Garrett DOES Have a Running Problem
by DavidH22 on Nov 18, 2009 10:02 PM CST
Email
PrintSpecifically, he never gives the running game a chance! Let me explain...
I went through the play-by-play of every Dallas game so far this season. And aside from seeing penalty after penalty called on the offense during the most inopportune moments, I also noticed that Garrett hardly ever calls two running plays in a row. Particularly on 1st and 2nd downs. I think that it could be worth it to run twice in a row on those downs. Even if you only gain a total of 4-5 yards total on thos two plays, that is still a manageable 3rd down. And chances are that Barber, Jones or Jones or a combination thereof would game 6-8 yards on two straight carries, further opening up possibilities on 3rd down. But after reviewing every offensive play, I could only find six plays when the Cowboys followed up a 1st down run of 5 yards of less (making it 2nd and 5 or greater) with another run, not counting plays inside the opponents 5-yard line or in run-out-the-clock circumstances. SIX TIMES!!! And two of those six plays were direct snaps to Choice! All the other playcalls were, of course, Romo pass attempts. Now, I'm not certain what the success rate was on those pass plays, but I'd guess they weren't wildly successful. All I know is that many times on these 2nd and 5 or greater, Romo would either throw incomplete, get sacked or there would be a penalty, putting the offense in a very difficult 3rd down situation. I suppose it is possible that Garrett has called consecutive runs but Romo audibled out, but we may never know exactly. All I'm saying is, our line seems to be big and strong and capable of just driving forward. Why not hand the ball off several straight times when the game is still close and see what happens?
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
101 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yup.
Been saying this for weeks.
When I watched a game w/ a group of fans, everyone saw the same thing. No one was yelling,
“Throw the damn ball Garrett!”, y’know?
You picked a very good stat to make this point.
3 and 5 is actually a terrible down and distance.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/07/first-down-probability.html
“We can see that the break even point for 2nd down is 5.5 yards. In other words, a team (whose purpose is to get a 1st town) should prefer a 2nd down and 5 to a 1st and 10, but it should prefer a 1st and 10 to 2nd and 6.
For 3rd down, the break even point is at 1.5 yards. A team should prefer a 1st and 10 to any other 3rd down situation 2 yards or longer. This was a little surprising to me. I expected the break even point to be around 3rd and 3 or 4."
by Fan in Thick and Thin on Nov 25, 2009 8:21 AM CST up reply actions
lol quite possibly the most worthless stat I have ever heard..
I’m sure they prefer to get a 1st down or a touchdown every play but it just doesn’t work that way.
Now would they rather go from 2nd and 10 to 3rd and 10 or to 3rd and 5?
Obviously the latter. You can’t reverse the down and try again in the NFL, so these “preference” are just completely meaningless.
Though I defended his playcalling in the Packers game
I did a similar thing after Realist Larry made a similar post in another thread and found pretty much the same results. Garrett really doesn’t run twice in a row. Ever.
If teams are gonna blitz us silly, that needs to change. We need to get into third and more manageable.
I think his favorite run play
Is the shotgun delay or draw (typically to Barber). I’d like to know how many of Barber’s runs this season was from the HB Delay or Draw from the shotgun formation on 1st down.
also...
It seems that they don’t have a lot of running plays in their play book. The end around to Crayton was a nice addition this year and it was good to see Austin get a chance on that one, too.
I wonder if Skip Peete and JG could get together and make a few new plays to try out? It’s obvious JG is a great offensive coordinator when he puts together a game plan that works out, but he seems to get lost when his game plan isn’t working. Especially when the pass isn’t working.
And typically it gets harder to pass late in the season...
…and this is where Garrett’s offenses have struggled the past couple of years.
It’s not just the weather either; defenses get more cohesive as the season wears on. You typically see the most personnel turnover on defense during the off-season and it takes them the first few months of the year to gel. They all get much better defending the pass in the later months as a result.
The past couple of years I have seen very little from Garrett, late in the season that keeps the opponent guessing or off-balance. I saw some things earlier this season that gave me some hope that this season might be different but I’m having my doubts again.
