Turpin "Guys don't have to think in McCarthy's offense. They just go out and play fast."

[Toro9]

She works with Fish.

I'd like to see her working with me.

 

[KJJ]

3 yard outs and hope get makes a breaking tackle!

He’s not going to be breaking many if any tackles at his size. You get him out in space and allow him to elude defenders. He can make people miss and has the speed to beat someone deep.

 

[morat1959]

Another rocket scientist.

 

[Coogiguy03]

He’s not going to be breaking many if any tackles at his size. You get him out in space and allow him to elude defenders. He can make people miss and has the speed to beat someone deep.

So far from camp he has short sideline routes

 

[CowboyFrog]

we are seeing the very base version of this, MM is a close to the vest coach when it comes to what people can see in TC. We probably wont really see the plays until week1.

 

[quickccc]

McCarthy wants to emphasize the run so there should already be less opportunities for the receiving squad that includes a pretty strong top three. Turpin is probably WR5 so I'm thinking one to two opportunities at most per game.

Considering he had a total of four total touches on offense last season, this would be categorized as "more opportunity".

this is not gonna be a running team ... we are not build to pound and bell cow the run. .. the run game and RBs are gonna be predicated on
splash plays,.. all purpose run/catch,. .and getting the RBs quickly into space and on the move

And our run game is not gonna be cemented on just one lone RB,.. we're not doing the Emmit, Murray Zeke bell cow thing anymore

If anything we are gonna use the pass game to set up the run game.

 

[DuncanIso]

Hopefully this all works out.

teams will just play 2 man press.

 

[basel90]

It is not dumbing it down. It is making it functional which was what Moore lacked especially against better defenses.

It is only dumbed down to the anti Dak fans with an agenda.

As I said , Dak slobberers are running out of excuses after 8 years and 3 coaches and various assistants . One element at the helm has no clue how to win big games ; DAK

 

[basel90]

same offensive philosophy that MM had with Rodgers. won a superbowl. are you saying they dumbed it down for Rodgers? and its the similar west coast offense that Montana won three superbowls and Young. are they dumb? not deserving of HOF?

not sure if you really know what you are talking about. are you just trolling?

You are comparing Dak to Montana and Rodgers . I would call that trolling of these QB ..

 

[basel90]

What do you mean nothing has worked for him he’s been a productive quarterback when they dumbed down the offense for Romo I didn’t hear anyone complain.

Productive in some , dysfunctional in others . If you like moral victories and 10 win seasons etc and no CCG or Super Bowls , then Enjoy life with Dak .
poor romo never had the OL and RB luxuries or the team defense that Dak wasted . The excuses have to end sometime .

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Productive in some , dysfunctional in others . If you like moral victories and 10 win seasons etc and no CCG or Super Bowls , then Enjoy life with Dak .
poor romo never had the OL and RB luxuries or the team defense that Dak wasted . The excuses have to end sometime .

2014 is one of the best offensive lines we’ve had since the 90s are you high?

 

[jazzcat22]

As I said , Dak slobberers are running out of excuses after 8 years and 3 coaches and various assistants . One element at the helm has no clue how to win big games ; DAK

Where did you come up with this crap at from my post. I am certainly not a Dak slobberer but I don’t hate him either.
I just told the truth and you need to show Dak hate. You Dak haters can never discuss his strengths. And exaggerate any weakness, which all QBs have.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You are comparing Dak to Montana and Rodgers . I would call that trolling of these QB ..

Wow, you are Dak triggered. You called the offense dumb. I simply asked if you think Rodgers is dumb. I get it though. Dak lives in your head rent free. You can't go a moment without thinking Dak.

 

[catiii]

McCarthy wants to emphasize the run so there should already be less opportunities for the receiving squad that includes a pretty strong top three. Turpin is probably WR5 so I'm thinking one to two opportunities at most per game.

Considering he had a total of four total touches on offense last season, this would be categorized as "more opportunity".

We need to put in all 5 WRs on a play so we can watch a totally confused Dak throw it into the stands.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Thinking is over-rated, good chaps all.

