Vela - Cowboys Offense in Review: Time to Brain the Milk Cow

MichaelWinicki

"You want some?"
Staff member
Messages
47,997
Reaction score
27,917
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Cowboys Offense in Review: Time to Brain the Milk Cow

Tiny by Rafael Vela on Sep 21, 2009 4:00 PM CDT

When I was much younger, my father purchased a milk cow for our farm. He was a country boy at heart and missed fresh milk. The cow didn't take to feeling new hands and gave dad a couple of kicks the first morning he set to milk her.

My dad was not the patient sort, and had less tolerance for a cow. He swung the pot he took for collecting the milk and brained the cow. The blow was so hard it put a permanent dent in the metal pot. He said the cow staggered a moment, rolled its eyes, and quickly got the message.

Dad got his milk, and never again got trouble from the cow.

It may be time for Jason Garrett to take a similar heavy swing at Tony Romo's thick head. Last night the Cowboys milk cow showed how thin the line between winning and losing can be. In his case, it's one pass.

Star-divide

There are plenty of numbers to crunch and debate, but on offense, this line glows in angry red:

* 29 attempts, 2 bad decisions, 6.9 bad decision percentage

Gunslinger QBs have a higher risk-reward ratio than the dinkers and dunkers. They throw down the field more and take more chances. The good ones make more big plays and commit more mistakes as a by-product. K.C. Joyner has put the bad decision fault line for down-the-field types at roughly 3.5%.

In other words, for quarterbacks who average 30 attempts per game, one bad throw per game can usually be tolerated and overcome. It's the service charge for big plays.

Romo has criss-crossed what I'll call the Favre Line in his still-brief career. In '06, his rookie starting season, Romo posted a phenomenal 1.9 bad decision percentage. In '07, when the wins came, that number nonetheless mushroomed to 4.0%. It's been on the bad side of 3.5% since.

Last week, Romo's number was just on the line. He had one questionable pass against the Bucs. Last night, he had two howlers. One was returned for a touchdown. That came in a 3rd-and-10 situation, when Romo overthrew Roy Williams and found a Giants cornerback instead.

That throw didn't particularly bother me. I've seen lots of good QBs fail at this pass, guys named Namath, Marino, Elway, Favre and Warner. They trust their arms and sometimes miss those tiny boxes they hit more often than not. That was within the quota.

It was the second pick which had me wondering if that old dented pot is still around. If I find it, Jason Garrett may get it express delivery, if he hasn't purchased one already. This came on a 1st-and-10, when Dallas was in position to finally seize control of the game. Romo forced a deep pick into double coverage and didn't come close. This is the type of unforced error he made against Baltimore, Seattle and other teams last year.

It's the difference between one bad decision and two. It's the difference between 3.4% and 6.9%.

It's the difference between winning and losing.

It's a lesson that hasn't taken, despite the talk of "Romo Friendly."

Romo doesn't have to shoulder the load. He's running an offense that put 31 points and nearly 400 yards of offense on one of the better defenses in the league. It stampeded a front seven that's supposed to be the NFL's deepest. Dallas has averaged 32.5 points thus far, and if they can gash New York this way, the points should come against nearly everybody. Don Meredith used to have this same problem. If you've ever read the '69 book Next Year's Team, you'll know it quotes a chastened Meredith, emerging from a film session with Tom Landry, chanting, "I will not throw deep on double coverage," as a mantra. That lesson never fully took, and that failure got Dandy booed out of town.

The next time Romo addresses the press, look at his scalp. See if that backwards baseball cap is concealing a lump. If Romo wants to make the move from his flat at the corner of Meredith and White to the penthouse on the corner of Staubach and Aikman, his coordinator Jason Garrett may have to employ the type of "Romo persuasive" methods my dad would have endorsed.
 

28 Joker

28 Joker
Messages
7,878
Reaction score
1
Giving Felix Jones 7 carries was a joke, and it was a big reason Dallas lost the game.

7 carries, 7 bloody carries.

I give up.

I see stupid people, and they coach the Cowboys.
 

stilltheguru

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
14,359
41gy#;2960109 said:
Giving Felix Jones 7 carries was a joke, and it was a big reason Dallas lost the game.

7 carries, 7 bloody carries.

I give up.

I see stupid people, and they coach the Cowboys.




Your boy sure didn't help matters getting toasted like that.
 

triplets92

Active Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
238
41gy#;2960109 said:
Giving Felix Jones 7 carries was a joke, and it was a big reason Dallas lost the game.

7 carries, 7 bloody carries.

I give up.

I see stupid people, and they coach the Cowboys.

is it just me or did it seem like Felix was getting a bit lazy in the return game. I mean I know he had one good return but at the begining he did allot of tip toeing
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
41gy#;2960109 said:
Giving Felix Jones 7 carries was a joke, and it was a big reason Dallas lost the game.

7 carries, 7 bloody carries.

I give up.

I see stupid people, and they coach the Cowboys.

Wow. Every thread same post.

