2013 and 2013, Dallas was ranked 31 (second to last) in rushing attempts per game. In 2011, they ranked 24th. I'm only going but what I found and I'm assuming I'm reading the stats correctly.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/rushing-attempts-per-game?date=2014-02-02

In addition, with the playoffs on the line and back up QB in the last game against Philly in 2013, Orton threw the ball 46 times. Think about that for a second. Murray had 17 rushing attempts that game. As a team, we had 18 rushing attempts with 1 being Orton who scarmbled for 8 yards. Again, I just don't know how anyone can claim that Garrett ran a balanced offense. I mean, the guy didn't even run to protect his back-up QB.

my argument is that we had to pass at times because we had to. i.e. I remember Chicago game when we averaged less than 2 yards per carry on first down and that was with a 19 yard run to boot on one first down. when you are consistently in 2nd and long and 3rd and long situation then you have better chance of passing and getting something than running and punting. in the NFL down and distance control a lot of what coaches try to do. my point is that our running game wasn't consistent enough.

if you go back and look at the games individually, you will see in games where we established running game, had more consistency, we ran the ball and had a balanced attack. when the running game wasn't clicking, then we ended up passing more and some games to the extreme.

with that said, I also pointed out there are a lot of teams who are more pass happy than the cowboys, ala new England and Pittsburgh. its a passing league. the rules have changed over the past few years to favor the pass and more scoring. most teams have adjusted accordingly.

wanting to run. vs. having the ability to run. so in the game against philly. we ran 17 times. for 48 yards!!!! that's 2.8 yards per carry. so lets do that three times in a row and punt!!! lets give the other team the ball against the worst defense in the league and second worst defense in history. is that a better game plan?

in the first half...6 of 14 first down plays before 1:19 of the first half were runs. which were 6, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 1. 4 of those runs put you in 2nd and long situation. again consistency in the run game.

2nd half started with run on first down, for 3 yards, then another series which we started with a pass, and a 3rd series which started with a run of 1 yard.

this is not going to help you establish a running game.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Denver and NE were in the top 10 in ruching attempts in 2012 and 2013. That's surprising to me with regards to Denver. Under Bruce Arians, the Steelers were more of a running team until his contract wasn't renewed and Todd Haley has been on the hot seat as the OC as there were reports of friction between Ben and his OC.

Denver and NE were in the top 10 in ruching attempts in 2012 and 2013. That's surprising to me with regards to Denver. Under Bruce Arians, the Steelers were more of a running team until his contract wasn't renewed and Todd Haley has been on the hot seat as the OC as there were reports of friction between Ben and his OC.

interestingly, both have better offensive lines than most other teams...and despite their big leads, they passed more than they ran. I haven't broken down their stats, but given they had large leads in a lot of games, a lot of their rushes would come when the game was already decided and they were running the clock out. in 2011, NE had 8 blow out games. in 2012 4.

they still pass at around 60% and they had a lot of blow out games, when the outcome was decided by 4th quarter so they rush to run out the clock. NE had 4 of those types last year and 8 in 2011. Denver had 8 blow outs in 2012. not sure what to make of 2011 as they went 8-8 and had tim tebow as QB, which explains a lot about their inability to pass as opposed their wish to run the ball.

 

[CATCH17]

so 6 top ten ten finishes on offense means you suck...got it ;-)

Yes, it does.. And thankfully the Cowboys agreed with me and stripped him of his duties.

 

[CATCH17]

my argument is that we had to pass at times because we had to. i.e. I remember Chicago game when we averaged less than 2 yards per carry on first down and that was with a 19 yard run to boot on one first down. when you are consistently in 2nd and long and 3rd and long situation then you have better chance of passing and getting something than running and punting. in the NFL down and distance control a lot of what coaches try to do. my point is that our running game wasn't consistent enough.

if you go back and look at the games individually, you will see in games where we established running game, had more consistency, we ran the ball and had a balanced attack. when the running game wasn't clicking, then we ended up passing more and some games to the extreme.

with that said, I also pointed out there are a lot of teams who are more pass happy than the cowboys, ala new England and Pittsburgh. its a passing league. the rules have changed over the past few years to favor the pass and more scoring. most teams have adjusted accordingly.

wanting to run. vs. having the ability to run. so in the game against philly. we ran 17 times. for 48 yards!!!! that's 2.8 yards per carry. so lets do that three times in a row and punt!!! lets give the other team the ball against the worst defense in the league and second worst defense in history. is that a better game plan?

in the first half...6 of 14 first down plays before 1:19 of the first half were runs. which were 6, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 1. 4 of those runs put you in 2nd and long situation. again consistency in the run game.

2nd half started with run on first down, for 3 yards, then another series which we started with a pass, and a 3rd series which started with a run of 1 yard.

this is not going to help you establish a running game.

And my argument is you need to stop pressing F5 on NFL.com/stats and start watching some Cowboys games.

 

[CATCH17]

you are sounding frustrated.....you think garrett sucks as a play caller so everyone needs to agree with you? and then you lol.....provide facts instead of lol....everything you have said to this point is disputed with facts and it has been nothing more than assumptions, assertions and heresay. facts can't be disputed. perceptions of a drunk are imaginary

The stats will show that Jason Garrett had a clue of what he was doing but there isn't a playcaller out there that Romo couldn't produce at the very least similar results with.

 

[Dodger12]

if you go back and look at the games individually, you will see in games where we established running game, had more consistency, we ran the ball and had a balanced attack. when the running game wasn't clicking, then we ended up passing more and some games to the extreme.

wanting to run. vs. having the ability to run. so in the game against philly. we ran 17 times. for 48 yards!!!! that's 2.8 yards per carry. so lets do that three times in a row and punt!!! lets give the other team the ball against the worst defense in the league and second worst defense in history. is that a better game plan?

in the first half...6 of 14 first down plays before 1:19 of the first half were runs. which were 6, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 1. 4 of those runs put you in 2nd and long situation. again consistency in the run game.

DC, just a couple of things from your post. Your first point doesn't really hold water when you look at the Green Bay game last year. We were killing them on the ground and opened a 3 TD lead. Garrett inexplicably got away from the run the second half, just as he did in Detroit the year prior to that if my memory serves me.
I wonder what our ruishing stats would look like this year. I know there were games when Murray was being shut down but they still continued to feed him the ball.

The lack of a commitment to run had as much to do with philosophy than it did with talent. When Linehan was brought in to be OC, it has been reported that his marching orders were that we were going to run more (or something to that effect). We hadn't even draffted Martin at that point yet we were going to committ to the run game. Even if this was the mind set after drafting Martin, no one could have popssibly known how good he'd be.

And my last point is that it's hard to committ to the run when you're in the shotgun so much. How many 2nd and 1 or second and short did we have to endure from the shotgun? When you're near dead last in rushing attempts a couple of years in a row, there's no way do defend it, especially after you draft a center in the 1st round and bring in a couple of FA linemen. Those stats just don't lie.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

DC, just a couple of things from your post. Your first point doesn't really hold water when you look at the Green Bay game last year. We were killing them on the ground and opened a 3 TD lead. Garrett inexplicably got away from the run the second half, just as he did in Detroit the year prior to that if my memory serves me.
I wonder what our ruishing stats would look like this year. I know there were games when Murray was being shut down but they still continued to feed him the ball.

The lack of a commitment to run had as much to do with philosophy than it did with talent. When Linehan was brought in to be OC, it has been reported that his marching orders were that we were going to run more (or something to that effect). We hadn't even draffted Martin at that point yet we were going to committ to the run game. Even if this was the mind set after drafting Martin, no one could have popssibly known how good he'd be.

And my last point is that it's hard to committ to the run when you're in the shotgun so much. How many 2nd and 1 or second and short did we have to endure from the shotgun? When you're near dead last in rushing attempts a couple of years in a row, there's no way do defend it, especially after you draft a center in the 1st round and bring in a couple of FA linemen. Those stats just don't lie.

