The Weekly Shocker

[Picksix]

Run Jason run!!!! We found the running game, and Garrett opts for trickery and stupidity yet again in the red zone. I believe he's bottomed out on being a moron, I really do. I don't think we can be any worse in the red zone, so I believe we'll get better. That's as positive as I can be because I think Garrett is horrid in the red zone. But simply changing his idiotic plays because he's under fire will help us improve, imo.

He's a great HC, a brilliant offensive designer, he sucks on game day and sucks in the red zone. He either needs to hire an OC or he needs to admit to himself what he's doing is bad and change. We'll see what happens.

The thing about running in the red zone, especially near the goal line, is that you're always going against more defenders in the box, because everything is so compressed. I just don't think Garrett trusts his run blocking enough to win that battle. Thus, we see a lot of "cute" plays, or passes. I would like to think that spreading the offense would, in turn, spread the defense, and make it eaiser to run. But if it's that simple, why don't most teams do it? Seems like when teams want to run near the goal line, they almost always go heavy.

 

[TheDude]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Get back to everyone when you know

Get back to me when you know for sure. It also matter who was backing them up.

I like the odds of loosing those three and keeping Romo healthy compared to Romo, the LG, and the #1 and 2 WR hurt.

But I still give the Pack credit for overcoming what they did. Let's not act like that's the norm though.

There were 15 on IR, Tauscher, Finley, Grant, many LBs and Safeties. Pitt lost their more on their OL

I don't know how anyone can can say injuries played a role in the losses. We held a 2nd half leads in the NYJ game (18 pts), Detroit (24pts) and NE. The only game we weren't in was Philly and everyone played.

Injuries are not even in the zipcode of why we lost 4 games so far.

And as far as broken ribs, not that I don't think it is a factor, but its not like other QBs haven't performed under similar situations...
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/02/09/roethlisberger-played-super-bowl-with-fractured-ribs/

 

[Hoofbite]

Nuttin like a good call out thread.

 

[7footer]

Wow...someone went there...and a moderator no less! I knew this place had a sense of humor somewhere...Bravo!

 

[Dodger]

Run Jason run!!!! We found the running game, and Garrett opts for trickery and stupidity yet again in the red zone. I believe he's bottomed out on being a moron, I really do.

All I can say is he better damn well run this weekend.

Murray is averaging over 8 ypc since he took over.

The Bills are allowing 4.6 ypc...near the bottom of the league.
They've surrendered 10 rushing TDs, also near the bottom of the league.
They've lost their starting NT for the rest of the year.

If that's not an invitation to run, and yes, that means on the goalline too, then I don't know what one is.

 

[shockandroll]

Actually, I'm very well read. You stubbornly cling to the "shock" puns. Ergo, intransigent.

I would not say it's stubbornly, it just works with my name. I give you points for the use of Ergo though, I love that word, well done.

 

[shockandroll]

I think this is a good point. A lot of people are getting hung up over Garrett and his role, when I think it's more important to look at the roles of a couple of his offensive assistants - namely his brother and his OL coach. One is the passing game coordinator, and the other is the running game coordinator. Not that they're doing a poor job, I just think the Cowboys need better, and better assistants would benefit Jason a lot.

Very good point. I agree they are not bad at all, I do think his brother is cut a little too much from the same cloth though. I think he needs a fresh perspective to help get a handle on what needs tweaking.

 

[shockandroll]

The thing about running in the red zone, especially near the goal line, is that you're always going against more defenders in the box, because everything is so compressed. I just don't think Garrett trusts his run blocking enough to win that battle. Thus, we see a lot of "cute" plays, or passes. I would like to think that spreading the offense would, in turn, spread the defense, and make it easier to run. But if it's that simple, why don't most teams do it? Seems like when teams want to run near the goal line, they almost always go heavy.

Yeah I agree and I should not have used the words I did, was frustrated when I posted that. I am referring only to his play calling and schemes from the 5 and closer when saying they are bad, and I believe they are. Moron was harsh but I was on a roll.

