Cowboys Offense: Can We Please Get the Screen Going?
With the NFL being the copycat league that it is, it is rare to see a storied franchise continue to deny a widely successful trend. The Cowboys have denied it so long, it's not even a trend anymore. Over the year’s we’ve watched our rivals do it. The Packers have done it with great success. The 49ers of the late 80’s and 90’s beat us over the head with it. Though they backed off a bit last season, the Philadelphia Eagles have historically punished us with it. Forgive my youth, but my Cowboy fandom spans about 19 years and 6 head coaches. What I’m trying to figure out is over that time span, through all of those changes, why haven’t the Cowboys ever truly made the screen a part of their regular offense? There are a few theories on why the Cowboys have never been much of a screen team. If you don’t mind, I’m going to pipe-bomb both of those hypotheses right now. Theory 1: The Cowboys have traditionally had big offensive lines who may not move well in space. - Nice try. It is true that the Cowboys have always liked their offensive linemen with a little extra beef. The Cowboys were tied for having the heaviest offensive line in the league last year with an average weight of 330.2 lbs. per man amongst the opening day starting five. Do you know who the Cowboys were tied with? That’s right, the Philadelphia Eagles, one of the NFL’s best screen teams over the last decade. Big offensive lines are a good thing in the screen game. Yes the big guys are going have to move, but if you are some light-in-the-shorts defensive back (let’s say DeAngelo Hall just for fun), is there any more disheartening sight than Leonard Davis, Marc Colombo and maybe a fullback barreling down on you with a full head of steam? Yeah, I’m not signing up for that. Continue reading after the jump for more theories...
Theory 2: The Cowboys haven’t had those types of backs. - Wrong again silly wabbit. While Emmitt Smith wasn’t leaving vapor trails in the Texas Stadium atmosphere, he was a fine receiver out of the backfield, and did everything well. When the Cowboys drafted Michael Wiley out of Ohio State in 2000, I was sure that one of his main purposes would be catching screens out of the backfield. Still, not much of a screen game. While Chris Warren’s build did not lend itself to pass receiving, he too was a fine receiver. Warren had success with the screen in his days with Seattle before coming to Dallas. Okay, so let’s say we didn’t have the backs then. Well, we have ‘em now. With Felix Jones in the fold, you would have to think that Jason Garrett and company have a screen or two cooked up. Jones has good hands and is one of the most electrifying open field runners in the game. Jones would be an absolute nightmare on screens. Don’t forget Marion Barber in the screen game either. Barber is an excellent receiver, and would be a tough guy for defensive backs to get down in space. If you really want to get creative, it would be nice to see an occasional backdoor screen to Martellus Bennett. If you are a defender, that’s another guy you don’t want to see coming your way in the open field. Romo-Friendly. That’s pretty much like a mission statement around Valley Ranch these days. Down the stretch in recent years, we’ve seen opposing defensive coordinators blitz every warm body they can find at Tony Romo. In last year’s season finale in Philadelphia, I’m pretty sure I saw the Eagles assistant trainer and water boy run a twist, freeing up the gate attendant to make the sack from the blindside. Nothing slows down a blitz like a well timed, well executed screen pass. You can’t just pin your ears back like some kind of rabid dog when you are saddled with the fear of having Tony Romo loft a floater just over your outstretched arms, into the waiting hands of Felix Jones. Well, the team certainly seems to have the personnel in place. After seeing him call an option-right on 3rd and 2 against Baltimore, I no longer have any doubts about Jason Garrett’s creativity. A great warrior learns from his adversaries. Wouldn't it be nice to impale the Eagles with their own sword? Maybe, just maybe, this is the year. Can a brutha get a screen?!
0 recs |
102 comments
|
Comments
Amen Brutha Carl
Screen me Baby
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on May 29, 2009 9:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
For real..
Bring the blitz…let ’em, and then dump the screen. I wanna see Austin in on this too!
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 29, 2009 10:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I second that!
Best way to stop the blitz is pull a screen on’em.
by Boyz4Life on May 29, 2009 10:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
F*ck yes
19 years of Cowboy fandom doesn’t hardly go back to the cLandry days, but you want to talk about a team that used the screen damn well, look at the Cowboys of the late 70s and especially through the 80s. Bring the screen pass back!!!
by DavidH22 on May 29, 2009 10:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point.
And before that the 60s era Cowboys ran a wicked screen to FB Don Perkins.
"We'll see." --Bill Parcells
by Uncle Angus on May 30, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Landry's Cowboys
were really grat with the screen. Maybe the best. Jimmy stoped the screen and the shotgun.
by cowboy1966 on May 30, 2009 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was nothing prettier than a Tony Dorsett screen
by CapitalT on May 30, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen to that
Seeing the Cowboys run a screen back in the days was a thing of beauty.
by BK Arsonist on Jun 2, 2009 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I remember correctly
they did run the screen effectively with Tash the last few weeks.
One thing I never EVER want to see again is that effing wide receiver screen. I wish somebody had the stats for that last year. I bet Garrett called that play 30 times and completed 25 of them for about 80 yards. Pathetic!
by DavidH22 on May 29, 2009 10:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Those were such throw-away plays.
it’s not like TO is exactly Kevin Smith or something.
And I bet we can agree to rip out of the playbook the “I’m faking a reverse to Owens (or some other WR) but not handing it off to him” play as well
by Realist Larry on May 30, 2009 1:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+2
I think those WR screens were just to give TO some touches to shut him up. I think 25 for 80 yards is a little optimistic, I never saw one go for more than 2-3 yards.
we actually threw a couple TE screens with Witten and Bennett last year that worked pretty well.
We have to see Felix Jones is the passing.screen game more
by stephen1 on May 30, 2009 6:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"We play to win the game" - Herm Edwards
by nicholas.rodriguez on May 30, 2009 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take it a step further; I think Rowdy should taser Garrett in the balls...
…Every time one of those WR screens is called. The same measures should probably also be taken to make sure Garrett doesn’t totally forget Felix Jones is on the team as he did in one particular game last year.
by MadMick on May 30, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now, I wouldn't mind WR screens when the CB is either playing way off...
