What should Garrett do different against the Giants D ?
by DallasPalace on Nov 29, 2009 7:11 PM CST
Email
Print
Let's face reality- Jason Garrett's playcalling against the Giants defense since he's been offensive coordinator hasn't been very effective in the meaningful games against them. Maybe it's because he used to be a coach for the Giants, and they know him so well, or maybe it's the fact that they hate the Cowboys so much that drives them to go insane and get to the passer with reckless abandon that the Cowboys have no answer for. Add to that an injury to Marc Columbo, and the fact that the Giants have they're back against the wall, and this game has the makings of another Green Bay game, especially if Garrett continues to put Romo back their in the shotgun.
But through it all, there is a ray of hope. Felix had a better game than the previous weeks, and Tashard may see more playing time. Maybe Garrett starts using Barber more down near the goal line, if only to draw the defense into thinking run, setting up the pass nicely, or play action. Miles has hit his stride again, and if ever was a game where Roy Williams needs to perform well, this is it.
The Victory over Oakland provided 2 things. One is offensive momentum, and a chance to avenge the early season loss at the inaugural opening of Cowboys stadium. The second is giving us more tie-braking against the Eagles if we end up in a tie with them. But Nothing, and I mean nothing, will top beating the Giants and grasping a firm hold on the division, as well as good situations in the tiebraking. Let's face it- this is playoff football, and it's time to put up or shut up.
Myself, I would put my faith in the running game. Limiting the Giants opportunities on offense is the biggest key. Making them go the distance of the field, and not giving them a short field, and you are already telepathically sending a message to the Giants offense that they will have to work hard for every yard they earn. Make nothing come easy for them. I don't have faith that a pass-heavy game will end in a good result, regardless of how bad the Giants defense played in Denver or the last 6 games. The Giants seem to know exactly how to punish and torture the Cowboys, and that has to change. This is the biggest game of the year to date.
I would like to see screens to Tashard and Felix, especially if the Giants start getting pressure. Quick developing plays on offense will be critical. Pick and choose your shots down the field smartly. One thing is for certain- The Cowboys have to call plays differently on offense than they have up to now, because dropping back too much is risky play against the Giants, and will result in sacks,turnovers and alot of 3 and outs, and then the game is over before it begins. The Giants are expecting alot of shotgun and passing. 3 and outs on offense happen alot by us against the Giants. Even if we just go down the field, take time off the clock, and score field goals will have a profound effect on the outcome for sure. Limit the Giants opportunities with the ball on offense, and make them go the distance from the 20 every time (It's not David "Ferris" Beuhler's day off), and you are more than 60 percent of winning the game. Right now, they're offense is shaky, and there is no reason to allow them back into the playoff picture. A loss to them would not be acceptable in my book. This coaching staff's defining moment has arrived. What will be the outcome? Only the football gods know. What we do know is what we've done on offense hasn't worked so far against the Giants defense, regardless of how bad the Giants defense has played up to this point.
And please, I don't want to hear anyone write that losing to the Giants is ok because we have a 2 game lead on them, because it's not ok. You put the foot on the throat, and you step on them that much harder. It's what they would do to us, since they love us so much. No easing up, or going into a corner and hiding because you are timid and don't have a zeal or the zest for playing your guts out.
Most of all NO TURNOVERS. GO COWBOYS!
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
120 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really am just going to stop at the front...
Jason Garrett’s playcalling against the Giants defense since he’s been offensive coordinator hasn’t been very effective in the meaningful games against them
Both games in the 2007 regular season game were meaningful. One was the first game of the season and the second one was when the division could still be claimed and they needed to keep winning to try and get homefield advantage in the playoffs.
Both of those games, Dallas put up a parade of points.
Not saying he can’t make some adjustments, but I think that statement is false.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Nov 29, 2009 7:31 PM CST reply actions
The ones you win
Then you go on to play the same team in the playoffs, then loose
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 8:21 PM CST up reply actions
Holy crap
I was thinking the same exact thing. That first sentence totally undermines the writer’s credibility. I was at two Cowboys-Giants games at the meadowlands (2007 in the cold weather – November and December – and I believe at least one of the games was for first place. We won both games and scored a lot of points.
"Right after the game, say as little as possible."
- Tom Landry
Holy Crap
YOU just lost some credibility with your statement sir- How can the Cowboys play the Giants in the meadowlands twice during the regular season? I was at that game at the meadowlands myself. I hope you are refering to the ONE game.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 8:19 PM CST up reply actions
-1
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 30, 2009 10:10 PM CST up reply actions
2007 and 2006
a typo versus a complete lack of reason. You be the judge.
"Right after the game, say as little as possible."
- Tom Landry
Really?
You want me to judge your Typo versus what you call a “lack of reason”.
How’s this- Read what “Larry the Realist” wrote within this fanpost about the reality of our offense so far this season, then come back and explain my so-called “Lack of reason” you so easily write and post about.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
Disagree completely with your general premise
In the first game of 2007 for example we hung up 48 points against them (I think). And since Romo has been a starter, the only games we have lost against the Giants were the playoff game in 2007, which if not for a few costly drops (which are not on Garrett) could have had a different outcome.
Earlier this year, we scored almost 30 points against them despite a plethora of Romo turnovers and team fumbles. There is a great difference between poor execution in week 2 and poor play calling. I understand that you dont like Garrett, but at least concoct reasonable criticism.
