The Dallas Cowboys appear to be in search of a new play-caller on offense. With that search comes speculation that they might actually try a new scheme, possibly some version of a spread offense.

Yet, many people still labor under a false understanding of what spread offenses are all about and thus fear such a transition.

Here are six myths about the spread offense as it would pertain to Dallas, debunked:

 

A spread offense would be a radical departure from how Dallas scores points and therefore require too much time for the team to adapt.

Actually, the Cowboys did a great deal of scoring from spread formations, after they had fallen behind and had abandoned their game plan. Romo led the league in fourth quarter comebacks and fourth quarter scoring. Much of that came out of a spread.

The problem with Dallas is 2012 was a failure to realize that their spread formations, combined with Romo running the hurry-up, were their most powerful means of scoring. Had they used the spread more like the Patriots, Packers and Saints do, they wouldn't have been so far behind so often.

As far as learning a new scheme: RGIII, Andrew Luck and Russel Wilson all came in as rookies, learned an all new system and took their teams to the playoffs. What's more, those entire teams had to adjust to changes in their schemes that were created to tailor them to the new QBs.

These are professional football players, they can learn a new scheme in an offseason.

 

A spread offense would mean less running, marginalizing the great weapon we have in DeMarco Murray.

You can run the ball as much as you like from the spread.

Murray racked up all his yards at Oklahoma running in Bob Stoops' spread offense. He holds the school record for receiving yards by a running back, as well as the yards from scrimmage record. And he is 6th all time in rushing at Oklahoma. Adrian Peterson is third all time at Oklahoma and he also got his yards running in Stoops' spread offense. He did it only three years. Obviously the spread offense didn't hold him back.

The New England Patriots run a spread offense and they were seventh in the league in rushing this year. Dallas was 31st. 

In the spread offense, the backs have the potential for larger running lanes to pick from because the defense is so spread out. 

Successful teams shape their spread offense to the players they have. A smart offensive coordinator would get Murray over 20 touches a game. In 2012, when Murray had 20-plus touches per game, running and catching combined, Dallas was undefeated. In the games where he had fewer than 20 touches, Dallas was 1-7.

 

Romo throws too many picks as it is. Running the spread means that he would be throwing more interceptions.

Romo's career interception percentage is 2.8. Ben Roethlisberger, who has two Super Bowl rings, has a 3.1. Eli Manning, who also has two rings: 3.2. John Elway, who also has two rings: 3.1.

No one can say if Romo will ever get Dallas to a Super Bowl and win it. It takes a certain kind of mentality to do that and until Romo does it, few will believe that he can.

But the reality is that a spread offense creates more one-on-one coverage and more mismatches. That is precisely what it was designed for. More wide-open receivers mean fewer interceptions.

Romo lead the league in fourth quarter comebacks this year, primarily while operating in a spread formation. That wouldn't have happened if he were throwing picks from that formation all the time.

Yes, we all witnessed his terrible game against Washington.

But for his career, Romo has the highest Fourth Quarter Passer Rating of all active NFL QBs. His stats are better than Aaron Rodgers, both Manning brothers and Tom Brady in the fourth quarter.

Does that mean he's clutch? Nope. You want to be considered clutch, you have to make the plays in the biggest games.

It may well be that Romo can't be counted on to avoid the costly mistake in elimination games when trying to mount a comeback in the fourth quarter. Which is all the more reason to have the foot on the offensive accelerator the entire game, so that he's playing with a lead to close out the game.

And again, the threat of the passing attack in the spread makes it easier to run the ball, just ask Murray, he benefited from it at Oklahoma. You don't have to throw more from the spread.

 

The spread offense won't work because the O-line is so bad

You have to fix the offensive line anyway! No scheme is going to work with this line. But while you're fixing the line, why on earth wouldn't you upgrade to a scheme that has proven year in and year out to score more points than the tired old Garrett/Turner/Coryelle scheme?

Also, bringing in a new coordinator and/or head coach to run the spread would mean bringing in new talent evaluators to sign offensive linemen that can actually block.

 

The spread offense is just a fad and it can't win super bowls

Really? Try telling that to Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. Both of them run offenses that make liberal use of spread formations and both of them have Super Bowl rings. The Patriots have been to two Super Bowls since installing their version of the spread.

Did the Giants beat the Patriots "trendy" spread offense by using a conservative offensive scheme in Super Bowl XLII?

No, the Giants were losing by four, with a minute to go, when they used a four wide-out spread formation and a miracle deep bomb to get into position to win the game. In their next Super Bowl matchup, the Giants were again trailing late in the fourth when Manning threw up another bomb out of a spread formation, this time to Manningham, to kick start their game-winning drive.

So the myth that the spread offense lost to a more conventional offense is false. When the game was on the line, the Patriots defense lost because the Giants deployed spread formations that they couldn't handle.  But the Patriots only got to those Super Bowls in the first place because they ran a spread offense.

All NFL offenses use some spread offense in their schemes. The question is: when and how often do they go to those spread formations and the no-huddle? Do they wait until they are behind or do they use them to put defenses on their heels and gain an early lead.

With Garrett, he waited. Which is why you're reading an article about what their new offense should look like, instead of reading about their playoff chances.

 

The spread offense exposes your defense by not controlling time of possession.

Here is a fun fact about time-of-possession from this year: For the whole year, Dallas held the ball five seconds longer on offense than New England, yet New England ran 142 more plays than Dallas and scored 181 more points.Think about that: with five seconds less clock time in 2012, New England scored 181 more points than Dallas.

New England also had a very good scoring defense this year. They tied with Houston for the 9th fewest points given up. The Patriots run a spread offense and yet their defense is tied with the Texans vaunted defense in the most important stat, points allowed.

Right behind New England in points defense is the Green Bay Packers, also a spread team, who just won another playoff game.

In the modern NFL, the real way you protect your defense is score points. The rules favor the passing teams so much that it's very difficult to shut the other team down the entire game. Most teams have what it takes to put together a few scoring drives.

When a defense is always playing from behind or tied, it has to defend the run and the pass. When the defense is playing with a lead, it can go after the passer and not be as concerned about the run, making it easier for the secondary to get interceptions and making it easier for the pass-rushers to get strip-sacks.

A spread offense in Dallas, whether it looks more like the Saints, Packers or Patriots, would lead to more halftime leads and larger leads in general. It would give Dallas' defense more opportunities to create turnovers because it would force opposing teams to play from behind.

Isn't that a good thing, or am I missing something?