…or if that WR is in motion from one side of the line to the other. But, I wouldn’t want to see that more than once or twice a game unless the defense was showing some weakness to exploit.
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 30, 2009 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what used to drive me crazy.
You have to be able to check out of plays like that. If the corner is right up on the receiver, you have to change the play or go to option 2, or whatever. That’s the biggest problem the Cowboys offense has, that they never seem to check out of plays even when it’s obvious that the other team is lined up in the correct formation to stop it. They just go ahead and run it anyway and get little or no yardage. If they’ve got 9 guys in the box, you have to check out to not running up the middle, if the corner is right up on the receiver, you can’t just run the WR screen anyway, and if they’re showing blitz, you can’t try to run play action, etc.
by Baked Potato Soup on May 30, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
co-sign
Celebrity or Imposter?
YOU Decide...
http://www.xanga.com/metaltometal/689036052/celebrity-or-imposter/
by silverblue5 on May 30, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They seem to do that just fine during the 2minute O.
Of course, that’s when defenses have to adjust to offenses. When I watch Peyton chuck 8-10 straight passes to Reggie Wayne, you can tell they see something to take advantage of—even if it’s just little 5 yard hitches. Those can open up something deep later once the Dbacks get more aggressive.
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 31, 2009 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or if we had a small, shifty and explosive receiver...
…oh, Felix Jones.
by Eagles suck on May 30, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would also like to see
some halfback option passes, a la the late 60s days of Dan Reeves and Calvin Hill.
Funny thing is, Dorsett and Emmitt combined for one pass completion their entire Cowboy careers, then they go off to the Broncos and Cardinals and throw their first ever TD passes. Go figure…
by DavidH22 on May 29, 2009 10:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I may have missed it, but you never mentioned T. Choice. He proved to be a very capable receiver in his abbreviated action. I’m of the opinion that Choice would be the best back to play early when the defense is fresh, because he’s shown to be productive against tough Ds. He’s able to find a crease and gain positive yards, not a game breaker, but I think the best Choice in this role. Jones is your home run hitter, Barber IMO is better as a closer. Because of egos and $$ I don’t think that will happen, but at this point that looks to be the best play. Go back and look at the stats, Choice had a better per carry avg and receiving avg.
by MooEChili on May 29, 2009 10:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel exactly the same way about Choice.
But one guy is going to froze out and that guy is probably Choice. I think it’s a win/win for Cowboys nation because if Choice can’t get on the field it means Barber is at the top of his game. On the other hand, if Barber gets worn down by mid to late-season or otherwise has to cede some of his carries, Choice will be more than up to the task of replacing him.
by MadMick on May 30, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a long season.
They have to get Choice the ball early on in the season to keep Barber fresh.
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 30, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, if they forcefeed Barber 20-25 carries, he’ll wear down far too early.
The thing is even with a tweaked run/pass ratio, there’s only going to be roughly 30 carries in a given game. You have to figure Barber will need at least 16 carries to make a real impact and if you’re serious about using Felix, he should have at least 10 carries. I just don’t see where Choice’s carries will come from.
As to your point about preserving Barber for late in the season, is there any reason to suggest this is the way the coaches will actually approach how they use the backs? Unless I missed something, I haven’t heard anything to suggest this.
It sounds like a solid plan if they did indeed use Choice, as you suggested, more often earlier in the season to preserve Barber for the stretch run. However, I can’t say I see any dropoff at all if Barber has to miss a few games late in the year and the Choice/Felix duo is left to carry the load. Choice carried the load by himself (with a banged-up Barber spelling him for a few carries) against the toughest defenses in the league late last season. Certainly, Barber’s a proven touchdown machine and huge asset near the goal-line but Choice and Felix looked capable enough around the goal-line in the limited opportunites they had last season. Plus, if Romo and Garrett aren’t total nincompoops, there are still enough weapons like Marty B. where they should be able to find a way to punch it in while in the red zone even if Barber was to miss some games.
by MadMick on May 30, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I would stick with who is hot.
Now, you don’t want Barber on the bench too much. Even though Felix and Tashard are good 3rd down backs, Barber is who I would prefer next to Romo when the Eagles are sending in their blitzers.
The trick this year will be controlling the tempo of the game. You won’t have to rotate, say Choice in every 3rd series, if MB3 is running his a$$ off in an 8-minute drive. Then, there will be enough carries in one drive alone to get Barber a quick breather, while Felix/Tashard run a few.
It’s truly a great problem for Garrett to have.
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 31, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
I don’t think that it’s necessarily true that Choice not being on the field means Barber is having a great year. We saw last year that Garrett did everything he could to not get the ball to Jones, Choice, Roy Williams, and whoever is not named Witten, TO, and Barber. I don’t think he has demonstrated the willingness or ability to use all of his weapons, but hopefully that changes.
by Baked Potato Soup on May 30, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sad but true.
I’m willing to give dingus the benefit of the doubt, though.
by MadMick on May 30, 2009 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell Yes!
its about time, we could be one of the best screen passing team in the league. ALSO HOW ABOUT SOME TRICK PLAYS (worked perfect for Miami last year) We ran maybe 1 last year and it worked
Texas Stadium has a hole in the roof so God can watch his favorite team play football.
by iCowboy on May 29, 2009 11:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Barber ain't lettin' go
With his workout partners blowing chunks, that tells me one thing; Barber realizes he has some competition. He’s going to show up in the best shape of his life, and I’ll bet the farm he has been working on his passing routes, as well. I bet he’s been bugging the heck out of Garrett for plays that feature his strength, which is his brute strength. Now I haven’t forgotten about Jones and Choice, and I really believe we should use them all, but with all the talk about getting the new kids involved in the running game and screen game, watch out for Barber. He’s gonna bring it. I think the Barbarian is poised for his best season yet.
All that being said, Jones will be featured in the passing game, and he has already proven he can run in this league. I say forget Deon Anderson. Have two of your three thoroughbreds on the field at all times. Defenses will never know what’s coming.
Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.
Joe ThEEsman
by SB Six on May 29, 2009 11:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
somebody is going to get under utilized big time, no way around it, it’s not like we can give everyone 8-9 carries and expect them to get in any type of flow.
I believe that Felix will take over the roll that Julius had a few years ago, now they may give MB3 the first series or so, so he can be the starter, but I think Felix may get more of the first half workload, except on the goal line, then in the 2nd half a heavy dose of MB3 with Felix maybe getting some touches as the 3rd down RB. Now maybe in all of that they can find a series or two for Tashard, or maybe we get a nice lead in a game, or have a game won with 5-6 minutes to go, and Choice gets some garbage time touches.
It’s nice to know though that should a RB get injured we are in good hands with Tashard Choice.
by stephen1 on May 30, 2009 6:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mandatory series for Choice.....
People talk about guaging the hot hand so why not give Choice an early series every game (on the 3rd or 4th possession) as a sort of heat check to see if he is finding creases in the defense Barber isn’t. I’d actually go as far as to give Choice the 3rd and 5th possessions of every game with Felix sprinkled in as the 3rd down back depending on down-and-distance.
That’s just an off-the-wall idea but it would be a good way to at least get a feel for whether or not Choice should be used more in certain games.
by MadMick on May 30, 2009 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barber
should get fewer touches, sharing with both of the other RBs, so he is fresh late in the season.
Forget personal stats. Let’s spread it around so we have fresh legs when it counts.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on May 30, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hallelujah
If I were the Cowboys god, I’d give barber 80% of carries inside the 20 and 20% outside. Tash and Dash split the remainder 60-40 or 50-50. Hopefully that would just about equate carries between the three.
Why is that desirable? Seems that they are all very capable runners who can catch the ball fairly well. Barber is more violent going into a hole and really shines in short yardage determination. I would agree that Barber is likely to be the best blocker of the bunch, but I can’t say that Tash or Dash are particularly poor at blocking. On the other hand, we all think Jones has more break-away ability. And Tash seems all-around good.
by Eagles suck on May 30, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in
Tash and Dash in the middle. Smash in the red zone.
Yee-frickin-haw.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on May 30, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there will be a few games where the offense can get 40+ carries.
Denver and KC will still be learning the 34, while Oakland is Oakland.
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 31, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Emmitt Smith did avg. over 50 catches a year from 91-97, and was a great receiver.
That’s a lot of catches for a RB-and Moose got some too.
But they weren’t screens usually, they’d float him out 1-1 on a LB.
What fun to watch!
I think Norv Turner maybe wanted something different, and we’ve never gotten back to it.
Somewhere in there, there’s an analytical post about Turner’s x’s and o’s and why he used RB’s differently as receivers. Was it the talent he had (for instance, Emmitt ran a LOT more lead draws than other backs because he favored them), or was it a philosophical thing for the OC?
One possibility-The OLine was so good there were very few games they needed a screen to offset a pass rush? Smith stayed in and blocked, or went out on a short route (or both), but there sure have been a lot of us posting in more recent times, during and after games when Romo’s been under pressure, “Haven’t you heard of a screen pass!”
Garrett comes from Turner’s coaching ‘tree’ so it would be interesting if Turner ever offered any insight into why he didn’t screen more.
by Realist Larry on May 30, 2009 1:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a combination of coaching philosophy and personnel...
there are more conventional ways to beat a blitz heavy team. Ways that would suit your offensive strategy better. We’ve chosen a strategy to combat them over the years – but we just haven’t successfully executed them. A way that the 90’s coaches defended against them is to use our backs to help block. ESmith was an excellent blocker in the pocket. So is Barber.
Problem is, a team like Philly has excellent personell that executes their blitz packages to perfection. And they come in a hurry…almost to the point that the QB can’t set up even after a 3 step drop. Noone does this like Philly. Sometimes they get caught, but often times they execute with terrifying precision.
And you don’t know when they are coming. Teams get caught primarily because they don’t know when they will blitz. They give the OLine fits trying to recall their blocks on the LOS.
How does Philly do their screens? I think it is situational and the fact that Westbrook can make something out of nothing in space. I really like our RBs and ESmith is a HOF…but Westbrook is the “God-send” for that philly offense and is a unique breed.
Philly is also in a better position to mask their screens with their west-coast hybrid philosophy. Not just formation wise, but also by how they formulate gameplans and how they think about their in-game solutions based on that philosophy.
I personally am not a big fan of the screen pass, I think it is a situational tool for a somewhat predictable defense. But when you deal with a defense that can blitz like that, you often times are never prepared to execute a play for it because you never know when it is coming. And when you do, you realize that you don’t have the personnel on the field, the called formation is weak against it, and you are left praying that you get the ball off in time.
by rotovibe on May 30, 2009 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Emmitt did catch a lot of passes
I think he might be the Cowboys’ 3rd highest receiver of all time….but they only went for 6.2 yards per catch over his career, which is actually pretty wretched. Meanwhile, Dorsett averaged 9 yards a catch. Sure, Dorsett was faster and quicker and had more moves than Emmitt, but maybe using screens helped too. I remember many, many times Emmitt could not shake the LBs on those infernal outlet passes. He’d have many, many games with like 5 catches for 12 yards.
One more thing about Dorsett – his longest pass plays were actually often long bombs, or passes 15-20 yards downfield that he’d turn inton 91 yard or 73 yard touchdowns. NEVER did that with Emmitt. But I bet they could with Felix or even Tashard…
by DavidH22 on May 30, 2009 8:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think if the Cowboys could actually learn to run effective screens
The Cat would end up being a fantasy superstar in this league. I see him scoring on those at least 30-40% of the time he touches the ball on screens.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on May 30, 2009 9:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Let me take a stab at this........
maybe just maybe the coaches of the Cowboys over the last 15 years or so know something that we don’t about the o-line or the running backs on the team. I’m pretty sure if they thought it would make them successful they would do it. I really can’t see them saying “well, we could probably eat the Eagles up with this play but darn it, I just don’t feel like calling that play.”