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
Concoct?
I am concocting nothing. Just stating my opinion.
I believe that It’s your assumption that Garrett is beyond scrutiny by the words in your reponse to the point. Need I remind you of the December meltdowns? What would account for your assumption that my reasoning for scrutiny of his playcalling be unreasonable? Your say so?
My belief is that I’ve seen and heard enough excuses along the line of “player execution”. It doesn’t stand on solid ground anymore. Jason Garrett as offensive coordinator is reaching a defining moment in this Giants game. I hope he overcomes and succeeds. There has been a problem with the offense in the Meaningful games that just can’t be explained away as player execution anymore. I will point to the Green Bay game as an example. There was no reason to call a game like that on offense. That is my opinion. We couldd have easily won that game.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 29, 2009 8:12 PM CST up reply actions
I dont believe Garrett is beyond scrutiny
but this:
Jason Garrett’s playcalling against the Giants defense since he’s been offensive coordinator hasn’t been very effective in the meaningful games against them
Is simply wrong. As far as the December meltdowns, I suggests you read Raf’s piece on the front page. Defence has been the weakness of this team in December.
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 29, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions
You can't always blame the defense
after the offense has turned the ball over, or dropped back into shotgun and forced passes incomplete, and has done alot of 3 and outs.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
Dont see how interceptions are on the OC
Last time I checked he didn’t throw the ball.
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 30, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
So do you think if Jason Garrett calls a play that gets Austin wide open and Romo misses him for a TD that's bad play-calling not bad execution.
Here’s the facts of Garrett’s offense after 11 games;
10th in passing yards at 254 per game
3rd in passing yards per play with 8.2
6th in rushing yards at 138 per game
2nd in rushing yards per play with 5.3
4th in overall yards per game at 392
1st in overall yards per play with 6.4
I hope Garrett coaches here for a long time.
+1
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 30, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
+1
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 30, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
No
I’d have to watch the game and see if Garrett used the RB’s in what I believe is a correct rotation, and making the defense they are facing respect the run. If that has been done to a respectable degree, then no. But if I watch the game, and see too much shotgun and drop back long developing pass plays along the lines of the Green Bay game (60-40 pass-run ratio), then yes. You have to keep any defense honest.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
I disagree
Garrett’s play calling has been very solid all year because when we have executed, we scored plenty. If the players execute and protect the ball, we’ll win…end of story.
In Romo we Trust
money comment
and key words…
when we have executed, we scored plenty.
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 30, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
and what good?
What good is it to call two regular season victories against a team, then loose to them at home in your first playoff appearance in 10 years?
What good do those victories serve under those circumstances?
Those two games were meaningless, because the playoff game was the meaningful one.
Maybe it will take another loss in a MEANINGFUL game to the Giants to prove to you and all others that disbelieve this notion that his offense struggles when it needs to perform.
You may believe that the offense hasn’t struggled in the meaningful games against the Giants, but that still doesn’t disprove the point. The reality of that is shown in the fact of no Cowboy playoff victory since 1976. Even the Oakland raiders have been to a super bowl since the last time we won a meaningful game in December or past it. The meaning of the point has to do with the Giants.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
-1
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 29, 2009 9:09 PM CST up reply actions
Wow...
Last year’s 2nd game was extremely meaningful at the time for the playoffs and considering how Proctor was playing against the Giants line, 20 points was a pretty good accomplishment. And I don’t know if you remember, but that 2nd win against the Giants was the game that gave us the inside track to the division (also an extremely meaningful game). To make a statement such as Jason Garrett hasn’t been “very effective in the meaningful games against them,” is just wrong.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 30, 2009 8:39 AM CST up reply actions
this week's not a playoff game so it must not be meaningful
according to your logic here
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 2, 2009 9:17 PM CST up reply actions
To echo everyone else
I disagree with the main point of your post.
In 2007, we played great about them. You bring up that playoff loss – if wrs don’t drop balls they absolutely should have caught or Romo hits TO in the end zone, we win that game. PLaycalling was hardly the problem, although its debatable as to whether we should’ve run that much.
Garrett’s playcalling has been fine against the GIants. In our first game against them last year, we didn’t have Romo. In the second game, we had a ton of injuries, Romo badly hurt his back early in that game, and the OL just generally got beat one on one, yet we still played ok.
This year we TORCHED them aside from one unlucky bounce and one really stupid throw by romo.
Seriously, if theres a team to feel confident going against with Garrett, its the GIants.
I hope your right
I hope the team finally gets this monkey off they’re back. Until it happens, I will remain skeptical. The meaningful games are the point.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
What monkey?
I don’t get what monkey your talking about. Romo and the Cowboys have had good success against the Giants mostly.
If your talking about the December monkey than I agree, but it’s not like the Giants have had Dallas’s number.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Nov 29, 2009 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
by Aaron Novinger on Dec 1, 2009 8:04 AM CST up reply actions
and don't forget...
… their best LB (Antonio Pierce) has a bulging disc in his neck
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 30, 2009 12:09 PM CST up reply actions
Should
And I pray for this reality.
But in my post I wrote “The Giants know what to do to punish and Torture the Cowboys, and this has to end”.
Maybe alot of people think everything is ok, and that we are just gonna cruise in their and just go about our business as usual, while they go about trying to decapitate Romo.