I would understand if Fiammetta was still hurt and if Naggy was still at LG trying what he did. With Holland there and Fi healthy, and Murray having a great running day, I don't agree with not trying a honest run even once in that series.

It appears to me when he gets inside the 5, he tries way to hard to out think or trick the D. The D almost always seems ready for it, because we always do it. When I see the tricks work, it's usually because the offense has an identity and established to the D that if they are lined up to run, they do. So the D bites when it's a fake.

We don't set it up, hence the D does not bite, imo. The plays themselves are fine, it's how and when they are used that I believe needs tweaking.

 

[shockandroll]

Get back to everyone when you know



There were 15 on IR, Tauscher, Finley, Grant, many LBs and Safeties. Pitt lost their more on their OL

I don't know how anyone can can say injuries played a role in the losses. We held a 2nd half leads in the NYJ game (18 pts), Detroit (24pts) and NE. The only game we weren't in was Philly and everyone played.

Injuries are not even in the zipcode of why we lost 4 games so far.

And as far as broken ribs, not that I don't think it is a factor, but its not like other QBs haven't performed under similar situations...
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/02/09/roethlisberger-played-super-bowl-with-fractured-ribs/

I'm not talking about them being a direct factor as why we lost, I'm talking about it having a major impact on the efficiency of the offense.

We do not currently have the depth the Packers do so we cannot sustain those injuries and just move on as easily. The Packers had been building up their team over a number of years, we're still in the middle of getting the right guys in place for Garrett's vision.

I would argue we'll be able to handle these same loses much better next year than this year. It's simply too much change for a team making major adjustments to the oline and it's defense.

I'm not saying it's OK, we need to get deeper because injuries will happen. I'm just saying we're not their yet.

The other thing is, we're still in the playoffs as of right now. So it's too soon for you to just write this team off. They may go on a run and overcome the injuries by the end of the year.

I think it's funny you don't think Rogers playing with broken ribs would change anything. He's on fire right now and the major reason they are winning. Their D is terrible, if he is just a little less great against the Chargers, they probably lose that game. Nothing is certain, but I think a solid argument can be made that the Packers would not be undefeated right now if Rogers had suffered busted ribs in week 2 or 3.

 

[Kilyin]

A true cinematic masterpiece.

[youtubehd]AJ45o5nBbA8?hd=1[/youtubehd]

 

[Dhragon]

So? Was Roger's one of them? Was their #1 and 2 WR, LG, back up LG some of the others?

It's not as simple as the Packers had injuries. Break Rogers ribs and see how they do, seriously.

 

[TheDude]

I'm not talking about them being a direct factor as why we lost, I'm talking about it having a major impact on the efficiency of the offense.

We do not currently have the depth the Packers do so we cannot sustain those injuries and just move on as easily. The Packers had been building up their team over a number of years, we're still in the middle of getting the right guys in place for Garrett's vision.

I would argue we'll be able to handle these same loses much better next year than this year. It's simply too much change for a team making major adjustments to the oline and it's defense.

I'm not saying it's OK, we need to get deeper because injuries will happen. I'm just saying we're not their yet.

The other thing is, we're still in the playoffs as of right now. So it's too soon for you to just write this team off. They may go on a run and overcome the injuries by the end of the year.

I think it's funny you don't think Rogers playing with broken ribs would change anything. He's on fire right now and the major reason they are winning. Their D is terrible, if he is just a little less great against the Chargers, they probably lose that game. Nothing is certain, but I think a solid argument can be made that the Packers would not be undefeated right now if Rogers had suffered busted ribs in week 2 or 3.

Im not writing them off, but to clarify they are in the playoff HUNT right now, they are 2 games out. 2 historical collapses are really on the offense, but in no way shape or form related to injuries. The yards have been there, the field position, the TOP, the goal -to-goal ops, etc.

Having receivers not know routes is a reflection of preparedness, sure you can say players didn't execute, but the frequency and magnitude have to have alot of the blame fall to the Offensive management and teaching.