I’m with all of you guys on this one. I would love to see them run more screens. And I can’t even count the number of times I have screamed at the T.V. for them to burn all teams that are blitz happy with it. But I just have to assume that they know something I don’t. And thats why its not called as often as we would all like. Frustrating as hell though.
by TARHEEL PAUL on May 30, 2009 10:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
agree
They’ve even mentioned in pressers after games that they were fully prepared for the blitzing. It was primarily about not knowing when they would blitz, not being in an advantageous formation to defend it, and just being flat out beaten man-to-man.
by rotovibe on May 30, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then they were absolutely not prepared for the blitz.
by Baked Potato Soup on May 30, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
preparation and execution are two different things...
semantics aside…you don’t pay a professional staff to ignore certain aspects of a strategy or defense. You bet they were prepared for it. Most of it was just being beaten man-to-man on gameday.
by rotovibe on May 31, 2009 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Preparing and being prepared are 2 different things, also.
It’s easy to prepare for something, but difficult to actually be prepared. Now, if they call the right schemes and just get beat, that’s an execution problem. But if they don’t know when the other team is going to blitz and aren’t in the right formations to handle it, then they aren’t really prepared for it at all. When we play the Eagles, I rarely find myself thinking, you know, the Cowboys had the perfect call to defend all of those blitzes, they just executed poorly. Instead, it looks like they are lost and overwhelmed.
If you buy all of the supplies and tie downs and shutters to prepare for a hurricane but don’t have them in place when the hurricane comes, then you weren’t really prepared.
by Baked Potato Soup on May 31, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“But if they don’t know when the other team is going to blitz and aren’t in the right formations to handle it, then they aren’t really prepared for it at all.”
- Offensive plays aren’t called based on what the defense does. They call plays to execute and then adjust on the LOS as best as they can. You will not know when the defense will blitz, some mask it or they call out of it. That’s part of the “chess match”. Happens all the time. And there are certain plays/formations that are better suited to defend a blitz than others. If the offense calls a play that transitions into a single back formation and the D shifts into a blitz – the offense is not in a good position to defend it.
“Instead, it looks like they are lost and overwhelmed.”
- subjective. But yes, when a play is busted it tends to look like they are “lost”. That is more of an indicator of the fact that they got beat man-to-man. Whiffing on a block makes you look like a fool.
They are “in place”. They just couldn’t execute. That’s 99% of football.
by rotovibe on May 31, 2009 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, then they weren't really prepared.
If you say that you are ready for something, unless the other team calls it when you’re not expecting it, that means you aren’t ready for it at all. And if you’re getting beaten in the “chess match”, then again, that’s a preparation problem, not execution. You got outsmarted.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 1, 2009 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again semantics, you can be prepared for something and it still overwhelms you. The act of preperation still is predicated by assesing the potential scenario to the best of your estimation.
Intimating that someone is not prepared because they failed is circular reasoning.
It’s like saying “wherever I go, there I am”.
It’s a loose use of the term.
The fact of the matter is, they study tapes of these games, they have contingency plans in place to try and combat them…but they can still fail at execution. Labeling them as “unprepared” by your standards is irrelevant because the standard is circular in definition…and amuses me to read.
by rotovibe on Jun 1, 2009 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You yourself said they weren't ready.
Classic case of a losing argument, attacking the method, not the actual argument. It’s simple, if you are prepared for something, then more often than not, you should be able to handle it. You are confusing attempting to prepare for something with actually being prepared. There is a major difference. They put plans in place that they thought might work, but then they didn’t. So that’s a bad plan, obviously.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 1, 2009 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, I'll attack the argument.
first, where did I say there weren’t ready?
anyway…
" It’s simple, if you are prepared for something, then more often than not, you should be able to handle it."
- more often than not? so at what percentage of successfully “handling” do you consider someone to be “prepared” in hindsight? This is a fallacy. There are plenty of examples to the contrary. Like this one…
If a boxer were to prepare for a fight, and he gets knocked out with a lucky punch, would that negate the fact that he was prepared for the fight?
He wasn’t prepared – for that split second – for the punch, maybe. But that sounds silly to point out doesn’t it?
And is nowhere near enough evidence to claim that he wasn’t prepared for the fight.
by rotovibe on Jun 2, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, preparation is judged in hindsight.
If you are fully prepared, then you should be able to handle it regardless of the situation. After all, you are fully prepared. You are completely ready for any scenario. If you need a percentage, let’s say 90% of the time. That’s actually less than fully prepared, which would be 100%, but I’ll give them some leeway. If your preparations fail, then you were not adequately prepared.
It’s easy to think you are prepared for something, but if you can’t execute, then you are not actually prepared. You said that they failed partially because they did not know when the other team would blitz. If you fail due to the other team doing something unexpectedly, doesn’t that mean you weren’t ready for it?
If the Cowboys got beat one time by a lucky blitz, I would say that they were usually prepared for the blitz. If a boxer regularly gets beaten by lucky punches, I would not believe him when he said that he was fully prepared for his fights.
The Cowboys repeatedly failed to handle the blitz. Whatever they may have thought, they were not prepared.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 3, 2009 1:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“If the Cowboys got beat one time by a lucky blitz, I would say that they were usually prepared for the blitz.”
- ok.
“If a boxer regularly gets beaten by lucky punches, I would not believe him when he said that he was fully prepared for his fights.”
- they wouldn’t be “lucky” punches. And the subjective “statement-wheel” keeps turning.
Ok, so your assesment – in hindsight – about a team being “prepared” really has everything to do with the outcome. So when a minute level of failure is actualized, you would consider them generally prepared – but not fully prepared. Correct?
Now that I have your definition…back to the real topic.
“But if they don’t know when the other team is going to blitz and aren’t in the right formations to handle it, then they aren’t really prepared for it at all.”
- You are misinformed about how a football game is called. It looks much easier when you are a spectator. You will not ever know 100% when a team will blitz. As an offense you are limited in the shifting you can do once you are set…the defense can move the whole time pre-snap. That in itself would guarantee that you will not be “adequately” prepared. The defense can completely change their approach based on your set formation. They can audible to a much more effective degree.
