Messages
4,604
Reaction score
0
Bob Sturm: Not being play-caller helping Jason Garrett, who will be Cowboys coach for years to come
By Bob Sturm
6:22 pm on October 22, 2014

The Ticket’s Bob Sturm answered Cowboys questions in a chat Wednesday. Here are some highlights.

Question: Aside from Philly, Arizona and Indy, what’s the most problematic game left on the Cowboys’ schedule?

Bob Sturm: At Chicago and At New York better be on that list, too. This is the NFL, so let’s be smart enough not to put anything in the win column prematurely. For some reason, the London game gives me a little odd feeling.

Question: I love how the Cowboys are playing, but i also feel like they needed some really special plays at critical times to get to 6-1. Amazing throws and catches and timely turnovers…the margin is thin in these games. Could easily have 3 or 4 wins and be middle of the pack.

Bob Sturm: I guess it does come down to a play here and there like 3rd and 20 against Seattle. However, very few of these games do not pass the scorecard test. That is, like a boxing match, what would impartial judges say when asked to score the game based on who had the better advantage for more of the game. From that standpoint, most of these wins seem to be games that the Cowboys generally controlled, in my opinion.

Question: Do you think part of the reason we are finally succeeding is Garrett’s influence on the team is starting to come through in year 4?

Bob Sturm: I think Jason Garrett must share in some of the credit. I have a hard time quantifying that credit, because if I was Jerry, I would have fired Jason Garrett after the 2012 season. But, Jerry stuck with him and now it appears that Jason will have the job for many more years as an extension is inevitable. It is clear he has benefited big time from passing off play-calling and being able to focus more on his job as the leader of the team on the sideline and a more macro approach to the job. Play-calling for a coach is just such a big responsibility that it seemed to hinder his entire job.

Question: What should we expect from Lawrence?

Bob Sturm: DeMarcus Lawrence is a very explosive player. He is not that big so he may be a passing downs edge rusher to begin with, but I am excited to get a DE pass rush threat into the mix. I profiled him redraft here:

Question: Michael Sam was worth taking a look at, right? Seems many are acting like it was publicity stunt or money grab for merch, but neither fit the true story here.

Bob Sturm: I guess I have a hard time knowing how to characterize this story. Honestly, given the issues on the DL when September was around, I was fine with them giving him a try, but I also knew from the draft work that he was a very famous player, but also was a classic NFL roster fringe guy. It would be crazy to say he has no chance of ever being a player in the league, but it would also be crazy to not recognize his obvious limitations. I have no idea what to expect next in his career, but the Cowboys who clear $300m a year in profit, do not need money grabs.

Question: Who is our current number-three wide receiver? It seems like Harris has been inconsistent but Beasley hasn’t gotten many targets. I’m not complaining with Dez and Williams lighting it up. Just curious.

Bob Sturm: Complicated answer because #3 can mean different things. If you are asking who is the best fit when they want to have 3 WRs on the field right now, I would say it is absolutely Cole Beasely. His work on 3rd Downs has been very strong and he is a real weapon against teams with depth issues as attrition takes over in the 2nd half of a season. On the other hand, who would most likely substitute in the event of an injury to 88 or 83, well then that would be Devin Street, I assume. Harris is useful and has some packages designed for him, but it seems that PR and KR are his main gigs, and some change up opportunities at WR where he is a very good blocker.

Question: Statistically, this defense seems identical to last year’s, except worse in sacks. Why are people raving about it so much? It seems like we’re due for a big letdown if the offense slips even a little bit.

Bob Sturm: It is a delicate balance. Remember, in the worst defensive season in franchise history last year, this team was one FG from the playoffs in which they would have hosted a home game (against the Saints, I believe). Instead, they failed on that last drive when Kyle Orton threw an INT and we threw everything in the dumpster. I realize that the defense is not winning easily, but their battle and scheme and rotational upgrades seem to say it is better than last year. I am clearly an advocate of a widespread talent infusion on the defense next spring, but this is a feisty bunch that will fight you hard.

Question: Any idea why opposing defenses are unable to stop Romo from moving to the outside, since he does it every time there’s someone on his blind side?

