BTB Talks To Daryl Johnston: He Likes The Cowboys But Dislikes The Shotgun
Daryl Johnston is a former Dallas Cowboys Pro Bowl fullback and is a present Fox analyst. His Cowboys relationships run deep. ... but so does his talent and commitment to broadcasting. So he wears multiple hats here ... and acknowledges that it is a juggling act as he goes one-on-one with Blogging The Boys to evaluate:
*A Cowboys team that he says "should've beaten Green Bay.''
*Dallas offensive coordinator Jason Garrett, a close pal of Johnston's who D.J. nevertheless says ought to dump the over-reliance on the Shotgun.
*The Cowboys' chance of success in the NFC East and in the NFC overall: "They're going to be fine,'' he says. "If you are 6-4 or better, you are going to be fine. You are solid. If you are 5-5, it's going to be tough to catch up.''
Read on for BTB's visit with Daryl "Moose'' Johnston:
On Jason Garrett and the Cowboys offense:
"The problem with using the Shotgun is that it voluntarily makes your offense more one-dimensional,'' Johnston says. "I'm hearing criticism of what (Garrett) did in Green Bay because of how frequently the Cowboys were in the Shotgun and generally speaking, I think the criticism is fair.
"One of the number-one goals of a defense is to force an offensive into being one-dimensional. When the Cowboys go into the Shotgun, they are volunteering to be one-dimensional. Obviously, you can run out of it. But it takes a lot of extra practice, a lot of extra time and a lot of extra timing to do it. Plus, it's a personnel thing. I think Felix Jones has the skills to be effective in it. I don't know that Barber and Choice are good fits for it.
"When we played (Johnston at fullback, Garrett as a backup QB to Troy Aikman), we didn't use the Shotgun. Having Troy under center gave us the run/pass option to make the call at the line of scrimmage. That's harder to do in the Shotgun. You have limited yourself just by the virtue of your formation.
"The Shotgun simply makes the defense's job that much easier,'' Johnston says, "and in my opinion, they'd be better and Tony Romo would be better if he was under center more.''
On the loss at Green Bay:
"They should've beaten Green Bay,'' Johnston says. "It's fine for the media and for fans to say, ‘Oh, now they're awful.' But the team cannot do that. Players and staff can't do that. They've got to see it as a learning experience and I'll give you an example: Charles Woodson and Al Harris combine to play a different style of cornerback than most everybody else. Their technique is different, their pressure is different. So Miles Austin got to play against that. He'll be a better player for having done that.''
And, D.J. says, a little credit ought to go to the Packers for that 17-7 result.
"That was a desperate team at home,'' he says. "Plus, they had a players-only meeting before the game. It's the only time in the recorded history of professional football that a players-only meeting worked!''
On the NFC playoff picture:
Johnston worked the Fox broadcast last week when the Falcons lost at Carolina. This week he gets Atlanta at the New York Giants in the Meadowlands. He views the Falcons as a contender for a playoff spot (he believes Arizona will win the West and that that New Orleans and Minnesota will win their divisions) but I was mostly interested in his view of the slumping Giants.
"They've gone from 5-0 to 5-4 with that loss to New Orleans that started their slide,'' Johnston says. "Some people think New Orleans created a map to beat them. I don't know if that's the case. I know they keep missing opportunities. I know they built that 5-0 on the strength of beating Washington, Kansas City,Tampa Bay and Oakland - not a contender among them. And I know they now have a reputation on offense as a team where Eli Manning just kind of throws it up. In those first five games, Steve Smith was the leading receiver in the NFL because he went up and got everything. Now? We don't know about the Giants' quality.''
On where the Cowboys fit into that race and the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry:
"Again, beating Green Bay could've really put Dallas in a position where they would feel they have answers about themselves, and now we don't have all those answers,'' he says. "But that can change in a week. You get wins in the NFC East, you've accomplished something. This has almost never been a division where a team - even so many of the great ones that have come out of the NFC East - is going to go 16-0 or 14-2. They beat each other up. It's a game of attrition. Our (Cowboys) rivalry with Philly was huge. The Giants, they don't like anybody. And Cowboys-Redskins? We're talking about playoff games and championship games.
Johnston believes the attention on the Washington-Dallas game typifies what the NFC East is all about ... even though the Redskins are not a contender. (Indeed, the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry fueled the sponsorship of Johnston's media availability here; he's working to promote Bank of America Cowboys Banking, personalized debit MasterCard with the Cowboys logo (or the Redskins, we suppose!) and participation in Bank of America's Keep the Change savings program and the 20-percent discount given to cardholders at NFL Shop.com.
"I don't think there is another rivalry in the NFL that would be a better (promotion),'' Johnston says. "It's got to be the NFC East. There's a reason that when they did realignment, they kept Dallas in the East even though it doesn't make geographic sense. It makes football sense. ... and because of all that, I don't think there is another division that can match the NFC East. If you win it, if you come out of the East, that's an accomplishment.''
Johnston, by the way, has a very personal reason for acknowledging the significance of Cowboys-Redskins Week. In 1989, he was part of his first NFL victory (and the first victory of the Jones/Johnson Era, and of course, the team's only win that season) in a game in Washington. And in 1999, he played his final professional snap in Week 1 when he broke his neck ... in Washington.
"It's meaningful to me, for a lot of reasons,'' Johnston said of the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry. "But it's also traditionally a game that has importance to the whole league.''
1 recs |
91 comments
|
Comments
He's a class act
I would put more stock in what he says than that of any of the other Cowboy greats.
Agreed...
Out of all the Cowboys from that 1990’s team, the three I would listen to are Troy, Michael and Daryl.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 19, 2009 3:07 PM CST up reply actions
Nate turned his life around.
He’s a good guy and knows football.
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
I would say he is pretty good
but I find the other three to be more insightful personally. Compared to Emmitt and Deion though, Woodson is pretty far ahead.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 19, 2009 4:32 PM CST up reply actions
Definitely
Though Michael is actually pretty good. Though he is loud and his suits are outrageous, he does tell it like it is a lot.
"Right after the game, say as little as possible."
- Tom Landry
The reason the 90s Cowboys didn't use the shotgun
is because Aikman didn’t like it, however Romo does prefer the shotgun, so an OC has to go with what his qb feels the most comfortable with.
In Romo we Trust
Another difference
between those two.
Aikman had the best post-season record of a QB. Tony, not so much.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
It's darker now, though.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
Emmitt's beard stuff work on headhair?
Blondes don’t always have more fun?
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 3:46 PM CST up reply actions
funny.....
BTW, is Emmitt bald or does he just shave it? I saw a picture the other day of when Emmitt had a flat top. Remember that?
Yup. 1990 Topps Supplemental Set.

I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 3:51 PM CST up reply actions
yep, that's the picture
I thought he started shaving it because all the basketball players like Jordan were doing it. Just curious.
BTW......
I saw the other day that Topps is getting out of the trader card business for the NFL. Kinda sad that era is fading away
ya might wanna hand onto it.....
may be pretty valuable some day.
Troy also had a much better team
and Tony’s post season record is far from being etched in stone
In Romo we Trust
And
his team had a better QB.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
I don't mean to be an instigator
but did he say this on the record?
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 19, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
No, disagree strongly-DJohnson knows what he's talking about, and Romo's an NFL QB and needs to learn to take a few steps backward.
Is what he said really news here? This is obvious and knowledgeable Cowboy fans already know Garrett needs to not use the Shotgun so much.
by Realist Larry on Nov 19, 2009 6:26 PM CST up reply actions
not so obvious to Garrett
yeah, these so called knowledgeable Cowboys fans know more than Garrett, yeah, thats funny.
In Romo we Trust
no, I'm calling Garrett a lot more knowledgeable
There is a reason why Garrett is a coach and Moose is a broadcaster.
In Romo we Trust
That may be true, but to make an inferrence only
on their choice of occupation that one knows more about football isn’t a sure thing. Maybe Moose knows more but has a bigger ego and likes being on TV, or Moose is lazier and only wants to work during the season.I’m pretty sure if Moose really wanted to coach he could find a job in the league somewhere.
I’m not disagreeing, but I think you’d have a tough time proving that.
lol
Lazy and egotistical Moose is not. If you really want to believe there are NFL teams who would hire Moose as an OC, have at it.
In Romo we Trust
He could be a RB coach
and who knows if that would lead to OC, but it might – it’s not like garrett started as an OC
IMHO Garrett really is a genius...
but sometimes he outsmarts himself. He does a great job of mixing things up and using plays to set up plays later on. Problem is, sometimes you just have to play physical football and not get so cute. Like Terry said above and like Raf wrote a few weeks ago, Garrett puts players in a position to be successful. For Tony that may be in the shotgun. Sure DJ has a point, but that doesn’t mean it is best for Tony. I’m sure we will soon see a post where someone goes back and charts Tony’s success from the shotgun and we’ll see that it works – but so does being under center. Bottom line, you have to play with heart and execute.
+1
Well said.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 20, 2009 7:41 AM CST up reply actions
Aikman & Johnston are two of the most articulate and insightful color commentators right now
Is playing smart too much to ask?
Johnston knows...
what he’s talking about. And he knows considerably more than myself or any other blogger on this subject.
Redball would do well to listen to him.
Not to say the shotgun can’t still be used, but ease up on it.
That's the point
There isn’t “one answer” to the issue. It’s a great insight, but it’s just one.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
kind of figured that
doesn’t matter because Betts is just as good and even more powerful of a runner.
In Romo we Trust
yeah, I was
kinda wanting Portis too because we know what to expect with him. Sometimes when it’s a different runner, unexpected things happen.
