Messages
2,329
Reaction score
11
A discussion in the Fan Zone contrasting Romo and Cam Newton drew out this kind of argument: "What if Romo had Carolinas defense" which then prompted a "What if Cam had the 2014 Dallas running game and O-line...." type statement. But really my issue has been what happens if you gave Romo a Mike Shula as OC with his playbook? Knowing that at the very least Shula adapts his offense to his players I wanted to see what scheme Shula comes from. This led to this article:

The Erhardt-Perkins system (Part 2) - Baltimore Sports and Life

There are a number of important parts of the article but most relevant to Dallas is that Cam Cameron runs the exact same pass offense that Dallas has been handcuffed to for 8 years now (variation created only by running game plays, players and playcallers). "Handcuffed" means that no matter who the players are they all run the same pass plays - which means that slower players like Patrick Crayton end up running fly routes or Martellus Bennett runs a bubble screen while James Hanna who is the second fastest TE in the NFL stays in and blocks. The main issue is this: it's Jason Garretts offense and it his playbook. Linehan and Callahan both have been clear that they each only have creativity exclusively in the run play design and were each allowed to tweak the offense but it's a playbook that has been not allowed to be changed in scheme or philosophy for the passing game. The problem is just like article states about the Cam Cameron Offense, the Garrett offense truly requires certain kinds of personnel in order to work. Dez is an exception bc he can have blanket coverage and still rip the ball out of a sea of DB arms. But the WRs really need upper tier speed (at or faster than 4.45/40 which is the average speed of the starting CBs in the NFL) in order to get the timing and deep spaces (Mannings Colts and Warners Rams are the only two times in the last 17 years that the Garrett Coryell scheme won a Super Bowl and the slowest high target WR ran a 4.40/40. Dallas does not have that at all.

The article pleads for an offense that adjusts to personnel and that provides the element of surprise. The article also points out the similar inherent weakness that Dallas has in the Garrett "we take what the defense gives us" offense that the defense eventually controls or "calls out" the offense's tendencies. The Coryell offense calls for a strong running game to draw the DB attention to the LOS to open spaces downfield through play action. If the running game is not a threat so play action is useless, the Coryell scheme requires the O-line to hold blocks longer for the WRs to get position. This second notion is where the QB is at risk unless like 2013-2014 where Murray was a check down to the tune of 108 catches in two seasons. However, the Garrett commonly used empty set package disallows RB check downs and still puts your clavicle fragile QB at risk.
During Garrett years, the D-coordinator has changed 4 times with the scheme arguably changing 4 times as well. Why? Did not get the results necessary to contend. Yet despite the flexible Erhardt-Perkins and WCO systems routinely flooding the post season, Jason will not allow his scheme and pass philosophy to change like he has with the defense. Maybe it's Romo's mastery of the offense, maybe it's Jason pride or him knowing that any success of a new offense will point to failure all previous years, or maybe this is all he knows how to instruct.
But whatever it is, 2015 demonstrated a stark need to update and adapt the offense beyond Romo. The lack of speed was exposed, the lack of adaptability was embarrassing and especially that the antiquated philosophy of "take what the defense gives" needs to go the way of the Flat Earth Theory: seems right at first glance but as you really examine globally, it's a limited perception giving minimal options.
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
Doesn't this offense compare favorably with the early 1990s Norv offenses? And the reason its struggling because of lack of correct playmakers, lack of adjustments, and being generally outdated?

Because you point to needing speedy receivers in order to succeed. Irvin wasn't a speed guy. Although he was similar to Dez in that if you put the ball near him he'd catch it (thanks pushoffs)
 

MrB

Draft Pick
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
463
Doesn't this offense compare favorably with the early 1990s Norv offenses? And the reason its struggling because of lack of correct playmakers, lack of adjustments, and being generally outdated?

Because you point to needing speedy receivers in order to succeed. Irvin wasn't a speed guy. Although he was similar to Dez in that if you put the ball near him he'd catch it (thanks pushoffs)

Irvin was a possession receiver. The speed guys (or deep threats) were Alvin Harper, then Kevin Williams. Deion would also play that role from time to time when he was here.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,137
Reaction score
6,210
Irvin made alot of plays downfield, Kevin Williams was a nothing in this offense for the most part. Great return guy but lousy WR.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,137
Reaction score
6,210
Doesn't this offense compare favorably with the early 1990s Norv offenses? And the reason its struggling because of lack of correct playmakers, lack of adjustments, and being generally outdated?

Because you point to needing speedy receivers in order to succeed. Irvin wasn't a speed guy. Although he was similar to Dez in that if you put the ball near him he'd catch it (thanks pushoffs)

Neither Irvin nor Harper were super fast, but both made a lot of plays downfield on flys or posts. The idea that Irvin ran only short routes or got open due to push offs is a joke. Go watch some of the games. He was a superb route runner.

While Garrett's offense is similar scheme wise, the execution is mediocre and the play calling is not as good. Norv was a master of setting up plays later in a game with looks or plays he'd show early. Garrett despite having years as a play caller now is still nowhere near the game manager Norv was.

Then there was the QB position. While Romo is a Houdini and runs up some impressive stats, he is not the leader Aikman was. Romo loves to play the game, but I don't think winning is the most important thing to him. He loves being with the guys and Garrett, whereas Aikman first and foremost wanted to win and demanded perfection from other players. I don't think he cared if he pissed off other guys, where as Romo holds back on that for fear of not being liked IMO.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
I thought part of the point of Omega's post was the importance of the running game -- which of course they had back then with Emmitt -- but which Garrett has modified to the point that under him we have games with ridiculous imbalances like 60 passes and 11 runs.

Besides, people always associate Garrett with Norv partly because they're friends but partly because the political machine that is Garrett has played up the relationship due to the positive association Cowboys fans have with him. But much like with Jimmy, Garrett only played for him for, what, one year. He spent a lot more time under Zampese, just like he spent way more time with Barry and Chan than he did with Jimmy.
 

MrB

Draft Pick
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
463
Irvin made alot of plays downfield, Kevin Williams was a nothing in this offense for the most part. Great return guy but lousy WR.

Irvin made plays down field but blue was not the primary deep threat. Hell he was probably slower than any WR in this draft.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,137
Reaction score
6,210
Irvin made plays down field but blue was not the primary deep threat. Hell he was probably slower than any WR in this draft.

You need to go back and look at some Irvin film then, especially from Miami.
 

MrB

Draft Pick
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
463
You need to go back and look at some Irvin film then, especially from Miami.

Trust me Irvin is my favorite Cowboy of all time. I've seen every play he ever ran several times. Michael Irvin was a great possession receiver. That doesn't mean he never went down field because he did, it just wasn't what he did best. He was not a burner. He was a great route runner and had a QB that could hit a flea right between the eyes. He also was the most physical WR in the NFL for several years. If he had never told his secret of getting open to John Madden he would have probably been allowed to man handle CB's for his entire career.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
55,137
Reaction score
6,210
Trust me Irvin is my favorite Cowboy of all time. I've seen every play he ever ran several times. Michael Irvin was a great possession receiver. That doesn't mean he never went down field because he did, it just wasn't what he did best. He was not a burner. He was a great route runner and had a QB that could hit a flea right between the eyes. He also was the most physical WR in the NFL for several years. If he had never told his secret of getting open to John Madden he would have probably been allowed to man handle CB's for his entire career.


He ran 4.47 or 4.52 depending on what source you find for his pre draft 40 time.

I never said he was a "burner" I said he wasn't slow and made a lot of plays downfield.

This idea some have that only "fast guys" make plays downfield or are absolutely necessary to do so are out of their minds. If that was true guys like Alex Wright, Ed Hervey and Randall Williams would be hall of farmers.
 
Top Bottom