Audio: Patrick Crayton on GAC - 4/1/09

[dcfanatic]

dude please. you had a problem when it was said that TO and Crayton and Roy went to the "coaches" about the offense not working....and it wasnt.

Dude please.

You are the TFC's Goldest member so anything you say has no credibility whatsoever.

And the problem I had with them going to him was that T.O. came out that Thursday and told us all what was said in the meeting instead of just saying we had a meeting and it's between us, but as usual you left that part out.

Roy took that approach, but your favorite player didn't.

And that in those meetings there was no QB. So basically it was a meeting to say 'Coach Garrett, whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine about how Jason Witten gets all the looks and we don't'. Those types of meetings where the freaking QB isn't even in the room are good how?

Don't even answer. It was rhetorical. Like I said, you have no credibility.

They create division and then from there it seems like people would rather run to the boss/teacher/coach instead of going to each other and straightening stuff out.

Did you get your Bills #81 jersey yet?

 

[CATCH17]

Dude please.

You are the TFC's Goldest member so anything you say has no credibility whatsoever.

And the problem I had with them going to him was that T.O. came out that Thursday and told us all what was said in the meeting instead of just saying we had a meeting and it's between us, but as usual you left that part out.

Roy took that approach, but your favorite player didn't.

And that in those meetings there was no QB. So basically it was a meeting to say 'Coach Garrett, whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine about how Jason Witten gets all the looks and we don't'. Those types of meetings where the freaking QB isn't even in the room are good how?

Don't even answer. It was rhetorical. Like I said, you have no credibility.

They create division and then from there it seems like people would rather run to the boss/teacher/coach instead of going to each other and straightening stuff out.

Did you get your Bills #81 jersey yet?

Because its football and when media puts a soap opera, wwe type spin to it then it makes it look worse than the situation really is.

An offensive coordinator discussing things with the receivers is nothing but a good thing.

Communication is nothing but a good thing.

When people stop communicating is when things are bad.

Who cares if Romo wasn't in the meeting. Im sure they have 5 million meetings every year with Romo not in it like every football team in america does with their QB's.

Garrett wanted to know what they felt was going wrong. The players let them know.

At least Garrett is smart enough to communicate with his players when he had absolutely no idea how to get any receiver on the team the ball.

 

[Idgit]

That was actually a great job by Crayton. You guys that don't like him need to get a little perspective. Save the vitriol for when it's warranted.

 

[dcfanatic]

Because its football and when media puts a soap opera, wwe type spin to it then it makes it look worse than the situation really is.

An offensive coordinator discussing things with the receivers is nothing but a good thing.

Communication is nothing but a good thing.

When people stop communicating is when things are bad.

Who cares if Romo wasn't in the meeting. Im sure they have 5 million meetings every year with Romo not in it like every football team in america does with their QB's.

Garrett wanted to know what they felt was going wrong. The players let them know.

At least Garrett is smart enough to communicate with his players when he had absolutely no idea how to get any receiver on the team the ball.

When their problem is with Romo then he should be in the ****ing meeting to defend his actions.

 

[dcfanatic]

That was actually a great job by Crayton. You guys that don't like him need to get a little perspective. Save the vitriol for when it's warranted.

The problem isn't in anything he said in this interview.

It's that he has to do that interview to clear up his earlier comments.

He should keep it basic from the get go. He doesn't know any better after all this time that he can't say some fishy stuff if he wants to move on without having to keep addressing the issue again and again?

Seems like he doesn't IMO.

I called his the other day. Once he used the term 'Garrett friendly' he opened himself up for further questioning on the issue.

 

[Idgit]

The problem isn't in anything he said in this interview.

It's that he has to do that interview to clear up his earlier comments.

He should keep it basic from the get go. He doesn't know any better after all this time that he can't say some fishy stuff if he wants to move on without having to keep addressing the issue again and again?

Seems like he doesn't IMO.

I called his the other day. Once he used the term 'Garrett friendly' he opened himself up for further questioning on the issue.

He did. He invited it, and then he clarified what he meant. There's no reason not to take what he said at face value.

Crayton gets himself in trouble for talking too much--no doubt about it. Even in the media, though, he doesn't say anything that's not pro-team. It's not like he's throwing turds in a nationally-televised interview with Deion Sanders. You didn't hear a peep last year from him in the media about his demotion when RW came in and underperformed the level PC was playing at. Yet people are all over him for a private meeting he had at the request of his offensive coordinator.

You'd think people would appreciate it that the guy had the stones to call in to Galloway and tell it straight and be respectful.

On the field, he's been very consistent, with the exception of one very notable drop. The guy plays hard, supports his teammates, and just isn't big enough or fast enough to be one of the very top players at his position at this level. I just don't understand what reason fans have for hating the guy. It's way out of proportion.

 

[SMCowboy]

The problem isn't in anything he said in this interview.

It's that he has to do that interview to clear up his earlier comments.

He should keep it basic from the get go. He doesn't know any better after all this time that he can't say some fishy stuff if he wants to move on without having to keep addressing the issue again and again?

Seems like he doesn't IMO.