I don’t mind a “pass-first” offense at all, in fact I like it. But I don’t like a "pass-only" offense that just happens to sprinkle in some run. Not with these backs.
And considering the injuries to Barber and Jones I am still confounded by the lack of touches that Choice is getting. I cannot help but think there are other OC’s out there that would have figured out a more productive way to involve him by now.
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
I think Garrett's run problem
is that the running game isn’t effective. I’m a big fan of running the ball and keeping balance, but this team has been unable to run the ball since the Carolina game. The only occasion since then when we have run effectively was against PHI to kill the clock. I also realize that you can’t abandon it early because it’s not working, but in fairness, we have been horrible at running the ball lately. I would love to know what % of plays our backs get hit in the backfield.
A good coach should be able to fix that.
I know these backs are banged up (Choice isn’t), but it’s not like we’ve got Lattimore and Alonzo Coleman out there.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 10:04 AM CST up reply actions
I'm just saying it's not just JG
that has been lacking in the coaching department on that front. If Houck’s guys were run blocking better, we might be inclined to go to it more.
by Mandmeisterx on Nov 19, 2009 10:08 AM CST up reply actions
Choice is averaging is 4.8 YPC…
What is wrong with that average? The biggest flaw in our running attack has been Garrett’s unwillingness to use this guy. The last time he carried the ball, (other than out of the gimmicky Razor back formation), was against KC (4 games ago). In that contest, he ran for an average of 11.5 YPC and one touchdown (92 yards on just 8 carries).
I’m sorry but the evidence that the running game isn’t working is just not there, when the right people are getting the touches. These means rather than give the bulk of the carries to the two guys still nursing injuries and struggling (especially Felix) Garrett should bring in that outstanding 3rd option he has in Choice. How many other OC’s would LOVE to have this guy as an additional option on their depth chart? How many of them would have found a more industrious way to use him by now (especially if their other two options were clearly not 100%)?
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
You mean
against that 27th ranked KC run defense that is giving up over 4 and a half yards a carry. And I think that having that kind of average in one game is plausible, but not likely over the course of a year. (See Jones, Felix) He has strictly been used in the Razorback and on third down draws. Don’t you think that maybe the coaches feel he is most effective in that role? The bottom line is, I don’t care if Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith were in our backfield on Sunday, they wouldn’t have established a running threat in that game. Our O line was getting completely dominated up front. Was it necessary to run occasionally in that game to keep them honest? Absolutely. But could we use it as part of an effective offense? Not a chance.
by Mandmeisterx on Nov 19, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions
You can't be serious
that the coaches think Choice is best suited for the Razorback. Yes, out of the three maybe he is (but didn’t Felix run something similar at Arkansas) pretty good, but we have the last four games of 2008, and this season’s Carolina and KC games which prove conclusively that Choice plays incredibly well in a normal running formation.
“Our O line was getting completely dominated up front.” maybe so, but I wouldn’t have minded trying to run more than 11 times to wear them down.
Jones wasn't the trigger man
in the Razorback. He was the tail back at Arkansas, just like he is in ours. And yes I do really think that they are using the three of our backs in ways to maximize what they do well, but trying to avoid doing it at the expense of becoming predictable.
by Mandmeisterx on Nov 19, 2009 8:15 PM CST up reply actions
Yep I do mean the same KC defense...
…that happened to hold, (a not 100%), Barber to just 3.5 YPC (35 yards on 15 carries); not all that impressive an average and this was against, as you so duly noted, the 27th ranked KC run D no less. It just further exemplifies my theory that a healthy Tashard Choice is more productive than an injured Barber or Felix.
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
Then look at his games against the Steelers, Giants, etc. from last year
He has a spark when he’s running the ball that I haven’t seen from Barber or Felix the past few games, and it seems to be because their injuries are hampering them from their full explosiveness.
Again,
in the Steelers game he only had success on the previously mentioned draw plays. He didn’t do a whole lot on anything else. I’m just saying I think that’s his niche. It’s not that I don’t think the guy is a good back, I think he is just playing a role right now.
by Mandmeisterx on Nov 20, 2009 5:42 AM CST up reply actions
“And I think that having that kind of average in one game is plausible, but not likely over the course of a year.”
