Archive - Random Cowboys Related Stuff Thread...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Setting aside some of your conclusory statements, why would Linehan play conservative instead of aggressive? Gee, maybe cause not playing conservatively got him 3 picks and a close loss last week against a much worse defense?

The plan almost worked this week. Didn't, but people are acting like its a slam dunk that being aggressive would have won this game.

They don't know that.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Setting aside some of your conclusory statements, why would Linehan play conservative instead of aggressive? Gee, maybe cause not playing conservatively got him 3 picks and a close loss last week against a much worse defense?

The plan almost worked this week. Didn't, but people are acting like its a slam dunk that being aggressive would have won this game.

They don't know that.
On the other hand does anyone think this approach is going to win any games. Almost wins still are losses.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
On the other hand does anyone think this approach is going to win any games. Almost wins still are losses.
Its about which approach you think is more likely.

Who is to say? Could we beat Seattle by throwing 3 picks but maybe 2 more TDs? I don't think so at all.

By saying "we should have opened it up" you are assuming the exact same amount of negative plays with an increase in positive plays.

The Giants game was eminently more watchable because it was an up and down the field affair and it gave you more confidence in the offense being able to actually DO something. But I'm not sure at the end of the day it's more likely that Cassel can win a game like that.

Again for the record, I'd let him try. We saw the bus driver route with Weeden and we all hated it. That's why we switched.

But it people are acting like because the staff chose to go conservative that it means they have noodles for brains and are incompetent as football coaches when in fact it's actually a choice between two unlikely propositions and in all likelihood is a losing proposition either way.


Not something to go ballistic about, but some people are just looking for things to justify their pre existing sentiment.

2 other asides... The coaches did call plays that allowed the QB to choose to take shots and he didn't (or when he did, it misfired). I don't know to what extent they got into Cassel's head about playing safe, but neither does anyone else, and the fact is, he did just miss some open WRs on plays where he had a touchdown if he got the ball to them. So those "take a shot" plays were called, even in the realm of being conservative.

Secondly, a historical football genius liked to run his team the exact same way... Keep it close, don't make mistakes, win at the end... You might have heard of him... His name was Bill Parcells. So again I don't agree that calling the game like Linehan did makes him stupid.
 
Last edited:

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,468
We went into the season with Randle as the starting RB and less than zero depth at QB and WR. After coming off of a legit 12-4, ready to contend type of season.

This has been an organizational failure.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,913
Secondly, a historical football genius liked to run his team the exact same way... Keep it close, don't make mistakes, win at the end... You might have heard of him... His name was Bill Parcells. So again I don't agree that calling the game like Linehan did makes him stupid.
Jesus, you slurp Parcells' nuts like it was your job. He was among some of the best as a team builder, sure. But as a game day coach, he left a lot to be desired. Far from a 'historical football genius' there. And that's what we're talking about here.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Parcells wasn't perfect but can anyone actually say he didn't deserve to be a head coach based on his philosophy, which actually worked in most stops?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
We went into the season with Randle as the starting RB and less than zero depth at QB and WR. After coming off of a legit 12-4, ready to contend type of season.

This has been an organizational failure.
Can't disagree there. I thought we'd trade for a better RB, and I've been banging the "draft a QB" drum for years.

I'll grant that I am a little surprised by Terrance Williams' complete inability to be a factor. But then again look at the QB situation.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,913
Nobody has said he didn't deserve to be a head coach. And Parcells wasn't nearly as conservative as you're trying to claim here. If he was, I would have loved to have seen a young Drew Bledsoe in an open passing attack instead of this conservative stuff you're claiming. He might have passed for 10,000 yards and a 100 TDs a year.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I for one don't have too much problem with the way the offense was called on Sunday. Say what you want about the results, but we maintained time of possession, committed to the run, dominated on defense, and led in the fourth. We had 90 seconds to get into field goal range, which would have been like falling out of bed for Romo.

If you want to point to failures in this season that are also the failures of Sunday, it's heading into camp with Vaughan and Weedon as your prospective backups, and entering the season with Weedon taking the position by default. Then scrambling for a solution you should have been looking for in March. If Weedon was such a question mark that you trade for his replacement before he starts his first game, you have failed at your job of finding a backup.

Also the fact that we stuck up our noses at Chris Johnson shows how epically clueless we were at evaluating RBs. The only guy on this roster who's shown any kind of starter position was a consolation signing for Jerry that no one thought would be any good.
 

p1_

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
26,454
Setting aside some of your conclusory statements, why would Linehan play conservative instead of aggressive? Gee, maybe cause not playing conservatively got him 3 picks and a close loss last week against a much worse defense?

