Anyone notice Garre..err Romo's game management at the end?

[DOUBLE WING]

Had he not addressed this with the officials, the thread would be about how he never stands up to them on bad calls. Or something equally silly.

One has nothing to do with the other. Burning the last timeout of the game to argue with officials is just about the definition of bonehead, so if that's the argument you're trying to make here I'm not sure it's helping.

The timeout has nothing to do with whether or not he was asking for the call. He's standing darn near in the middle of the field with the referee and his quarterback. At that point, he doesn't need to call timeout to ask "Hey, what's the deal with that call?".

Admit it. He didn't know the situation and he made a dumb decision to call timeout much sooner than he needed to. Hell, after Romo stops him you can see Garrett look over to the scoreboard. I'm only assuming Romo told him to look at the playclock.

 

[Idgit]

A good job at what? If youre really being honest with yourself then there is no way you can say he has done a good job coaching

Sure he can. He's made some mistakes, but this team *is* in contention for the division crown, after all. With ridiculous injuries and a blow-out defense. The biggest problems with this team are not the game management mistakes. Most of those criticisms are like the one in this thread, and don't rise above the level of rank-and-file second-guessing. We lose football games to good teams because they can pass the ball against us. And, now, because they can also run the ball against us with our LB corps gutted.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

It's enough that people denied the time-out emphatically to arguing that it He wasn't doing it emphatically and then claiming others see what they want to see...

We've gone from "the timeout attempt never happened" to "how are you sure that's what he's doing?" to "OK, he called timeout but then he asked for clarification on the penalty after!!"

Hilarious.

 

[SultanOfSix]

lol.

#1 - There was no timeout = that doesn't represent poor time management
#2 - You have no idea what that conversation was on the sideline, word for word, nor do I.... so default to point #1
#3 - If you focus on point #1 you lose all your steam
#4 - So you guys focus on your imagination of point #2 and make it what you want it to be

hmmm. wonder why you would do that?

The fact that he didn't call a timeout doesn't negate the fact that his first reaction to that scenario was to do so. The conversation has nothing to do with what he was clearly going to do as his first reaction. The point of the OP is that he shouldn't even have been thinking to call a timeout right away. He should have been thinking about letting the clock run down as much as possible and then call the timeout, and the reason for that was already explained in my previous post.

 

[rcaldw]

The fact that he didn't call a timeout doesn't negate the fact that his first reaction to that scenario was to do so. The conversation has nothing to do with what he was clearly going to do as his first reaction. The point of the OP is that he shouldn't even have been thinking to call a timeout right away. He should have been thinking about letting the clock run down as much as possible and then call the timeout, and the reason for that was already explained in my previous post.

Sure.... I'm done arguing with you boys. It is a waste of time. I'm looking forward to next week. Go Cowboys!

 

[Ender]

Garrett is bad at coaching

 

[DOUBLE WING]

So wanting to know why it isn't 1st and goal at the 5 versus 4th and goal from the 10 is bad? The level of stupidity shown in this witch hunt amuses me to no end.

He didn't need to call timeout to ask for clarification on the call (if that's what he was really doing). What part of that do you not understand? One has nothing to do with the other. When in the history of the NFL has a coach ever burned a timeout just to chat with a referee about a penalty call that has already happened? Especially the LAST TIMEOUT in a do-or-die game?

 

[Hoov]

So wanting to know why it isn't 1st and goal at the 5 versus 4th and goal from the 10 is bad? The level of stupidity shown in this witch hunt amuses me to no end.

The fact that the conversation continues without even a pause after it appears that Garrett says timeout is curious. I would want to hear the rest before passing a judgement.

 

[khiladi]

We've gone from "the timeout attempt never happened" to "how are you sure that's what he's doing?" to "OK, he called timeout but then he asked for clarification on the penalty after!!"

Hilarious.

It wouldn't be that big of a deal if Garrett hasn't made a career of bone-headed plays at the end of games... But he has and he doesn't deserve any leniency based upon his trends of constant mismanagement.

You can be sure if the Cowboys lost this game, they'd be saying it was Romo's fault for throwing some INT because he audibles out of some random play they have no knowledge about.

 

[khiladi]

He didn't need to call timeout to ask for clarification on the call (if that's what he was really doing). What part of that do you not understand? One has nothing to do with the other. When in the history of the NFL has a coach ever burned a timeout just to chat with a referee about a penalty call that has already happened? Especially the LAST TIMEOUT in a do-or-die game?

This right here.. He'd be arguing with the ref, not calling time out with a stoic expression on his face until Romo jumps in the way.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

The fact that he didn't call a timeout doesn't negate the fact that his first reaction to that scenario was to do so. The conversation has nothing to do with what he was clearly going to do as his first reaction. The point of the OP is that he shouldn't even have been thinking to call a timeout right away. He should have been thinking about letting the clock run down as much as possible and then call the timeout, and the reason for that was already explained in my previous post.

