Breaking down the three biggest critiques of the Cowboys' loss to the Packers

[bbgun]

FRISCO -- In trying to come to grips with how the Cowboys could fail to advance to the NFC Championship Game -- again -- several criticisms keep bubbling to the surface on social media and elsewhere.

Hey, what else is there to do? The Cowboys won't play another game that matters for eight months. A prolonged postmortem on the loss to Green Bay is time appropriate.

Let's explore the validity of three critiques that have gained the most traction.

One

The Cowboys would have beaten the Packers if they had stuck to the run game.

Why did the Cowboys ignore Ezekiel Elliott? Why didn't they pound the rookie 30 or more times into the heart of a soft Green Bay defense?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the Cowboys falling behind 21-3? Wild guess: The coaching staff determined it wasn't in the team's best interests to run when it entered the fourth quarter down 15 points.

The Cowboys are a running team. That's their identity. As head coach Jason Garrett is fond of saying, its line one.

But that doesn't mean it runs regardless of circumstance or at the expense of favorable matchups through the air.

Elliott gained 71 of his 125 yards in the first and third quarter. The Cowboys scored a total of three points in those quarters.

Dallas got a late start on its way to a shootout. The Cowboys had to catch up on the scoreboard, or at least get in the vicinity, before they could return to the run game and a more balanced attack.

Are there specific plays or sequences you can point to and say the Cowboys should have run the ball? Sure. The Cowboys had a first down on the Packers' 15-yard line with 1:19 left in the first half and threw three consecutive incomplete passes to tight end Jason Witten rather than run Elliott. Dallas had to settle for a field goal and give the ball back to Green Bay with a minute left.

Dak Prescott had the option to run or pass on second-and-1 at the Packers' 19-yard line in the third quarter and elected to pass. It was intercepted.

The Cowboys didn't lose on Sunday because they didn't run enough. They were as persistent as they could be on the ground given the situation.

Two

The Cowboys should have run a play instead of spiking the ball with 49 seconds remaining.

Garrett explained that the objective on that possession was to score a touchdown, not settle for a field goal. He wanted to save the team's final timeout so Prescott had the freedom to throw the ball anywhere on the field.

Why not run a play? Garrett projects that would have taken 10 to 15 seconds off the clock and left the offense in a bind.

"In those situations if you can quiet everything down by saying, 'OK, let's take a breath, we're in great position right now' ... that's what we were trying to do there,'' Garrett said.

Even if it had taken 10 to 15 seconds to run that initial play -- an estimate that seems generous -- the Cowboys still would have been left with enough time for a field goal and less time for the Packers to respond.

Owner Jerry Jones has said he believes the extra play was more valuable at that stage of the game than the additional time. Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre came out Tuesday and said he would have preferred the play.

It's hard to argue.

Three

The Cowboys should have blitzed Aaron Rodgers on the play that led to the game winning field goal.

Green Bay had a third-and-20 from its 32-yard line with 12 seconds left. Blitz? Too risky, especially for a Cowboys team that rarely blitzes. That's why they rushed three and went with a cover two.

Sometimes, a defense is in the proper coverage and the quarterback and the receiver, in this case tight end Jared Cook, make an exceptional play.

"There are always things you can do better on every play, so this idea that we did everything perfectly, that's pretty rare with 11 guys having 11 different responsibilities on any given play,'' Garrett said. "Having said that, there are a lot of plays in that game where you felt like you guarded them well, we had defenders right there and he made a big-time throw and he made a big-time contested catch.

"That was one of those situations.''

Strategic flaws or major blunders in execution don't always lead to defeat.

Sometimes, the other team just makes a great play.

 

[Doomsday]

Garrett explained that the objective on that possession was to score a touchdown, not settle for a field goal. He wanted to save the team's final timeout so Prescott had the freedom to throw the ball anywhere on the field.

That is NOT what he fucking SAID! Who is this Goebbels piece of shit writing this?

 

[theoneandonly]

Translation: The coaching staff is being scrutinized again as it should be, and I think most impartial media types have figured out Garrett is the road to nowhere. The only question who is more responsible, the staff or lack of talent on defense.

 

[yimyammer]

That is NOT what he fucking SAID! Who is this Goebbels piece of shit writing this?

Which part? I listened to the PC and he did say the goal was to score a TD there, I cant recall what he said about the timeout.

 

[Doomsday]

I cant recall what he said about the timeout.

Said he was preserving it for the FG. That means in his idiot head the FG WAS the objective. Not the TD.

 

[MrB]

That is NOT what he fucking SAID! Who is this Goebbels piece of shit writing this?