Why not find out? And of course, 11.5 ypc is not needed. 4.5 will be just fine. Give him and the others the rock. You can’t say our running game is not effective if they are getting 10-12 carries (most of them very early on). Stick with it, give them 20 carries and see what happens.
And your comment about not being able to use the run as part of an effective offense in the GB game is just unbelievable. If it was so bad, how would it keep them honest?
"Right after the game, say as little as possible."
- Tom Landry
Looks like Garrett remembered to run against the skins.
20 for Barber, 10 for Felix… and just 1 for that Choice guy.
Oh well, the Choice fans will never be happy! :(
Lately our run game isn't all world
but it still gets you yards and keeps defenses honest. It is ridiculous to say, “oh well since we haven’t had such a great run game as of late we should go to a 2 to 1 ratio of pass to run.” That is ridiculous. You can’t operate like that, defenses won’t respect you. Sometimes you have to stick with the run, even if it is mediocre.
Furthermore, our run game wouldn’t be mediocre if Garrett would make Choice the lead back, instead of FeJo and Barber, both of whom are injured. And for whatever reason Garrett ignorantly is not willing to do that.
If you would have read my post above,
you would see that I wasn’t referring to giving up on it because it’s not working.
by Mandmeisterx on Nov 19, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
your words
“I think Garrett’s run problem
is that the running game isn’t effective.”
"Right after the game, say as little as possible."
- Tom Landry
And what does that have
to do with giving up on it. I’m not saying don’t run the ball. I’m saying we’ve been terrible at it.
More of my words:
I also realize that you can’t abandon it early because it’s not working
by Mandmeisterx on Nov 20, 2009 5:45 AM CST up reply actions
Did You Watch The Game Yesterday?
We ran the ball very well; exceptional in fact. First series says it all — second and five and we frigging pass. The Skins are a barely average defense against run and without Fat Albert, a below par team. Garrett has a running problem.
The offense had six instances
of run the ball on first down and gain 5 or fewer yards…how many times did they run on 2nd down? Not once.
Thank you.
It seems people are trying to prove that he runs a balanced offense—even on DC.com. You bring up a good point. I think we, Cowboys fans, have memories of Emmitt Smith getting the ball eight times in a row. Most of us could never imagine that happening in a JG ran offense. As you point out, rarely does he try to run it even 2 or 3 times in a row.
It’s perplexing. Instead of popping in a 2 TE package while down by 10 with almost an entire 4th quarter to go, he puts Romo back in the shotgun alone with Felix Jones to pick up blitzers that have been getting to him all day. An incomplete pass on 1st and 10 gives you a 2nd and 10. Then, a predictable run play can be stuffed and the defense can force you into a 3rd and 8 or more. Then, you’re passing again. It’s a cycle that puts all the pressure on your passing offense. It shows no adjustment, thus showing that the playcalling is either stubborn or stupid.
Oh, and your center has had a crapload of trouble hiking shotgun snaps and your tackles have issues against speed rushers. And Felix is in to block. Doesn’t sound like your playing to your offensive strength or varying things up at all.
It often takes a loss to expose how a coach doesn’t adjust to his players’ poor execution. It’s a shame, but not a problem until it happens again.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 10:02 AM CST reply actions
A rush attempt can also look like an incompletion or sack...
Especially in the past couple of games… I wrote this in my recent fanpost:
I think that the running game hasn’t been effective for the past couple of games, most guys responding in this fan post seem to believe that the rushing game is fine and that the team should run the ball more.
We disagree and that’s evident.
So, I took on the task of charting the RB carries from the past 2 games to compare them to the numbers of the first 5 games, which is when, in my opinion, the rushing game was last seen by me as an effective unit.
I’m separating the attempts in the next 3 categories:
Poor: from negative yards to 2 yards.
Average: from 3 to 5 yards.
Good: anything above 5 yards.
And I’m using a percentage that I’ll call of efficiency for every average or above carry out of the total.
The numbers for the first 5 games are:
Poor: 47
Average: 37
Good: 41
For a total of: 125 carries.
Efficiency percentage: 62.4%
The numbers for the past couple of games:
Poor: 16
Average: 5
Good: 10
For a total of: 31 carries.
