Clock Management or Track Meet?

[UK Cowboy]

Having already lost Lee for the season and Scandrick for the first four games, I think the best way for the Cowboys to compete would be to get back to the Bill Parcells philosophy of most running attempts and time of possession equals victories. The Cowboys should have the OL and running backs in place to pound the football. Running the ball more often would help set up high percentage play action, help keep Romo healthy(imperative), and keep our thin defense off the field. It would shorten the game, and hopefully, keep us close enough that our offense can open up at the end and steal a few. I look at Denver a couple of years back when they went from Orton to Tebow. Denver's vaunted D was a lot more dominant when they were on the field less than half the game.......BUT...I think the Cowboys will use the injuries on D as an excuse to try and outscore people and we will be on the short end of a lot of 38-30's

 

[Eiknarflin]

I agree.

I've never understood the philosophy of trying to outscore an opponent when your team's defense can't stop the opposing offense. Defense wins championships, that much is certain, but when the defense sucks, the offense has to become defensive, not more offensive. The more offensive the offense is, the more the exposed the sucky defense becomes.

This is where Garrett's value as a head coach is diminished all the more. He wants to "outscore" his opponents, rather than reducing his opponent's chances of scoring.

Right now, our offense is the best defense we have. I hope we use it defensively.

 

[es4m11]

I believe this offense will be more ball control oriented with Linehan running the show. The Lions were top 5 in ball control the last two years Linehan was there. I don't think Dallas will be top 5 in ball control with Garrett's influence on the offense, but I do think the Cowboys will be in the top 1/3 of the league.

 

[Manster7588]

We on the boards have called for this for years. If they can't/won't run we may be in for a painful season. I've heard lip service from Jerry and Co. in the past. Let's hope they finally open their eyes, including Romo.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

I'm going to step outside the box for a minute....Last time I write about how bad our defense is until the season starts.

If our defense in the next couple preseason games gets no better than the first (using our full compliment of players), I'd be in favor of trying to gain extra possessions by trying onside kicks.
I forget where I read it, but someone wrote an article a while back. Based on the premise that you did it everytime, you could gain somewhere around two extra possessions per game. Now, I wouldn't want to do it exclusively because if the other team knows its coming, you lose the advantage of surprise. If our defense really is worse this season than last, why not try it a few times a game if our offense really is that special?

The obvious negative is the other team is closer to score points and thus we put our defense at even more of a disadvantage. But on the flip side, if the probability that we're going to give up a score increases by just a little when we do it, who cares? The D probably wouldn't notice the 35 fewer yards if they're that bad anyway. It could actually keep the defense fresher as the amount of field to defend shrinks along with time of possession for our opponent.

Say we score a little better than what we did last year (27.4). That means we'd kick off an average of 5 times a game. How many would you be willing to try? To me it probably depends on the game flow. If we are matching them score for score, Id say do it a lot. If our D is actually holding their own, I'd say maybe once if we need a jolt.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

I'm going to step outside the box for a minute....Last time I write about how bad our defense is until the season starts.

If our defense in the next couple preseason games gets no better than the first (using our full compliment of players), I'd be in favor of trying to gain extra possessions by trying onside kicks.
I forget where I read it, but someone wrote an article a while back. Based on the premise that you did it everytime, you could gain somewhere around two extra possessions per game. Now, I wouldn't want to do it exclusively because if the other team knows its coming, you lose the advantage of surprise. If our defense really is worse this season than last, why not try it a few times a game if our offense really is that special?

The obvious negative is the other team is closer to score points and thus we put our defense at even more of a disadvantage. But on the flip side, if the probability that we're going to give up a score increases by just a little when we do it, who cares? The D probably wouldn't notice the 35 fewer yards if they're that bad anyway. It could actually keep the defense fresher as the amount of field to defend shrinks along with time of possession for our opponent.

Say we score a little better than what we did last year (27.4). That means we'd kick off an average of 5 times a game. How many would you be willing to try? To me it probably depends on the game flow. If we are matching them score for score, Id say do it a lot. If our D is actually holding their own, I'd say maybe once if we need a jolt.

If our defense is going to keep the status quo. I'm all for thinking outside the box in a number of ways.
But they should all fall under the heading of "Unpredictability"

 

[Manster7588]

I'm going to step outside the box for a minute....Last time I write about how bad our defense is until the season starts.

If our defense in the next couple preseason games gets no better than the first (using our full compliment of players), I'd be in favor of trying to gain extra possessions by trying onside kicks.
I forget where I read it, but someone wrote an article a while back. Based on the premise that you did it everytime, you could gain somewhere around two extra possessions per game. Now, I wouldn't want to do it exclusively because if the other team knows its coming, you lose the advantage of surprise. If our defense really is worse this season than last, why not try it a few times a game if our offense really is that special?