Bob Sturm: Well, I am sure they know his tendencies, but 2 things: 1) he is way more athletic with his improvs than people think until it happens in front of them. 2) even though he spins to the same place every time, back and to the left, it is a safe spot where pass rushers never come from. I imagine some day he will get decked doing that, but so far, so good.

Question: What did you think of Parnell in the game? Seemed like they were giving him a lot of TE help.

Bob Sturm: I thought he was pretty good. Really good with the run and passable with protection. He had some help, but I would actually not consider it more than a normal amount of Doug Free help.

Question: Have the Cowboys played Colt McCoy before? I can’t remember. Can you foresee a big day for the Dallas-D?

Bob Sturm: This will be the first Cowboys vs Colt McCoy matchup ever. I can absolutely see a big day from the Cowboys, but McCoy I am sure would love to rain on that parade. And he has some weapons that can make that happen. Last week, they played a QB with limited skill players. This week it is a limited QB with pretty solid skill players.

Question: How much better is this Dallas Cowboys football team if Jesse Holley is still on it? Did you see LFC today?

Bob Sturm: I would say I enjoyed the Jesse Holley era while it lasted. #GoodDude And yes, I saw that Liverpool did not teach Real Madrid a lesson.

Question: I think the defense can’t really hold up until we have some true pass rushers. You think Demarcus Lawrence is really the answer?

Bob Sturm: Personally, it would be disingenuous for me to suggest that Lawrence is the answer for a pass rush. He will play 8-9 games and if he gives you 3 sacks in 2014, that should be considered impressive. I liked him at Boise, but I didn’t love him. I did question the idea of moving up because I didn’t see him being worth 2 starters. But, the Cowboys did. So, let’s see. The one thing it means, though, is less of Jeremy Mincey, most likely. And for my money, Mincey has done ok.

Question: just curious when you guys were at camp did you not see anything on the cowboys to show that they could be this good? did all signs to you point to 6-10?

Bob Sturm: I have been to 17 training camps and honestly, there is very little from a practice or a scrimmage that I have ever seen that equates to wins and losses. Even the coaches and the scouts have to wait and see what this means against the other 31 teams, so media members can speculate all we want, but we are generally going on what we think this team is going to have.
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
I think that is the biggest impact so far.

Garrett held the offense back and I think his involvement limited his effectiveness as a HC. It was too much for a coach who was under qualified for the job in the first place. Plus, he was too chummy with Romo and made it too easy for the offense to get one dimensional (giving Romo the run/pass check at the line). Plus they both were comfortable getting pass happy so there was no incentive to change. Mosley had an article about that this morning

I hear a lot of stuff about how going run heavy was a Garrett "plan". Well so was the two TE offense, being more balanced, etc. The truth is that he simply was incapable of executing his plan. He needed someone else (Linehan) to actually do it. It ends up helping the whole team because it limits the defense to exposure too
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
I think that is the biggest impact so far.

Garrett held the offense back and I think his involvement limited his effectiveness as a HC. It was too much for a coach who was under qualified for the job in the first place. Plus, he was too chummy with Romo and made it too easy for the offense to get one dimensional (giving Romo the run/pass check at the line). Plus they both were comfortable getting pass happy so there was no incentive to change. Mosley had an article about that this morning

I hear a lot of stuff about how going run heavy was a Garrett "plan". Well so was the two TE offense, being more balanced, etc. The truth is that he simply was incapable of executing his plan. He needed someone else (Linehan) to actually do it. It ends up helping the whole team because it limits the defense to exposure too

Agree with most of this, but to me its still comical to read things like the bolded because the vast majority of people said adding Linehan would make the pass heavy playcalling WORSE, not better. (For the record, I was not one of those however)
 
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
22
I think that is the biggest impact so far.

Garrett held the offense back and I think his involvement limited his effectiveness as a HC. It was too much for a coach who was under qualified for the job in the first place. Plus, he was too chummy with Romo and made it too easy for the offense to get one dimensional (giving Romo the run/pass check at the line). Plus they both were comfortable getting pass happy so there was no incentive to change. Mosley had an article about that this morning

I hear a lot of stuff about how going run heavy was a Garrett "plan". Well so was the two TE offense, being more balanced, etc. The truth is that he simply was incapable of executing his plan. He needed someone else (Linehan) to actually do it. It ends up helping the whole team because it limits the defense to exposure too

True. I also think that the current OL makes it easier to go run heavy. I know the yards per rush average was strong last year, but an extra year of experience for Frederick and the addition of Martin makes it even easier (a no brainer) to trust in the running game.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
But again, the OL last year was really good. The difference between Martin and Berndadeau isn't so great that it transforms the nature of an entire offense.