Efficiency percentage: 48.4%
Some may argue that the team used to rush an average of 25 times per game in the first 5 games and that the average of 15.5 times per game doesn’t allow the team to find a rythm, but such a diference (14%) is too hard to swallow, I think that by running more they would have seen a couple or more good plays, but also a couple or more bad plays.
Right now, you can’t have the good, without also taking the bad and almost nothing in between. And that’s what Julius Jones used to bring to the table when he was a Cowboy, some good, a lot of bad and very little in between.
The Cowboys have serious leak problems that they need to fix, so we can only hope to see a des-Julius-Jones-ized running game against the Redskins.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!
"so we can only hope to see a des-Julius-Jones-ized running game against the Redskins."
Except I don’t think our backs have an affinity for running up our own linemen’s backsides.
No, they don't, each of the current RBs has vision
But still, there’s very little that they can do if they get hit and wrapped up 2 or 3 yards before the LOS.
The same used to happen to Julius back then, it wasn’t just his auto aim directed to his fellow OLineman backsides.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!
How about not handing the ball off from Shotgun?
I know we’ve seen some effective running from that formation, but isn’t it just extra yards a back has to run?
This!
The only time the shotgun HB draw/delays have been succesful is when the passing game is succesful. That obviously wasn’t happening against the Packers!
a 12 formation would probably have been more of a success.
Ooh, good point
Methinks we have drunk from the well too often.
Upgrade to a BTB Platinum Account to view this signature.
by accidental innuendo on Nov 19, 2009 5:59 PM CST up reply actions
We should note that even during the "good" running times
during the first five games, Garrett only called 2 straight runs under the circumstances I described originally about 3 times. So that’s even more unacceptable in my opinion.
I'd still rather have 3rd-and-8s or 3rd-and-6s rather than 3rd-and-10s.
I’m sure Romo and Witten would too.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
a healthy duo of felix and marion
is fa big part of the difference is “efficient” plays. Felix alone is probably the difference. Goes back to the post of why not use Choice more so felix and marion can get healthly for the playoffs.
"often takes a loss to expose how a coach doesn’t adjust to his players’ poor execution."
Unfortunately, this has happened before (Washington ’08) and Garrett still pulls the same crap.
It's like he steps up his game after a loss when everyone's blaming him
And then after a few games of extra effort he feels like he’s off the hook and reverts back to his old ways. Like trying to kick a smoking habit or something, but not really.
I agree
As well as Indy has played on offense(currently undeafted), they still want more out of the running game. You have to able to run the football. We need to run the football, we need the balance. It creates better match-ups for the passing game. The play-action is money.
What is the point of having the best running back trio in the league if you don’t use them?
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
Twitter Account
What's a play action? LOL
Indy has invested two 1st rounders in RBs because even they know the passing game must be supplemented by action from the backfield. Just becuz the Oline is better at pass-protection than plowing straight forward doesn’t mean you can’t utilize your weapons.
IMO, Dallas’ passing game would be unstoppable if opponents feared the run.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions
I agree.
Not being able to run the football cost NE the game. 3rd and 2, with 2 minutes left vs Indy and you throw it? You got be able to lineup and run the ball for 2 yards.
WE need to run the ball. Cut down on the finesse, our lineman are too d@mn big to not be able to push the other guy off the ball..
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
Twitter Account
Did you see the size of the Packers D-line?
They are just as big and talented as our o-line. I imagine that had a lot to do with us not running the ball effectively. Also, we don’t have a full-back. Anderson is more of a receiving full-back than anything. I honestly wouldn’t have a problem moving MB3 to FB whenever Choice or Felix are in the game, I think Barber might be a stronger blocker than Cricket.
Cricket was blowing people up earlier in the season.
He was practically and extra lineman, and I don’t think he’s even caught a pass this year.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah because he's hardly ever in there,
I assume because he’s not that good. If you want to be a power running team you need a power fullback to blow open holes and I haven’t seen him do that.
He did in the Gaints game.
Looked to be a strength of the offense, and then…poof, he’s nowhere to be seen.