The plan almost worked this week. Didn't, but people are acting like its a slam dunk that being aggressive would have won this game.

They don't know that.
We don't know, you're right. But i can't let the Hardy pick slide, you need 7 from that takeaway. Its the closest you're gonna get
so you need to punch it in.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Its about which approach you think is more likely.

Who is to say? Could we beat Seattle by throwing 3 picks but maybe 2 more TDs? I don't think so at all.

By saying "we should have opened it up" you are assuming the exact same amount of negative plays with an increase in positive plays.

The Giants game was eminently more watchable because it was an up and down the field affair and it gave you more confidence in the offense being able to actually DO something. But I'm not sure at the end of the day it's more likely that Cassel can win a game like that.

Again for the record, I'd let him try. We saw the bus driver route with Weeden and we all hated it. That's why we switched.

But it people are acting like because the staff chose to go conservative that it means they have noodles for brains and are incompetent as football coaches when in fact it's actually a choice between two unlikely propositions and in all likelihood is a losing proposition either way.


Not something to go ballistic about, but some people are just looking for things to justify their pre existing sentiment.

2 other asides... The coaches did call plays that allowed the QB to choose to take shots and he didn't (or when he did, it misfired). I don't know to what extent they got into Cassel's head about playing safe, but neither does anyone else, and the fact is, he did just miss some open WRs on plays where he had a touchdown if he got the ball to them. So those "take a shot" plays were called, even in the realm of being conservative.

Secondly, a historical football genius liked to run his team the exact same way... Keep it close, don't make mistakes, win at the end... You might have heard of him... His name was Bill Parcells. So again I don't agree that calling the game like Linehan did makes him stupid.
All that aside. If a team is crippled by injuries and less than 100 % you don't employ a withdrawal strategy. That's a certain decision for failure. Instead your best chance is to go full attack. That wasn't anywhere in the game plan with Weedin or Cassell. In a crippled mode it's pointless to play conservative. Bill Parcells didn't always field crippled teams or his legacy would be different.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
All that aside. If a team is crippled by injuries and less than 100 % you don't employ a withdrawal strategy. That's a certain decision for failure. Instead your best chance is to go full attack. That wasn't anywhere in the game plan with Weedin or Cassell. In a crippled mode it's pointless to play conservative. Bill Parcells didn't always field crippled teams or his legacy would be different.
The coaches don't want to take the risks necessary to steal a win because they are scared of the criticism that would come from those risks not paying off.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
The coaches don't want to take the risks necessary to steal a win because they are scared of the criticism that would come from those risks not paying off.
Which criticism is easier, going all out and losing or going into a shell and losing? :art
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I don't think you can say your best chance is always to go full attack with an injured team. Frankly we were closer against a better defense by going conservative.

And I agree that I would prefer us to try opening it up. But I'm fully aware that either approach is probably a loss and therefore I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I know more than the staff does, simply because what they did didn't work.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
The coaches don't want to take the risks necessary to steal a win because they are scared of the criticism that would come from those risks not paying off.
This is sily...the staff will get criticized regardless.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I don't think you can say your best chance is always to go full attack with an injured team. Frankly we were closer against a better defense by going conservative.

And I agree that I would prefer us to try opening it up. But I'm fully aware that either approach is probably a loss and therefore I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I know more than the staff does, simply because what they did didn't work.
Well the coaching staff has had a conservative approach for the past 5 games and they have Zip wins so I would say by now there should be reason to chance the approach.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Well the coaching staff has had a conservative approach for the past 5 games and they have Zip wins so I would say by now there should be reason to chance the approach.
They didn't have a conservative approach against the Giants... Cassel was winging it around downfield much more than he did against Seattle and it resulted in 3 picks and essentially those picks costs us the game.

I don't know to what extent the coaching staff brainwashed him to not take risks versus how much he reigned himself in, but I do know there were downfield routes open against Seattle that he either didn't see or elected not to risk trying.

But whatever level of conservative play was imposed on him by the staff, you can't say the staff didn't previously have a more open plan. It also resulted in a loss simply because Cassel's mistakes resulted in more bad plays than good ones.

There are limiting things you can try as well .... Bootlegs which essentially take away half the field to throw to, for example, that maybe the staff should try.

But I can't sit here and say "oh my GAWD, the staff are MORONS for not doing play action in the red zone on play X." I mean.... There was an open WR in the end zone on Cassel's third down check down to Witten, so they called a play that worked, the player just elected not to take advantage of it (or failed to see it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom