So Romo called the play to o-tree on 3rd and 1?

[Cowboy4ever]

Originally Posted by TheCount

You've never heard of a high-percentage pass? Ok. They exist, though.

That's not what we threw, but it's what I expected us to run coming up to the line given our dismal short yardage running game performance in the two prior goal line situations earlier in the game. (Where we had to resort to the naked boot and the naked boot-TE toss in order to 'punch' it in---both great play calls in that situation, by the way).

It doesn't matter what our average is as long as it's over 1 yard per carry.

We needed one yard with 3 attempts, it's not something that needs to be overanalyzed. If you think they played it well, that's fine. I disagree.[/quote]


And if Garrett had ran it 4 times in a row and got stonewalled 4 times in a row, I am sure you would have disagreed with that as well. It seems that the result is what everyone disagrees with, I don't like the results either but to sit there and say it was a horrible call is just not correct. Given the situation, given the Defense, it was not a bad call. It didn't result in what he, you or I wanted but that doesn't make it a bad call.

[Idgit]

It doesn't matter what our average is as long as it's over 1 yard per carry.

We needed one yard with 3 attempts, it's not something that needs to be overanalyzed. If you think they played it well, that's fine. I disagree.

Nobody's overanalyzing anything. And I obviously didn't say we nailed it. What I think was that it was a legitimate decision to pass the ball in that situation, and people who think otherwise either weren't watching what happens to a 6'5" C in short yardage and weren't aware that we repeatedly couldn't get that single yard when we needed it against that same front on two different drives earlier in the same game.

I'm with you, though, in wishing we'd called a play that worked. Unfortunately, the game's complicated and we can't just mail in an analysis by saying we should be calling more stuff that works. Technically, it may be true, but it's just not all that helpful.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by rangers71

So now we play the game 7 on 11 according to you? You say don't throw to an inconsistent receiver? Well that takes Dez who doesn't know the plays, Witten who leads the league in drops, Tree who can't run proper routes, and Felix who flat out sucks out of the play. Damn now wonder we can't win a game with that on offense every play. Also according to your logic what would you have done if the defender fell down and tree was wide open in the end zone? Well we can't throw to him because he is inconsistent and Romo can't throw he fade(despite the fact the ball hit Tree's hand).

This is not completely true IMO. I think your point about Dez is valid but everybody knows that the stats on Witten are skewed due to injury. I think that over the last few weeks, he has shown to be recovered and is no longer a risk in the passing game.

The problem that I have is not who he threw to. It's what has been discussed several times in this and other threads. It's the entire approach we took to the situation. Even if you say that we can't run the ball, which I don't entirely agree with, the point is that you have to run the ball if just to keep the defense honest. I think that it was a serious mistake not to try and run the ball to pick up that first down. It only makes it easier for the defense and by not doing that, you open yourself up to criticism from all directions. That's what you buy when you make the decision not to run the ball. JMO

[Oh_Canada]

Originally Posted by GusTheo

You guys are nuts saying you don't leave Eli time. Obviously we'd like to leave him as little time as possible. But at the end of the day we didn't score on that drive. What situation would you rather have, being ahead with Eli having the ball, or not scoring at all. You score when you can. It's not like we were tied or a fg would bring us to tie/win. When you need a TD you take it when you can get it. You don't get cute.

Well you're acting like Otree was running free down the sideline while the corner was off to the sideline having a soda. That throw is a low percentage play at the best of times, let alone when you are hoping an average third wr is the guy you're counting on to win that battle.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by MaineBoy

Sorry I can't get link to paste with iPad but in newszone broadus is reporting that Romo had option for a running play or pass play and checked off in to a pass play. Then Romo locked on to the low percentage throw to o- tree instead of hitting Austin dragging over the middle for the easy first down ? I wanted Red dead because of that call and it turned out to be Romo ???!!!!

I've had sympathy for Romo till this point with our o-line and dumb receivers. But to have a veteran quarterback make that decision in that situation makes Romo a huge part of the problem. Moronic idiot decision that probably cost us the game.

Haven't read the whole thread but..........great play call..wrong route.

The flat was cleared out and Ogletree was supposed to take the inside. He chose the outside, squeezed himself into the corner and left little room for Romo to connect. Go back and look at the play. He takes the inside and it's 6. IF he catches it.



This is the kind of stuff these guys do, wrong, consistently. Very frustrating.


Apologies if this has already been noted.

