Morning After: Dare to dream - Cowboys’ Super Bowl is a possibility

[jsmith6919]

Random- am I the only one who keeps picturing the Salt and Pepper commercial while reading Schmitty push his agenda?

 

[Smitty]

Random- am I the only one who keeps picturing the Salt and Pepper commercial while reading Schmitty push his agenda?

Please... The small segment of Garrett haters found on this board dont have an agenda? Good one.

 

[jsmith6919]

Please... The small segment of Garrett haters found on this board dont have an agenda? Good one.

All I hear is

 

[Smitty]

No, it didn't make sense to lean on Romo because we would have won more games keeping those 2011-2013 defenses off the field as long as possible. Working time of possession in our favor and having players like Ware and Hatcher still fresh in the 4th quarter would have kept the word "gutless" out of a lot of chatter threads. That's not rocket science, that's football 101.

Yeah, I don't think that is true. I'm gonna go back and pull the Sturm article, it was from agame against Atlanta, basically said "when the line plays like this there is not much you can do."

Unfortunately that was all too often the case those years. Running it head first into a brick wall wasn't even going to accomplish 3 yards and a cloud of dust. It would have been run-run-pass-punt, rinse wash and repeat.

 

[Cotton]

Random- am I the only one who keeps picturing the Salt and Pepper commercial while reading Schmitty push his agenda?

I didn't but I will now. Thank you.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

No, it didn't make sense to lean on Romo because we would have won more games keeping those 2011-2013 defenses off the field as long as possible. Working time of possession in our favor and having players like Ware and Hatcher still fresh in the 4th quarter would have kept the word "gutless" out of a lot of chatter threads. That's not rocket science, that's football 101.

It's not complicated, is it?

But you guys are right, this is pointless. Lesson learned.

 

[Cotton]

It's not complicated, is it?

But you guys are right, this is pointless. Lesson learned.

This won't be the first time you learn this lesson with Smitty. Keep in mind he's a lawyer. He loves to argue. Even if he has zero point.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Yeah, I don't think that is true. I'm gonna go back and pull the Sturm article, it was from agame against Atlanta, basically said "when the line plays like this there is not much you can do."

Unfortunately that was all too often the case those years. Running it head first into a brick wall wasn't even going to accomplish 3 yards and a cloud of dust. It would have been run-run-pass-punt, rinse wash and repeat.

The line was just as bad in 2003, the running backs were worse, and there was no threat of passing to back the defense out of 8-in-the-box. So why wasn't it like that then?

 

[Smitty]

The line was just as bad in 2003, the running backs were worse, and there was no threat of passing to back the defense out of 8-in-the-box. So why wasn't it like that then?

Because passing wasn't a better option in 2003. It was in 2012.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Because passing wasn't a better option in 2003. It was in 2012.

It wasn't a better option for winning, it was just a better option for stats.

If we even ran it 30 times a game for 100 yards a game (3.3 average) it would have made a big difference in time of possession, and pretending we couldn't do that is just ridiculous. We rushed for 1999 yards in 2003 as a team. We've proven this year that with a run-heavy game plan Romo will still pass for just as many TDs. All he's giving up is yards, and we're protecting the defense and exposing the QB to fewer hits.

 

[Smitty]

You're not answering the question. In 2003 we got 3.5 yards per carry out of Hambrick. Why couldn't we get that from Murray/Jones in 2012 if we ran it more? You said it would be a brick wall, implying we would get 0 yards per carry, which is bullshit.

Sorry. Not meaning to imply that we would get 0 yards per carry, obviously, that'd be ridiculous.

I'm saying that Murray/Jones in 2012 would have still been leaving us in long yardage positions too often to sustain drives consistently; hence why I classified it as "run-run-pass-punt" and "rinse and repeat."

We did that in 2003 because passing wasn't a better option; we still weren't particularly successful on offense. In 2012, passing was a better option.

The difference between 2003 and 2012's win totals was that the 2003 defense was ranked first overall, 2012's was 19th.