Suggesting that if the coaching staff is “fully” prepared they would see that coming, is unreasonable and unattainable.
The only real way you can achieve that is by cheating. Ask Bill Belichik about the value of being able to determine what the defense is doing pre-snap. It achieves “full” preperation by your definition and is illegal.
So why do we fail in times when we were ready for them? Poor execution. I guess if you wanted to achieve “full” preparation in those times, then a personnel change is in order, because it is really an execution issue and they are not able to do it.
“When we play the Eagles, I rarely find myself thinking, you know, the Cowboys had the perfect call to defend all of those blitzes, they just executed poorly. Instead, it looks like they are lost and overwhelmed.”
- this statement introduces the other branch of this discussion. A prepared team has 11 parts on the field. When any of them fail to execute that would mean, by your definition, that they were not adequately prepared.
I say they were prepared, they just didn’t execute.
by rotovibe on Jun 3, 2009 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to butt into your conversation but...
I think it’s fully possible to be prepared sometimes and just get your ass kicked.
I’m sure Bill Belichick prepared for the Giants defensive line but the line just couldn’t hold up to the point of attack.
Sometimes you just get beat, even if you do put the preparation into it.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
by AirforceBat on Jun 3, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
by baked potato's estimation...
you weren’t adequately prepared.
Which really has no use.
Like I mentioned before, it is a feckless statement and is circular. like “wherever you go, there you are.”, or “you’re never wrong if you’re right”…
“if you fail, you are not really prepared”
Really?
by rotovibe on Jun 3, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gotcha.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
by AirforceBat on Jun 3, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is it circular?
It’s pretty cut and dry. If anyone is using a circular argument here, it’s you.
It’s simple, what evidence do I have that they were not adequately prepared? They failed regularly to stop the blitz against multiple teams. We’re not talking about lucky punches, or a one time performance. The Cowboys offense regularly failed to execute against the blitz last season, and in the playoffs the previous season.
What evidence do you have that they were prepared? They said that they were.
If you can’t execute regularly, then you are not prepared. I can take boxing lessons and say that I’m fully prepared to defeat Sugar Shane, but that doesn’t make it true.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 4, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This argument...
is circular. Haha.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jun 4, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know it's pretty cut and dry.
I’m not using a circular argument.
You’re using a statement that has a basis that is circular. Are you even following me? It doesn’t sound like it.
You keep defending your definition of “prepared” and I am refuting it because that is the root of why your statement doesn’t make any sense.
You are saying that the definition of prepared is soley based on an outcome of an event. Which is false.
It’s not even an objective one since you suggest that it isn’t always true. 90/10% at least.
“If you can’t execute regularly, then you are not prepared. I can take boxing lessons and say that I’m fully prepared to defeat Sugar Shane, but that doesn’t make it true.”
- yes it does. Because we are asking you. Which means in your estimation, you are. Being beaten by him doesn’t negate the fact that you were prepared.
the more accurate statement – in response to the loss – would be…
“I was prepared for this fight…but he’s just a better fighter.”
When you log hours of sparring time, enduring torturous training sessions, and mental preparation…then lose…and have someone say “you weren’t prepared for the fight”…you’d be pissed.
by rotovibe on Jun 4, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's ridiculous.
So the indicator of preparedness is whether someone says they are or not? Having the necessary tools to succeed is part of being prepared. You are confusing “have prepared” with “being prepared.” They may have prepared for the blitz (verb), but they were not prepared for the blitz (adjective). When they say that they were fully prepared (adjective), they are wrong, because they failed to achieve what they prepared (verb) to do.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 4, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nope
“So the indicator of preparedness is whether someone says they are or not?”
- not quite. read in context.
“You are confusing "have prepared" with "being prepared." "
- no, I got that. Here’s the problem…
Your definition of the adj affects other uses of the term. Since your definition of the adj explicitly requires success, you can’t use the term “prepare” in other contexts… here’s an example…
When you say to someone to “prepare” (verb), you mean – by your definition – do everything known to man to guarantee the success of the task and only that.
This is not possible in the real world. There’s too many variables in the universe. I would never use the word for anything.
“When they say that they were fully prepared (adjective), they are wrong, because they failed to achieve what they prepared (verb) to do.”
- so in your logic, noone can really claim they are prepared unless it’s in hindsight and they were successful? Allrighty.
by rotovibe on Jun 4, 2009 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They can claim anything they want.
The truth of their claims will be evident in the results. I can say I’m prepared and if I beat Shane Mosely, then clearly I was. If I do not, then clearly I wasn’t.
I can claim that I can bench press a thousand pounds. But unless I actually do it, it’s just a claim.
When I tell an employee to prepare for something, I absolutely expect them to do everything within reason to guarantee the success of that task. Again, we’re not talking about a one time fluke or crazy circumstance here. The Cowboys were regularly beat by the blitz, multiple times by multiple teams. There wasn’t some freak occurrence that they couldn’t reasonably prepare for. They aren’t the only team that is expected to stop the blitz. Whatever preparations they were taking were ineffective, therefore, they were not prepared.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 4, 2009 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
websters:
Prepare – To make ready beforehand for a specific purpose, as for an event or occasion: The teacher prepared the students for the exams.
Mentions nothing about a guaranteed successful outcome.
“When I tell an employee to prepare for something, I absolutely expect them to do everything within reason to guarantee the success of that task.”
- this is more of a method of operation. Not really a description of what the term really means.
Like I said, the cowboys have an execution problem. They get their but beat to the point. They were ineffective. Yes. It’s illogical to conclude and declare “they weren’t prepared” due to the fact that you would have to infer further meaning.
by rotovibe on Jun 4, 2009 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, are we really going to the dictionary.
preâ‹…pared
  /prɪˈpɛərd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pri-paird] Show IPA
–*adjective*
1. properly expectant, organized, or equipped; ready: prepared for a hurricane.
Bold emphasis added by me. Once again, you went to the verb, not the adjective. If they were properly expectant then the issue of when the other team calls the play should not affect them. If they were properly organized, there wouldn’t be issues with guys not being in the right place when the blitz comes. If they were properly equipped, they would not get beat at the point of attack on the occasions when they are in proper position. There is no further meaning to infer. We are not discussing whether they prepared (verb), we are discussing whether they were prepared (adjective). They didn’t say they prepared for the blitz, they said that they were fully prepared for the blitz. That is completely different. Obviously I don’t expect them to never fail to stop the blitz, because this is the NFL, but they regularly failed to stop the blitz. For a team that is trying to claim they were prepared, that is unacceptable and shows that they clearly were not prepared.
I love that you asked if I do something, and then when I answered that yes, i do that, you then try to dismiss it as something I introduced to the conversation. If it’s not relevant, why did you bring it up?
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 5, 2009 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I love that you asked if I do something, and then when I answered that yes, i do that, you then try to dismiss it as something I introduced to the conversation. If it’s not relevant, why did you bring it up?”
- example? From what I can tell, the counter examples you gave don’t model the points I bring up. So I dismiss your example not the topic. You just give examples for your definition of “prepare”. Amusing indeed.
“If they were properly expectant then the issue of when the other team calls the play should not affect them.”
- In theory this is true. But not in reality in every case. There are instances in a game that a disparity happens and still be successful. You can expect something and still be overwhelmed. The definition doesn’t imply successfully executing. You just expected it.
“If they were properly organized, there wouldn’t be issues with guys not being in the right place when the blitz comes.”
- Again, this is a misunderstanding of how the game is called. You can call a formation that is more prone to the blitz simply because you as an offense have the first initiative and you don’t know what the defense is going to call necessarily. You can predict. Defenses can adjust to your scheme. You are limited in how you adjust when your formation is set. Happens all the time. To imply that every formation should be able to somehow defend the blitz is ignorant.
“If they were properly equipped, they would not get beat at the point of attack on the occasions when they are in proper position.”
- Being furnish with the qualities necessary for performance doesn’t factor in the fact that that man can physically beat you. Lemme guess, he wasn’t properly “equipped”? You can negatively perform right?
Ok, I’m gonna step back a little and maybe explain this fallacy in another way. For the sake of getting too technical, I will just go right out and say what I see as the problem with your statement. I will leave it up to you to interpret and I will reserve my effort to relay it in more common terms and definitions since this discussion is just going in circles.
You are using a “no true scotsman” argument when dealing with the term “prepare”. This is a logical fallacy like I’ve mentioned in the past posts. I suggest you look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
by rotovibe on Jun 5, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You admit then, that they were not prepared.
If it is ignorant to expect those things, then they should not have created those expectations by using the words that they did. Your argument was that I don’t understand what prepared means, and now that I have shown that it means exactly what I implied that it did, you have switched to arguing that I don’t understand the game.
You fell into the error of usage that is highlighted in the example that you linked to. In fact, your argument is much more the example of that type of argument. I believe you have defeated yourself.
You are continually confusing prepared, the past tense of prepare, with prepared, the adjective. I do not question that they did prepare. Did they prepare? Yes, I am quite confident they prepared.
Were they actually “fully prepared,” based on the results? No, they regularly failed to achieve their goal, and therefore were not “fully prepared.” It is not circular, it is not a matter of there being no clear definition, and there is no misunderstanding of the game. They regularly failed at what they prepared to do, and thus, were NOT fully prepared.
Webster (I know you like them) defines fully as: " in a full manner or degree : completely." So, yes, when they state that they were “fully prepared,” I expect them to be completely and properly expectant, organized, and equipped, since that is what they claimed to be. I did not set the terms of success, they did. This is not a question of there being no definition, as it is easily defined by knowing what those words mean.
Because this is the NFL, I stated that even success most of the time would allow me to accept that while not “fully prepared,” they were adequately prepared. However, they did not even achieve that.
It is not a lack of my understanding of the game, it is a lack of the coaches, and you, understanding the words that they used.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 6, 2009 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I admit that the other team's performance has defeated them despite their efforts to fully prepare for the game
“If it is ignorant to expect those things, then they should not have created those expectations by using the words that they did.
Your argument was that I don’t understand what prepared means, and now that I have shown that it means exactly what I implied that it did, you have switched to arguing that I don’t understand the game.”
- I didn’t switch. I am still on topic. I was just commenting on an uninformed generalization you made about how games are called.
“You fell into the error of usage that is highlighted in the example that you linked to. In fact, your argument is much more the example of that type of argument.”
- nope.
here’s your statement from a previous post, edited:
“If you are fully prepared, then you should be able to handle it regardless of the situation.”
[snip]
“If your preparations fail, then you were not adequately prepared.”
so…
a: A fully prepared person can handle it.
b: they fully prepared, but they cannot handle it.
a: they are not fully prepared.
How is that not fallacious?
What makes this a typical example of “no true scotsman” is the fact that they can say they are fully prepared before the game as well. (And they did. No competitive team will ever claim not being fully prepared for a game) And by your estimation in hindsight – based on an outcome, they are not…which seals the argument.
Webster (I know you like them) defines fully as: " in a full manner or degree : completely." So, yes, when they state that they were “fully prepared,” I expect them to be completely and properly expectant, organized, and equipped, since that is what they claimed to be.
- You can expect and still be outmatched. You can be organized and still be out-executed. You can be equipped and still be overwhelemed.
by rotovibe on Jun 6, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See this is the entire problem.
They did not say that did fully prepare. You are confusing prepare the verb with prepared, the adjective. Basically, if they said we fully prepared, then my initial response would be, then they did a crappy job. But they said that they were fully prepared (adjective).
So: a fully prepared person can handle it. They cannot handle it. They are not fully prepared. It has nothing to do with whether or not they made preparations. When you say that you are fully prepared, it is absolutely a question of the quality of that preparation. If they don’t prepare at all but shut down the blitz every single time, they were still fully prepared for the blitz.
I didn’t say that they did not fully prepare. I said they were not fully prepared. They are 2 completely different things.
And again, they said that they were fully prepared, not just prepared. And based on their performance, they were not even adequately prepared.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 6, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if “fully prepared” (adj) means something different from “fully prepared” verb.
- what is the definition of the verb? From what I can tell, it is an act of reaching full preparedness? Right? So you’re saying that the term “fully prepared” can only be used in hindsight? Because how else would you know unless you know the outcome based on your definition?
so the logic that states…
a: they fully prepared for the game.
b: they are fully prepared.
is never true? And is illogical?
It would seem that in order for you to accept that as a valid statement is if they actually succeeded.
So a team can never say “we are fully prepared for this upcoming game”. That holds no validity whatsoever. It is an inutterable statement.
And they did say they were fully prepared before the game. (adj) What professional team would say otherwise?
But your saying it changes based on the outcome? I don’t see how that works.
by rotovibe on Jun 6, 2009 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's correct.
Anyone can say anything, but that doesn’t make it true. If they said that they fully prepared, that just means that they think they are as prepared as they think they can be.
In other words, simply saying that you fully prepared does not make you fully prepared. I can say i am an astronaut, but that does not make it so.
If they say they are fully prepared for the upcoming game, that is a prediction. Or a way of saying, we believe we are as prepared as we can be. But that does not mean that they are actually prepared.
Example – I study all night and say I am fully prepared for a test. But then when I take the test, I fail. Clearly I was not actually as prepared as I thought i was.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 7, 2009 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
also if you change the example…
a: A fully prepared person can handle it.
b: they are fully prepared, but they didn’t handle it.
a: they are not fully prepared.
it’s still the same dilemma…
And yes they did say they were fully prepared for the game and the blitz. They also went on to comment on the fact that execution is key.
by rotovibe on Jun 6, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is that a dilemma?
If they did not handle it then they are not fully prepared. You are making their statement a given, when it is not.
They say they are fully prepared. A fully prepared person can handle it. They did not handle it. They were not fully prepared. Their statement was false.
Which has been my argument the entire time. Execution is part of preparation. Just having a plan is not enough, if you can’t actually carry it out. If that is the case, then your plan failed and it was not a good plan for your situation.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jun 7, 2009 12:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Execution is part of preparation.”
- this isn’t part of the definition of prepare or any of it’s variants. You are concluding this(it’s logical to conclude, yes) but you are making an inference. You can be prepared and still be out-executed.
Preparedness is seperate from execution. You can reasonably expect a prepared person to not fail but there are cases where they can fail. That is provable. Unless you turn around and amend that they are “not really” prepared.
by rotovibe on Jun 7, 2009 1:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about that.
I haven’t seen evidence over the years that the coaches just know something that everyone else doesn’t. In fact, I think it was Roy Williams who said that the Cowboys were easy to play because they never make adjustments and Detroit just followed New Orleans’ gameplan a few years ago. So, we have different coaches now, and we saw last year that Garrett was stubborn about not playing Felix Jones and repeatedly calling plays that didn’t work like the WR screen to Owens. So, while I try to have faith that the coaches know something that everyone else doesn’t, I’m a little wary.
by Baked Potato Soup on May 30, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right......
When i say everyone else im talking about that fans like you and me. While we all feel good about how much we know about our team, don’t fool yourself into thinking that we know what is better for them than the coaches do. If that were the case we would be on the payroll.
by TARHEEL PAUL on May 30, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We ran a few TE screens, especially to Marty B
And that WR screen, which I hated. But the collective wisdom is right, we simply don’t run screens to our RB’s. The collective wisdom is also correct in that Landry era teams in the 70’s and 80’s were outstanding RB screen teams.
Remember, JG is a product of the Norv Turner/Ernie Zampese school – it was a vertical passing, power running philosophy. Troy went on record loudly and often that he hated the screen as well. Not to be confused with delays which he ran very effectively to Emmitt.
Let’s hope the RHG adds this to his bag of tricks. Against PHL in last year’s finale and the NYG playoff game the year before it was apparent we had no effective counter against heavy blitzing.
'It is not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose' - David Merrick
by tdships on May 30, 2009 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Your right.........
we had NO effective counter against the blitz against the Eagles. The Eagles and Romo himself admitted that they had figured out Dallas’ hot reads. And when that happens its pretty much over for you.
by TARHEEL PAUL on May 30, 2009 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carl, Carl, Carl
this is a myth. I have not finished the research, so I have not posted it, but I can tell you the
’08 Cowboys were VERY good at screens. Tight end screens, screens to the backs.
And their best screen games were against the Giants and Eagles.
Yeah, the Cowboys were lousy at it during the Norv Turner days and much of the Gailey/Campo Era, but anybody bashing Jason Garrett for not calling or executing screens is making a knee-jerk argument that has little basis in fact.
You’ll see. I don’t know when I’ll post the story, but it’s coming.
by Rafael Vela on May 30, 2009 11:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I knew they had screened to Choice before rather well
and several posters did remind me that screens worked well to Witten and Bennett.
But please…no more WR screens!
by DavidH22 on May 30, 2009 11:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
according to NFL.com
which has the Play-by-Play of every game, the Cowboys called four screens to RBs or TEs the last four games of the year, where they were blitzed like motherf*ckers. Two to Choice for 38 yards, once to Witten for 8 yards, and once to Barber for 7 yards. No screen were evidently called in the Pittsburgh or second Eagles games, and just one in the Ravens game, which seems outrageous considering how often these defenses blitzed and tossed Romo about like a rag doll.
Now, I am not certain how accurate this information is, maybe they ran plays that could be considered “screens” but the NFL instead labeled “short pass” or “swing pass” or what have you. Raf you might find out different facts if you are reviewing film.
by DavidH22 on May 30, 2009 12:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The NFL records are notoriously inaccurate in their play descriptions
and Dallas runs a lot of true screens and a lot of tight end delays, where the TE blocks and then releases the blitzer and catches passes with interference. Technically, that’s not a screen, but it’s very effective.
They called about four screens in the last Giants game alone and they were all effective.