I still think it's as simple as a commitment to it. Running the ball is something that you can't dabble around the edges, you have to really keep at it. And every OL in football gets pumped up at getting to fire out and hit someone instead of dropping back and being on the defensive all day.

And to what dbair said... Maybe even some of us Garrett haters underestimated how lousy he was. Linehan is good but nothing special and he's still far better than Red Jesus.

The problem I have with giving him too much credit is this: What spare head coach couldn't do this with Marinelli and Linehan doing basically everything on defense and offense? The real story to me is Marinelli getting the absolute maximum out of a bunch of mutts and Tony playing great. Of course any QB is going to make fewer mistakes when he's not throwing it 50 times a game.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
22
But again, the OL last year was really good. The difference between Martin and Berndadeau isn't so great that it transforms the nature of an entire offense.

I still think it's as simple as a commitment to it. Running the ball is something that you can't dabble around the edges, you have to really keep at it. And every OL in football gets pumped up at getting to fire out and hit someone instead of dropping back and being on the defensive.

I think you minimize the upgrade of Martin and the value of the additional year of experience for the other young OL. Last year's OL was quite good, but this one is even better.

I wonder if anyone is keeping statistics on the number of rushing attempts with minus yards (RB tackled for a loss). I don't have the numbers and I could be wrong, but my sense is that these negative running plays have declined this year.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
So let me ask you this: Say one of our guards gets hurt. Say Martin gets a high ankle sprain and can't play for a month. Does that mean we can't even attempt to run the ball anymore? We have to go back to throwing it every 3rd and 2? No way.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,397
Reaction score
3,792
I still think it's as simple as a commitment to it. Running the ball is something that you can't dabble around the edges, you have to really keep at it. And every OL in football gets pumped up at getting to fire out and hit someone instead of dropping back and being on the defensive all day.
Which is exactly how the 90s Cowboys made their no name, misfit o-line work. No first rounders, but many all-pros. Including Nate Newton, who Tex Schramm had advised Jerry not to "waste any time on."
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
But again, the OL last year was really good. The difference between Martin and Berndadeau isn't so great that it transforms the nature of an entire offense.

WTF? You drinking this morning?

Dude, there is a MASSIVE difference between Martin and Bernadeau. There's also a significant difference between a rookie starting C and a guy who had an another offseason and TC in the same system starting the next year. Leary was also a first yr starter last yr and is significantly better now.

I still think it's as simple as a commitment to it. Running the ball is something that you can't dabble around the edges, you have to really keep at it. And every OL in football gets pumped up at getting to fire out and hit someone instead of dropping back and being on the defensive all day.

Thats true too, but so is eliminating negative rush plays. Thats something we have struggled with for years, in addition to running he football in shrot yardage and GL situations. We are better at it now than before.

And to what dbair said... Maybe even some of us Garrett haters underestimated how lousy he was. Linehan is good but nothing special and he's still far better than Red Jesus.

Seems like Linehan is pretty well respected.

The problem I have with giving him too much credit is this: What spare head coach couldn't do this with Marinelli and Linehan doing basically everything on defense and offense? The real story to me is Marinelli getting the absolute maximum out of a bunch of mutts and Tony playing great. Of course any QB is going to make fewer mistakes when he's not throwing it 50 times a game.

LOL...so I guess all HC's that do nothing in terms of play calling are "spare HC's now?
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
So let me ask you this: Say one of our guards gets hurt. Say Martin gets a high ankle sprain and can't play for a month. Does that mean we can't even attempt to run the ball anymore? We have to go back to throwing it every 3rd and 2? No way.

Are Leary and Fred better now or are they same as last yr as first yr starters?

Come on dude, I know you arnt this weak.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
Which is exactly how the 90s Cowboys made their no name, misfit o-line work. No first rounders, but many all-pros. Including Nate Newton, who Tex Schramm had advised Jerry not to "waste any time on."

