DCN: We're going to miss him when he's gone

[Tawney88]

Yea, blue chip QB's never miss do they? Besides, until we hire a real GM, it will not matter who is under center or who is coaching.

FIFY

 

[DFWJC]

Hahahahahah

Our #2 ranked defense and running game had nothing to do with that playoff win season right?

If you actually watched the team that season you'd know how wrong you were, especially in dec/jan.

Might have had 2 playoff wins if Romo didn't turn the ball over 4 times in Minnesota

Ah, another outright LIE.
Why do feel the need to keep fabricating your stories?

Romo did not turn it over 4 times in that disaster of a game in Minny.
I'm pretty sure he got sacked a ton though.

If you're going to bash Tony at every turn at least stop making outright lies about it. All we have to do is look it up and see you're once again a lying sack of sh...uh...shovels.

We all know the dudes not perfect, but you insecure in making your points when you add untruthful junk into your haterama.

 

[DallasEast]

you forgot to mention where Romo had Murray right in front of him with nobody within 7 yrds of him in that denver play. Thats always been Romos biggest problem not willing to go with the simple option. He was standing right in front of him but would rather throw to Escobar who has 3 guys around him.

Those are two Interesting set of clips.

The picture says a THREE MAN FRONT with intermediate-to-deep zone coverage. Number of passing options? Two.

1. Throw short beneath the zone, pray the receiver can make a few yards, and face 3rd and long. Or
   
2. Throw to a weak spot in the zone and make it either 3rd and short OR a possible first down.

Time is a luxury if choice number one is chosen. The offensive line does not need to maintain their blocks for very long. Simply dump the ball over the defensive line or in the flat and think happy thoughts that the running back or receiver will break a few tackles. Happy thoughts are squashed if the defense predictably does its job and puts the ball carrier on the ground after taking a few steps.

I do not know about other fans, but I usually say, "Why the blue hell are you passing for two yards?" whenever I see option one being taken in that situation. Me? I rather see Romo do what he is paid to do. I want to see Romo patiently wait for a receiver's route to find a soft spot and accurately deliver the ball.

I forgot to mention it? So I should want option 1 and automatically say "Why the blue hell are you passing for two yards?" The defenders in the zones nearest Murray would react to his catching the ball. Seven yards do not remain "seven yards" in the NFL. The players are the fastest at any level of the sport. I did not forget anything. I choose not to state the obvious, which I thought I had implied with the first option. My apologies.

 

[cml750]

FIFY

While it is hard to argue with you about the GM, he is not going anywhere so to be a Cowboy fan you may not like Jerry but you have to accept him. Now there is now doubt in my mind we can do better than Garrett when it comes to coaching but then our owner /GM's main qualification for a coach seems to be he has to be comfortable with him whether we are winning or not which I guess proves your point .

 

[DallasEast]

Good Lord people, there is option 3, see that big stud WR out to the left with a CB 11 yards off him? I would like to think if Romo zipped the ball out there to him, more than likely he'd do some damage.

But alas, then one would have to remember the last time Romo zipped a ball to the sidelines, because that's all but disappeared for his arsenal.

You are correct. It is an option. It is not the option Romo chose when he audibled. If it were, would he have looked to his left? Or to his right? I always try addressing what the players are or are not doing before hypothesizing what other players, coaches, media, fans or even I want them to do.

 

[DFWJC]

Anyone EVER using the Denver game as an example of a bad game by Romo has totally lost all football credibility.
He played one the best games ever by a Cowboy QB that day. The guy was masterful and Dallas surely loses by 3 TDs without him.

I did have an issue with that late drive vs Green Bay though.

 

[Tawney88]

While it is hard to argue with you about the GM, he is not going anywhere so to be a Cowboy fan you may not like Jerry but you have to accept him. Now there is now doubt in my mind we can do better than Garrett when it comes to coaching but then our owner /GM's main qualification for a coach seems to be he has to be comfortable with him whether we are winning or not which I guess proves your point .

Thanks glad you agree.

 

[DallasEast]

I don't want to get on the bash Tony Romo bandwagon, but did anyone miss Danny White when he was gone?

Until we signed Troy Aikman?

I did.

I missed Aikman until Tony Romo.

Who knows how I will feel after Romo, I'm seeing a trend...

 

[DFWJC]

Until we signed Troy Aikman?

I did.

I missed Aikman until Tony Romo.

Who knows how I will feel after Romo, I'm seeing a trend...

Hopefully when Romo's time is up we have the good fortune of finding our next Aikman.

 

[DallasEast]

No he wasn't. We did not have winning record with Kitna. Not even in the partial season.

And by the way, we were 8-7 with Romo under center just last year.

So not only did you just make up ( a LIE, in other words) something about Kitna, you ignored truth about Romo.

Agenda...maybe?

I think Tony Romo was 8-8. He was on the field in spirit against the Eagles in Week 17.

I'm sorry. Dogging out Romo takes a lot of imagination.