Weird.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
You're right
I haven’t heard his name in a while. I think it might be because John Phillips is a better blocker, so they run more 3 TE sets now.
But Deon is a great option to have around — and they need to give him a few plays just to see if he can energize the run game.
Upgrade to a BTB Platinum Account to view this signature.
by accidental innuendo on Nov 19, 2009 6:02 PM CST up reply actions
And then I watch ex-Cowboys FB Lousaka Polite last night...
… bustin’ LBs up helping clear initial paths for Ricky Williams and it makes me wonder what happened when Polite was here.
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 20, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions
I know...that sucks.
The thing about having 3 good tailbacks is that you can’t keep more than 1 FB on a roster.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 20, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
better put those tailbacks to use.
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
Twitter Account
what do expect, he's a Pittster ;)
I don’t think Parcells gave him enough opportunities while he was here.
In Romo we Trust
I hate how Garrett excuses is terrible play calling when he says "well the situation didn't call for it."
Barring playing from behind, you don’t let the other team dictate to you what plays you are going to call. You should make the defense responsive to you to a certain extent.
This happened last year in the first Washington game. We didn’t use FeJo at all because in Garretts own words the situation didn’t call for it. That made me livid. You find a way to get your runningbacks involved. You don’t let the other team dictate the terms of the game.
A Defense CAN dictate what an Offense has to do
You don’t like incompletions and sacks in the passing game? A rush attempt for 0 yards is like an incompletion. A rush attempt for negative yards is like a sack.
As explained above, we’re seeing a lot of sacks and incompletions in a per carry basis to do it very often. If teams are leaving things open through the air, the team has to throw the ball in order to beat the Defense. That’s how they beat the Eagles and how they should have beat the Packers, but players shooting at their own foots got in the way.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!
if defenses know you aren't going to run then that makes it that much harder on your passing game
a 0 yard run may not look good on the stat sheet, but it keeps defenses honest.
and it wears 'em down
Look at that last drive yesterday; in large measure, we beat that d to a pulp by then
The past 2 Defenses haven't been honest
They had a gameplan that worked against both the pass and run, which was overloading the inside gaps and keeping containment (that’s why the rushing plays and bubbles screens didn’t work either). The Eagles and Packers told the Cowboys that to beat them they would have to give Romo enough time to find the one on one matchups around the field.
The plan worked against the Eagles, mistakes derailed the Offense against the Packers. As soon as the Cowboys started beating the Eagles Defense, McDermott had his Defense hitting the breaks and the team started running the ball efficiently in the 2nd half.
That’s another interesting stat, almost every touch for the RBs in the first half of the Eagles game went for poor yardage, as soon as the Defense started to pay more attention for the pass, the rush started to be effective.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!
So, why can't it be the other way around?
Just because we had the lead in the Eagles game thanks to the passing attack, he was able to run?
Being down against the Packers shouldn’t force us to panic and come out throwing 40 times. What caused the turnovers: the passing game or the running game? Romo was taking waaay more abuse than any of the running backs during their 11 total carries.
The running game has a tendency to slow down the tempo of the offense, and in effect, the opposing defense as well. I’m a Garrett supporter, but I can admit he was wrong last week. Marion Barber and Co. are the cake to the passing game’s icing, and he was wrong to continually put the defense in the position they were put in simply because his passing game was not working.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
"The running game has a tendency to slow down the tempo of the offense, and in effect, the opposing defense as well"
+1
Not to mention it usually keeps your defense off the field just a tad longer.
money comment
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 20, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions
Funny...I've heard two Washington sports talk radio hosts today
talk about how they hope Garrett sticks around for a long time as Cowboys coach. By the way, they meant it in a bad way.
The game isn't the same as it was during the 90's.
It has officially become a passing league and you have to pass to be successful. NE, Indy, Pittsburgh, NO. All the elite teams use the pass to set up the run, if they run the ball at all. That’s just how the game is now. Once you have been successful passing the ball and either getting the lead or spreading the defense out, then you can run the ball effectively.
We couldn’t get our passing game going last week, which is why our running game became ineffective. My biggest issue with Garrett this season is getting the ball in Jason Witten’s hands. He’s arguably our best offensive player and he needs to be more involved during this stretch run if we are going to have a successful season.
