It's funny how we were #5 in yards in 2006, without Garrett. I pointed that out earlier.
And you think this means what? We had a good coordinator in 2006 too.
Just like we've had a good coordinator since then.
So yeah, thanks for proving my point, actually.
It's funny how good coordinators, like those in Arizona and Green Bay of the same era managed to score points with OLs that suck. Wow deja vu.
Mike McCarthy is an elite head coach. Though once again for the record, that Green Bay line is not as bad as ours.
Anyone with a brain might also notice that we don't just stall in the red zone.
Prior to 2012, which was the worst year to date, we didn't stall outside the red zone any more than average.
Soooo many times we've stalled at midfield during Jason's tenure, I'd do that hyperlink thing again to show you but I don't feel like it was appreciated.
I don't recall you posting any "hyperlink thing" that shows drives stalling at midfield. I saw one that posted some box scores. Not sure what you were proving with that, I think it was something about abandoning the run, but then you proceeded to post games where we were down bigtime (and thus of course would be throwing a lot) or where the run wasn't working (averaging less than 3.5 a carry) and thus shouldn't have been stuck with.
So yeah, I'm not going to bother giving those stats any credit. I wouldn't run the ball either there, with this personnel. I don't consider them indicting.
Sometimes that's a talent issue. Sometimes it's a coaching issue. Once again, Jason tends to get attached to plays he likes on paper, that don't work in the real world, like the swing pass to Barber.
I'm talking about the non-fancy running plays that constantly get blown up for a loss of yards that any reasonable blocking team would have an expectation to gain two or three. It's a four to six yard difference on these plays. It's basically a penalty and a loss of down. No offense can overcome that consistently, yet it happened to us consistently.
Swing passes to Barber? You talking about plays where the back is the, like, fourth option out of the backfield? I can't recall many designed dump offs to Barber, so I can't see how it's a part of a criticism of the playcalling.
You can't honestly believe that our oline has been so bereft of talent in the past 5 years that a better coach could not help them.
I'm telling you our line during those years has been the worst I've ever seen as a Dallas Cowboy fan in run blocking. On any team around the league. Obviously I watch more Cowboys games than Packers games, though.
An elite coach could probably help them. Lovie Smith could not.
Because poor olines like the Cardinals and Packers of 08-09 did just fine with relatively untalented lines. (there it is again)
Not as bad as ours. But overall production will go up or down based on other factors as well, such as Kurt Warner having a for-the-record-books year.
So the line from 07 to 08 went from exceptional to below average? Just like that? With all the same players?
Our OL in 2007 was average. Leonard Davis was particularly overrated, but Flozell still had something in the tank, Gurode wasn't washed up, etc. But every player was on the downswing. They were all over 30. Kyle Kosier also missed a lot of time in 2008, Corey Proctor ended up starting 11 games, so that was a big hit.
So yes. That is pretty much exactly what happened. The OL got old and fell apart over the next couple seasons, we never added legitimate pieces back to it, and now it's one of the worst in football.
Actually in 08 we had really good rushing numbers overall, it was just really inconsistent. Like something or someone didn't have a good game plan in place, and failed to properly feature the run. So maybe that's what would happen if we had an average line. Big unpredictable running game, that the coach gives up on once he's down by a field goal. Probably all the talent's fault.
You're gonna need to provide some more here. What do you mean it was really inconsistent? Like some weeks it would average under 4 yards a carry? How does that mean he doesn't have a good game plan in place?
How do I know that a bad OL weighs down scoring? Because that's how the game works.
When you can't run the ball, you can't score efficiently in the redzone. This is because the passing game in the redzone is much harder because there are more defenders packed in a smaller area making it easier for them to cover. You have to be able to line up and push them out of the way in the running game to have a consistent scoring offense.
That's how it works.
If you are not able to do that, your scoring is gonna be down significantly. You'll be kicking a lot of field goals instead of touchdowns.