I truly hope we don’t awaken the sleeping Giants.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
How is this accurate?
But in my post I wrote "The Giants know what to do to punish and Torture the Cowboys, and this has to end".
The Giants have beaten Romo but once since he became the starter.
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 29, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions
Actually it is twice, he lost in the playoffs and he lost this year as the starter.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
And they won the Super Bowl
two years ago when they beat us in the playoffs, and they won the division last year.
And they beat us the beginning of the year this year.
Sounds to me like the Cowboys have been punished and tortured by the Giants.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions
I disagree
The Cowboys are 4-2 against GMen with Romo under center, thats hardly being punished and tortured.
In Romo we Trust
Unless
you look at the reality of the post I made above the one you just made, as well as all the trash talking, hatred, loathing, and whatever else you want to throw in there.
Losing to them again would be unacceptable in my book, and this coaching staff would have to bear the brunt of criticism, not the players and the so-called “lack of execution”.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:17 AM CST up reply actions
I disagree
The players play the game, not the coaches. Anytime we lost or haven’t played well this year certainly hasn’t been the coaches fault, but the lack of player execution.
The coaches always have good game plans and have them prepared to play.
In Romo we Trust
It seems Terry
That you are Ticked-off at the topic of this thread by way of the tone of everything you write. You responding in apparant anger and disagreement over a topic you obviously don’t like doesn’t really belittle the topic. It lends credibility to the topic, and makes it worthy of debate. Your debate on the matter is appreciated, but don’t look for ways to squash this topic just because you don’t agree.
unfortunately, Jason Garrett still has alot to prove to alot of people (your opinion, as well as many others, is well documented), and Jason Garrett still has alot to prove to himself too. i’m sure he would concur if you asked him yourself.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
First of all I'm not angry
thats my writing style, but regarding Garrett, I never said he was perfect, but when we lose, you can’t pin the blame on him because he’s not out there playing the game.
I think he puts his players in the best position to succeed way more often than not, and thats all you can really ask for from your coaches.
In Romo we Trust
Terry
Jason Garrett just seems to me to be someone that doesn’t put the right importance on the running game, and it’s role in promoting the passing offense. He has a chance to redeem himself in these upcoming december games.
Alot of people believe Norv Turner (by the way, remember him? We’ll be seeing him soon in Dallas again when the Chargers arrive for they’re game against us) was the reason our offense was so successful. I believe it was Jimmy Johnson. Johnson knew the importance of the running game, and that’s why he went out of his way to go get Emmitt in the draft like he did. Defenses respected Emmitt so much that it made it impossible to play strong pass defense, thus making it easy for Aikman and company. But would the pass offense have been so effective without at least the respect the running game had? no.
But the majority of people think it was Norv Turner that made the offense run, while I just believed he was a very good passing offense type of coordinator. If Jimmy Johnson said, on any given play back then, “Run the ball”, you bettter believe Turner would run it. Garrett has no such person to answer to as far as his playcalling is concerned. It’s a mistake to not have that kind of a situation for him, sort of like a mentor to help his development too. Garrett is still a relatively young and inexperienced offensive coordinator. He’s gotten his experience on the fly the last 3 years at the teams expense, but my question still remains- has he developed? I’m skeptical.
Back when Emmitt held out in his contractr year, he missed 2 games. Jerry and Jimmy thought they would get by without Emmitt, and win games, giving Jerry more leverage in contract negotiations. They passed alot. The offense wasn’t the same. They lost those first 2 games. They were in trouble.
History records that Jerry gave in (knowing that the team was in trouble, and it was time to pay the Fiddler), signed Emmitt, and then the Cowboys went on to win a super bowl. Just a little quirk like that can throw off your entire recipe on offense, although i wouldn’t quite call Emmitt a “Quirk”. He was a vital piece to the puzzle.
Tashard is no Emmitt, but he doesn’t have to be. He does nothing spectacular, but everything well. By definition a true workhorse, all purpose back. It is a mistake to use him only for wildcat formations, as well as a 3rd down specialist. He is alot more than that. He can go to the outside, I believe he is our best running back between the tackles to, and deadly on screens.
Felix is the home run hitter. He will confuse defenses just being out on the field as a decoy. He should be used more as a reciever. He should be out there in formations more with MB3 or Tashard at the same Time. He can run up the middle, but it’s not his strong suite. Hopefully, with time, he will develop into a back like that.
MB3 is what he is- a churner. he doesn’t have blazing speed. He is not the back to play at the beginning of the game, and play the majority of the game with (in my opinion). He has his role down near the goal line and in the 4th qtr. He is a great reciever out of the backfield.
All this leads to a compelling question- Whatever happened to the highly-touted “3-headed Monster”?
Maybe I am the only one that believes the strength of the offense is the RB’s, who knows? One thing I do know, is we could really stand to see more screens to our RB’s, and even if that means having one less WR out there. It’s the running backs that always seem to jumpstart the offense. The passing game seems to come along after that nicely. It rarely works in reverse though. You have to establish the run first. That’s what I believe is wrong with this offense.