I agree
The NFL is definitely a passing league, you simply cannot score points without a good passing game. The best offenses pass and pass a lot.
You have to keep defenses honest with some type of balance and I believe Garrett does that, but this team’s bread and butter will always be the passing game and it has to be if we want to have one of the best offenses in the league.
In Romo we Trust
I disagree to a point.
All teams still revert back to the running game, or at least make up for it by utilizing their backs in the passing game. As the seasons wears on, it is the running game and the defense that can take over games.
I love big plays, but sometimes—not all the time—you’ve gotta sustain drives. These WRs are not consistent enough to bail Romo out if he’s a little off.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions
back in the day that was true, not anymore
Steelers and Cards played in the SB last season and couldn’t run worth crap, that should tell you where this league is in regards to having to run the ball.
I think it’s a myth.
In Romo we Trust
We already know the 'Boys can air it out. Why not work on improving the area of weakess...the running game?
If it’s broke, fix it or the passing game will suffer, too.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 4:04 PM CST up reply actions
Even If You Are Correct
There is no excuse to not running against the vulnerable run defense of the Skins. We were running effectively so no need to worry about passing to set up the run. We were running effectively but Garrett all game refused to follow up run opportunities. First series was a pattern all game; it was second and five and we rolled out and had incompletion to Witten. This game exposed Garrett as a a stubborn idiot.
But look at last years playoff contenders
the power running teams like Car and Tenn busted out in the 1st round. The only true running team left was the Ravens. The Eagles, Cardinals, and Steelers all feature their passing games, with the run sprinkled in throughout. They all have similar offensive personnel as we do also, especially the Steelers.
I would love to be able to just line up and play smash mouth football against people, but it just seems like you can’t do that against quality defenses anymore. The ‘07 Giants were the last great running team to win the Super Bowl but even they have abandoned their run first philosophy since then, presumably because it’s not working against good teams.
The last thing would be, maybe our guys just aren’t that healthy right now. Wade said (I’m sure you know) that Barber had to come out of the GB game because of a problem with his thumb. We know Felix’s knee is still bothering him. That leaves Choice as the only healthy back and we are going to need him to be completely fresh for the stretch run after Thanksgiving.
So, does that mean you should never, ever use the run to set up the pass?
That right there is the definition of one-dimensional. This team is different from all those teams you mentioned. This team has invested in developing three very good backs with a ton of potential. It has used high draft picks in the backfield to give the option to run the damn ball; whereas, other than RW, all the WRs are simply developmental player-types just now reaching their potential.
Romo rocks and he is probably my favorite player and all, but Brady, Manning, and Brees are at the top of the game. Those QBs have legit #1 WRs for which defenses must cater to. Even still, Wayne, Moss, and Colston still get their grabs. Miles Austin doesn’t. RW doesn’t. Until they do, Witten will continue to be taken out of the gameplan by defensive coordinators.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions
I am for doing anything that gets us the W
Run to set up the pass, pass to set up the run, I don’t care. I’m just saying that most of the elite teams pass to set up the run. Take the Steelers for instance. If you look at most of their stat sheets, you would assume they call a perfectly balanced games. But if you watch them play, it looks like they only pass. It’s 5 wide on 1st and 2nd down most of the time, using the short passing game as long hand-offs, instead of running straight into the teeth of the defense. They don’t run the ball until they have a decent lead or the defense is spread out. That’s just what I’ve observed out of the “best” teams in the league and I feel that is what Garrett is trying to do, right or wrong.
All true, but I don't think that teams like the Cowboys should rely on the pass as much down the stretch.
Teams like the Steelers and Bears, to an extent, have gone away from the run because it hasn’t been successful. But, those teams are not having success doing so, whereas teams like the Panthers and Bengals are.
