MacMahon: If Cowboys improve, Jerry might admit mistake

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,221
The offensive line is important, but it doesn't need to be extraordinary or special. It does need to be competent, though. We tend to overreact regarding the OL because it has been bad beyond comprehension.

I think with an OL whose players do their jobs and stay middle of the pack in penalties this team can have a top ten scoring offense if Murray stays healthy (because I have next to no faith in Joseph Randle, Lance Dunbar, or Phillip Tanner).
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,891
While true, it's also completely untenable to argue that in 6 years never having better than an average offensive line, and often times worse, is not a disadvantage.
I believe you said it was a huge disadvantage which is what I was specifically arguing against.

I also reject you premise that you can just lump 2007's offensive line together with the likes of 2012's and call it an overall disadvantage throughout. It doesn't work that way. Each individual season is an island.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,891
Which is why I said "mostly" the GM's fault. All coaches have a responsibility to help the GM know what they want.

It's also the GM's responsibility to make decisions and overrule the coach when the coach is wrong about what player is best for the team. And most coaches usually are not infrequently wrong, which is why they have a GM to begin with. Otherwise coaches would all just do both.
The reason coaches and GMs are two separate jobs is because it is too much job to do both. Not because coaches are often wrong, as you suggest. I don't think that has anything to do with it. If there's anything, it's that coaches tend to be short sighted, whereas GMs often have the luxury of thinking more long term. If coaches are not infrequently wrong on player evaluations there is a problem.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,561
The reason coaches and GMs are two separate jobs is because it is too much job to do both. Not because coaches are often wrong, as you suggest. I don't think that has anything to do with it.
Oh, I do. I think coaches way too often are good at coaching but not necessarily evaluating and projecting. But maybe I am saying that based on the history of coaches who have failed trying to do both, in the sense that they could do neither job well because there was too much on their plate.
 

junk

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
580
He's probably somewhere in that range both as a head coach and coordinator. It's impossible to do a straight ranking 1-32, but I'd say he's outside the top 10 somewhere in the soft middle of guys who could have better or worse seasons depending on the roll of the dice.

What I like about Garrett is that he says and does the right things and has the potential to improve.

But I'd fire him if I could get one of those top 10 guys.
I've basically said the same thing as you. He's a middle of the pack coordinator. Nothing special. Why the jump to defend him at every opportunity then?

Frankly, I'm not fond of a middle of the pack offensive coordinator. I'm not sure how the hell Lovie Smith came into the equation because I don't really want him as a coach either.

However, there were offensive shortcomings and they do lie at Garrett's feet. Be it personnel (he tends to choose toys over OL and I do believe he has some say there), scheme, execution or simply game time playcalling/management (being able to call the right thing at the right time), they all have to land at the feet of the HC/OC.

I could care less if he "says the right things". Show me some improvement in 6 years instead.

Potential? Maybe. I'd think we'd have seen it by now. Garrett needs to take the Sean Payton route and go get some more seasoning under a more experienced guy.

Do you realize that Payton spent like 12 years coaching at various levels before he came an OC in the NFL? Even then he more or less failed before his time with Parcells and second chance. Garrett had 2 years as a QB coach....his only coaching at any level.....before becoming an OC. He's green and we're suffering through him learning how to be a coach.


Really? Because that felt to me more like Jerry not wanting to meet some of Reeves demands for input on personnel. He wasn't going to be a coach, he was going to be a "consultant." That says more on the management side of things to me.
You can be a coaching consultant. However, I'll admit the story was very muddled and probably partially why it fell through. However, I could see Wade wanting to bring in an old friend to help mentor a young offensive coach.

A few interesting tidbits here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3884953

"I thought the thing was done, and we finally agreed on what the title was going to be," Reeves said. "I didn't want to have a coaching title and not have authority coachingwise. I wanted to work with him [Jones] and Wade and help in any way that I possibly could. We finally agreed the coaching thing wouldn't be in there, but then the contract changed and there were some things in there I couldn't see being in there, and they were important to him. He made a lot of concessions, but this was something that was important to him, and I just didn't feel like I could live with it. So it didn't make sense for us to go forward."
With Phillips serving as his own defensive coordinator with the offseason firing of Brian Stewart, Reeves could have unburdened Phillips and offered the perspective of an experienced playcaller and game planner while overseeing the offensive coaching staff headed by offensive coordinator Jason Garrett. The Cowboys' offensive numbers turned downward in Garrett's second season as an NFL playcaller.