I don't totally disagree with your assessment. its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. My point has been to provide some balance to the none sense. Have we abandoned the run too early in the past? there were games that we did. there were games that we couldn't run and had no choice. the point being it has been too inconsistent. there were games like GB game where I thought we abandoned it too early. Some of that I don't put on garrett (although he is not totally absolved), but on Romo. it was the first time I saw garrett's frustrations boil over and call out his player. When we were running the ball, GB started to stack the line with 8 o 9 in the box. Romo changed several of the calls from run to pass when he saw the front. What romo didn't trust is his OL being able to block for running and often when you see an 8 or 9 in the box, you change the play to a pass

Jerry wanted a Romo friendly offense (why? that's undermining his coaches. you let the coaches decide what best works for the team). he wanted his quarterback to have a say in the game plan and on game day play calling. as much as I like Romo and what he does and can do, he is no Brady or Manning. he often changed plays on the LOS like GB gam. Going out of the shut gun is another Romo friendly aspect of game planning, as romo himself has said and we have often heard is more comfortable from a shut gun than under center, since it gives him more time to read the defense (but also tips the defense that you will be passing most probably).

with that said, Garrett wanted to bring in linehan for two reasons. One familiariy with his offensive philosophy (where Callahan didn't) andto act as the buffer between him and romo (not that they have a bad relationship), but Linehan has been able to manage Romo's play calling at the line and getting him to trust his line on being able to run, despite minor set backs. Romo often had two plays to choose from depending on the defensive front and he abandoned the run too early, taking his ability to change plays and getting him to believe we can run the ball and should run the ball as been one of the bigger changes this off season than adding Martin to the line. again we saw that frustration boil over in GB game.

the point is that garrett isn't all about passing. he did try to establish a running game, as he recognized he needs to do that to help his defense. did he abandon the run early in some games. yes. did romo have a hand in this. yes. but both have learned, made changes and moved forward. that's what good coaches do.

we also have to give garrett credit in finding the right balance to work with Jerry jones whose meddling we all know too well. including romo friendly offense, the almost manziel pick and other slew of interference he has done through the years, for short term rewards and not long term out look. Jerry often undermines his coaches without realizing (including him coming down this year to tell garrett, Romo can come back in the Washington game). That's not a GM or Owners decision. He should trust the staff to do the right thing, which he didn't.

 

[jrumann59]

The easiest thing Garret could have done, and I doubt he has the success he has now and his replacement would have benefited, is blow it up and start from scratch. He took a risk slowly getting rid of "dead" weight and keeping a "competitive" team. Call it mediocrity, but every full year he was HC he was 1 game away from winning the NFCE. That says a lot. Instead of 8-8 we could have gone 4-12 or 3-13 as he tried to rebuild the team from scratch.

 

[jrumann59]

They were a pass happy team in the past, but looking at rankings at the end of the year without context means nothing. How many games was this offense down by a couple of scores. How efficient was the offense in scoring points per drive. I am willing to bet the teams last year and year before probably had very low points per drive avg which means that offense tended to get bogged down. remember last year the offense would sputter all game and then all of sudden it would turn on in the 4th quarter. Can run ball if you are behind and cannot score efficiently.

 

[Idgit]

They were a pass happy team in the past, but looking at rankings at the end of the year without context means nothing. How many games was this offense down by a couple of scores. How efficient was the offense in scoring points per drive. I am willing to bet the teams last year and year before probably had very low points per drive avg which means that offense tended to get bogged down. remember last year the offense would sputter all game and then all of sudden it would turn on in the 4th quarter. Can run ball if you are behind and cannot score efficiently.

We were actually top-5 in the league last year on an offensive point/drive basis. Moved up from 4th to 2nd this season.

It's the defense that leapt up. From 30th to 17th this season. Given that we lost 5 games by a total of 8 points last year (I'm going to keep saying that until is catches on), it's not too hard to see where the improvement came about and why the record is better.

The last four weeks is when our scoring has really improved. It's not a coincidence that that coincides with relying on passing the ball more, too. We're passing effectively and building leads, which makes it easier for us to not take passing game risks on offense, and puts the other teams in positions where they have to take risks to try to catch up. That's the formula for winning in the NFL.

 

[DanteEXT]

We were killing them on the ground and opened a 3 TD lead. Garrett inexplicably got away from the run the second half, ....

A few more run plays would have been nice in the second half at no time did the Cowboys offense step on the field with a 3 TD lead. The biggest lead they worked with in that game was 16.

 

[Dodger12]

A few more run plays would have been nice in the second half at no time did the Cowboys offense step on the field with a 3 TD lead. The biggest lead they worked with in that game was 16.

Go back and take a look again. Dallas led 26 to 3 at one point.

 

[DanteEXT]

Go back and take a look again. Dallas led 26 to 3 at one point.

