Will Linehan go more no huddle?

[Idgit]

We need more No huddles.

The more we use less of Garrett's playbook, the better the offense becomes.

I know more people say things like protecting the defense. Well the offense seems better with the no huddle than Garrett's 3 pass plays that chew 6 seconds off the clock. Just say no to Garrett's playbook.

Scoring all those points does get tedious after a while.

 

[khiladi]

Since there's no point in talking about Lee's INT as it relates to the offense, when the discussion is past that already, I assume you haven't understood. I've already shown you that you can completely leave out not just the score following Lee's INT, but any score that followed any opponent's turnover all season long. And we actually move up the offensive rankings.

I also showed that we move up in the offensive rankings when involved in close games (margin + or - 8 points). More of our scores happened in the context of close games than did the scores of most teams. That means it makes no sense for you to go on about scores in blowout losses. Fewer of our scores happened in that context than most teams' did, after all. You do get this, right? I'm taking your parameters and looking at everything that falls within them, for every team. That's the only way do it that makes any sense. You can't just look at one team, and assume these same scenarios aren't repeated over and over across the league. They are, to varying degrees.

For example, Dallas was 5th in total offensive TD. When you remove all drives that began after an opponent's turnover, Dallas is still 5th in total offensive TD. For the sake of comparison, the Chiefs were 9th in total offensive TD. When you remove all drives that began after an opponent's turnover, the Chiefs drop to 13th. Want to see an offense whose numbers are skewed by their defense's takeaways, look at the Chiefs.

Want to see an offense that scored a lot of garbage points? That would be Philly. They were 2nd in the NFL in total offensive TD. (Remember, Dallas was 5th). When you look only at TD scored when the margin was 8 points or less, the Eagles drop to 7th. Dallas moves up to 2nd.

No fancy math formulas here, I'm just counting touchdowns.

Again, you keep repeating the same tired argument. You keep moving statistics, sometimes talking about percentages and sometimes points, moving to certain subjective numbers like right points, each time isolating statistics.

Again, I never said Romo can't score when we go up-tempo and essentially abandon our game-plan. We again look at the Detroit game, we were up 13 to 7 going into the fourth, meaning your 'criteria' for a close game. Should we negate that for 3 quarters and four TOs, we should have never even been in this position? I can just as well say, if we were like Philly, our offense would have put us up maybe 24-7 in the 4th, that a crappy Detroit would not be able do anything. Additionally, you may have an argument if it's once, but it's not, it's a trend.

Games in blow-outs also are indicative of a good offense, like the Eagles when they blew out the Raiders off TOs. Us, on the other hand, for the whole first half scored two TDs, one on a fumble recovery at the 2 YD that allowed us to run it in and one with a drive in the second starting with two minutes left in the half when defenses are playing the time. So against the sorry Raiders, for one whole half we score because of our defense and up-tempo soft defense and Romo when the Raiders were up 21-7. We were struggling with the Raiders for four quarters and if not for our defensive score and the Raiders being a bad team...

Against Minnesota, we mustered 6 points the whole first half and were down. We took the lead 10-13 on a TD drive, then our defense caused and fumble scored, us up 20-10. This happened with close to 12 minutes left in the third and for the next twenty minutes we couldn't produce anything of value until under three to go, with an up-tempo Tony Romo magic yet again.

Three absolutely horrible teams and none of these twenty plus scores on offense, one thirty were good offensive performances. And all of them are inclusive of the stats your claiming as presenting as as a power-house.

When you speak about garbage points and your subjective nitpicking of plus minus eight, Denver was blowing teams out most likely on a more regular basis than Philly. I'm not even sure, but if you take out the points of Denver and just go by this right point criteria, if Denver is worse than Dallas, does that make Denver a worse offense than the Cowboys?

 

[khiladi]

"Eyes don't lie" is paraphrasing for something being completely subjective.