I also believe that if the Cowboys offensive coordinator can mix the offense the way it needs to be mixed, then the offense will become the strength of the team, not the weakness. And it will be just as potent, if not more potent, than any offense in the NFL.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
that's just too long to read
in general, it seems that your opinion is a lonely one. The games the Giants have won can’t be blamed on Garrett. When the offense scores 30 points, you can’t point to the OC generally. In the playoff game (now two seasons ago) there were issues with execution and perhaps not sticking with the run long enough. But your argument places all your eggs in the basket of that one shortcoming in that one game. Not a strong argument!
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 2, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions
You got something against reading Kansas?
I was responding to alot of debate on many posts on this same subject between me and Terry. Wasn’t really looking for you opinion of whether the post was long or not. But your opinion is noted. And it obviously is stronger argument than you or many others will believe. i guess we’ll have to see what Garrett does now that it’s december, right?
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
I choose what to read
and your bad logic doesn’t deserve investment of the time it would have taken to read that…perhaps if I expected something new to be in there but I am sure it was more referencing the playoff loss to the Giants and how that’s a big game, none others are, and the loss goes on Garrett’s shoulders. I think that sums up your logic.
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 4, 2009 8:07 PM CST up reply actions
Yes this situation in this game with the gints is a golden opportunity.
Dallas has the chance to put their foot on the throat of the gints season and take them out of the division at least and may keep them from even making the WC at most. Dallas has a lot to prove, Decembers past is what they are fighting to avoid repeating this year. The gints know what is on the line for them this week; this is like the GB game in week 10 all over again coming into this game.
I feel that if dallas does not turnover the ball then they will win the game. The gints def (even though they are struggling) is dependent on TO to give their offense the lead. Dallas needs to take care of the football, build a 10 point lead to take the gints out of their gameplan.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
With all due respect, DP...
… in my humble opinion, “punished and tortured” would be almost synonymous to “dominated and owned.”
And the G-Men haven’t done that against us in recent years.
Sans last year’s game w/o Romo, our head-to-heads with them have been pretty competitive.
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 30, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions
I consider punished and tortured
as the result of the playoff loss and after
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
What should Garrett do different?
Not much. He’s been doing a great job this year.
The Cowboys are in the top 10 in both rushing (6th), and passing (8th) offense, and currently 4th overall.
That’s despite being one of the most penalized teams in the league, and having Roy drag the passing attack down for most of the games.
I just don’t see much room for improvement.
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
+1
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 29, 2009 9:11 PM CST up reply actions
What's that?
A reasonable assessment of Jason Garrett based on the facts! Get out of here PerfectStar, can’t you see Garrett’s got red hair. RED!!
haha
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 30, 2009 6:12 PM CST up reply actions
You've got to be kidding, right?
No room for improvement?
You assuming that it doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement?
And your asserting that the offensive stats your quoting are going to make a difference in the meaningful games?
Until this coaching staff makes the move of winning meaningful, playoff, division clinching games, I just don’t see how anyone can assume everything is ok with no room for improvement. The december meltdowns prove that at least sir.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 9:46 AM CST up reply actions
got news for you
Coaches don’t win meaningful, playoff, division clinching games, they players do. A play caller can only do so much, it’s up to the players to execute the plays called, it’s really that simple.
In Romo we Trust
And when the players have been changed
to get other players, to supposedly correct the flaw, and get better execution?
What your saying then is it’s still the players?
Some people have a hard time believing Garrett’s playcalling in meaningful, playoff, division clinching games becomes one dimensional, predictable, and results in failure.
The calling out of this offensive coordinator as one-dimensional by other teams defensive coordinators should offend any Cowboy fan. To not accept this reality is your choice, not mine.
He is reaching a defining moment as offensive coordinator in this game against the Giants.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
Of course!
Coaches aren’t human- they can’t make mistakes!
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:36 AM CST up reply actions
I'm not saying coaches are perfect
I’m saying the players determine who wins and losses games because they’re actually the ones on the field playing. I haven’t seen Garrett throw, run, block or tackle since he stopped playing.
Coaching decisions rarely affect the outcome of a game.
In Romo we Trust
being the devils advocate here.......
but coaching did have something to do with the Auburn loss the other day against Alabama ya think? Just saying sometimes coaches do make goofy calls in critical parts of the game. Mostly it’s on the players though. I loved what Al Michaels was saying last night when the Ravens went for it on 4th down. In this league, as a coach, you’re either a moron or a genius
Not kidding DallasPalace
I didn’t say NO room for improvement, I stated NOT MUCH room for improvement in the offensive play calling. At least quote me correctly if you are going to try and detract from my opinion.
Yes, stats count, even though they shoot your “reasoned” argument full of holes. It’s clear you do not like Garrett, and you are mad that Choice doesn’t get a lot more touches, but your assertions are borderline absurd.
What more can I (or the rest of the bloggers) say. You just don’t have a leg to stand on. Yet after almost every game you post a similar diatribe trying to prove that Garrett is mediocre to horrible as our OC. The evidence is against you, maybe you should step back and re-assess your opinion before the next attempt to convince us all that you are smarter than Garrett, and the majority of people on the blog.
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
With all due respect
I believe stats don’t matter anymore with the Cowboys offense. All that really matters any more is getting on with the business at hand- winning the division, then moving on to the playoffs and having success there, leading to a super bowl. You can quote stats to your hearts content, but they have no real meaning without division titles, playoff victories, and Super Bowl victories.