Sure, the Packers may not be undefeated right now if Rodgers was playing with broken ribs. But I just dont believe they would execute two historic collapses last Dallas has been more accustomed to in recent years.

 

[jaybird]

Anybody ever consider, Jason knows this team better than anybody. Understands the strengths and weekneses better than anyone. Maybe, just maybe the OL line being young and light in the britches sucks at running the ball with 9 in the box.

 

[perrykemp]

Their D is terrible

I know the Packers are giving up a ton of yards, however, I looked and they are 18th in points allowed and #1 in interceptions (16 total -- 2 a game) and #2 overall in turnovers forced.

I know "bend but don't break" is a bit of a cliche, but it seems to fit the Packers defense quite nicely.

 

[shockandroll]

Im not writing them off, but to clarify they are in the playoff HUNT right now, they are 2 games out. 2 historical collapses are really on the offense, but in no way shape or form related to injuries. The yards have been there, the field position, the TOP, the goal -to-goal ops, etc.

Having receivers not know routes is a reflection of preparedness, sure you can say players didn't execute, but the frequency and magnitude have to have alot of the blame fall to the Offensive management and teaching.

Sure, the Packers may not be undefeated right now if Rodgers was playing with broken ribs. But I just dont believe they would execute two historic collapses last Dallas has been more accustomed to in recent years.

I don't put the Jets loss on the offense, I blame the special teams much more. Romo had two mistakes but they in and of themselves wee not why we lost the game. Overall the offense played as well as I would have hoped against that defense.

I agree with you about management and teaching completely.

I think the injuries had everything to do with the Pats loss. Had the offense and Romo in particular been healthy, I think we'd have put more points on the board and moved the ball much better.

I think injuries had a lot to do with the Jets loss too. If our secondary had not been so banged up, I think we take at least 7 points off the board from the Jets.

The Lions melt down? Romo made a few boneheaded reads, Robinson messed up a route that Dez or Miles probably would not have, Romo did not have as much zip or strength, it's possible the throw to Witten would of had a little more on it if he was healthy. But I agree the injuries were not the main reason for the screw ups.

Like I said, it's not OK for us to have inferior depth in a few areas, that needs to be addressed. But I think it's easier to find teams that struggle with major injuries then it is to find examples of what the Packers did.

 

[shockandroll]

Anybody ever consider, Jason knows this team better than anybody. Understands the strengths and weekneses better than anyone. Maybe, just maybe the OL line being young and light in the britches sucks at running the ball with 9 in the box.

Nope. Holland Free and Kosier are not young, Holland and Free are not light in the britches. Even Emmitt agrees with me, but he's usually wrong so I should probably not use him as an example, lol.

Home > Sports > Cowboys Blog

Comments 4 | Recommend http://www.***BANNED-URL***/resources/images/cgm/assets/thumb_up.gif0


cgmArticleIds.push({articleId:"178.738498",divId:"slcgm_metadata_blog_178_738498",articleTitle:"Emmitt Smith: Jason Garrett \'has to learn how to trust\' line and running back"});
Emmitt Smith: Jason Garrett 'has to learn how to trust' line and running back



By

David Moore / Reporter


dmoore@***BANNED-URL*** | Bio
12:05 PM on Thu., Nov. 10, 2011 | Permalink







It should come as no surprise that Emmitt Smith believes head coach Jason Garrett should have run the ball when the Cowboys had a first-and-goal inside the 1-yard line against Seattle.

Smith, during an appearance on The Ticket (KTCK-AM 1310), called the sequence that resulted in a pass, pitch and pass before the Cowboys settled for a field goal a wasted series.

"At some point in time, our head coach has to learn how to trust those front five guys and the running back he has,'' Smith said.
Smith believes a broader statement would have been made if Garrett ran the ball in that situation.

"When you get in goal line it's time to man up, time for the front five guys to grow up and understand what the NFL is all about,'' Smith said. "We had run the ball effectively. You have to build on that faith and that confidence.
"For a young offensive liie that has not had a lot of success running the football, that was an opportunity to reward them and give them the opportunity to show that they have improved.

