Discussion in 'Drama Zone' started by tupperware, Sep 8, 2013.
This is a good point. They don't respect our running game at all.
Romo--or the game plan-- seeded particularly conservative. Maybe he's sensitive to those in the media and even those in the fanbase that have attacked him for being a gunslinger. It sure seemed like 90% of the pass plays went to short or intermediate routes or to checkdowns/screens.
The one interception wasn't Romo's fault. He played in a very restrained, very drive-the-bus fashion. With all the turnovers we had, perhaps that was the best approach.
But we didn't land the knock-out blows. We had virtually zero deep plays.
I'm personally not convinced that Romo is 100% healthy with his back...and that precedes the rib issues that will now come into play. If you looked at his cautionary decision-making, his lack of running around and juking defenders...his hesitancy to throw deep...it didn't even look like Tony Romo out there.
That makes two of us.
The Giants kept everything in front of them, doubled Dez the entire game, and Romo went to Austin (as I said would happen) and Witten. They forced Romo to take all the underneath stuff. He does. He has a pretty good game. We win. And you see this as a reason to be critical of Romo.
What I saw was not as bad as it seems. Romo started out slow, but eventually got going in the first half and had something like 161 yards. Traditionally, the Cowboys slog along until halftime, make adjustments, and come out swinging in the 2nd half, so it was nice to see them fix things in the first half so the offense could get moving. So, Romo was primed for a big second half, but his injury had him at maybe 70%, and the Giants left their two safeties back behind the receivers and we couldn't force them to bring them up. We had a lead, and Tony wasn't going to put the ball out there and risk an interception.
I'm really hoping the x-rays come back negative. Not sure why they didn't do them at halftime.
It's an observation.
Can you imagine how badly Romo would have gotten roasted by these same people had he tried to force the ball into that umbrella coverage?
He took what the Giants gave him. He played the whole game with a lead, threw the ball 49 times without making a mistake that cost them the game, completed over 70% of his passes and had no real running game. To me That is the definition of effective.
I don't think they looked as explosive as we're used too seeing but I think that partially a byproduct of what the Giants were willing to give us combined with some rust. The run game was ineffective so the Giants were able to stick with their game plan and since we weren't down 3 scores there really wasn't any reason to throw it to a doubled Bryant 40 yards down the field. I'll take the win and will wait a few weeks before I worry about the offense.
Maybe. It does seem like a sound game plan to me. Focus on Dez and Witten and not give our run game much respect. I think they know the kind of runner DeMarco is and were willing to take their chances with him. He likes contact, not a take it to the house runner at all. They just said beat us with dink and dunking and relied on us to make mistakes. Makes sense.
Romo waits too long to snap the ball. You aren't going to catch the defense off guard if you're always letting the play-clock run down to 3 until you snap. We need to pick up the pace of the offense, and also, Callahan's playcalling doesn't look all that different from Garrett's. Maybe we need to scrap that whole system. We have too much talent on offense to look how we look. Also, let Harris in the game and stop force-feeding our newest project into the game.
If you want to complain about the offense, complain about the JG and his game plan. I thought TWill was way too involved in this game. He doesn't know the offense as well as Harris. Harris should have gotten more snaps on offense. There was no need for Twill to be that involved for this game. Bring him along slowly. This was a season opener. A prime time game. Against a division foe. I bet all the rookies had big time butterflies.
I understand, and I actually agree that something was off tonight for the offense. What I don't agree with is the implication that the problem is Romo. The Giants came in with a good defensive game plan. Give them some credit.
We'll see. Like you I was hoping to see more but understand why we didn't. I'm anxious to see how much of an upgrade Brian Waters is. I really think if we have a credible run game we'll be able to dictate terms on offense as opposed to taking what the defense gives us. At the end of the night it was effective but I really wanted to put those clowns down and out of their misery after about the third or fourth turnover. But like I said, Ill wait a couple of weeks before I lose any sleep.
I think he's a great quarterback, don't get me wrong. I knew the thread was probably going to go this way, but it wasn't my intention to really bash him. It was just my observation that he doesn't strike me (A novice eye, mind you) as your typical pocket passer and that's possibly something this team could really use. He's too used to being on the run, I'm not sure how he'll handle having time behind this line.
Now that is something interesting to talk about. Romo did have a lot of time tonight, but that's because the Giants didn't blitz, and our OL held up pretty well, especially Smith against Pierre-Paul. What I worry about, if it continues, is that Romo may hold onto the ball even longer than he already does, waiting for one of his guys to get open deep. He did it tonight, and it nearly cost him a serious injury. More than anything else, holding onto the ball too long is the one trait that I don't particularly like about Romo. He's done that his entire career. Parcells was getting on him about it when he was a rookie, and he hasn't changed much since. I'm not sure how he will handle more time to throw either. The thought kind of scares me a bit.
Romo taking a lot of underneath stuff isn't exactly something new. It's not just taking what the Giants gave him in this particular game. It's what he does - for better and worse.
You might be forgetting who ultimately runs the team and who might want in an alcohol-fueled-whim to seek vindication for his "War Room" draft picks. (A clue? His initials are JJ.) Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect that Garrett wouldn't have selected Escobar or Williams to even see the field last night.
You couldn't be further from the truth. Romo's yard-per-attempt seeded him among the all-time-greats...until the last year or two. This is no hyperbole. Check league history. He's been epic at pushing the ball down the field. We are talking Hall-Of-Fame great in that department. But in the last two years things have changed. Romo was very much a down-the-field force a few seasons back. In the past few seasons with his rice-paper line, increasing age and perhaps sensitivity to global criticism...he's become a far more careful and less aggressive field master.
Perhaps its the wall of Romo-haters who attack him for every "gun-slinger" interception
Perhaps it's his new personal conservatism as he ages and has a family
Perhaps it's his health...bad back and all
Perhaps its the mandate of coaches
Perhaps its a desire to play without broken ribs for a few consecutive games while the Cowboys cycle through street players to protect him
But yes...Romo now...tonight...was an exceptionally cautious quarterback. Earlier in his career? You must be joking!
In the past he hasn't had the time to wait for deeper routes to develop...
He actually did tonight, but the Giants were making a point of keeping the play in front of them.
How many times in his career do you think Romo finished in the top 16 in the NFL in air yards per attempt (the average length a QB's completed passes traveled in the air. Disregards receiver YAC)? How about top 12? Top 6? 1st?