The obvious negative is the other team is closer to score points and thus we put our defense at even more of a disadvantage. But on the flip side, if the probability that we're going to give up a score increases by just a little when we do it, who cares? The D probably wouldn't notice the 35 fewer yards if they're that bad anyway. It could actually keep the defense fresher as the amount of field to defend shrinks along with time of possession for our opponent.

Say we score a little better than what we did last year (27.4). That means we'd kick off an average of 5 times a game. How many would you be willing to try? To me it probably depends on the game flow. If we are matching them score for score, Id say do it a lot. If our D is actually holding their own, I'd say maybe once if we need a jolt.

IF what we saw last week is our defense I could see advantages here. If our D is what it is we will have to play bend don't break D anyway. Might as well put the other team on our 40 and use the end zone to try to keep them to FG's, vs 80 yards and hoping to hold them to FG's. It would also get our D off the field quicker.

We just better be sure we don't go 3 and out too often.

 

[jarntt]

I'm going to step outside the box for a minute....Last time I write about how bad our defense is until the season starts.

If our defense in the next couple preseason games gets no better than the first (using our full compliment of players), I'd be in favor of trying to gain extra possessions by trying onside kicks.
I forget where I read it, but someone wrote an article a while back. Based on the premise that you did it everytime, you could gain somewhere around two extra possessions per game. Now, I wouldn't want to do it exclusively because if the other team knows its coming, you lose the advantage of surprise. If our defense really is worse this season than last, why not try it a few times a game if our offense really is that special?

The obvious negative is the other team is closer to score points and thus we put our defense at even more of a disadvantage. But on the flip side, if the probability that we're going to give up a score increases by just a little when we do it, who cares? The D probably wouldn't notice the 35 fewer yards if they're that bad anyway. It could actually keep the defense fresher as the amount of field to defend shrinks along with time of possession for our opponent.

Say we score a little better than what we did last year (27.4). That means we'd kick off an average of 5 times a game. How many would you be willing to try? To me it probably depends on the game flow. If we are matching them score for score, Id say do it a lot. If our D is actually holding their own, I'd say maybe once if we need a jolt.

You answered the question why it would be a horrible idea. Could you imagine how many points we would give up if we onside kicked every time? We need to shorten the game for our defense, not shorten the field...

 

[Manster7588]

You answered the question why it would be a horrible idea. Could you imagine how many points we would give up if we onside kicked every time? We need to shorten the game for our defense, not shorten the field...

Considering he said "if the defense is no better than last week not making the D defend 80 yards may lessen their time on the field by about 5 minutes a game. He also said only onside it a few time a game. What if we recover 1 out 3 and get an extra possession. Additionally buy giving the other team a short field they will score quickly putting their D back on the field hopefully tiring them out.

It's a very risky idea but that's why it's out of the box. I highly doubt we do it

 

[Manster7588]

Romo on running the ball.

"I think what you find is a misconception sometimes that quarterbacks just want to throw," Romo said. "It's far easier to win when you run the ball well. If we can run the ball, and I envision us being able to do that, it's going to take a lot off a lot of different areas in the football team, so I think that's a huge thing we're trying to do is create the environment where we can rely on that in the situations we want to and just be able to continue. To me, that's important."

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Romo on running the ball.

"I think what you find is a misconception sometimes that quarterbacks just want to throw," Romo said. "It's far easier to win when you run the ball well. If we can run the ball, and I envision us being able to do that, it's going to take a lot off a lot of different areas in the football team, so I think that's a huge thing we're trying to do is create the environment where we can rely on that in the situations we want to and just be able to continue. To me, that's important."

Is that code for "as long as we are not down by 21" ?

 

[UK Cowboy]

Is that code for "as long as we are not down by 21" ?

, I think that's code for ''I want us to run it effectively, but still throw it twice as much as we run it''

 

[es4m11]

, I think that's code for ''I want us to run it effectively, but still throw it twice as much as we run it''

That's how it reads to me too.

Romo has no credibility when he says he wants to run the ball more. The team ran effectively last year, and in the second half of the season the rushing offense was very good. Still didn't change much though...

 

[Manster7588]

Is that code for "as long as we are not down by 21" ?

To me it simply says to us fans beating the run the damn ball drums. "We know we need to run the ball. Please shut up about it."

 

[UK Cowboy]

To me it simply says to us fans beating the run the damn ball drums. "We know we need to run the ball. Please shut up about it."

Ha, I'm picturing JG as Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon 2. ''I know what it say....but I don't give a fuck''