"There are points in a game where you have a chance to set the tone, set the tempo and build character for an organzaiton and team. That was one of those moments.''

 

[TheDude]

I don't put the Jets loss on the offense, I blame the special teams much more. Romo had two mistakes but they in and of themselves wee not why we lost the game. Overall the offense played as well as I would have hoped against that defense.

I agree with you about management and teaching completely.

I think the injuries had everything to do with the Pats loss. Had the offense and Romo in particular been healthy, I think we'd have put more points on the board and moved the ball much better.

I think injuries had a lot to do with the Jets loss too. If our secondary had not been so banged up, I think we take at least 7 points off the board from the Jets.

The Lions melt down? Romo made a few boneheaded reads, Robinson messed up a route that Dez or Miles probably would not have, Romo did not have as much zip or strength, it's possible the throw to Witten would of had a little more on it if he was healthy. But I agree the injuries were not the main reason for the screw ups.

Like I said, it's not OK for us to have inferior depth in a few areas, that needs to be addressed. But I think it's easier to find teams that struggle with major injuries then it is to find examples of what the Packers did.

The punt was more of anamoly, but we had it 1st and goal at the 3 to go up 2 scores. run for 1, incomplete pass. Broken play - fumble. Sometimes it happens, but it has been a longtime trend in the RZ.


Get the ball back tied w/ 5min to go and go 3 and out on 3 stright runs (after putting 300yds on throwing). W/ 5 minutes left TIED, I would think you open it up more especially since you couldnt run during the game new line etc.

Punt it away and get the ball back TIED w/ 59 sec. The INT was just like 2008 Pitt. 4 chances for a go ahead/pad/tie the score and 0 pts.

Anyway, that gam, Det and NE game bug me way more than Philly. I think NE, injuries weren't a concern at all. Austin and Dez played. the story there was

Dall 1TD 3FGs vs NYG 3 TDs 1 FG - swap the 22yd and 26 yd fg (or even 1) Dallas wins. Tony put up 300yds, so passing was effective, until we hit the NE 5yd line

Not really trying to argue, just frustrating

 

[shockandroll]

The punt was more of anamoly, but we had it 1st and goal at the 3 to go up 2 scores. run for 1, incomplete pass. Broken play - fumble. Sometimes it happens, but it has been a longtime trend in the RZ.


Get the ball back tied w/ 5min to go and go 3 and out on 3 stright runs (after putting 300yds on throwing). W/ 5 minutes left TIED, I would think you open it up more especially since you couldnt run during the game new line etc.

Punt it away and get the ball back TIED w/ 59 sec. The INT was just like 2008 Pitt. 4 chances for a go ahead/pad/tie the score and 0 pts.

Anyway, that gam, Det and NE game bug me way more than Philly. I think NE, injuries weren't a concern at all. Austin and Dez played. the story there was

Dall 1TD 3FGs vs NYG 3 TDs 1 FG - swap the 22yd and 26 yd fg (or even 1) Dallas wins. Tony put up 300yds, so passing was effective, until we hit the NE 5yd line

Not really trying to argue, just frustrating

I hear ya, just because we don't completely agree does not mean we're arguing. We see it differently, I'm good with that because you actually took the time to explain why so I see your point. I don't agree with all of it but I understand why you feel that way.

 

[TheDude]

Anybody ever consider, Jason knows this team better than anybody. Understands the strengths and weekneses better than anyone. Maybe, just maybe the OL line being young and light in the britches sucks at running the ball with 9 in the box.

I tend to overestimate everyone in their job until they prove me wrong. After watching red for 5 years, the answer is

NO

Ed Reed, Ray Lewis, Pearson, Jimmy Johnson, Emmitt, and others back me up. - As do a 53% winning pect since 2008 and roughly middle of the pack in points scored despite bring perrnially on top of yards gained (translation - can't culminate with success).

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

shockandroll
the shocking truth
the weekly shocker
shockwave
shocked into belief

Personal plea: pick a pun and stick with it.

In his Defense, I begged him to use this title this week (thanks shock!). :