IMO, there is no formula to winning via the pass or the run, so might as well gear up both. The Cardinals are starting to do that because they now have more running options than just Hightower and Edge. This year, and most recently, they are working in Beanie and that LaRod guy. That balance has got to be giving defenses fits. Dallas is capable of doing the same thing.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 4:01 PM CST up reply actions
The Bengals are definitely throwing a monkey wrench
in the “passing league” concept. But they also have an elite defense (can’t believe I typed that) to keep them in games and they have one of the only true workhorse backs in the league. They actually remind me quite a bit of the ’90s Cowboys. Not as awesome obviously, but I see some similarities. But the Bengals are the exception, not the rule and they could easily come back down to earth in the playoffs or next season.
But Rafs articles on our run game during the off-season showed that our o-line is much better at blocking for draws and counters, as opposed to the smash mouth type of plays. If that’s still the case, then don’t we have to throw the ball in order to run? Now the obvious solution is to get better at the power run plays, but our o-line is made of veterans that might not be able to do it. Or Houck isn’t doing a good job as the o-line coach.
regarding the Bengals
you’re exactly right, they have one of the best defenses in the league this year which is why they can run the ball a lot and still win. Being a running team only works if you have a great defense to go along with it.
At this point, the Cowboys defense is good, not great. We still have to score over 24 points a game to win most games and we can’t do that by being a “running” team.
In Romo we Trust
Can't the Cowboy offense jsut be... Whatever works..?
I think I’ve heard Garrett himself say this before.
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
I totally agree
My comment was to all the fans who think we should be a running team because of our 3 backs and a big OL.
Our game plan should always be do whatever the defense is giving us.
In Romo we Trust
17 would have been enough against packers .
Heck ! 10 would have been enough , because the score was 0-3 until late in 3rd qtr.
Dallas is capable of doing the same thing.
True if Garrett would pull his stubborn brain out of his you know what. Yesterday would have gone better if Garrett would have stuck to the run. Romo was hurtin and the Skins were defending the pass; the Skins are vulnerable to the run. Why Garrett would not exploit this is just crazy and makes me think he has a ways to go to be a quality play caller.
I disagree Colston is a legit #1 receiver
Saints are much like us in that they have many weapons, not just one guy they throw to a lot.
In Romo we Trust
Colston is a beast.
Meacham and them get like one catch a game.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
I like Austin
but he hasn’t had 3-4 years of impressive production like Colston.
+1
And he’s been starting together with Brees for much longer than Romo has with Miles.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 9:46 PM CST up reply actions
co-sign
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 20, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions
Did you guys watch the '90s Cowboys?
Norv Turner and Ernie Zampese did the same thing. Aikman threw a ton on 1st down early in the game and Emmitt did his real damage in the 2nd half.
I don’t see a team in the league that can play like the ‘73 Dolphins or the ’75 Steelers, where they can just man up and hammer the ball on the ground for 60 minutes. This line, as I have argued many, many times, is not an isolation, off-tackle blocking line. They run draws, counters and tosses best. And that’s been the case for a few years.
by Rafael Vela on Nov 19, 2009 10:08 PM CST up reply actions
exactly
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 20, 2009 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
That's fine with me.
Still doesn’t justifiy running twice in a row SIX TIMES IN NINE GAMES.
I have no doubt that's the case Raf
Still no reason to not run two of those plays in a row, at least once a game to keep defenses honest.
Let’s have fun with this – let’s play a drinking game on Sunday. Every time the Cowboys run on first down for 5 or fewer yards, if they pass on second down, take a drink. We should be nice and lubricated at the end of the first quarter.
LOL
Very true. If a defensive coordinator knows that after a running play, he’s almost certain it’s going to be a pass, that makes job a lot easier.
Funny thing is, I just thought about the drinking game before I saw your post. The problem is, I would probably have to buy a couple of extra bottles of Grey Goose to make it through the game. Maybe I’ll just drink water instead.
i'm game
8 ~ P
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 20, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
Regardless of what they do this Sunday...
Run or pass the yards are going to be hard to come by. The Redskins play some very tough ’D.
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Mark Sanchez’s rumored squeeze, Kate Upton, is on cover of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue
- ‘Twould be a shame if Hines Ward didn’t retire a Steeler
- Video: Tim Tebow asked to Military Ball by Louisiana Airwoman
- We’ll see how Brandon Jacobs’ football skills translate to the squared circle
- Bill Belichick wore a hoodie to a golf tournament
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