Way to ruin this board for people who want to have intelligent discussions.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
78,651
Reaction score
42,995
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
elkabong.jpg
tony_romo_cowboys.jpg


:)
 

DandyDon1722

It's been a good 'un, ain't it?
Messages
6,386
Reaction score
7,008
I am not making excuses. He played bad, but I saw where he said he actually thought the play was there. He never saw the safety because he was in his direct line of sight behind the receiver. I can see where that can happen, but even so the pass was poor.

I believe the Giants coaches put him in positions to succeed. I believe our coaches put Tony in positions where he hopes to succeed. There just isn't the commitment or confidence in the plays.
 

Faerluna

I'm Complicated
Messages
5,144
Reaction score
6
Nothing like a good animal abuse analogy to get your point across.

Or something.
 

Bluefin

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
9,677
Romo doesn't have to shoulder the load.
It certainly appears he has to every week with Jason Garrett calling the shots.

The Giants dared us to be a running team last night and we declined.

It seems the best we can hope for is "balance."

It's a nice goal, but there will be games where we need to lean heavily on the run or the pass in order to succeed.

Garrett won't hesitate to ask his quarterback to chuck the ball 35 times if the defense is stacking the box, but he's very hesitant to do the opposite.

Just because we have a franchise signal caller doesn't mean he must be the focal point for every game.

If a defense dares us to run the ball because they don't think we will stick with it even if it's working, that is a problem.

We should've pounded the ball last night for 300+ yards and forced the Giants to play defense differently in order to contain it. They were petrified at the idea of manning up our receivers and we let them off the hook by not running the ball down their throats until they had no choice but to bring up the eighth defender and man up on our weapons.
 

TwoCentPlain

Numbnuts
Messages
15,171
Reaction score
11,084
No doubt about it. Only an idiot would throw that ball in that situation. Romo has no idea how to manage a game. Romo is clueless. Like Parcells said, dumb people make dumb plays. That was one of the stupidest throws I have seen in my 30 some years of watching football.

Romo is an idiot. Can the Cowboys win with a clueless idiot at QB? Not a superbowl.
 

theebs

Believe!!!!
Messages
27,462
Reaction score
9,207
41gy#;2960109 said:
Giving Felix Jones 7 carries was a joke, and it was a big reason Dallas lost the game.

7 carries, 7 bloody carries.

I give up.

I see stupid people, and they coach the Cowboys.


he was suffering from cramps all night, that is why austin returned some kicks also.

His calf was locking up on him and they were constantly massaging it on the sideline. It was pretty obvious last night he didnt have his burst.
 

renny

Well-Known Member
Messages
842
Reaction score
525
ninja;2960255 said:
No doubt about it. Only an idiot would throw that ball in that situation. Romo has no idea how to manage a game. Romo is clueless. Like Parcells said, dumb people make dumb plays. That was one of the stupidest throws I have seen in my 30 some years of watching football.

Romo is an idiot. Can the Cowboys win with a clueless idiot at QB? Not a superbowl.

If your QB is not having a good day/night throwing the football, but you are
running the ball at will; why on first and 10 you elect to throw? Not smart coaching.
 

texstad

New Member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Bluefin;2960206 said:
It certainly appears he has to every week with Jason Garrett calling the shots.

The Giants dared us to be a running team last night and we declined.

It seems the best we can hope for is "balance."

It's a nice goal, but there will be games where we need to lean heavily on the run or the pass in order to succeed.

Garrett won't hesitate to ask his quarterback to chuck the ball 35 times if the defense is stacking the box, but he's very hesitant to do the opposite.

Just because we have a franchise signal caller doesn't mean he must be the focal point for every game.

If a defense dares us to run the ball because they don't think we will stick with even if it's working, that is a problem.

We should've pounded the ball last night for 300+ yards and forced the Giants to play defense differently in order to contain it. They were petrified at the idea of manning up our receivers and we let them off the hook by not running the ball down their throats until they had no choice but to bring up the eighth defender and man up on our weapons.

My thoughts exactly...Under normal circumstances, teams do not run 255 yards on the Giants. Quite clearly, they were selling out to stop the pass and daring JG to run. Its quite clear that the book on him has been written and we can expect other opponents to try the same until he shows that he can adjust.

The Giants gameplan was very similar to Belichick's in the Pats-Rams SB from a few years ago; unfortunately we had Mike Martz jr calling plays for us.
 

MichaelWinicki

"You want some?"
Staff member
Messages
47,997
Reaction score
27,917
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Bluefin;2960206 said:
It certainly appears he has to every week with Jason Garrett calling the shots.

The Giants dared us to be a running team last night and we declined.

It seems the best we can hope for is "balance."

It's a nice goal, but there will be games where we need to lean heavily on the run or the pass in order to succeed.

Garrett won't hesitate to ask his quarterback to chuck the ball 35 times if the defense is stacking the box, but he's very hesitant to do the opposite.

Just because we have a franchise signal caller doesn't mean he must be the focal point for every game.

If a defense dares us to run the ball because they don't think we will stick with even if it's working, that is a problem.