Dallas last possession in the first half they started with a 16 point lead and scored a TD to push the lead to 23. Now that was their last 1st half drive. The second half point differential the offense worked with were in order 16, 12, 5, 5, -1. Garrett never had his offense on the field with that lead though which is what I said. It bothers me when people complain that Garrett should have ran the ball more with that 23 point lead when the chance to do so was never there. Did it bother me they didn't run the ball more as the lead slipped away to try and burn time off the clock? Sure it did. Also bothered me to watch the defense give up 34 points in 14 minutes and 5 seconds too.

 

[Idgit]

Dallas last possession in the first half they started with a 16 point lead and scored a TD to push the lead to 23. Now that was their last 1st half drive. The second half point differential the offense worked with were in order 16, 12, 5, 5, -1. Garrett never had his offense on the field with that lead though which is what I said. It bothers me when people complain that Garrett should have ran the ball more with that 23 point lead when the chance to do so was never there. Did it bother me they didn't run the ball more as the lead slipped away to try and burn time off the clock? Sure it did. Also bothered me to watch the defense give up 34 points in 14 minutes and 5 seconds too.

Not defending the GB playcalling in any way. But I'll never understand why fans don't complain more about what an obvious liability out defense has been the last several years.

 

[Eskimo]

9, by my count. That would be players with more than 4 years in the league and who were not brought in by Garrett: Romo, Witten, Dez, Free, Scandrick, Church, Spencer, LoDouceur, and Parnell.

The number of those players who we presently start who were developed as starters under Wade shortens that list to Romo, Witten and Free. The other 19 starters were developed/found since Wade left. In our drive to the playoffs Parnell who was as green as grass when he came here was in the starting lineup and the offense didn't miss a beat. OScan basically was internally promoted from #3 CB to #1 CB.

So in our drive to the playoffs here are all the new starters who weren't starting when Wade departed:

Dez (you could argue this was inevitable but there were major growing pains)
TWill
Hanna/Clutts/Beasley (depends on the package we are using)
Parnell
Martin
Fred
Leary
Tyron
Murray

Selvie
Hayden
Crawford
Mincey/DLaw
RoMac
Hitchens
Carter
Moore
Carr
Church (he was a ST player under Wade who no one expected to become a starter)
JJ Wilcox

So that is 22 major players that were not starting under Wade. Now how did we acquire these 22 players;

1st round 4 (Dez, Tyron, Fred, Martin)
2nd round 2 (Carter, DLaw)
3rd round 4 (Crawford, TWill, JJ, Murray)
4th round 1 (Hitchens)
6th round 1 (Hanna)
Prem FA 1 (Carr)
Scraps 4 (Mincey, Moore, Hayden, Selvie)
UDFA 5 (Parnell, Church, Clutts, Leary, Beasley)
Trade 1 (RoMac)

So we seem to have a December roster whose major cogs were largely developed after Wade left. The only real indentured starters who are basically in the same place serving the similar roles are Romo, OScan and Witten. You could certainly put an asterisk besides Dez but since Wade left there having been times of major growing pains when many wanted to throw him under the bus. Everyone has to remember Dez was not a top 5 game he came here and dominated from game 1. It was actually about halfway into his 3rd season where things started to click for him.

Furthermore only 7 of those cogs were brought in with premium resources (1st/2nd round picks, high priced FA).

It has been an outstanding job from this whole organization to build this team including college scouts, pro scouts and the coaches to form this ragtag group into a collective unit of *** kickers.

Now the ongoing challenge will be to continue to find and develop cheap cogs so the team can continue to have the depth needed to win in December. We have absorbed missed playing time to projected starters like Sean Lee, Free, RoMac, Durant, Melton and Mo and have just continued to churn out wins.

 

[romothesavior]

I think he deserves a lot of credit, but not for being an X's and O's type, but for being what he is -- a good leader, organizer, and motivator.
He absolutely has the attention of his team and assistants, and that is a difficult achievement in an ego-filled swamp.
There isn't anything wrong with the management model that has evolved under Garrett, but it is a departure from some of the prominent strategist/tactician HC guys that we have respected in the past. Under this system, each assistant is actually more important, and that's probably how they like it.

With that, hopefully this staff will stay together for few more years.

Excellent post.