I called his the other day. Once he used the term 'Garrett friendly' he opened himself up for further questioning on the issue.

Conspiracy theorist, and the media who will NEVER turn down any opportunity to twist any thing you say to create a controversy, even if one does not exist jumped all over Crayton for a very innocent and 100% appropriate comment.

Crayton definitely does talk to much, but find me one statement he made to the media where he criticized a teammate or the team. Everyone makes a big deal out of Crayton saying that the offense is more "Garrett friendly", and assume that he must be attacking Garrett. And what "proof" do they have of this, the fact that Crayton liked TO as a teammate, and Garrett is supposed to be one of the guys who wanted TO gone...... Yeah, if that isn't the media and people reaching for a story that does not exist, then I don't know what is.....

 

[SMCowboy]

When their problem is with Romo then he should be in the ****ing meeting to defend his actions.

Well, it depends on what the meeting was for. If you listen to Crayton, the meeting was to discuss what issues all the receivers had with the offense. Crayton said nothing about the meeting being about the problem being with Romo, but the meeting being about how the offense was being run.

But then again, why would we ever want to not try and find the controversy in EVERYTHING......

 

[CATCH17]

Well, it depends on what the meeting was for. If you listen to Crayton, the meeting was to discuss what issues all the receivers had with the offense. Crayton said nothing about the meeting being about the problem being with Romo, but the meeting being about how the offense was being run.

But then again, why would we ever want to not try and find the controversy in EVERYTHING......

Yep. Which is why it should never have been an issue what so ever.

 

[dcfanatic]

Well, it depends on what the meeting was for. If you listen to Crayton, the meeting was to discuss what issues all the receivers had with the offense. Crayton said nothing about the meeting being about the problem being with Romo, but the meeting being about how the offense was being run.

But then again, why would we ever want to not try and find the controversy in EVERYTHING......

When were the meetings?

Two days after the Steelers game. Where Romo blew the game by going to Witten. Then we saw T.O. screaming on the sidelines.

Then we got these direct quotes from T.O. about what his meeting was about --- Link

"I'm not jealous of Witten. I'm not jealous of nobody. I can take the approach that I got paid so screw everything, but that's not me. I just want to win. I'm not trying to create a war of words with anybody. I thought we had a productive meeting and I just talked to Jason about Tony reading the whole play because other people are open besides Witten."

Owens said he was the first of the three wide receivers, Roy Williams and Patrick Crayton being the others, to speak with offensive coordinator Jason Garrett on Monday. The three spoke with Garrett individually.

I asked T.O. why wouldn't he speak with Tony Romo himself if he's upset about how the offense is going.

Owens said he has no problem talking to Romo, but felt previous issues with quarterbacks in San Francisco (Jeff Garcia) and Philadelphia (Donovan McNabb) could lead to problems with Romo.

"I seldom talk to Romo, unless it's on the football field," Owens said. "The things that happen in the past with the other quarterbacks that I've had made me go to Jason instead. I didn't want to have any problems with Tony, so I went to Jason. I don't want people to say if I go to Tony and tell him he's not doing what he's supposed to do, then people will say we have a problem. I don't want to create that situation."

--------------------------------

And we know he was BFF with Crayton and supposedly becoming good friends with Roy.

Don't be naive about the nature of those meetings.

 

[dcfanatic]

He did. He invited it, and then he clarified what he meant. There's no reason not to take what he said at face value.

Crayton gets himself in trouble for talking too much--no doubt about it. Even in the media, though, he doesn't say anything that's not pro-team. It's not like he's throwing turds in a nationally-televised interview with Deion Sanders. You didn't hear a peep last year from him in the media about his demotion when RW came in and underperformed the level PC was playing at. Yet people are all over him for a private meeting he had at the request of his offensive coordinator.

You'd think people would appreciate it that the guy had the stones to call in to Galloway and tell it straight and be respectful.

On the field, he's been very consistent, with the exception of one very notable drop. The guy plays hard, supports his teammates, and just isn't big enough or fast enough to be one of the very top players at his position at this level. I just don't understand what reason fans have for hating the guy. It's way out of proportion.

There are three reasons in my opinion why he's vehemently hated by some now.

1. The drop and the missed opportunity in that Giants game.

2. The talking which never stops.

3. Coming from a humble beginning, finding some success which translated him from underdog to people's champ for a while. Then see #1 and #2. People finally thought we had a pro football player on the team who was from the ilk of a guy like a Bill Bates or a Larry Brown or a Jay Ratliff who overcame big odds to find a place in the NFL. That's the last guy people want to turn into a big mouth who can't come thru in the clutch.

It's almost as if he was a big mouth from the beginning like a Chad Johnson he wouldn't be catching as much heat. It just seems like he's changed in some ways.

 

[dcfanatic]

Yep. Which is why it should never have been an issue what so ever.

A meeting about how the offense was being run without the guy who actually runs the offense on a play to play basis and makes every decision there is to make on a passing play because the ball is in his hands after the snap.



You guys are driving me insane with the BS.

Romo is the QB.

Duh!!!

He's the most important part of the offense whether you like him or not.

 

[SMCowboy]

When were the meetings?