 

[plasticman]

this is not gonna be a running team ... we are not build to pound and bell cow the run. .. the run game and RBs are gonna be predicated on
splash plays,.. all purpose run/catch,. .and getting the RBs quickly into space and on the move

And our run game is not gonna be cemented on just one lone RB,.. we're not doing the Emmit, Murray Zeke bell cow thing anymore

If anything we are gonna use the pass game to set up the run game.

I agree that the Cowboys don't have the personnel for a physical, balanced running attack. This is why I felt McCarthy was ambiguous when he mentioned that he wanted to emphasize the running game more.

How could this even be possible? If they wanted to run 50% of the time, then it would require between 30 to 35 carries a game. Even as the starter, I don't see Pollard getting more than 20 and that wouldn't even be a regular occurrence. So, who carries the other 10 to 15 times? Who controls the clock in the 4th quarter with consistent 4 to 5 yard gains?

On the other hand, the Cowboys are 27-1 when Dak throws 28 or less times. The Cowboys defense would allow for a more conservative approach offensively, If this defense is as legit as it seems to be then it wouldn't be necessary to score as many points.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that both Romo and Dak's best rated seasons occurred when a Cowboys RB led the league in rushing. They were also the seasons in which both QB's had the fewest attempts while playing a full season (14 or more games).

I just don't see Pollard with that type of durability. So, why would McCarthy make this statement? Could he be referring to the RB's role in the passing game?

 

[phildadon86]

The Dak critics clearly can't think.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...plays-provides-greater-understanding-details/

My favourite thing to hear is how Dak sucks and Moore was good.

Yet. When Dak was calling the plays in the no huddle offense the team would move down the field at will and score. 80 percent of the time at least.

Yet Moore wasn’t a problem? It was the same with Romo. When he called his own plays he was surgical. Same with Dak. But Dak benefitted from Moore?

I ask this question and never get a response. Which is telling in itself

 

[phildadon86]

I agree that the Cowboys don't have the personnel for a physical, balanced running attack. This is why I felt McCarthy was ambiguous when he mentioned that he wanted to emphasize the running game more.

How could this even be possible? If they wanted to run 50% of the time, then it would require between 30 to 35 carries a game. Even as the starter, I don't see Pollard getting more than 20 and that wouldn't even be a regular occurrence. So, who carries the other 10 to 15 times? Who controls the clock in the 4th quarter with consistent 4 to 5 yard gains?

On the other hand, the Cowboys are 27-1 when Dak throws 28 or less times. The Cowboys defense would allow for a more conservative approach offensively, If this defense is as legit as it seems to be then it wouldn't be necessary to score as many points.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that both Romo and Dak's best rated seasons occurred when a Cowboys RB led the league in rushing. They were also the seasons in which both QB's had the fewest attempts while playing a full season (14 or more games).

I just don't see Pollard with that type of durability. So, why would McCarthy make this statement? Could he be referring to the RB's role in the passing game?

I don’t think Mike meant run the ball more as a general statement. I think he meant more situational running game will be better. I also think that was an indirect dig at Moore for the San Fran game. 2nd and 2 play call. No reason to pass there in the red zone on the road.

This is my interpretation so I could be wrong. But I think he meant that. He also went further in saying that while points and yards look “pretty” he’d rather compliment the defense more. Which leads me to believe he more so meant. Situational running.

 

[America's Cowboy]

My favourite thing to hear is how Dak sucks and Moore was good.

Yet. When Dak was calling the plays in the no huddle offense the team would move down the field at will and score. 80 percent of the time at least.

Yet Moore wasn’t a problem? It was the same with Romo. When he called his own plays he was surgical. Same with Dak. But Dak benefitted from Moore?

I ask this question and never get a response. Which is telling in itself

 

[America's Cowboy]

I don’t think Mike meant run the ball more as a general statement. I think he meant more situational running game will be better. I also think that was an indirect dig at Moore for the San Fran game. 2nd and 2 play call. No reason to pass there in the red zone on the road.

This is my interpretation so I could be wrong. But I think he meant that. He also went further in saying that while points and yards look “pretty” he’d rather compliment the defense more. Which leads me to believe he more so meant. Situational running.