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

[SMCowboy]

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.

You are right, TO should have gone to Romo not Garrett about who he threw the ball to. But, he didn't. So Garrett went to talk to the other receivers to see what problems they had with how the offense was going. If you listen to what everyone had to say, TO was the only one complaining about not getting the ball enough. So Garrett does what he should have done, forgot about it.

You have a team meeting every time TO complains about how often the ball is thrown his way, you would never have a chance to play a game, because you would be having team meetings every 5 minutes.....

 

[WoodysGirl]

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

I don't so either. I think both Wade and Jason have consistently said that Romo can change the play to another specified play based on the reads he makes at the line.

He doesn't actually go Peyton Manning out there.

 

[SMCowboy]

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.

You are giving the QB WAY to much credit and the OC WAY to little credit.

The OC calls EVERY play (except for when teams run the no huddle). The QB has the option to change the play at the LOS, but he doesn't change EVERY play. And alot of times, even when a play is changed, it is changed to anouther option that the OC called.

You are right, that the QB does have the discretion to not call what the OC wants. But, you change to many plays that the OC calls for what you want,
end up right where Bledsoe did, on the bench.....

 

[SMCowboy]

dcfanatic, since you obviously do not seem to understand how the OC/QB thing works, let me explain.

The OC calls the plays, though most plays are actually a combination of two plays where the QB decides based on the defensive alignment which play to run. And EVEN on passing plays, the QB does have guidelines on who the ball should go to. Each pass play not only tells the WR's the routes to run, and the OL how to block, but each play also sets a progression order that the QB is supposed to read threw.

Can the QB change the play at any time, sure, he is the one in charge on the field. But, the coach can also bench him at any time, if he starts running to many plays that the OC did not call.

 

[dcfanatic]

dcfanatic, since you obviously do not seem to understand how the OC/QB thing works, let me explain.

The OC calls the plays, though most plays are actually a combination of two plays where the QB decides based on the defensive alignment which play to run. And EVEN on passing plays, the QB does have guidelines on who the ball should go to. Each pass play not only tells the WR's the routes to run, and the OL how to block, but each play also sets a progression order that the QB is supposed to read threw.

Can the QB change the play at any time, sure, he is the one in charge on the field. But, the coach can also bench him at any time, if he starts running to many plays that the OC did not call.

Thanks for explaining.

How much do I owe you for the lesson today Mr. Gilman?

I never knew until just now that Tony Romo was a robot.



And maybe next time you should mention 'option routes' in your 'lesson' which are a bigger part of the game today than they have ever been.

 

[SMCowboy]

Thanks for explaining.

How much do I owe you for the lesson today Mr. Gilman?

I never knew until just now that Tony Romo was a robot.



And maybe next time you should mention 'option routes' in your 'lesson' which are a bigger part of the game today than they have ever been.

Romo isn't a Robot, but he definitely does NOT run the entire offense like you seem to think that he does.

 

[CATCH17]

Romo isn't a Robot, but he definitely does NOT run the entire offense like you seem to think that he does.

It's like talking to a wall.

Someone screwed up not getting our WR's involved at all in the offense last year.

The receivers were asked their opinion and they gave it.

If Jason Garrett had a problem with Romo not being in the meeting I am pretty sure he would have called it off until Romo was available if that was an issue.

Hell im sure the receivers and Romo even talked about it.

Even Romo threw Garrett under the bus after the Philly game with his quotes.

I think all the fingers were pointed at Garrett and Garrett ran to Jerry and said he can't spread around the ball like he wants to with TO.

That was his excuse imo.

So Crayton says no more excuses. If TO isn't there you obviously should have no problem spreading the ball around now according to Jason Garrett.

My problem with that is if you tried to force Owens the ball so dang much then why did he end up with the amount of touches he did.

Why were short routes to get his hands on the ball not ran.

 

[Idgit]

It's like talking to a wall.

Someone screwed up not getting our WR's involved at all in the offense last year.

The receivers were asked their opinion and they gave it.

If Jason Garrett had a problem with Romo not being in the meeting I am pretty sure he would have called it off until Romo was available if that was an issue.

Hell im sure the receivers and Romo even talked about it.

Even Romo threw Garrett under the bus after the Philly game with his quotes.

