Cowboys OL - 10 sacks allowed in 2 games

[perrykemp]

I know it sounds like I'm being over-critical of a very good offense, however, the Cowboy's short passing game leaves a lot to be desired.

The lack of screens, slants, and in general short passes to WRs seems is glaring.

 

[LatinMind]

Romo also took forever to throw the ball. I know atleast 4 times I was yelling to throw the ball.

The OL has been bad in the postseason but romo doesn't help holding the ball.

he took 4 vs det and 3 vs GB

 

[Sydla]

He never had a 8 second clean pocket in the game and offered himself up for a sack Don't accuse of being a homer than throw out a false statement

It was hyperbole. But on two of those sacks, at least, he had more than enough time to get rid of the ball. And again, it also doesn't explain that a few of the hits he took and one of those sacks for sure came OUTSIDE the pocket where he could have thrown the ball into the 40th row if he wanted. But he didn't and he was lucky he didn't fumble or get a concussion spinning back into the fioeld of play and getting clocked by a Packers LB.

So while the OL wasn't perfect in pass protection, blaming all the sacks on them is silly. Romo caused a few of them himself over these past few weeks.

 

[Staubacher]

It was hyperbole. But on two of those sacks, at least, he had more than enough time to get rid of the ball. And again, it also doesn't explain that a few of the hits he took and one of those sacks for sure came OUTSIDE the pocket where he could have thrown the ball into the 40th row if he wanted. But he didn't and he was lucky he didn't fumble or get a concussion spinning back into the fioeld of play and getting clocked by a Packers LB.

So while the OL wasn't perfect in pass protection, blaming all the sacks on them is silly. Romo caused a few of them himself over these past few weeks.

I never blamed the OL for all the sacks. I mentioned coverage sacks. The other team makes plays too.

 

[BlindFaith]

We played the best defensive line in football. (Lions) You have to expect your sack rate to go up, but that said. Romo refused to throw the ball away. Most of those stats are Romo's fault, not the OL. I think the OL played pretty well against Green Bay.

Romo hardly ever throws the ball away. He leads the league in that department. And that does put extra pressure on the oline.

 

[tyke1doe]

We still have to remember that this offensive line is young, and young playing together. This was the first playoff game for the offensive line. So you basically have a very talented but inexperienced line playing its first playoff game(s).

And things intensify in the playoffs.

The offensive line is fine. They've gotten a taste for playoff intensity. Martin, Fredrick, Smith and crew will be fine. And I say they'll be even better next year.

 

[Sarge]

Like others have said, a lot of that is on Romos' refusal to get rid of the ball. Seems like he was deathly afraid of making a mistake in those scenarios. It was a Romo I really hadn't seen before. That is really my only criticism onTony. I felt he played well, overall.

 

[Idgit]

Romo clearly was holding onto the ball longer in the post season than he had been earlier. That, and playing Detroit pretty much explains the spike in the sack rate as far as I'm concerned. Not too concerned about it as far as trends for next season go, though.

 

[tyke1doe]

I never blamed the OL for all the sacks. I mentioned coverage sacks. The other team makes plays too.

It's almost like our fans expect everyone on our team to play like Superman and their opponents to play like Jimmy Olsen.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I'm probably the biggest Romo fan on the planet but yes some of those are definitely on Romo who held onto the ball trying to make plays and waited and waited.

The O-line didn't play as great as they had been but some of that was Romo as well.

 

[xwalker]

In terms of things I am generally disappointed in from the post-season, I'd have to say the pressure on Romo is the one of them.

I read Romo was hit 8 times yesterday -- not sure if that includes the 4 sacks or not. Considering Romo only threw the ball 19 times that seems like a very high percentage.

Any idea how many of the Cowboy's 10 sacks allowed are on Romo vs the line?

Is it safe to assume with another year's experience the team's pass blocking will improve.. ie Martin with another year of experience. Frederick in his 3rd year, etc?

A lot of the blame was on Romo, the receivers and play caller for Romo holding the ball too long. They need more short options for Romo to beat the blitz. Romo consciously decided to take sacks over risking INTs.

The OL was quite good overall.

 

[supercowboy8]

We have a QB that holds on to the ball and a passing game that puts extreme amounts of pressure on the OL by not getting rid of the ball quick.

Our OL is amazing.

Amazing is alittle over rated. If it was amazing then he wouldn't have been sacked 10 times I 2 games.

They are very good but they are not amazing. They can get better

 

[CATCH17]

Amazing is alittle over rated. If it was amazing then he wouldn't have been sacked 10 times I 2 games.

They are very good but they are not amazing. They can get better

The routes we use offensively put extreme pressure on the OL.

We did the same stuff with bad OL's as we do with this OL.

As long as Garretts schemes are in play and Romo thinks he can buy time instead of just throwing it away or taking his checkdown then you will see him get hit.

 

[AdamJT13]

Romo admitted after the Lions game that he was holding the ball longer and not taking chances, in order to minimize any chance of any interception. I haven't seen whether he said anything about it yesterday.

If we get back to the playoffs next year, I'm sure he will re-evaluate whether there were times when he could have avoided a sack without risking an interception.

 

[21Savage]

We have a QB that holds on to the ball and a passing game that puts extreme amounts of pressure on the OL by not getting rid of the ball quick.

Our OL is amazing.

Thank you. The O-line, including Parnell is young and amazing, and will only get better. It irks me when fans fail to see this.

 

[Doomsday101]

the banter here is a bit funny, it was not long ago when people said Romo dinked and dunked took much in the offense and pointed to yards per pass and now he does not dink and dunk enough. There are were times when you could see the short man open but in some cases would unlikely get the 1st down and so Romo tries to buy time for deeper targets to come open. Through out the season it has lead to a lot of big plays and yes it has lead to some sacks.

 

[EST_1986]

#inb4romoblame

He actually deserves some of this blame.

 

[DFWJC]

Romo decided to take the sacks vs risk the turnovers. He could have done better at that, but the result was no ints in two games as well. But yes, probably half of those sacks could have been avoided ...with extra risk.

 

[gimmesix]

Yeah a little is on romo but it's a gift and a curse because he make so many highlights that way.

It's such a fine line.

We've got a QB who makes highlight reel plays escaping pressure, so we don't want him to just throw it away since those plays are part of what makes him great.

We've also got a QB who wanted to make sure he didn't make a play that crippled his team, so we don't want him to throw risky passes.

So I have very little issue with Romo holding onto the ball in hopes of making a play then taking a sack when it never developed. I would like to see him throw it away on occasion when he gets out of the pocket and pressure is still on him.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Romo clearly was holding onto the ball longer in the post season than he had been earlier. That, and playing Detroit pretty much explains the spike in the sack rate as far as I'm concerned. Not too concerned about it as far as trends for next season go, though.

Even if he was responsible for half that is still far too many. I have been critical of the OL's pass pro all season and while it has improved, Romo is still getting hit far too often. I hope Callahan's replacement can help in that regard.