Why not go ahead and perfect this passing offense, first?

[CCBoy]

I have a question. Why not go ahead and perfect this passing offense, first? After it is driven down the throats of an opponent's defense, wouldn't that, at a later time, just open the gates for the running offense completely wide? As to immediate effects, wouldn't that also take the perpetual monkey off their backs and allow them to attack and take many more chances that DO change games? Game conditions would then favor the defense as well...

 

[CCBoy]

Two hours, and no throw down yet...allright, I'll start. Wade Phillips came up when Luv Ya Blue referred to the Houston Oilers. He knows already about the intense rational that the Houston has against the Cowboys. Their torches will allready by lit in trying to earn and prove they belong in the NFL beyond them being the 32nd team entering the fracus. Doesn't anyone think that the matchup of Romo vs Shaub is a great starting point for a confrontation as well as setting the tone for the rest of the game's play?

Myself, I think that Tony Romo rises to this occasion and the passing game IS the way to go for this team in this game.

 

[EPL0c0]

When the run game and/or deep-ball threats just aren't there, there's very little field left to defend. Teams can either bring heavy pressure and rush Romo or drop extra DBs in because they'll have the advantage having to cover only a small part of the field.

 

[Stautner]

It's difficult to perfect a passing offense in the absence of a running game. You can't just work on either the passing or running offense exclusive of the other, because without the other the defense only has to focus on stopping one facet of the offense. That said, having a perfect balance of running and passing isn't always practical, especially if a team's peresonnel heavily favors one over the other. In our case we constantly hear about our 3 headed running attack, but that always proves to be hollow rhetoric because the running game is clearly relegated to the backseat in favor of the passing game.

The fact is, these are pros, most of whom have been together for some time, and there shouldn't be a question about being so out of sync that they can only focus on getting things right in one area at a time.

 

[CCBoy]

It's difficult to perfect a passing offense in the absence of a running game. You can't just work on either the passing or running offense exclusive of the other, because without the other the defense only has to focus on stopping one facet of the offense. That said, having a perfect balance of running and passing isn't always practical, especially if a team's peresonnel heavily favors one over the other. In our case we constantly hear about our 3 headed running attack, but that always proves to be hollow rhetoric because the running game is clearly relegated to the backseat in favor of the passing game.

The fact is, these are pros, most of whom have been together for some time, and there shouldn't be a question about being so out of sync that they can only focus on getting things right in one area at a time.

In a pass dominated offense, the run often is replaced by tosses to the backs, screens, and more involvement by the tight ends. That loosens things up quite a bit as well.

Garrett has already stated that the blend and mix will remain close to what has been the general patterns to now. That doesn't mean that a passing attack that becomes the drive it down an oppponent's throat isn't a bad way to push things onto the field. With the firepower in this group of receivers and quality in the line for passing, they can wield a very hot iron while it is indeed hot. Then the development of that running game should improve with the upgraded production along the line from the passing game.

 

[Stautner]

In a pass dominated offense, the run often is replaced by tosses to the backs, screens, and more involvement by the tight ends. That loosens things up quite a bit as well.

Garrett has already stated that the blend and mix will remain close to what has been the general patterns to now. That doesn't mean that a passing attack that becomes the drive it down an oppponent's throat isn't a bad way to push things onto the field. With the firepower in this group of receivers and quality in the line for passing, they can wield a very hot iron while it is indeed hot. Then the development of that running game should improve with the upgraded production along the line from the passing game.

Tosses the backs are running plays - I don't consider that part of the passing offense.

But you are right that passes can be short throws that involve the running backs, and that can help, but even that can be difficult without the threat of a running game that slows defenses from coming into the backfield. With a number of the defense pouring into the backfield screen passes sometimes become 5 yard losses or TD's going the other way.

I have no problem with what you are saing with striking while the iron is hot, but I don't know that can always be predetemined. Obviously some teams have a weakness in either defending the run or the pass, and we should game plan accordingly, but to me the key in many cases is to go in with a balanced game plan and adjust based on what the defense is doing and what is working. That doesn't mean we should abondon the other aspect, because that makes it too easy for the defense to adjust, but obviously we should make whatever is working a focus.

 

[casmith07]

The problem is that other teams have perfected their passing defense against us in the red zone. We can move the ball up and down the field between the 20s but once we get inside the red zone it all falls apart.

If we run it more often first, we can use play-action to get deeper in the red zone than just the 19 or 18 yard line, and then pound it in.

 

[EPL0c0]

The problem is that other teams have perfected their passing defense against us in the red zone. We can move the ball up and down the field between the 20s but once we get inside the red zone it all falls apart.

If we run it more often first, we can use play-action to get deeper in the red zone than just the 19 or 18 yard line, and then pound it in.

*NOBODY* settles for FG attempts like the Dallas Cowboys WOOOO! *sigh* you're 100% correct

 

[casmith07]

*NOBODY* settles for FG attempts like the Dallas Cowboys WOOOO! *sigh* you're 100% correct

We would be fine if we scored touchdowns with Beuhler as our FG kicker. A miss here or there wouldn't matter if we knew we could score early and often like New England.

 

[CCBoy]

We would be fine if we scored touchdowns with Beuhler as our FG kicker. A miss here or there wouldn't matter if we knew we could score early and often like New England.

Glad that you brought up New England. They never have a QB sack when they are in the Red Zone. Why? Because they can run the ball in that situation, very effectively. Where one runs, does matter as to overall effectiveness. I don't begrudge this point, the least.

 

[Stautner]

We would be fine if we scored touchdowns with Beuhler as our FG kicker. A miss here or there wouldn't matter if we knew we could score early and often like New England.

Maybe we would be fine most of the time, but even with the most prolific offense things ocassionally will come down to one key FG, so why settle for an inconsistent kicker?

 

[casmith07]

Maybe we would be fine most of the time, but even with the most prolific offense things ocassionally will come down to one key FG, so why settle for an inconsistent kicker?

Unfortunately, most kickers in the NFL right now are pretty inconsistent, or will miss a big kick at some point.

We're way past the years of "Automatica Gramatica."

 

[Stautner]

Unfortunately, most kickers in the NFL right now are pretty inconsistent, or will miss a big kick at some point.

We're way past the years of "Automatica Gramatica."

Of course all will miss a big kick ocassionally, but it's not particularly uncommon to have a kicker make 85% of his FG's, ocassinally more. 75% is kind of a bare minimum.

 

[CCBoy]

Of course all will miss a big kick ocassionally, but it's not particularly uncommon to have a kicker make 85% of his FG's, ocassinally more. 75% is kind of a bare minimum.

Let's see, we could always pick up the released and now ex-Texan, Brown?

 

[Stautner]

Let's see, we could always pick up the released and now ex-Texan, Brown?

Nope - not him. I'm not saying they are out there growing on trees ready to pluck, but I am saying that isn't an excuse to not have a competition or to have an alternate in mind since we knew (or should have known) that Buehler was a bit of a gamble to begin with. We could always look at Stover, who is still very accurate from short to mid distances, and still keep Buehler for kickoffs and long FG's. Even Suisham hit 83% last year.

 

[CowboyDan]

I'm pretty late to this conversation but I just wanted to add that the Saints won a Super Bowl with a team that passes to set up the run.

 

[CCBoy]

I'm pretty late to this conversation but I just wanted to add that the Saints won a Super Bowl with a team that passes to set up the run.

Nope, someone never is too late to add clarification details....:starspin


Way cool. And they seem to still be pretty good, too.