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

[Clay_Allison]

Yes, down the stretch in 2013 the line was improved, and Garrett did not run the ball heavily. Sturm has said that, and I have said as well that failing to notice the run blocking was working at times like in the Green Bay game was a really bad coaching error.



No, this conclusion does not logically follow. You act as if a couple games of increase performance would have been enough to convince him to throw out what he had planned on doing all season.

It is logical to say "he should have realized and adjusted better" but it is NOT logical to say "this is proof he didn't want to run." Coaches are going to re-evaluate where they are and what they are doing in the offseason. After watching the tape of 2013, it would have made sense that they'd say, as a staff, "Whoa... Look at this line down the stretch. Now that we have Martin and growth from Frederick and Leary, we're gonna be even better this year. Let's work this into our game plans for the coming season."

This especially seems the more likely case when you figure

1) Garrett clearly is not philosophically opposed to running as evidenced by his allowing it to happen within the frame of his offense this year as well as his commitment to running it in 2007-08 in his offense as well, and

2) The fact that Linehan was not someone who you can honestly sell as a run-heavy playcaller, so for me to believe that it's "all him" instead of a collaboration and product of circumstances (the line personnel) would be absurd.

Even after the Green Bay game he called 46 pass plays for Kyle Orton in the season finale. If he wouldn't run the ball in that situation, I don't see what could possibly make him do it.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Linehan is getting a lot of credit here for calling running plays; yet as the Lions OC in 2011-2013, his offenses ranked 1st, 1st and 3rd in passing attempts. Apparently he likes to pass too. Just saying.

Look at what he did in Minny and St. Louis.

Just saying.

 

[Cotton]

Look at what he did in Minny and St. Louis.

Just saying.

Yep, he ran Steven Jackson quite a bit when he was with the Rams.

 

[Smitty]

Even after the Green Bay game he called 46 pass plays for Kyle Orton in the season finale. If he wouldn't run the ball in that situation, I don't see what could possibly make him do it.

What possibly made him do it in 2008?

Oops, theory debunked.

 

[Clay_Allison]

What possibly made him do it in 2008?

Oops, theory debunked.

He ran it SLIGHTLY more in 2008. If we only ran it 400 times in 2014 we'd be out of the playoffs. If your position is that Garrett would run it slightly more and still screw the team out of wins if he was calling plays now, congrats, I agree with that.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I'm unfamiliar with this "2008" argument. What is this all about?

 

[Smitty]

He ran it SLIGHTLY more in 2008.

He ran it 401 times that year, followed by 430 or so in 2009, after which the line fell into serious decline.

So the difference between 2013 (his low) and 2009 (what I'd call the midpoint) is about the same difference between the midpoint and this year (the high).

It's not an inconsequential difference, it's a substantial one.

If we only ran it 400 times in 2014 we'd be out of the playoffs.

What if we ran it 440 times? There is no way to know such things. We had 508 carries this year..

If your position is that Garrett would run it slightly more and still screw the team out of wins if he was calling plays now, congrats, I agree with that.

Where have you been? That's been basically my position all along.

I have never said we'd have run it just as much this year without Linehan.

What I keep taking issue with is your clearly erroneous statement that "he would have called it the same way as in 2013 because that's what he wants." No. Wrong. He had run it 100 times more than his 2013 low in other seasons; that's not "slightly" more, it's substantially more, making up half the difference between 2013's low and 2014's high.

If you want to say that Linehan has been a positive impact then say that and leave out the hyperbole; but it's OBVIOUS that personnel was a prime factor in why Garrett ran so little in 2012 and 2013 and it's also OBVIOUS that he would not have called 330 runs this season without Linehan.... Probably more like 420-440.

Would we have still made the playoffs? I don't know and neither do you. I'll give you that we are better with Linehan, but that is all anyone can honestly say.

 

[Smitty]

I'm unfamiliar with this "2008" argument.

That has been obvious to me for pages.

 

[Clay_Allison]

He ran it 401 times that year, followed by 430 or so in 2009, after which the line fell into serious decline.

So the difference between 2013 (his low) and 2009 (what I'd call the midpoint) is about the same difference between the midpoint and this year (the high).

It's not an inconsequential difference, it's a substantial one.



What if we ran it 440 times? There is no way to know such things. We had 508 carries this year..



Where have you been? That's been basically my position all along.

I have never said we'd have run it just as much this year without Linehan.

What I keep taking issue with is your clearly erroneous statement that "he would have called it the same way as in 2013 because that's what he wants." No. Wrong. He had run it 100 times more than his 2013 low in other seasons; that's not "slightly" more, it's substantially more, making up half the difference between 2013's low and 2014's high.

If you want to say that Linehan has been a positive impact then say that and leave out the hyperbole; but it's OBVIOUS that personnel was a prime factor in why Garrett ran so little in 2012 and 2013 and it's also OBVIOUS that he would not have called 330 runs this season without Linehan.... Probably more like 420-440.