We should've pounded the ball last night for 300+ yards and forced the Giants to play defense differently in order to contain it. They were petrified at the idea of manning up our receivers and we let them off the hook by not running the ball down their throats until they had no choice but to bring up the eighth defender and man up on our weapons.


But gosh the Cowboys had a 50/50 split in their attempts. Remember, they only had 58 offensive plays. I think the run/pass distribution was very good.

Hey, it's like this, it's not like the Giants were the first team to attempt to stop the pass by leaving only 7 in the box.

Yeah, you have to take what they give you, but this isn't NFL 1950, the passing game is the one that creates the points.
 

Bluefin

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
9,677
MichaelWinicki;2960285 said:
But gosh the Cowboys had a 50/50 split in their attempts. Remember, they only had 58 offensive plays. I think the run/pass distribution was very good.

Hey, it's like this, it's not like the Giants were the first team to attempt to stop the pass by leaving only 7 in the box.

Yeah, you have to take what they give you, but this isn't NFL 1950, the passing game is the one that creates the points.

It almost takes an executive order for the Dallas Cowboys to finish a game with more runs than pass attempts.

And you're right, this is hardly the first time a defense has come in wanting to shutdown the passing game by keeping both safeties back the majority of the time.

The problem is, the philosophy tends to work against an offense overly geared for the downfield pass.

4 completions to the wideouts?

That's pathetic, but it's the price you sometimes pay looking for big plays instead of emphasizing underneath routes against a two deep shell.

The Patriots would've chewed that coverage up underneath, but Garrett doesn't scheme his offense like that.

The only option is to run the defense out of their pass coverage.

All of last season, we only had three games where we handed the ball off to the backs 30 times or more.

Our record? 3-0.

There were only two games where Tony Romo was asked to throw the ball fewer than 30 times in '07.

Our record? 2-0.

It doesn't have to be Romo.

Obviously, most of the time our quarterback will get his attempts and we will be better for it. But there will be games where Romo is off and/or the defense is playing pass coverage and ignoring the ground game. When that happens, there is only one thing to do.

Pound the ball.

The Giants didn't care if we ran because they knew from film study that Garrett would put the game on his quarterback's arm.

He always does.

It's embarrassing to have three backs like ours, a game like that and to come away giving them fewer than 30 carries as a group.

Balance is nice, but if a defense is daring you to run on them, you need to show them you will do it until they change tactics and stop it.

Just having a franchise quarterback doesn't mean he needs to throw 25+ times every week and be the hero.

We need to show the ability and determination to run defenses out of cover 2 shells if they want to take away the big plays at all costs.

It all comes down to making the defense play in a way it clearly doesn't want to.
 

TwoCentPlain

Numbnuts
Messages
15,171
Reaction score
11,084
renny;2960264 said:
If your QB is not having a good day/night throwing the football, but you are
running the ball at will; why on first and 10 you elect to throw? Not smart coaching.

Did Romo audible to that or did Garrett call that play? Garrett ain't that dumb, is he?
 

MichaelWinicki

"You want some?"
Staff member
Messages
47,997
Reaction score
27,917
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Bluefin;2960437 said:
It almost takes an executive order for the Dallas Cowboys to finish a game with more runs than pass attempts.

And you're right, this is hardly the first time a defense has come in wanting to shutdown the passing game by keeping both safeties back the majority of the time.

The problem is, the philosophy tends to work against an offense overly geared for the downfield pass.

4 completions to the wideouts?

That's pathetic, but it's the price you sometimes pay looking for big plays instead of emphasizing underneath routes against a two deep shell.

The Patriots would've chewed that coverage up underneath, but Garrett doesn't scheme his offense like that.

The only option is to run the defense out of their pass coverage.

All of last season, we only had three games where we handed the ball off to the backs 30 times or more.

Our record? 3-0.

There were only two games where Tony Romo was asked to throw the ball fewer than 30 times in '07.

Our record? 2-0.

It doesn't have to be Romo.

Obviously, most of the time our quarterback will get his attempts and we will be better for it. But there will be games where Romo is off and/or the defense is playing pass coverage and ignoring the ground game. When that happens, there is only one thing to do.

Pound the ball.

The Giants didn't care if we ran because they knew from film study that Garrett would put the game on his quarterback's arm.

He always does.

It's embarrassing to have three backs like ours, a game like that and to come away giving them fewer than 30 carries as a group.

Balance is nice, but if a defense is daring you to run on them, you need to show them you will do it until they change tactics and stop it.

Just having a franchise quarterback doesn't mean he needs to throw 25+ times every week and be the hero.

We need to show the ability and determination to run defenses out of cover 2 shells if they want to take away the big plays at all costs.

It all comes down to making the defense play in a way it clearly doesn't want to.


I say again, there were only 58 offensive plays total. Teams that have a 50/50 ratio are considered incredibly conservative in this day & age. To expect 30 carries on 58 total plays is a lot to ask.

And it's not that Garrett didn't concentrate on the run after it was determined how hard the Giants were at stopping the pass. 19 of Romo's passing attempts were in the first half.
 
Top