WTF has Garrett done with a ton of good skill position players and average to poor line play (Y'Know the kind of talent that Whisenhunt took to the superbowl in 08) to make you think that he has the ability to coach his team to victory. Yards? Yards the 06 Cowboys made, coupled with actual scoring, with a average to below average OL.
Well, in 2007, Garrett was second in scoring. So again you are making my point for me. Yeah, the 2007 Cowboys, with an average OL, had the scoring stats to match their yardage totals.
Which is exactly what I'm saying will happen once we get an average OL in here again.
So that's what he's done. He's racked up yards and when he had the average OL he also racked up points.
That's not entirely my beef with Garrett. Or rather, that IS my beef with Parcells and Wade too, so it's not something that I'd point out as a specific deficiency to the Garrett regime, but more a consistent problem with the Cowboys going back to the late nineties.
Well, that is true, and it's why every time someone says "Garrett is to blame for us not drafting OLs" I say to them, well, maybe, but it's really the GMs fault. Look at his track record. Failure after failure.
You're moronic and false. Well that probably didn't sound very mature. How about this? Name that time he masterminded an offensive performance. That time he put together a gameplan, and caught the team with their pants down? Remember that time we were losing really bad, and he came in at halftime and made that great adjustment? How about when he learned that the running game is an important part of setting the tempo for the offense, and didn't start calling up pass like a 9 year old losing to his brother on Madden?(Okay he actually has done that, but he's definitely failed to do that too, as pointed out in my previous post)
In 2007, the year he had his best OL, he had an offense that was second in points and was the envy of everyone not named the New England Patriots. Then as the OL has gotten worse over the years, the production has generally gotten worse in a linear fashion culminating in the disaster that was 2012.
But despite that, he was 7th in points in 2010. He was also 14th, 15th, and 15th in various years.
So with all these terrible OLs, he's been average in points production.
So your assertions that he's bad is simply false. He's average. And with a good OL, those numbers would increase from 14th-15th to probably 8th-10th.
Because that's what happens when you improve the OL. The redzone efficiency will jump up.
If you want to know why I say your argument is moronic and false, its because you feel the need to compare him to someone playing Madden. It's moronic and false. That's not what happened.
As for times he's put together good plans, uh, how about any of these, from this mere two year period:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200910250dal.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200911010dal.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201001030dal.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201001090dal.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200911260dal.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200912190nor.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201011140nyg.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201011210dal.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201012050clt.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201012190dal.htm
He has an average performance record with above average talent. The kind of talent Whisenhunt coached to the superbowl. The kind of talent a guy like Reid, Gruden, Steve Mariucci or Sparano could lead to a top scoring offense.
None of those guys consistently have to deal with the OL Garrett has had to. But FWIW, Reid is one of those great coaches I'm talking about.
By the way.... you want to know where Whisenhunt's offense was ranked that year in 2009 that you keep trying to claim is some masterful job by him?
11th. Kinda close to 14-15, isn't it?
You want to know where Whisenhunts offense was ranked with that bad OL he has, in the years since then, while Garrett has been going 7th, 15th, and 15th? Whisenhunt has been 26, 24 and 31.
Yeah, he did wonders there in Arizona.
Good? no no no. Fuck, you just said it was average one paragraph up, average has been your mantra.
The yardage production has been good to great. The scoring has been average (never worse than 18th). As a head coach, he's doing an average job. But he's gotten the offense to produce without an OL. If he had that OL, his offense would be top 10 in all categories year after year.
Sure, he has the talent to match. He's not some genius, but he'd be doing his job, getting top talent to produce top results. If he had that OL.
"Every coach is either average or a team-builder messiah that we must wait for" that's been your whole pitch. Don't bullshit me with good. I watched this offense shit the bed so many times, I've yelled a whole in my TV. I've watched Jason refuse to stop calling deep pass plays while Brad Johnson was trying to figure out which way was forward. I've seen us stifled by average defenses. I watched so many games that were won, or nearly won, or entirely lost because Romo was forced to do miracles in crunch time, with a 2 minute offense.
All your frustrations are anecdotal and they are very obviously not taking into account that you would have the same frustrations with everyone. You think Bears fans don't have the same complaints?
The only reason you think he's better at this stuff is because you don't watch him every week.
Because it's not a fact, it's a delusion based on your man crush. Better offensive line would be better. Romo would get sacked less, the running game would be better, and Garrett would still suck at gameplanning and calling plays, just like in 08.
Your assertions are false. Ken Whisenhunt is by your broad definition 'average' and he had a top scoring offense in 08 and 09 with a poor oline
Ken Whisenhunt has put up 7, 3, 11, 24, 26, and 31 rankings. If 11 is counting as "top scoring offense" than Garrett did it too with 7th in 2010.
So my assertions are still correct.
so has Reid, Mariucci, Fassel and dozens of other coaches.
They didn't do it with OLs as bad as ours.
If it's all true, then it invalidates your position.
You just said it's all true that the OL is weighing down our skill position players and making the coach scheme around their weaknesses.
If that's the case, it's weighing down our offensive scoring production.
Our offensive scoring production that has already been 2nd, 18th, 14th, 7th, 15th, and 15th, in chronological order.
Say it's weighing it down by 10%, even (which I think is too little) (when I say that, I am saying, having a better OL would have increased our scoring by 10% in those years). That would have caused us to shoot up from:
18th to 10th in 2008
14th to 9th in 2009
7th to 5th in 2010
15th to 5th in 2011
15th to 9th in 2012
If it's "all true," that our skill position players are worse because of a bad OL, and our coach can't call the plays he wants to call, then where is your factoring into how much the talent is weighing the offense down? And if you are taking that into account properly, such as by assigning it a 10% boost if you gave it an OL, then what exactly would be your problem with those new rankings?
I get that the 2012 line was bad. But I think it's going overboard to pretend that no line that ever played for Garrett was good enough.
Good enough? What does that mean?
Our OL has been poor since 2008. In 2012, it was one of the worst I've ever seen.
Replace those lines with functional OLs, the scoring goes up to match the yardage.
If the scoring was up (such as, 10% like I showed above), then our rankings would be much better.
Are those rankings "good enough"? I don't know. But I know you'd have no argument that he can't coach offense.
08's Flozell, Kosier, Davis, Gurode, and Colombo weren't that bad
Kosier barely played in 2008. And Gurode, Flozell, and Davis in particular were slipping fast. I remember I had long debates with everyone that Davis did not deserve to make the Pro Bowl. So I was saying back then we were staring OL problems in the face.
You're being awfully hyperbolic about the overall quality of the Dallas line. While I'll admit it's been below average, it hasn't been so bad that a good coach couldn't scheme around it most years. Successfully meaning points, not yards.
Well, he's been scheming around it to average results, yet it's a below average line that is definitely reducing our raw numbers, which would be better if we had an average OL.
So give us that and the numbers (scoring and otherwise) would be good.
Why? Let's ask your buddy Sturm.
yards do not tell the story. One team can gain 5,800 yards in a traditional way with a balanced and unpredictable offense and be efficient and effective. Another can gain 5,900 yards and be inefficient and predictable while being way out of balance.
And Bob also showed that the offense has been getting less and less efficient over the years as the OL has gotten worse.
And my argument has not been that Garrett's yards with no scoring is what makes him good, it's that the scoring only hasn't followed because of the talent not the scheming.
I agree with Bob that we've been inefficient, so you providing a quote that we've gotten less efficient doesn't disprove anything I'm saying. The point is not that we have been inefficient, the point has been why we are inefficient. The yards are there, so we are getting that part right. I am saying the efficiency (high scoring, etc) has faltered due to the OL.
Which you actually said was true a few sentences up.
So once you take into account the stat reductions that come with the bad OL that Bob also has stated we have, we won't have much left to argue about.