I also expect that if the Cowboys make it to the super bowl, that they keep with the Teams tradition of winning it.
You can state your disagreement, or not. It’s like a TV channel. If you don’t like what’s on, change it. If you don’t like my opinion, sorry I can’t help you with that.
And as far as posting the same “diatribe” as you put it, I ask one question of you-
Is this not a blog where opinions and points of discussion are made?
Why shouldn’t I post topics that are points of debate about a percieved weakness on the team, regardless of whether the topic is popular with some people or not?
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
Your opinion is based on one game in January of 2008
and you can’t move past it. I can tell, from the massive amount of failed attempts to do so, that your opinion has only stewed since then and until the Cowboys overcome that Sunday at Texas stadium with a victory in the playoffs (the only meaningful games in your opinion) nothing will change your opinion. In fact, if the Cowboys, with Garrett’s play calling, were to light up the Giants with a dominating win and lights out offense, I get the sense that you would still be unsatisfied because this is not a meaningful game. Others have mentioned other wins over the Giants but you can only point to the playoff loss in January of 2008 claiming all others meaningless. You are right about one thing. This is a blog and you are entitled to your opinion and even entitled to share it, no matter how incorrect it is. The rest of us, though, have equal right to advise you how erred your opinion is.
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 2, 2009 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
Thanks for advising me
That your opinion is my opinion is erred. I doubt you’ll thank me for advising you your opinion is erred, because that is what my opinion is. That’s what someone that writes a fanpost is supposed to do- respond to people who post within the fanpost. Just because I do so, and you don’t like that, matters little about the topic.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Dec 3, 2009 10:02 AM CST up reply actions
Thanks...but
you’re the one person who shares your opinion. The rest of us are all trying to show you the flawed logic. You are one who thinks we are erred. We are many who think you are erred. The majority is not always right (Obama won afterall) but sometimes its worth a consideration that maybe, just maybe, if I’m the only person among a sizeable group who have an opinion different from all of the others, I could be wrong. Can you consider that?
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 4, 2009 8:10 PM CST up reply actions
More pre-snap movement from the WR like we did against the Skins
That’s one thing he could improve on, and I’m really stretching here to find anything at all…
I read about 3/4 of it, then had to stop.
These are the keys to victory for this game.
1. MINIMIZE PENALTIES AND TURNOVERS
2. Run a balanced offense, but attack their secondary in the passing game because they SUCK. I know we’ve been bitching about the run game for the last few weeks, but this week I want to see some deep shots down the field.
3. Defensively get pressure on ShEli, stop the run, and cover the wide outs. The first two should be no problem, but the secondary is really going to have to be on their game.
We do these things, we win. That simple.
Jimmy Johnson for GM.
The meaning of the post txhc...
is to drive home the point you are making in #2- run a balanced offense.
I want to see deep shots down the field too. That’s what establishing a solid ground game will do- open up the passing game. Unfortunately, some people think that is going to happen with playcalling like the Green Bay game (60-40 pass/run) and it’s not. Dropping back in the shotgun too much against the Giants will not result in victory. They are not going to let Romo pick them apart. They are a wounded animal right now, and they will be out for blood. Let’s see if Garrett is ready to change his gameplan to accomadate a Cowboys victory, shall we?
Please don’t tell me you don’t believe that Garrett doesn’t want to drop back in the shotgun alot.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
Cowboys can beat the GMen with Romo in the shotgun
It’s happened 4 times before and it can happen again.
In Romo we Trust
You can beat them
Just not in the meaningul games!
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
When a team beats you
in the playoffs after you beat them twice in the regular season, those two games in the regular season become meaningless.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
thats not true
At the time they played them, they were very meaningful. It’s easy to play Monday morning qb after the all the games have been played.
BTW, that GMen team that beat us in the playoffs was also the same team that beat the undefeated Pats as well. Guess their 16-0 record was meaningless as well. Try telling that to them.
In Romo we Trust
That is a ridiculous assertion...
By that logic, the only team who ever wins a meaningful game is the Super Bowl champ.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 30, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
well some people
only think that if you don’t win everything (SB) then the whole season is a waste. Some people think that there will only be one happy team at the end of the year. In other words, you fail unless you win it all. Don’t know if I agree with that logic, but that’s how some see it
but there is a huge difference
between saying a season is a huge disappointment or waste after the final loss that knocks you out and playing in games that are important at the time you are actually playing them.
To say only playoff games and SBs are meaningful simply isn’t true because you have to win a lot of games to actually get to that point and at the time you play them, they’re most definitely important.
Dallas Palace is simply way off base.
In Romo we Trust
After a 13 year playoff drought
The only thing the Dallas Cowboys should be thinking about is not only making the playoffs, but being successful in the playoffs. A super Bowl victory naturally should be the goal. This is the Dallas Cowboys we are talking about, aren’t we?
You want to disagree with that mentality, I’ll ask you a basic question..
how many years have you been a Dallas Cowboy fan?
There was a time in the past (maybe before your time of becoming a fan) that the words Dallas Cowboys were synonymous with Super Bowl Victories.