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by Cowboy4ever

And if Garrett had ran it 4 times in a row and got stonewalled 4 times in a row, I am sure you would have disagreed with that as well. It seems that the result is what everyone disagrees with, I don't like the results either but to sit there and say it was a horrible call is just not correct. Given the situation, given the Defense, it was not a bad call. It didn't result in what he, you or I wanted but that doesn't make it a bad call.

Please don't pretend that you know me, it's embarrassing for both of us.

[Zman5]

Originally Posted by rangers71

So now we play the game 7 on 11 according to you? You say don't throw to an inconsistent receiver? Well that takes Dez who doesn't know the plays, Witten who leads the league in drops, Tree who can't run proper routes, and Felix who flat out sucks out of the play. Damn now wonder we can't win a game with that on offense every play. Also according to your logic what would you have done if the defender fell down and tree was wide open in the end zone? Well we can't throw to him because he is inconsistent and Romo can't throw he fade(despite the fact the ball hit Tree's hand).

It's called playing your percentages. Look it up. It's a simple concept.

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Nobody's overanalyzing anything. And I obviously didn't say we nailed it. What I think was that it was a legitimate decision to pass the ball in that situation, and people who think otherwise either weren't watching what happens to a 6'5" C in short yardage and weren't aware that we repeatedly couldn't get that single yard when we needed it against that same front on two different drives earlier in the same game.

I'm with you, though, in wishing we'd called a play that worked. Unfortunately, the game's complicated and we can't just mail in an analysis by saying we should be calling more stuff that works. Technically, it may be true, but it's just not all that helpful.

Haven't seen this much passive aggression since my last girlfriend but glad you're "with me".

[rangers71]

Originally Posted by Zman5

It's called playing your percentages. Look it up. It's a simple concept.

Thanks for making my point. 1 on 1 coverage is playing the percentage. That is what you look for in the game of football. It's called match ups. We had rushed for 15 yards all game. Again playing the percentages. Get a clue!!!

[rangers71]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

This is not completely true IMO. I think your point about Dez is valid but everybody knows that the stats on Witten are skewed due to injury. I think that over the last few weeks, he has shown to be recovered and is no longer a risk in the passing game.

The problem that I have is not who he threw to. It's what has been discussed several times in this and other threads. It's the entire approach we took to the situation. Even if you say that we can't run the ball, which I don't entirely agree with, the point is that you have to run the ball if just to keep the defense honest. I think that it was a serious mistake not to try and run the ball to pick up that first down. It only makes it easier for the defense and by not doing that, you open yourself up to criticism from all directions. That's what you buy when you make the decision not to run the ball. JMO

I really don't believe that about Witten I was just trying to point out by his logic we can't trust anyone because of the inconsistency on offense.

[Zman5]

Originally Posted by rangers71

Thanks for making my point. 1 on 1 coverage is playing the percentage. That is what you look for in the game of football. It's called match ups. We had rushed for 15 yards all game. Again playing the percentages. Get a clue!!!

Long pass to a 3rd receiver who hasn't caught a ball on 3rd and 1 is playing high percentages? I wish I can play poker with you. I think it's you who need to get a clue.

[ufcrules1]

Originally Posted by Zman5

Long pass to a 3rd receiver who hasn't caught a ball on 3rd and 1 is playing high percentages? I wish I can play poker with you. I think it's you who need to get a clue.

If you played poker with him you would have to give him some gas money to get home....

[fifaguy]

Originally Posted by MaineBoy

Sorry I can't get link to paste with iPad but in newszone broadus is reporting that Romo had option for a running play or pass play and checked off in to a pass play. Then Romo locked on to the low percentage throw to o- tree instead of hitting Austin dragging over the middle for the easy first down ? I wanted Red dead because of that call and it turned out to be Romo ???!!!!

I've had sympathy for Romo till this point with our o-line and dumb receivers. But to have a veteran quarterback make that decision in that situation makes Romo a huge part of the problem. Moronic idiot decision that probably cost us the game.

given that tree has not been producing I cannot understand why they even considered throwing to him on that critical play...

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by fifaguy

given that tree has not been producing I cannot understand why they even considered throwing to him on that critical play...

To be fair, that exact throw put us into field goal range against the Ravens when he was interfered with.

That said, I feel like Romo threw a catchable ball into tight coverage. Our WRs get paid NFL money to be NFL professional receivers and frankly do not play like it. Every week this season the WR core has been responsible for some major issue.

[fifaguy]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

To be fair, that exact throw put us into field goal range against the Ravens when he was interfered with.

That said, I feel like Romo threw a catchable ball into tight coverage. Our WRs get paid NFL money to be NFL professional receivers and frankly do not play like it. Every week this season the WR core has been responsible for some major issue.

i wouldn't have thrown to him anyway...