Two days after the Steelers game. Where Romo blew the game by going to Witten. Then we saw T.O. screaming on the sidelines.

Then we got these direct quotes from T.O. about what his meeting was about --- Link

"I'm not jealous of Witten. I'm not jealous of nobody. I can take the approach that I got paid so screw everything, but that's not me. I just want to win. I'm not trying to create a war of words with anybody. I thought we had a productive meeting and I just talked to Jason about Tony reading the whole play because other people are open besides Witten."

Owens said he was the first of the three wide receivers, Roy Williams and Patrick Crayton being the others, to speak with offensive coordinator Jason Garrett on Monday. The three spoke with Garrett individually.

I asked T.O. why wouldn't he speak with Tony Romo himself if he's upset about how the offense is going.

Owens said he has no problem talking to Romo, but felt previous issues with quarterbacks in San Francisco (Jeff Garcia) and Philadelphia (Donovan McNabb) could lead to problems with Romo.

"I seldom talk to Romo, unless it's on the football field," Owens said. "The things that happen in the past with the other quarterbacks that I've had made me go to Jason instead. I didn't want to have any problems with Tony, so I went to Jason. I don't want people to say if I go to Tony and tell him he's not doing what he's supposed to do, then people will say we have a problem. I don't want to create that situation."

--------------------------------

And we know he was BFF with Crayton and supposedly becoming good friends with Roy.

Don't be naive about the nature of those meetings.

And don't believe that TO's view of things is how the whole TEAM viewed things.

The meeting took place after the Pittsburgh game, but there had been talk almost all season about how the offense was running.

You are the one being naive about the nature of the meetings. If you listen to ANYONE but TO, the meeting were about how the offense was being run as a whole. It just so happens that TO's issue with how the offense was being run, was the fact that Romo didn't force the ball to him on every play....

 

[dcfanatic]

And don't believe that TO's view of things is how the whole TEAM viewed things.

The meeting took place after the Pittsburgh game, but there had been talk almost all season about how the offense was running.

You are the one being naive about the nature of the meetings. If you listen to ANYONE but TO, the meeting were about how the offense was being run as a whole. It just so happens that TO's issue with how the offense was being run, was the fact that Romo didn't force the ball to him on every play....

Look at the post above yours.

Who runs the offense?

It's simple math.

 

[SMCowboy]

A meeting about how the offense was being run without the guy who actually runs the offense on a play to play basis and makes every decision there is to make on a passing play because the ball is in his hands after the snap.



You guys are driving me insane with the BS.

Romo is the QB.

Duh!!!

He's the most important part of the offense whether you like him or not.

But Romo is NOT the one that calls the plays. Other than TO complaining about not getting the ball enough, everyone elses complaint had NOTHING to do with who Romo threw the ball to, but the plays that were being called.

Becides if you read your OWN quote from TO, TO is the one that went to Garrett and Garrett ONLY and intentionally avoided Romo, NOT the other way around.

 

[SMCowboy]

Look at the post above yours.

Who runs the offense?

It's simple math.

Well, that would be Jason Garrett. Jason Garrett is the one that calls the plays.....

 

[dcfanatic]

But Romo is NOT the one that calls the plays. Other than TO complaining about not getting the ball enough, everyone elses complaint had NOTHING to do with who Romo threw the ball to, but the plays that were being called.

Becides if you read your OWN quote from TO, TO is the one that went to Garrett and Garrett ONLY and intentionally avoided Romo, NOT the other way around.

Kill, Kill, Kill...

Does that sound familiar.

Romo runs the offense. You could call any play you want in that huddle.

When they get to the line Romo can change it to any play he wants. It's 2009, not 1972.

Yeah, he went to Garrett and complained about Romo.

Why not have the entire offense have a meeting and air it all out?

Why have a meeting to tell Garrett to tell Romo to stop only looking for Witten.

Catch said it best. It's all about communication.

But communication that is open with everyone involved. Not this clique communicating this and that clique communicating that and then going over the QB's head to the OC so he can then go back to the QB and tell him how the WR's feel.

Somewhere in that 2008 season the 'open communication theory' broke down. And it hurt the team.

 

[dcfanatic]

Well, that would be Jason Garrett. Jason Garrett is the one that calls the plays.....

Jason Garrett doesn't even wear a helmet.

Come on now.

He devises situations where the offense should be successful.

Then he puts plays in for the offense to run.

The QB runs the offense. Why do you think they get paid the big money.

I will give you a very good example.

Remember when Drew Bledsoe tried to force the ball to Terry Glenn against the Giants and it was picked. That's when Romo was born.

Guess what. Tony Sparano didn't want Drew Bledsoe to throw that pass.

But he was on the sideline. Drew Bledsoe was actually on the field running the offense.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Romo runs the offense. You could call any play you want in that huddle.

When they get to the line Romo can change it to any play he wants. It's 2009, not 1972.

I don't believe that's the case at all...

 

[Juke99]

It's amazing to me how people really don't know this kid," Lyles said.

I love comments like this.

Yes it's amazing that we don't know Crayton based on all the stuff he has said and done. What on earth are we people thinking?