Would we have still made the playoffs? I don't know and neither do you. I'll give you that we are better with Linehan, but that is all anyone can honestly say.

Abandoning the run in crucial game situations would definitely happen, whether that meant 70 fewer runs or 120 or 160. Games like Seattle, where it was crucial for us to stick with the run, would have been the perfect time for an "aggressive" 4th quarter meltdown.

Regardless of the other side arguments and little admissions (I'm not saying he's not pass happy, I'm not saying he didn't screw up the GB game) you're still clinging to the idea that Garrett is a good play caller, and he's not. He tried it for 6 years and he was a bad play caller with a QB who could improvise when his plays didn't work.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That has been obvious to me for pages.

So you aren't going to explain it?

 

[Smitty]

Abandoning the run in crucial game situations would definitely happen, whether that meant 70 fewer runs or 120 or 160. Games like Seattle, where it was crucial for us to stick with the run, would have been the perfect time for an "aggressive" 4th quarter meltdown.

Maybe. We don't really know that for sure. You would have to be pretty stupid to ignore a weapon like our OL, and it's becoming harder to sell that Garrett is a complete idiot.

Regardless of the other side arguments and little admissions (I'm not saying he's not pass happy, I'm not saying he didn't screw up the GB game) you're still clinging to the idea that Garrett is a good play caller, and he's not. He tried it for 6 years and he was a bad play caller with a QB who could improvise when his plays didn't work.

Where did I say that? Were we even talking about that?

He's not as bad as you claim he is; that much is evidenced when you keep assuming every year would be 2013.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Not the "worst coach in the league" as I was so often told.

 

[Smitty]

So you aren't going to explain it?

I've explained it many times. I suspect you missed it when you simply joined the rush to slam anything that sounded remotely pro-Garrett without bothering to actually understand it.

It's above on this page again if you look.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Well I've been here for like two weeks, so I don't know what this longstanding case of yours is. If you don't want to explain it again, fine.

But it has to be more than what you said in post #87 of this thread.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Maybe. We don't really know that for sure. You would have to be pretty stupid to ignore a weapon like our OL, and it's becoming harder to sell that Garrett is a complete idiot.

He's shown himself to be a complete idiot calling plays. He's blown leads so badly that it looked like he bet on the other team.

Where did I say that? Were we even talking about that?

He's not as bad as you claim he is; that much is evidenced when you keep assuming every year would be 2013.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Not the "worst coach in the league" as I was so often told.

I never said he was the worst coach in the league. I did say he was the worst continuously employed OC in the league and anyone else would have gotten fired for how badly he managed the offense. Then he did get fired as playcaller, then we went from 8-8 to 12-4. You can say that's a coincidence, but it isn't.

 

[Smitty]

So we agree that he wouldn't have run it 330-350 times this year without Linehan then, yes?

And therefore the difference is largely personnel based, specifically the addition of All Pro Martin PLUS development from Frederick and Leary? (Ps... Leary has really taken a huge leap. There was legitimage question entering training camp whether he or Bernadeau was better)

 

[data]

Both sides have had fair and just opportunity to present their arguments. I think I'm going to create a poll to determine the guilt or not guilt of Garrett's reluctance to run being more based on philosophy than personnel.

 

[Clay_Allison]

So we agree that he wouldn't have run it 330-350 times this year without Linehan then, yes?

And therefore the difference is largely personnel based, specifically the addition of All Pro Martin PLUS development from Frederick and Leary? (Ps... Leary has really taken a huge leap. There was legitimage question entering training camp whether he or Bernadeau was better)

We were still running it well in 2013 with that personnel. No matter how much you pretend we weren't. Murray made the pro bowl behind the 2013 offensive line. That's what's really dishonest about your argument. Not running in the second half of 2013 had NOTHING to do with Martin not being here or Leary's development. The ZBS was working. Garrett just didn't want to use it. Maybe because he hates running, maybe because of his little power struggle with Callahan and not wanting to let him get credit for the new, effective part of the offense.

It happened. He refused to use an effective running game. It got him fired as play caller.

 

[jsmith6919]

Both sides have had fair and just opportunity to present their arguments. I think I'm going to create a poll to determine the guilt or not guilt of Garrett's reluctance to run being more based on philosophy than personnel.

Good idea, that should settle this

 

[Smitty]

We were still running it well in 2013 with that personnel. No matter how much you pretend we weren't. Murray made the pro bowl behind the 2013 offensive line. That's what's really dishonest about your argument.

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.

Not running in the second half of 2013 had NOTHING to do with Martin not being here or Leary's development. The ZBS was working. Garrett just didn't want to use it. Maybe because he hates running, maybe because of his little power struggle with Callahan and not wanting to let him get credit for the new, effective part of the offense.

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.

It happened. He refused to use an effective running game. It got him fired as play caller.

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.

 

[boozeman]

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.

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.