If I remember correctly, we've had problems with Betts in the past.
Brooking and Co. should take care of him though.
Cartwright’s pretty good, too.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 3:48 PM CST up reply actions
yes
Betts ran much better last week, then Portis has this season..
Portis just looks warn down.
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
Twitter Account
When Landry brought the shot back...
he called something different. Can any of the oldtimers remember what he called it?
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
No sir Landry didn't cal lit the shotgun
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
I'm pretty sure Landry called it the shotgun.......
as a kid I remember when he resurrected the shotgun to give Staubach more time to see the field and I believe they called it the shotgun. Could be wrong but I don’t think so.
Landry always called it the spread.
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
the spread was the formation the shotgun was typically run out of
but in theory you could run the spread without using the shotgun.
In Romo we Trust
After it had been around awhile
and other teams started running it someone called the shotgun and it hung on. Like the wildcat is called whatever now, but Landry always called it the spread. The wildcat was called the single wing years ago.
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
I think Romo being 6'2 instead of your typical 6'4-5 pro style QB
has a lot to do with his preference for the shotgun. Factor in his height with the size of our oline and it makes a lot of sense. Perhaps he simply can’t see the field all that well under center. It may just take too much time in his drop back before the field is completely visible. He’s never appeared very tall to me. I bet he’s barely 6’2.
not really
It’s a myth that qbs scan the field by looking over the OL, they actually scan the field by seeing through lanes and gaps in the OL, regardless of their height.
Some qbs feel comfortable with the shotgun, others don’t, just a preference thing.
In Romo we Trust
Then why do teams want tall QBs
QBs do look through lanes , but the tall ones can see over the O line also.
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
The tallest QB is still dwarfed by the talles OLineman around… There are some 6’8 around… The tallest QBs are around 6’5 and a guy that high would have problems looking over 4/5 of our OLine…
Tall QBs are in vogue because it’s harder to break up one of their throws at the LOS. Shorter QBs have to develop mechanics to prevent such a thing and it doesn’t hurt them one iota, for example Drew Brees, the guy is 6’2 with heels.
That height helps QBs to see through the lanes isn’t that much of a factor.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!
If your lineman are standing straight up
your Qb is getting sacked. The reason QBs need to be tall is they can see field better and the D line arms and hands don’t obstruct his view when they rush as bad. It’s not the O line it’s the D line that obstucts his view.
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
QBs need to be tall-ish
but Romo’s height is not a problem. He has Brees by over an inch.
What IS a problem is the interior of the line allowing penetraions. That’s where the throwing lanes are and if there is any penetraion up the middle, the QB really is having to look over O and D linemen. You’d need Shaq QBing to see down field. The farther back the center of the line is from the QB’s throwing point, the better he sees the field, height notwithstanding.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
Shorter QBs have to get out of the pocket quicker.
Thats why the shorter QBs have to be able to scramble and move around better. Romo is not a short QB, but he’s not tall like say Big Ben. There have been some good short QBs like Flutie, Fran and others, but in todays game it the exception not the norm.At one time short QBs were not a problem, the first starting QB for Dallas was 5’6" Eddie LeBaron. Dallas gave Washington a first round draft choice for him. I’d say football has changed alot.
How bout dem Frogs!!!!
Romo likes the shotgun...
because he doesn’t have to worry about beating those inside blitzers to his throwing position on his 5 and 7 step drops. When he starts from under center they’re getting there about the same time he is. :-)
Garrett needs to get a clue!
S11 Shotgun
Bob Sturm’s analysis is similar. What made the offense one-dimensional wasn’t necessarily that Garrett called too many passes per se, but that he called too many out of the S11 (3WR) personnel in the shotgun formation.
by scottmaui on Nov 19, 2009 4:00 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
This seems to make more sense to me
Because we do run out of the shotgun. In fact, I think it keeps the defense off balance knowing that we do run from the shotgun and have some success doing it.
We have some success.
But you don’t see any long runs out of the shotgun.
The downside. When you use shotgun you completely eliminate the safety from biting on play action. The safety is not cheating up with the spread.
Romo is using his pump fakes to move safeties. He’s good at it but how about having the safety bite on the run.
With our running game we should never be in shotgun on 1st down and anything more than 2 and 5.
.
by Sharksbreath on Nov 21, 2009 7:35 AM CST up reply actions
That's a good point.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Nov 19, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions
Moose is a Good Announcer
But, darn he talks too much . . . dude is like an auctioneer on steroids and meth. Breathe once in a while Moose, just breathe
I love Moose
He still cares about the Cowboys and his passion for his team shows through at times. Personally, I like the shotgun offense. I think it’s here to stay, in today’s NFL. You didn’t have as many blitzing teams in the 90s as there are today.

by 


