I know what your going to say…“That was the past, this is now”
To which I would respond appropriately like this…..“Tradition- that’s what matters. Winning Tradition. That is the Dallas Cowboys heritage”
If you are willing to accept that the Dallas Cowboys won’t make the Super Bowl, or can’t, shouldn’t, or whatever, then that is another reason why we don’t as fans or the players take the game seriously, and the end result is failure to attain another Super Bowl trophy. We are not the Philadelphia Eagles. I also expect that if the Dallas Cowboys make it to the Super Bowl, to win it. It is not unrealistic to have these expectations. If you think about the glorious history of the past that our team has, you will understand this thinking. just because we’ve had a 13 year playoff drought doesn’t mean all of us fans have forgotten the glory.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The Super Bowl is the goal
but that doesn’t make all other games meaningless. As a lifelong Cowboy fan I remember the early 80’s when we were hoping to win Super Bowls. I remember losing to the Rams in the playoffs circa ‘84 and realizing that dream would be over for a while.
I remember watching the Cowboys in the late 80’s when every game was meaningful because there weren’t that many chances to win games…the team wasn’t very good.
Then the ‘90s came and we watched the Cowboys blossom again and every game was meaningful because it was for home field advantage. We wanted to be in Texas stadium, not Candlestick for the NFC Championship. Of course, that didn’t always happen but we won 3 SB’s in 4 years and life was great.
Then came the late ‘90s and we could feel it all slip away. Since then, until the rise of Romo, we haven’t had real hopes of SB’s. We now do once again. This team can do it and this weekend’s game is a meaningful step, just as the 2 wins in 2007 were. They set us up for what should have been a great post-season but a mutlitude of failures in that game made for a disappointing loss. It was a very meaningful game as all playoff games are because they are win or go home. But, regular season games are also meaningful.
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 2, 2009 10:04 PM CST up reply actions
Of course they are meaningful
at the time they are played. What’s wrong with thinking that the Cowboys should be looking at division clinching, playoff, and Super Bowl games as Meaningful, and putting aside the mentality that winning regular season games is all there is to it?
Right now, there has to be a priority placed on winning in the post season (if and when that happens). To not think that way is to resolve oneself into lower expectations, and we can’t afford that anymore. This offense has sputtered at times when it needs to kick into gear. Is this not the Dallas Cowboys we are talking about Kansas? I would think that you, of all people, having been a fan as long as you have, would appreciate the mental state of the team and fans in general leading into big games against the better opponents.
Sorry if you don’t like my opinion that Garrett doesn’t use the running game correctly, and sorry if you think this post is too long.
If I see Garrett change his philosiphy, use the run better, and adjust, i’m man enough to admit I’m wrong. I haven’t seen it yet though. Forgive me if I’m skeptical about it.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Dec 3, 2009 10:27 AM CST up reply actions
Of course I expect to win in the postseason
but to do that, we must first win in the regular season…to position ourselves for the postseason.
Regarding Garrett, I will agree that I at times disagree with the way he calls the game. However, I can’t place the blame for the playoff loss to the Giants on him. I’ll place the loss against the Redskins in week 5 (I think that was the week) of 2008 on Garrett when we threw to TO 20 times or so and didn’t run the ball much at all. That was on Garrett. I’ll even say that I think our offense is underperforming this year in large part due to play calling…with our talent we should be better. However, my argument isn’t whether Garrett is calling perfect games. My argument is that you can’t blame that one playoff game’s loss on Garrett, as you have and there are other meaningful games in which Garrett has also not been the culprit.
by Kansas Cowboy on Dec 4, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly.
Do it until they stop it, and quite frankly with the condition their secondary is in I don’t think they can stop it. Of course we have to mix it up to keep the defense guessing, but we can’t be afraid to drop back and throw the ball downfield. The secondary is their defense’s weakness, you’ve got to attack it. Biggest thing is going to be point #1 in my original post.
Jimmy Johnson for GM.
Hmmm, what should he do differently?
How about tell Romo to NOT throw interceptions, tell the RB’s/WR’s to NOT fumble and tell the whole offense to NOT have stupid pre-snap penalties that take away positive plays. I know he’s not the defensive coordinator but he can go ahead and tell the D to not let the Giants dink and dunk their way down the field at will while he’s at it. What? You say he’s probably already done all of this? Hmmm, I guess that means it’s on the players, eh?
BTW, the Cowboys rushed for over 250 yards in the last meeting, the D played soft all game and had NO sacks and they lost the turnover battle 0-4 and it still took a FG at the gun for the Giants to win. I think they’ll be just fine.
If there weren't so many forced passes
maybe there wouldn’t have been so many interceptions. Romo was way off in his passing that day. Garrett should have reacted to Romo’s innefective and off-target passing. What does Garrett do instead? He continues to call risky passes, into double coverage nonetheless. Please don’t blame Romo, because the green light to pass on those plays was given by Garrett. Playcalling is the issue whether Terry likes it or not. Furthermore, the Giants were not able to stop the Cowboys running game, making playcalling a definite issue. It’s as if the Giants knew, in the end, they would win because they knew that a mistake in the passing game (turnover) would happen. it did happen. more than once i might add.
Take away the interceptions (turnovers) out of the equation, and would the Giants have been in the situation of kicking the field goal to win the game? no. I would have had no problem seeing the Cowboys win that game 17-7, or 20-10.
The Giants know that Garrett’s going to pass alot. i believe the title of the fanpost to be a good topic of debate. Jason Garrett has made it so.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 11:58 PM CST up reply actions
I am confused...
We hung a ton of points on them in 2007, put up 20 in 2008 (not counting the game without Romo), and put on a great yardage display earlier this year on our way to 31 points. I honestly don’t think Garrett needs to change much. The only thing we actually need to do different from the first game is hold the ball and not turn it over. This isn’t to say I wouldn’t love to see some small changes such as more early smoke routes to Roy, but overall I think Garrett has done a very solid job against the Giants.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
Unless you believe
That the playcalling is what causes the turnovers in the first place
I guess it wil take the same kind of playcalling (too much shotgun and dropping back with no solid establishment of the run) and have turnovers to realize that it’s a flaw to some people.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 9:55 AM CST up reply actions
+1
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
by aussie_cowboy on Nov 30, 2009 6:13 PM CST up reply actions
I am not saying there is absolutely no room for improvement
but I don’t believe that play calling causes turnovers. Garrett might have called the play against the Giants that had Hurd running a fly route, but it was Romo who failed to recognize the coverage and threw to Hurd instead of throwing to one of the many other options.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 30, 2009 3:23 PM CST up reply actions
Did you watch the WAS game?
Garrett called run after run, and what happened on that first drive. MB3 fumbles inside the redzone. Now is that Garrett’s fault for too many runs? Of course not.
You see the fallacy of your argument that poor playcalling is what causes turnovers?
It’s the players not executing the plays properly that causes most turnovers. The rest are just superior defensive play.
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
I don't see this fallacy you refer to
I question this offensive coordinators correct use and rotation of the running backs.
I believe Barber Should be used alot near the goal line, and in the 4th Qtr.
I believe Felix should be used as a reciever more, and out there more with Barber or Tashard in 2 back sets, and Tashard and Felix should be getting alot more screens
I believe Tashard should be used between the twenties heavily, he is not a 3rd down back and a wildcat specialist only
I believe this to be the strength of our offense, and it’s being ignored by Garrett in favor of a pass heavy scheme and philosiphy.
I hope That we start seeing more of this type of offense we are referring to, because we need to establish it. If Garrett does utilize it, we have a chance. if he doesn’t, don’t be surprised at a similar outcome to the other December meltdowns.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
By the way
I counted Tashard in 4 plays in the Washington game. That was a mistake in my opinion. Barber fumbled on our end of the field, not down near the goal line.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
Nope
MB3 fumbled as the team moved inside the WAS 20 yd line. Hall recovered and Romo took a knee in the back as he tripped him up on the return.
The Cowboys seemed headed for an early lead when Marion Barber led a run-filled second series. Then Barber fumbled inside the 20, Washington’s DeAngelo Hall recovered and Romo brought him down. As Hall was falling, his knee conked Romo in the back.
Cowboys Redskins recap NFL.com
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
I think this post is better suited for the iggles, because the team usually struggles in the second meeting and
the offense is the one that struggles.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
that's what I was thinking.......
if you look back over the past few years, it’s the Dec. game against the Eagles that has burned up repeatedly. I don’t know why that is the case to be honest with you, but Romo has had a tendency to put up a stinker against the Eagles the second game i.e. remember Christmas Day debacle and last year.
Jerry should use his influence
within league circles to make sure we always play the Eagles Sept through Novemeber every year. ;)
In Romo we Trust
Wow Cowboy78
saying that it’s the offense that struggles takes alot of courage to accept for some people obviously. some people even assert in our previous december meltdowns that it was the defense that was to blame for our ineptness, and to some degree, I agree.
But never can it be our offensive coordinator giving our opponents too many chances with the ball after doing alot of 3 and outs, or incomplete passes from too many shotgun and drop back playcalls. He is incapable of error according to some. His way is totally correct, and there is no problem (according to them), and there is no room for improvement.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
But you see my point, dallas can put points up against the gints, it is the iggles where they have shown a historical
deficiency at scroing when they play them in the 2nd game.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
The risk
of dropping back too many times is what i fear. Garrett has a knack of just getting into a groove of continually passing too much. Against both the Giants and the Eagles, we play too risky. They’re defenses always get up to play us, and knock us out. Establishing a solid running game seems to be not important enough to Garrett too many times and in too many games to not take notice. We can’t make it easy for any defense. We have to keep them honest. If they start worrying and having to play run defense more, then our passing game will really flourish. I’m not saying to abandon the pass- on the contrary, i am saying this to promote our passing game to a level that will take out the Minnesota’s, New Orleans, and the Arizona’s of the NFC.
There was a point in the Oakland game where the Cowboys were really mixing it up well on offense, better than at any point this season i believe. Granted, it was the Raiders, but it was really exciting to finally see the Cowboys confuse a defense where they didn’t know if the next play was a pass or a run. Typically, most defenses could guess a pass by the Cowboys offense, and be correct. Once the offense mixes the run better in it;s playcalling (I also mean screens when i say run), that is when we will truly be a threat to the Saints, Vikings, Cardinals, etc..
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
by DallasPalace on Nov 30, 2009 11:30 PM CST up reply actions
The problem in the first game wasn't Garrett's playcalling.
It was poor pass defense and a poor game by Romo. And as far as their line terrorizing us, did you know that the Giants rank 17th in the league in sacks. This isn’t the same Giants rush we’re all used to.
Plus...
… we ran for a ton of yards against their Defense in that earlier meeting.