No shit. And if they were so hell bent on going for the TD and the win why the hell did they kick a FG? Spiking it only makes sense if they were going to go for it on 4th down.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That last play was more about the Packers being the right situation as opposed to Dallas. Byron Jones completely goofed on that coverage, letting Cook get clean behind him.

 

[MrB]

That last play was more about the Packers being the right situation as opposed to Dallas. Byron Jones completely goofed on that coverage, letting Cook get clean behind him.

Irving got held and taken to the ground on that play too.

 

[dbair1967]

That last play was more about the Packers being the right situation as opposed to Dallas. Byron Jones completely goofed on that coverage, letting Cook get clean behind him.

I think after watching the coaches film, Campo and Broaddus are saying otherwise now. I'll try to find what I was reading on it.

 

[dbair1967]

Irving got held and taken to the ground on that play too.

Yep

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think after watching the coaches film, Campo and Broaddus are saying otherwise now. I'll try to find what I was reading on it.

OK. Then they should have been in man coverage then.

 

[Midswat]

Completely disagree with the first paragraph re: running, and that we did fine there.

We should have used that first drive to set the tone. Run run run mixed with play action. And certainly don't throw into double coverage on 3rd and two.

We fell be hind 21-3 because we threw too much early. We should have eaten the clock, controlled the ball, and ran the ball down their throats against their depleted defense.

 

[dbair1967]

We fell be hind 21-3 because we threw too much early. We should have eaten the clock, controlled the ball, and ran the ball down their throats against their depleted defense.

They really fell behind 21-3 because the defense couldn't do anything to get off the field on 3rd down, and when they sorta had a chance to get off the field they ruined it with dumb penalties (like that 12 man on the field thing on opening drive)

The Butler penalty took points away from us on the 2nd drive.

 

[English Cowboy]

What the author fails to realize is that it's not so much the amount of carries that Zeke had (though he should have had more), it's the fact that we kept taking him out of the game. This only served to help Green Bay as they knew there was no threat of a run or play-action, and they could prepare for the inevitable pass play. I always believe that you should do what you believe the opposition least wants you to do. I bet the Packers were breathing a sigh of relief, and probably laughing to themselves, when they saw Zeke continually jogging off to the sidelines.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Wow, I said in one of the spike threads it was like Garrett thought, let's take a breath here and think about it. Didn't know he actually said those words.

Like Dooms said, he can claim he was thinking td but that proves he really was thinking we only need a few more yards for the fg, let's not screw it up. But if he says later in an authoritative voice we were thinking td, most people including the media will lap it up. Dude is the biggest fraud of a coach I've ever seen.

 

[Omegasupreme]

Wow, I said in one of the spike threads it was like Garrett thought, let's take a breath here and think about it. Didn't know he actually said those words.

Like Dooms said, he can claim he was thinking td but that proves he really was thinking we only need a few more yards for the fg, let's not screw it up. But if he says later in an authoritative voice we were thinking td, most people including the media will lap it up. Dude is the biggest fraud of a coach I've ever seen.

It's all passive. He has no actual coaching nor winning instincts. Garrett wants time to think things out and plan. His whole coach perspective is passive: "take what the defense gives" is a passive approach. His research of great coaches and thinkers is passive, it's just a bunch of accumulated ideas that he fails to actually use. Running the ball is not passive. Dominating a team at the LOS is not passive but he really has no interest in either. Garrett does not say running is line 1, he says having a "balance" is the most important thing - which actually means that he doesn't want to be bullied into running the ball and wants to make sure nobody forgets to use his passing scheme.

In 2015, Garrett wanted QBs who knew his scheme primarily. He didn't have to take the talent and teach the scheme. Instead, he had the player who knew the schemes but really lacked starting NFL QB talent. Passive.

When Garrett ends the half and to the sideline reporter says, "well we really need to run more", he is masking that "they should have run more" (passivity in hindsight), but what really keeps them from running more? Garrett's scheme does. If the defense presents certain kinds of loading or coverage positions, the Garrett scheme calls for a pass adjustment. It's passive.

The Romo big passing years were mostly 300 yards games with huge mop up yards at the end of each half against prevent defenses. It's almost like Garrett thought it was a guaranteed rule that teams had to defend his scheme in prevent defenses. Teams (Haslett, Capers, etc) figured out that Garrett didn't think teams would blitz against the 2:00 offense. Passive.

We have wasted 3 Division title opportunities in the 8-8 seasons, two Packer playoff games and no aggressive talent acquisition to build the defense because the coach is sits back and waits for things to just be given to him. Passive.

McCarthy and Rodgers pulled Garrett's pants down again because Garrett doesn't have any clue about how coaching happens until after it has already embarrassed his team and then he makes some fictional logic about what he was thinking. Passive.