I think all the fingers were pointed at Garrett and Garrett ran to Jerry and said he can't spread around the ball like he wants to with TO.

That was his excuse imo.

So Crayton says no more excuses. If TO isn't there you obviously should have no problem spreading the ball around now according to Jason Garrett.

My problem with that is if you tried to force Owens the ball so dang much then why did he end up with the amount of touches he did.

Why were short routes to get his hands on the ball not ran.

I don't agree with that characterization at all. The passing game wasn't as effective as it was the year before, in part because the QB wasn't as accurate as he had been and we ended up converting less. There were times when we were being dared to throw the ball, and we still couldn't get it done. Back in 07, we were at a point where I remember *expecting* we'd convert third and longs, because Romo was so good at buying time, finding the open guy, and putting the ball where it needed to be. Last year, he missed time, and wasn't nearly as effective on the intermediate routes when he was back in.

The WR's, too, had their issues. Mickey's quoted anonymous scouts saying TO wasn't getting clean off the line. Austin was hurt, which affected our deep threat. Crayton was understandably not thrilled being demoted, RW wasn't happy with the number of looks he got. There were plenty of reasons for that position meeting to occur.

There's no reason to think Garrett ran to anybody. He probably just gave his opinion as to what was the best way to modify the passing game. No matter how good TO has been in his career, it's not hard to believe we arrived at the point where his mouth intersected with his ability. One way or another, his production needed to be replaced in the next year or two.

 

[dcfanatic]

I don't agree with that characterization at all. The passing game wasn't as effective as it was the year before, in part because the QB wasn't as accurate as he had been and we ended up converting less. There were times when we were being dared to throw the ball, and we still couldn't get it done. Back in 07, we were at a point where I remember *expecting* we'd convert third and longs, because Romo was so good at buying time, finding the open guy, and putting the ball where it needed to be. Last year, he missed time, and wasn't nearly as effective on the intermediate routes when he was back in.

The WR's, too, had their issues. Mickey's quoted anonymous scouts saying TO wasn't getting clean off the line. Austin was hurt, which affected our deep threat. Crayton was understandably not thrilled being demoted, RW wasn't happy with the number of looks he got. There were plenty of reasons for that position meeting to occur.

There's no reason to think Garrett ran to anybody. He probably just gave his opinion as to what was the best way to modify the passing game. No matter how good TO has been in his career, it's not hard to believe we arrived at the point where his mouth intersected with his ability. One way or another, his production needed to be replaced in the next year or two.

It's like talking to the wall.

A wall that only has one answer for every question.

Terrell Owens did everything right and the rest of the world did everything wrong.

 

[dcfanatic]

Romo isn't a Robot, but he definitely does NOT run the entire offense like you seem to think that he does.

So when Tony Romo snaps the football he just drops back and throws it to where Jason Garrett specified the ball to go to based on the play call and the defensive alignment. It's all figured out pre-snap and he's just acts like a...

Well, I would use the term robot, but you said he isn't a robot.

What exactly should we call him then?

 

[thechosen1n2]

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?

i left something out....number one i mentioned TO RoY and Crayton, you just focused on TO. Number two I dont even know what TFC is so that cant be accurate. Now do i like TO, yes, but not more than the Boys. Do i think it was unfair to blame him for this season, yes, but he still walked away with millions i dont have so i dont feel sorry for him.

PS. i dont wear any jersey but cowboys jerseys if i decide to put them on...and I dont and never did own a TO cowboys jersey.

and as far as this credibility thing, what have i said that wasnt true. the only thing i have said, is that TO was far from the cowboys biggest problem. I thought injuries, qb play (more back up than romo), offensive line, and playcalling were our biggest problems. How is that not credible.

 

[thechosen1n2]

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.

the thing DC is there seems to be a double standard.

some of those same people who ride for romo while knocking crayton and the course is somewhat similar.

1. big mistake in big game (fumble/crayton not finishing a route)

2. Romo doesnt talk enough, if he did players would talk less.

3. humble beginnings, made it happen for himself and it seems he has gotten complacent.

Now granted its not exactly the same but still similar. I personally like Romo, and I like crayton, but the difference these days is it seems that those who like TO catch heat whether its a player or poster, and crayton is seen as a TO guy, and Romo is seen as an anti TO guy (fair or not fair)