Your supporting anecdote is an example of a statistic that doesn't correlate with winning football games being used as a measure of offensive efficiency. In other words, it's an example of misinterpreting the importance of the data collected and not an argument against using statistics properly.

Do you even read what your responding to and if you do, do you even understand what your responding to? Why did Philly win the last football game of the season, if Dallas fulfilled the defensive criteria in respect to the offense that you claim is the reason we win? That, by itself, refutes your argument in a single instant and no amount of statistical maneuvering in reference to YOUR established criteria of why we win would make us win...

 

[percyhoward]

Again, you keep repeating the same tired argument.

Simple question. If you want to take out one play like Lee's INT, why would you have any problem or disagreement when I take out that play, plus all other drives that followed an opponent's turnover?

And I think you totally missed this part: I'm saying the offense was a legitimate top 5 offense. I'm not saying that was necessarily because of Jason Garrett.

 

[khiladi]

Against San Diego, we scored 21 points total, all in the second. One of those was an INT return for a TD by Sean Lee. So for the next half and four possession later, we couldn't accomplish anything in offense. Dallas had 3 three and outs in the first quarter. We even got a punt return by Harris in the second which put us in San Diego territory that was followed by a three and out and a missed FG.

Garrett's offense is the master of the three and outs.

 

[khiladi]

Simple question. If you want to take out one play like Lee's INT, why would you have any problem or disagreement when I take out that play, plus all other drives that followed an opponent's turnover?

Simple question... I am talking about A game, while your picking whatever stat suits your point irrelevant to it's relation to another statistic.

If Philly has a lot of 'garbage' points, that could be indicative of the fact that their offense is blowing teams out, so the case of them dropping to seventh or whatever in terms of this eight point criteria could mean nothing in the context of an overall offense. Denver's offense has a lot of garbage points as well.

 

[khiladi]

The Dallas defense have up 500 yards plus against San Diego, but guess what. The first five drives of the Dallas offense, 4 of them were 3 and outs. What exactly was the Dallas offense doing to help keep the defense off the field, without even including the extra TD the defense scored for the Cowboys offense?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

All this arguing over who makes this offense great? What does it matter at least for this season? All major players return. So it should be safe to assume the offense will still be a top 5 unit.

Our focus should be on defensive changes and not arguing over something unknowable.

 

[Idgit]

All this arguing over who makes this offense great? What does it matter at least for this season? All major players return. So it should be safe to assume the offense will still be a top 5 unit.

Our focus should be on defensive changes and not arguing over something unknowable.

That makes it harder to diminish the offensive-minded head coach. Better to cherry pick.

 

[ShiningStar]

All this arguing over who makes this offense great? What does it matter at least for this season? All major players return. So it should be safe to assume the offense will still be a top 5 unit.

Our focus should be on defensive changes and not arguing over something unknowable.

you are of course assuming no other offense tweaks or gets more out of their offense, so to suit the Cowboys fans whims, all other teams stay stagnant? Dont think so.

 

[percyhoward]

Simple question... I am talking about A game, while your picking whatever stat suits your point irrelevant to it's relation to another statistic.

I'm just looking at plays and games like you are. In fact, it's not even my point--it's yours--that the offense's numbers are skewed by something. You say they're skewed by 1) advantageous field position following opponents' turnovers, and 2) by the fact that so many points were scored when games were already out of reach.

It sounds like you don't realize stats are recorded plays from games. You're looking at the data without making the connection that something happened to produce it. Again I ask, if you're going to take out one play because it fits the above criteria, why would you object when I take out all the plays that fit your criteria? You haven't answered that question.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

you are of course assuming no other offense tweaks or gets more out of their offense, so to suit the Cowboys fans whims, all other teams stay stagnant? Dont think so.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. Garret has been here 7 years and the offense has been very good to great each one of those years. Were other team's stagnant for 7 years? No. Didn't change anything. This offense will score a ton of points. Arguing over who to give credit for something is silly especially when you're on the outside looking in.

Don't be silly.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Our focus should be on defensive changes

Can I get an AMEN!

