Sturm: Why Cowboys’ offense can win the Super Bowl this season

[Smitty]

K

Bullshit.

You can and should manage plans from game to game. Belichick does it from week to week, exploiting the advantages. You can run one week, pass it another. You manage within the game to do what you need to do to get the W.

Yes and no. That is why I called it a failure of Garrett to adjust.

But the end of season evaluation and adjustment DOES happen. That's not bullshit at all. And that's why it's unreasonable to say he wouldn't have adjusted after an offseason of evaluation that the line had become a strength. Especially in light of his 2008 era rushing totals with better OL personnel.

Something made him adjust downward from then... it was personnel. That is a big factor in the upward adjustment as well.

 

[boozeman]

K

Yes and no. That is why I called it a failure of Garrett to adjust.

But the end of season evaluation and adjustment DOES happen. That's not bullshit at all. And that's why it's unreasonable to say he wouldn't have adjusted after an offseason of evaluation that the line had become a strength. Especially in light of his 2008 era rushing totals with better OL personnel.

Something made him adjust downward from then... it was personnel. That is a big factor in the upward adjustment as well.

And you did a great job of not even acknowledging the point. If something is working in a game, and it has you a twenty point fucking lead, you keep doing what got you to that point and don't get cute. It was not like we had the entire OL in the Packer game go down to injury.

Again, talking game to game, not just the stupid trust issues which you already acknowledge.

Better game management and a commitment to the run even last season would have had us in the playoffs.

 

[Clay_Allison]

It's not dishonest.

1) In the first half of the year we weren't running well.

2) When the line started doing better down the stretch, the game plans didn't catch up immediately. Why? Well because when it happened in a small handful of games, it could have just been a blip. No reason to throw out your game plans until it was established as a pattern. And even IF the game plans should have been changed earlier.... It's still completely reasonable to think that the staff would re-evaluate their strength in the offseason. Coaching staffs do that all the time, so it STILL doesn't prove they would have run it the same as in 2013 this year. It still points to personnel being the biggest difference between 330 carries and 440 carries.

You want to burn Garrett at the stake for not running more in the Green Bay and Detroit games, but you are extrapolating a conclusion that doesn't fit. Just say that he mismanage those games, which was true.



Or maybe it took a while for him to realize it was a strength he should be utilizing and it required an offseason of evaluation. Since coaches do that all the time.



He did not run enough. Where you go off the tracks is the assumption that personnel had nothing to do with it. No Martin, first year Frederick and Leary, and of course hadn't had enough time to see them prove themselves as good run blockers. That's all personnel related. So every time you say there is no relation, you're incorrect.

Garrett was so slow to adjust that the Packers and pretty much everyone else in the league could see what he couldn't? What was that about him not being a complete idiot? I know you took a hiatus out of embarrassment after that game but in case you don't recall, the Packers players felt compelled to make fun of Garrett for abandoning a rushing attack that they called one of the best in the league at the time. And he still refused to change after that. He just lied and tried to put the blame on Romo for running a check play the way he was coached to run it. Either he was too stubborn to change because he didn't want Callahan to get credit or he watched less film of his team than his opponents did. Either way, that's inexcusably stupid.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Someone tell the Packers they don't understand football

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000299618/article/packers-happy-cowboys-abandoned-running-game

When the Dallas Cowboys lost a 17-16 squeaker at Kansas City in September, coach Jason Garrett conceded that his team simply has to "run the ball more." When DeMarco Murray averaged 7.75 yards on just four carries in a narrow 27-23 win over the Vikings in early November, Garrett stated a renewed commitment to a more balanced offense.

All of those pledges to institute a consistent ground attack went out the window Sunday. Tony Romo attempted 48 passes in a game he led 26-3, 29-10 and 36-24 at various points in the second half.

The victorious Packers were perplexed yet grateful for the Cowboys' much-derided, soap operatic play-calling.

"We watched (Murray) last week with the coaches and we said, 'This guy is the real deal,'" Packers defensive tackle Ryan Pickett said, via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Bob McGinn. "He's tough, fast and so deceptively strong. He's one of the most underrated backs.

"Oh, my God. It's the best zone scheme in the league," Pickett continued. "The last four weeks, nobody could stop it -- their zone scheme. And they gave up on it. We're just happy they did. We were, like, 'OK, we'll take it.'"

Pickett wasn't the only Green Bay player to express astonishment at Dallas' refusal to lean on Murray with a commanding lead.

"That's just who they are," cornerback Tramon Williams said. "They run the ball really well against everybody they play, but they just never stick with it."

 

[Rev]

Someone tell the Packers they don't understand football

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000299618/article/packers-happy-cowboys-abandoned-running-game

Dont bother. None of those guys know as much as Schmitty because he watches the game.

 

[Smitty]

And you did a great job of not even acknowledging the point. If something is working in a game, and it has you a twenty point fucking lead, you keep doing what got you to that point and don't get cute. It was not like we had the entire OL in the Packer game go down to injury.

Again, talking game to game, not just the stupid trust issues which you already acknowledge.

Better game management and a commitment to the run even last season would have had us in the playoffs.

Who denied that?

 

[ravidubey]

Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Garrett is still here, and there can be little doubt he's finally turned it around. The how doesn't matter so much.

His robo-coaching is finally taking hold after four and a half seasons. His 4th down call yesterday to keep the go-ahead TD drive alive showed a clued-in HC in tune with his team.

That play and this entire season has won my heart, so the previous years just don't matter any more.

If Linehan leaves, Garrett now knows what he needs from his OC. Ditto Marinelli, though his loss clearly would be a huge blow.

Garrett is coaching the entire team and his players have bought into his message.

We've absolutely paid the price for his OJT, so we deserve to reap the benefits.