Run heavy in 2003 was meant not just to protect the defense, it was meant to take the ball out of Carter's hands because he was not reliable. Romo is infinitely more trustworthy even despite his meltdown penchant.

In any case, there are definite examples of times where running the clock could have protected a lead and Garrett didn't do that, but as a general philosophy it's a bad idea to feature the run if you are losing yards on so many run plays. It kills drives and thus you can't sustain the drives enough to protect the defense. That was the case in 2012. We tried it in 2003, sure... and our offense was worse across the board than our 2012 offense. So look where that got us.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Sorry. Not meaning to imply that we would get 0 yards per carry, obviously, that'd be ridiculous.

I'm saying that Murray/Jones in 2012 would have still been leaving us in long yardage positions too often to sustain drives consistently; hence why I classified it as "run-run-pass-punt" and "rinse and repeat."

We did that in 2003 because passing wasn't a better option; we still weren't particularly successful on offense. In 2012, passing was a better option.

The difference between 2003 and 2012's win totals was that the 2003 defense was ranked first overall, 2012's was 19th.

Run heavy in 2003 was meant not just to protect the defense, it was meant to take the ball out of Carter's hands because he was not reliable. Romo is infinitely more trustworthy even despite his meltdown penchant.

In any case, there are definite examples of times where running the clock could have protected a lead and Garrett didn't do that, but as a general philosophy it's a bad idea to feature the run if you are losing yards on so many run plays. It kills drives and thus you can't sustain the drives enough to protect the defense. That was the case in 2012. We tried it in 2003, sure... and our offense was worse across the board than our 2012 offense. So look where that got us.

The defense wasn't ranked first in 2003 because of our awesome talent. Part of the formula was running it over 500 times to keep them off the field. Our defenses in 2011 2012 and 2013 were always in full meltdown by the end of the season, and part of that was the number of times they got off the field only to go right back on. Being pass happy has been a huge part of our famous December problems and now that we are running we are suddenly good in December.

 

[Smitty]

The defense wasn't ranked first in 2003 because of our awesome talent. Part of the formula was running it over 500 times to keep them off the field.

Our defenses in 2011 2012 and 2013 were always in full meltdown by the end of the season, and part of that was the number of times they got off the field only to go right back on. Being pass happy has been a huge part of our famous December problems and now that we are running we are suddenly good in December.

But running it 500 times in 2003 didn't keep the defense off the field.

Per Pro Football Reference, the 2003 Dallas Cowboy offense's average drive took 2:35 off the clock, consisted of 5.37 plays, gained 25.2 yards, and resulted in 1.31 points.

The 2012 Dallas Cowboys offense's average drive took 2:45 off the clock, consisted of 6.00 plays, gained 33.2 yards, and resulted in 1.92 points.

So no, the 2003 team wasn't protecting it's defense better than the 2012 offense did. You have made a faulty assumption that the 2003 team ran a shit ton and protected the defense, resulting in the defensive having an easier job. That actually is not what happened.

Being effective keeps defenses off the field more than running it just for the sake of running it. Now, if you can be effective running the ball, that is the BEST way. But in years where the running game isn't effective... it doesn't protect the defense more than throwing it would.

 

[data]

I don't blame Zimmer for the Occupy and Engage scheme anymore. It was his personnel.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I don't blame Zimmer for the Occupy and Engage scheme anymore. It was his personnel.

Zimmer and Garrett are the same guy. They are decent motivators but they are predictable and can't innovate their way out of a paper bag. You can get away with that a little more on defense than on offense.

 

[Clay_Allison]

But running it 500 times in 2003 didn't keep the defense off the field.

Per Pro Football Reference, the 2003 Dallas Cowboy offense's average drive took 2:35 off the clock, consisted of 5.37 plays, gained 25.2 yards, and resulted in 1.31 points.

The 2012 Dallas Cowboys offense's average drive took 2:45 off the clock, consisted of 6.00 plays, gained 33.2 yards, and resulted in 1.92 points.

So no, the 2003 team wasn't protecting it's defense better than the 2012 offense did. You have made a faulty assumption that the 2003 team ran a shit ton and protected the defense, resulting in the defensive having an easier job. That actually is not what happened.

Being effective keeps defenses off the field more than running it just for the sake of running it. Now, if you can be effective running the ball, that is the BEST way. But in years where the running game isn't effective... it doesn't protect the defense more than throwing it would.

I'm not that surprised that the 2003 offense didn't stay on the field very effectively, and good catch on them not protecting the defense very well.

The difference is the 2012 team would have Tony Romo to convert a 3rd and 5 after two runs, instead of Quincy Carter. It wouldn't have been run, run, pass, punt. It would have been more like pass, run, pass, run if we had planned to set up the run with short passes a lot of the time on first and 10. Unfortunately, one of the many things Garrett is bad at is running passing plays throwing to the backs and his precious second TEs. That's part of what made his offense so prone to 3 and outs, he wasn't just pass happy, he had to pass downfield over and over again, desperate for a big play to get things going.

 

[Smitty]

The difference is the 2012 team would have Tony Romo to convert a 3rd and 5 after two runs, instead of Quincy Carter. It wouldn't have been run, run, pass, punt. It would have been more like pass, run, pass, run if we had planned to set up the run with short passes a lot of the time on first and 10. Unfortunately, one of the many things Garrett is bad at is running passing plays throwing to the backs and his precious second TEs. That's part of what made his offense so prone to 3 and outs, he wasn't just pass happy, he had to pass downfield over and over again, desperate for a big play to get things going.

But the run offense wasn't getting consistently to 3rd and 5, that's the point. You can't simply look at the ypc.

I mean, Murray is averaging nearly 5 ypc this year. So does that mean we should be able to hand it to him over and over on a drive and never even see third down? Of course not.

The team that averaged under 4 ypc in 2003 as well as 2012 was simply not capable of consistently getting to 3rd and 5. I mean, I don't 100% recall in 2003 -- it was a long time ago -- but in 2012 a very large percentage of our runs were for negative yards. Guys like Costa, Cook, Livings, and Bernadeau were too prone to busted assignments, missed blocks, or just plain ol' getting beat with power or speed.

Over and over again we'd hand off the ball on first and ten or 2nd and 7... boom.... 2 yard loss. Now it's 2nd and 12 or 3rd and 9. You practically have to pass. The running game those years was not capable of getting us to third and manageables consistently (on top of that, it didn't stand a chance in hell of successfully blocking in short yardage -- every time there would be defenders in the backfield). This year it has, which is why our third down efficiency has skyrocketed.

Now as far as Garrett being a downfield passer, that is true. He's shown trouble adjusting his routes to shorter stuff at times. But that's what he is, he runs a Coryell offense, not a West Coast one, so we are stuck with that. But as for that being the cause of the third down inefficiency, no, it was far more often the running game putting us in third and longs.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Now as far as Garrett being a downfield passer, that is true. He's shown trouble adjusting his routes to shorter stuff at times. But that's what he is, he runs a Coryell offense, not a West Coast one, so we are stuck with that. But as for that being the cause of the third down inefficiency, no, it was far more often the running game putting us in third and longs.

Not being able to adjust your offense to win more games is synonymous with being a bad OC. We've gone around in a circle but what it comes down to is it doesn't matter if you use runs or short passes, you need some balance on offense. You can say Garrett never developed a running game because of his personnel. His excuse for not developing a short passing game to replace it is "That's not his system"? How fucking stupid is that?

BTW, the Coryell system doesn't have any rules that say you can't throw short passes. Linehan comes from the same system and he has always thrown to running backs by design. Norv Turner is the ultimate modern Coryell offense guy and Emmitt and Moose caught a shitload of passes in his offense. Don Coryell threw the ball to Terry Metcalf a lot in St Louis and Chuck Muncie in San Diego.