 

[Idgit]

Do you even read what your responding to and if you do, do you even understand what your responding to? Why did Philly win the last football game of the season, if Dallas fulfilled the defensive criteria in respect to the offense that you claim is the reason we win? That, by itself, refutes your argument in a single instant and no amount of statistical maneuvering in reference to YOUR established criteria of why we win would make us win...

In all honesty, I do have trouble understanding what you're getting at. That last sentence or two, in particular, doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't know how to answer it directly.

In fact, I'm pretty much thoroughly confused as to what your argument is at this point. I thought your original criticism was that JG doesn't tailor his offense to his players. When confronted with the per-series offensive production data, that switched to an argument about our scoring numbers being skewed due to field position. When that was adjusted and shown to be false, you pivoted to our scoring date being skewed by the field goals. Then that was dismissed. Then your point became that the problem was Jason Garrett for some reason, even though it had already been demonstrated that the problem was not really with the offense's ability to score points at all. You threw in the demotion bit, which was a herring. And you've mentioned several times that the defense performed well in terms of turnovers, which nobody is arguing against and which doesn't really support any of your criticisms of the offense, anyway.

When that fell apart, as near as I can tell, you went on to start citing specific drives or specific plays from specific games. That looks like a last refuge for a losing argument from where I'm sitting since nobody is going to try to argue with you that every offensive drive or series or half or even game was good enough. That's just not how football works.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Forget the no huddle. We need a more balanced offense. we need to keep our defense off the field.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Forget the no huddle. We need a more balanced offense. we need to keep our defense off the field.

If you can keep your defense off the field than the other team can't score (read it in madden voice).

 

[Alexander]

I would be perfectly fine with "up tempo" if we had the defensive depth to be able to be on and off the field in the space of minutes.

But we have already seen how up tempo did against a balanced grind it out offense in the Super Bowl.

 

[Doomsday101]

No huddle can be a good change of pace, I don't think it should be used as part of the base offense you run. More important than how fast you are getting the snap off and running plays is for guys to actually execute the plays.

 

[khiladi]

In all honesty, I do have trouble understanding what you're getting at. That last sentence or two, in particular, doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't know how to answer it directly.

In fact, I'm pretty much thoroughly confused as to what your argument is at this point. I thought your original criticism was that JG doesn't tailor his offense to his players. When confronted with the per-series offensive production data, that switched to an argument about our scoring numbers being skewed due to field position. When that was adjusted and shown to be false, you pivoted to our scoring date being skewed by the field goals. Then that was dismissed. Then your point became that the problem was Jason Garrett for some reason, even though it had already been demonstrated that the problem was not really with the offense's ability to score points at all. You threw in the demotion bit, which was a herring. And you've mentioned several times that the defense performed well in terms of turnovers, which nobody is arguing against and which doesn't really support any of your criticisms of the offense, anyway.

When that fell apart, as near as I can tell, you went on to start citing specific drives or specific plays from specific games. That looks like a last refuge for a losing argument from where I'm sitting since nobody is going to try to argue with you that every offensive drive or series or half or even game was good enough. That's just not how football works.

Only in your head do arguments get dismissed like that... Please provide any actual proof for the above that the story went down like your claiming, instead of simply in your imagination.

 

[khiladi]

I'm just looking at plays and games like you are. In fact, it's not even my point--it's yours--that the offense's numbers are skewed by something. You say they're skewed by 1) advantageous field position following opponents' turnovers, and 2) by the fact that so many points were scored when games were already out of reach.

It sounds like you don't realize stats are recorded plays from games. You're looking at the data without making the connection that something happened to produce it. Again I ask, if you're going to take out one play because it fits the above criteria, why would you object when I take out all the plays that fit your criteria? You haven't answered that question.

Your statistics are about about averages ACROSS the season, so how does that impact an actual game? So you want me to accept Dallas is like Denver in terms of offense, because of some statistical average across a season that doesn't take into account actual games? What have you showed me?