They were extremely well coached. Tony Wise and then Hudson Houck were elite OL coaches and got a ton out of those guys.

The other thing with them is the RB and QB were both exceptional and were never given the credit they deserved for helping the OL look good.

That said, Stepnoski, Erik Williams and Larry Allen were far from no name misfits.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
Are Leary and Fred better now or are they same as last yr as first yr starters?

Come on dude, I know you arnt this weak.
I'm sure they're a little better, but that isn't the question. The question is are they so vastly improved that it completely changes the nature of your entire offense.

By the last third of the year last year they had plenty of experience anyway. If you really think that we couldn't run the ball vs Green Bay because the line was crap and we can now because it's maybe the best in the league... Well that's crazy. There wasn't that kind of a night to day difference made in less than a year with only one new player.

If our philosophy is that we can't even attempt to run the ball unless we have maybe the best OL in the league, then we're in trouble, because people probably will get hurt.

But that isn't the case. What happened is that Linehan committed to it.
 
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
22
So let me ask you this: Say one of our guards gets hurt. Say Martin gets a high ankle sprain and can't play for a month. Does that mean we can't even attempt to run the ball anymore? We have to go back to throwing it every 3rd and 2? No way.

The Cowboys did run the ball sometimes last year, but clearly not as much as you would have liked. I might agree with you on this to some degree. And at the very least, I definitely didn't like how often the empty backfield set was used last year. I'm guessing you didn't like that much either.

I didn't really answer your question, but that won't prevent me from asking you somethng. :)

Here's two questions for you -

1. Do you believe the Cowboys have invested too many resources in their current offensive line (especially 1st round draft choices)?

2. Do you believe the Cowboys are currently getting a solid return on what they invested in their OL?
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
No, I don't think it's "too many" as long as they're good players, just like pretty much any position.

Still don't think Martin was some absolute necessity, though. Tyron was a great pick but relatively obvious. Frederick is the real gem IMO. Centers are very important and he's great in every way -- strength, intelligence, leadership, all of it. I think we could have done basically just what we're doing with another solid guard instead of Martin while improving our defense.

And obviously that's what the team thought also, since they had Shazier and Donald ahead of Martin.

But things have obviously worked out just fine.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
But that isn't the case. What happened is that Linehan committed to it.

Linehan was just quoted the past week or so in a couple of articles as saying Garrett told him that was what they wanted going forward (when he was hired)
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,397
Reaction score
3,792
They were extremely well coached. Tony Wise and then Hudson Houck were elite OL coaches and got a ton out of those guys.

The other thing with them is the RB and QB were both exceptional and were never given the credit they deserved for helping the OL look good.

That said, Stepnoski, Erik Williams and Larry Allen were far from no name misfits.
It was the fact that they were in attack mode, all the time. Mostly.

Williams was a no-name 3rd rounder, Step was from Pitt and a 3rd round no namer, and Allen was out of Sonoma State - not known as a powerhouse - and was late to the party.

None of the above had their name and their reputation until that line became the "great wall" and Allen came along after this line already had a Super Bowl ring to its credit.

They're all names, now, because of what they did together. None of them were "names" before that. It was the attack you all the time and beat you up SCHEME that made them.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
Williams was a no-name 3rd rounder, Step was from Pitt and a 3rd round no namer, and Allen was out of Sonoma State - not known as a powerhouse - and was late to the party.

.

Just because they were no names to you, doesnt mean they were no names to scouts.

Williams was an elite physical talent as well as Allen, the only reason they went in the 3rd and 2nd rounds was due to the school they went to.

Stepnoksi was a highly regarded C/G prospect from Pitt, which at the time was producing alot of NFL quality talent
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
21,397
Reaction score
3,792
Just because they were no names to you, doesnt mean they were no names to scouts.

Williams was an elite physical talent as well as Allen, the only reason they went in the 3rd and 2nd rounds was due to the school they went to.

Stepnoksi was a highly regarded C/G prospect from Pitt, which at the time was producing alot of NFL quality talent
They were "no names" because they were no names. SO highly regarded, they went in 2nd and 3rd rounds. They greatly OVER-achieved.
 
Top Bottom