This is a fantastic way to put it. Regardless of the outcome, it is beyond me how anyone could watch Garrett's management in that video clip and honestly feel confident that he is the guy calling the shots in late-game situations for this football team.

 

[Idgit]

One has nothing to do with the other. Burning the last timeout of the game to argue with officials is just about the definition of bonehead, so if that's the argument you're trying to make here I'm not sure it's helping.

The timeout has nothing to do with whether or not he was asking for the call. He's standing darn near in the middle of the field with the referee and his quarterback. At that point, he doesn't need to call timeout to ask "Hey, what's the deal with that call?".

Admit it. He didn't know the situation and he made a dumb decision to call timeout much sooner than he needed to. Hell, after Romo stops him you can see Garrett look over to the scoreboard. I'm only assuming Romo told him to look at the playclock.

My assumption is that Romo said something like "The guy's helmet came off incidentally." And then Jason said something like "What? Oh."

That said, I don't have a problem with a coach using a timeout to get a discussion with a ref re: a call if the alternative is letting the next play run and having to move on. Even if he did it for no other reason than to make a point that he didn't like a call. Even if he was wrong, it's hardly an indictment of his coaching. One of the strengths of this staff--though nobody wants to admit that they actually have strengths--is that they do a great job with challenges and contested calls. Garrett's a smart guy who cares about the rules. He didn't understand a call, and was willing to use a timeout to get an explanation. Tony, smartly, stopped him from doing so. Not a big deal, at all.

 

[Idgit]

This is a fantastic way to put it. Regardless of the outcome, it is beyond me how anyone could watch Garrett's management in that video clip and honestly feel confident that he is the guy calling the shots in late-game situations for this football team.

I can sympathize. I sometimes get confused when people don't agree with me that mole hills are mountains, too. I mean, to an ant, I mole hill *is* a mountain, right? Is there really any difference?

 

[DOUBLE WING]

My assumption is that Romo said something like "The guy's helmet came off incidentally." And then Jason said something like "What? Oh."

That said, I don't have a problem with a coach using a timeout to get a discussion with a ref re: a call if the alternative is letting the next play run and having to move on. Even if he did it for no other reason than to make a point that he didn't like a call. Even if he was wrong, it's hardly an indictment of his coaching. One of the strengths of this staff--though nobody wants to admit that they actually have strengths--is that they do a great job with challenges and contested calls. Garrett's a smart guy who cares about the rules. He didn't understand a call, and was willing to use a timeout to get an explanation. Tony, smartly, stopped him from doing so. Not a big deal, at all.

Honestly, you are a smart guy and I don't think you're as much of a blind homer as some of these others, but I don't see how you can watch that and think his original intent was to argue the call with the ref.

I think he was embarrassed Romo called him out in front of the ref on the timeout call and started in about the penalty. I mean, it's not like he ran up to the ref to call timeout and start arguing about the penalty. He called timeout, stood there for a second, Romo jumped in and then a few seconds later Garrett is like "Wait, what? Oh, uh... well, about that penalty call, what the hell man?!"

In general, I completely disagree with your synopsis. I don't see how it is ever kosher to use your final timeout, in a do-or-die game, to discuss a call that isn't going to get changed anyway. You need that timeout to plan your last play of the game, with your job likely on the line, and you're going to instead spend the time arguing with a ref?

And again, it's irrelevant anyway because if Garrett wanted to argue with the ref, he didn't need to call timeout to do it. He was already standing on the field with him, the players were all scattered about. It's not like everyone was on the line ready to snap the next play and Garrett HAD to call timeout to get the ref's attention. The clock was stopped and there was nothing going on. Garrett just lost the moment and went off the reservation.

Thank God Romo was there to save him. Again.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Sure.... I'm done arguing with you boys. It is a waste of time. I'm looking forward to next week. Go Cowboys!

You didn't really argue with me. I explicated the OP's original point explaining why he considered it a big deal and he has a cogent point. The he did it because he didn't really know what happened in a penalty situation or it was a subliminal reaction excuse doesn't really hold water.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

He was asking, what the call was. The Garrett haters around here are both pathetic and funny at the same time. Even when we win its pile on Garrett

because he is a horrible HC

 

[romothesavior]

Garrett is a joke (as is Kiffin) and it boggles my brain to see the lengths people will go to defend him.

 

[wileedog]

It wouldn't be that big of a deal if Garrett hasn't made a career of bone-headed plays at the end of games...

This. I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt if we weren't talking about a guy who iced his own kicker.

 

[benson]

Sure.... I'm done arguing with you boys. It is a waste of time. I'm looking forward to next week. Go Cowboys!

Congrats on getting steam-rolled in this thread and exiting with dignity.

 

[yimyammer]

Side issue (not taking sides here): If the penalty had stayed and resulted in an automatic first down, would we want to call a time out here? I'm thinking not if it had resulted in 1st and goal from the 2 or less and having the first down in their pocket would be beneficial. It was a chaotic situation at the end.