Look, I’ve run tape and compared it to NFL lists and they’re awful. Plays off tackle are called inside runs. Runs left are runs right. And it goes on and on.
by Rafael Vela on May 30, 2009 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When i think of screen or lack there of
I think of the giants playoff game….. all it would of took was ONE screen in the second half :’(
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on May 30, 2009 12:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cowboys busted that myth a while back
I think the screen came back with parcells. Whenever it came back, its been in the repertoire for awhile now.
by THEjarhead on May 30, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe you're right, that Parcells did bring the play back to Big D.
Was always a staple of his offenses with Giants, Pats, and Jets. Landry loved them, too.
Problem is they take a lot of practice reps to get the timing down right for the linemen’s releases. Guess some coaches don’t want to allocate the practice time.
"We'll see." --Bill Parcells
by Uncle Angus on May 30, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, remember Richie Anderson?
That guy caught everything thrown his way.
Is it too early to ask what round I should aim for Felix in my fantasy football league?
by Aaron Novinger on May 31, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may be back...
…but it isn’t used enough, in my book.
by DavidH22 on May 30, 2009 12:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
Dallas was effective at it last year.
But they could still call the screens more. Never called one to Felix Jones. That’s wrong. I know that will change this year.
by Rafael Vela on May 30, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's not only wrong, it's a freakin crime
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on May 30, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1000
O the humanity!!
"We play to win the game" - Herm Edwards
by nicholas.rodriguez on May 30, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
co-sign
Celebrity or Imposter?
YOU Decide...
http://www.xanga.com/metaltometal/689036052/celebrity-or-imposter/
by silverblue5 on May 30, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
From recent OTA observations on this past Lunch Break, they said that
they had felix all over the place; JG is definitely going to see how many different ways he can use him this year.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
by cowboy78 on May 30, 2009 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm also very big on Marty B getting in on the screen game.
Didn’t it seem like everytime he touched the ball last year, he was never brought down by the first guy?
I remember in the SuperBowl, Pittsburg ran a TE type of screen to Heath Miller that was just a freaking thing of beauty.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
by AirforceBat on May 30, 2009 5:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Cowboy screen pass
is something I was missing during that stretch of coaches after Landry. Seems like the few times it was tried, they just didn’t have it together, so they didn’t use it much.
I think we have turned the corner with Jason Garrett. I think Red Ball will include screens and other plays to exploit our wealth at RB and TE. And it seems that the screens that have been tried during Garrett’s tenure have worked pretty well. I await Raf’s hard facts and figures.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on May 30, 2009 6:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think there was actually one play where MartyB took a screen 14 yards
It might actually be his first catch in the regular season, nowhere near sure though. I remember that was the exact moment I hopped on the MartyB bandwagon.
But a very good point you bring up. And I also concur with the “no WR screen” motion. MB3, Felix, Choice, MartyB, etc. could all punish opposing Ds when they’re going all out with the blitz. I recall it working well against New York in their second game. I think they actually used it fairly frequently towards the end there, just to bail Tony out and force NY to be a little more cautious about dialing up the blitz. It’s kind of weird that they didn’t stick with that tactic later in the season, given how effective it worked the limited amount of times they chose to go that route.
Epic Fail since 1985
by the red scare on May 31, 2009 12:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
for the tasteful caption of jim johnson… if you read our newest homepage post, we’re not exactly counting on JJ coming back next season anymore….
Eagles.
by #1EaglesFan on Jun 1, 2009 2:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey
We don’t do it any other way over here. Best wishes.
WELCOME HOME SEVEN!!
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Jun 1, 2009 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jim Johnson has been the bane of our existence for a decade
But he and his defense have commanded nothing but respect from Cowboy fans during that time. And, more importantly, from the team itself (I imagine). A successful assistant coach who is low-key and doesn’t self-promote is a rarity these days.
And just fyi, from his Wikipedia page:
“The Eagles defense knows only one way to play and that is to attack. From 2000-07, Johnson’s units rank tied for first in the NFL with 342 sacks, second in the league in 3rd down efficiency (34.3%) and red zone touchdown percentage (43.0%), and fourth in fewest points allowed (17.6 per game).
In 2001, Johnson’s unit became the fourth team in NFL history to go all 16 games without allowing more than 21 points. Their streak of allowing 21 or fewer in 34 straight games was second longest in NFL history (Minnesota, 1968-71). In 1999, Johnson’s unit forced a NFL-best 46 turnovers, including a team-record 5 interceptions returned for TDs.
Eagles defenders have racked up 26 Pro Bowl selections in Johnson’s tenure. Brian Dawkins leads the way with seven. He’s followed by Troy Vincent (five), Jeremiah Trotter (four), Hugh Douglas (three), Lito Sheppard (two), and Trent Cole, Michael Lewis, Asante Samuel, Corey Simon, Bobby Taylor (one each)."
Uh, yeah…that’s a pretty good defense.
by DavidH22 on Jun 1, 2009 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Eagles fans are going to miss him and Dawkins more than they think
They look at the signing of Peters and drafting of Maclin and McCoy and think because of these moves they’re going to be the best team in the NFC East but I personally think they’re in for a rude awakening once the season starts.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jun 1, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dawkins
leaves a huge gap in the Eagles. He was a real leader.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Jun 1, 2009 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
More evidence
That JJ-coached Eagles’ defenses keep Cowboy coaches, players and fans awake at night; in the 20 games in which he schemed against Dallas, Philadelphia’s defense snagged 53 turnovers, got 53 sacks, gave up less than 100 yards rushing in ten games, allowed Cowboy QB’s a collective 66.8 passer rating, and scored a staggering 10 touchdowns (or one every other game).
Now granted, many of these games were against offenses led by the likes of Anthony Wright, Ryan Leaf (!), Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchison, seasoned citizen Vinny Testaverde, and statue Drew Bledsoe, but JJ’s defense has also manhandled Golden Boy Tony Romo 3 times in 5 games.
by DavidH22 on Jun 1, 2009 10:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