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Nov 30, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions
Straight from a Giants fan, any of these strategies will work:
1) Run at Osi, as he never stops the run… EVER.
2) Pass into the Linebackers, as they could not cover anybody.
3) Attack Aaron Rouse or C.C. Brown (whichever warm body is in the game).
4) JUST RUN the ball in general.
Any of those by themselves or in conjunction with one another will make for a peaceful game for you guys. Giants have given up (even if they will not admit it to themselves or the media), so go smoke them early and it is a cruise control game. NO HEART in that team anymore, and they can not run it, so just attack Eli/Carr all game and the offense gets nowhere anyway.
ya know
I heard a couple of years ago that Osi was over-rated because of Strahan. Do you think that’s true? In 2007 he got the majority of his sacks in one game against the Eagles and so I’m wondering if those numbers are a little skewed. Just asking.
+1
Tuck is the real threat, IMO
Osi runs hot and cold. Tuck brings it all day.
You can't stop Patrick Crayton, you can only hope to contain him.
The current feedback from a number of gint fans say that he is not doing so hot this year,
he is not good against the run so teams are loading up and running right at him. Pass rush is what he is known for and not much else. I think it could be the fact that this is his 1st year back after season ending surgery and it may take him this year to find his groove.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
yeah, or......
he looked a lot better when he had both Tuck and Strahan in there to help him out
Pretty much
Winston justice sent osi to the Pro Bowl. Osi has one move… speed to the outside… which is why he is out of position to stop the run, and now that people know he is a one trick pony, they just run right through the massive hole he leaves in his wake. If he gets strips or sacks, it is because other people spook the QB into going too far back, and Osi cleans up as a result.
Tuck (if he ever finds a way to stay healthy) will be very good, but his penchant for getting injured makes me think he willl never reach anywhere near Strahan levels.
I disagree with the post concerning the past against the Giants, but despite all the STATS in the world I do think Garrett has problems as an OC.
The truth is they build up stats against weak teams, but struggle against good D’s (not that the Giants are that good anymore, though-but in general).
It boils down to one thing that Raf and others have pointed out-this team relies on the big play. Hit, or "execute’ on the big plays when they pop open-which is only a few times a game-and they score. Miss those opportunities, and —-uh-oh, nothing. There is no other strategy!
Rafael accepts this and says this is our team, like it or not. True.
But I disagree when many of you give Garrett a pass (unintended pun!) because the players miss a chance and don’t execute on some long pass play. It’s HIS offense that he’s designed to be like this. And players, not even Romo Terry, can not hit on every big play when that opening finally comes.
It’s like sending Dave Kingman (older BB fans know) up to bat -you either got a HR or a strikeout! And that’s our offense. To just say, “Well, Garrett called the right play and the guy was open, but Romo missed the pass/ the WR dropped it,” misses the point that there are no long drives and it IS Garrett’s fault that the players are put into this kind of offense that relies so much on executing on 6-8 key plays during the game! Sure the players don’t execute every time-but who put them in this position where only a few plays a game are so important?
Here’s facts:
Kansas City; offense struggled against a bad team-only a miraculous performance by Austin saved them.
Atlanta, Seattle: Good Offense. But since then,
Philly: Offense scored only on a short 37-yard field after a turnover, and one long bomb-thank goodness-to Austin.
Green Bay: Horrible.
Washington: Horrible
Oakland: Well, like the gimme from the 49ers last year, sure they finally scored, but it’s Oakland, so who cares.
Am I really the only one who sees this? Do so many of you really forget the bad offense against the Eagles/Packers/ Redskins (how many points did Philly lay on them?) because of a good game against the Raiders?
We play real teams the rest of the way-The defense looks GOOD-surprisingly consistent. But the offense and Garrett have a long ways to go.
Not a bad breakdown Larry
Good points made. Most will agree that adjustments still need to be made, but those need to be made during the game after seeing what is being given to you. Dallas has recently shown the ability to run or pass the ball. This should make them that much harder to defend. DP is right though, the Giants will be coming after Romo just like usual and the Cowboys better be working on their screens and slants.
Simple Answer
Tell Romo not to throw it to the other team.
"Emotion is highly overrated in football. My wife Corky is emotional as hell but can't play football worth a damn."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
he has 4 less INTs than the great Manning
I think he’s doing a great job protecting the ball
In Romo we Trust
Isn't that what he had
the first time we played the Giants? 4 interceptions?
Don’t be fooled by the Cowboys success against the bottom half of the leagues defenses. Even though the Giants aren’t the Giants we are accustomed to seeing on defense, and they have alot of injuries, they always seem to get up and play us hard, and with heart, and that cannot be underestimated. Especially at home. Trust me, they will be out for blood. This will not be an easy game to win.
Turnovers are the key. Ball control.
"Amongst the enemy's Lair, there will always be a DallasPalace!"
Don't count on Roy Williams
Roy Williams is a flop. He’s dropped many passes and the ones he’s caught are ordinary. He performs like a third stringer who shouldn’t be brought back next season. The cowboys have given him his chance to shine and he has fallen flat. Romo and the cowboys should focus on Miles Austin and plays to get him open. Jason Whitten is a good receiving TE and workhorse. What the cowboys lack is passing attack to the running backs. A good running back should be able to lose coverage by a linebacker but the plays need to be designed to get the running back open. That’s all for now.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