I won't argue that Garrett doesn't need to get better -- he does.

But I stand by the statement that more plays were ruined last year from poor execution of a good situational playcall than vice-versa.
Eh, neither of has any sort of expertise to say this definitively one way or the other. I certainly don't see it that way. When you are throwing your week's game plan out the window to move the ball down the field, I tend to think either aren't making good situational play calls or aren't a very good game planner.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,561
I've basically said the same thing as you. He's a middle of the pack coordinator. Nothing special. Why the jump to defend him at every opportunity then?
It's important to understand what is going on. Absent bringing in another Bill Parcells, this thing is not getting fixed with the line in the state that it's in. Changing coaches will be re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic. Again, look at the guys hired this offseason -- Marrone, Bradley, McCoy, etc. They have no skins on the wall for being able to do any better at this level.

And I'm generally someone who believes good coaching and good management begets (and is more important than) good talent. But in this case, the OL is so god damn pathetic, it's just not reasonable to ask someone to perform under these conditions. Even taking Garrett out of the equation, we are getting a fraction of the effectiveness of Murray, Romo, Witten, Bryant and Austin every season because the OL lets them down and doesn't live up to their end of the deal.

The OL's complete ineffectiveness is the #1 issue on this team, by far (well, other than Jerry Jones). That's not defending anything -- that's just the problem.

Frankly, I'm not fond of a middle of the pack offensive coordinator. I'm not sure how the hell Lovie Smith came into the equation because I don't really want him as a coach either.
His name has been thrown about previously as a guy we could get that would be an "instant upgrade."

I'm with you. No thanks.

Eh, neither of has any sort of expertise to say this definitively one way or the other.
When you see basic run plays called and over and over again the defense is in the backfield before the back reaches the line of scrimmage, you can be pretty sure it's the personnel.

There is only so much trickery you can call as a coach. At some point your guys have to be able to push the other guys out of the way. Ours were routinely incapable of that last year. There were way too many games where we couldn't average 3 yards a carry because the defense kept tackling the backs for losses. That's not on the playcalls. The line MUST be able to give the backs more time than that to find a crease. It's a prerequisite to being an offensive line.

Did you see that Phil Costa video that got posted a couple weeks back? The guy was a sieve. He single handedly destroyed drive after drive, where his whiffs alone blew up important plays. You can't put that at the feet of the playcaller.
I certainly don't see it that way.
I can't see it any other way. I watch it, I see the defense coming free on run plays and pass plays. This isn't stuff that the defense is keying in on because we call it too much, it's just straight up getting whipped. The solution to keep the defense off balance is to call stuff like draws and delays more, but that only works in situations where the defense is expecting pass. It doesn't work in the redzone or in short yardage and that was even moreso our Achilles heel. It's one of the reasons our yardage totals don't match our points. Lack of ability to convert short yardage/red zone.

When you are throwing your week's game plan out the window to move the ball down the field, I tend to think either aren't making good situational play calls or aren't a very good game planner.
I tend to think that it's very difficult to come up with a good gameplan that includes no ability to run the ball and not very much ability to pass protect. What plays do you call? You can't run it consistently, you can't call downfield passing plays consistently.

Bob documented in another article what we did against Atlanta -- Garrett tried to shorten things up, run quicker plays, shorter passing routes. It was a disaster. Atlanta picked up on it and camped on the routes. They had no fear of our run game, they had no fear of our deep passing game, so they just smothered our receivers in the short passing game. We scored 13 points that week.

What exactly should be the game plan? Run heavy? Not possible. Short passing? Didn't work against Atlanta. You want Romo taking 7 step drops all day with this line? He'll get murdered.

I mean, I have asked over and over again, what's the solution? There aren't any. You can't do anything with this OL. Good offense starts with good QB play, good pass protection and good run blocking. Our offense is incapable of two-thirds of those things.
 
Last edited:

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,237
Too many damn words on this page.
 
Top Bottom