 

[noshame]

You are correct. It is an option. It is not the option Romo chose when he audibled. If it were, would he have looked to his left? Or to his right? I always try addressing what the players are or are not doing before hypothesizing what other players, coaches, media, fans or even I want them to do.

or what they should be doing.

 

[LatinMind]

It was 2006, and he had Parcells (being a starter) as a HC for all of 10 games in his entire career.
Don't you think those high ranking offenses were mostly because of him?

On the last part, that's your prerogative, I obviously disagree with you but everybody should have their own opinions and I respect that.

In 2003 Parcells came in and let the team go with what they had. In 2004 he started with his overhaul.

Mostly because of who? Romo or Parcells?

 

[LatinMind]

I forgot to mention it? So I should want option 1 and automatically say "Why the blue hell are you passing for two yards?" The defenders in the zones nearest Murray would react to his catching the ball. Seven yards do not remain "seven yards" in the NFL. The players are the fastest at any level of the sport. I did not forget anything. I choose not to state the obvious, which I thought I had implied with the first option. My apologies.

Ok it wouldnt have been 3rd and long and Murray isnt a receiver. First and formost, players were all being drawn away from him. second the only guy that wouldve had the chance to stop him quickly was the guy who intercepted the ball because he was the only one even in his general area, but even he was drifting away from Murray. And in a one on one situation i love Murray in that situation all day.

And if i remember correctly Aikman ate Romo alive in his commentary for that play. Sometimes the easiest play is usually the biggest play to make. And Romo has never understood this his entire career. Thats what keeps him from winning important games

 

[DallasEast]

Ok it wouldnt have been 3rd and long and Murray isnt a receiver. First and formost, players were all being drawn away from him. second the only guy that wouldve had the chance to stop him quickly was the guy who intercepted the ball because he was the only one even in his general area, but even he was drifting away from Murray. And in a one on one situation i love Murray in that situation all day.

And if i remember correctly Aikman ate Romo alive in his commentary for that play. Sometimes the easiest play is usually the biggest play to make. And Romo has never understood this his entire career. Thats what keeps him from winning important games

You hope it would not have been 3rd and long. Or perhaps our definitions of 3rd and long differ. I call 3rd and long making a first down after a successful play has gained five or more yards dependent upon the placement of the ball following 2nd down.

My bad for typing receiver instead of running back. I refer to any legal offensive player receiving a pass beyond the line of scrimmage as receiver. I do not mean for anyone to interpret my comments as suggesting Murray is competing for a roster spot with wide receivers, for example.

Are you referring to Troy Aikman comments concerning Romo not throwing to Murray? Did he make the comments while calling another game, postgame, article, etc.? I wish to review his comments if possible.

 

[erod]

Those are two Interesting set of clips.

In the first clip, Tony Romo must assume practically all blame for the interception. It was a 2nd down situation with Dallas leading 36-31 with less than three minutes left in the game. It was a designed run play. The formation has three receivers to the right and one to the left. Both safeties have reset hard to the right, leaving the corner with one-on-one coverage responsibility left:

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/1_zps64e981e5.jpg​

Should the quarterback audible to a pass in this situation? The one-on-one coverage with no safety help certainly affords that option. Unfortunately, the blitzer to Romo's blind side negates that option or should have made him aware that the opportunity window of throwing to his left would be minimum since the tackle was covered. The blitzer had free access to the offensive backfield.

Travis Frederick snaps the ball. Romo immediately looks left, but it is too late. The blitzer is already on him. Of course, this is Romo. In typical Romo Houdini fashion, he escapes what should have been a sure sack. However, Romo compounds the original bad defensive read with another problem which all quarterbacks must avoid--he continues backpedaling. Romo knows where the receiver, never sets his feet, and throws off the wrong foot. His delivery accuracy drops because of his imbalance. Quarterbacks should not make those throws for that reason.

One could speculate that Romo put greater emphasis in audibling out of the run to create another scoring opportunity. He saw a 26-3 lead disappear. It was 36-31 at the time. Desperation may have set in. Romo may not have wanted to leave the game's fate in the rest of the team's hands. His adrenalin may have spiked seeing the one-on-one receiver situation. It may have also caused his concentration to lapse and not account for the blitzer, Would Romo had put himself and the offense in the same situation if the defense had not collapsed in the second half and allowed the lead to go poof? Who knows but I think that was the case. Regardless, no quarterback, including Romo, should allow that type of error to happen.

Let's move on to what grinds my gears a WHOLE lot worse though.

The second clip showcases a travesty of offensive line execution. Situation? Well, the picture says it all:

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/2_zps4d54ac1b.jpg​

After Denver ties the game at 48 all and the game on the line, the offensive line allows the defense to sack Romo on first down--making it 2nd and 16. Dallas needs a touchdown or field goal to end the scoring frenzied game. 2nd and 16 makes a must have drive that much more difficult. Unfortunately, the situation was what it was. Dallas must pass. The option to run, which was already small before the sack, is markedly less now. So what does Romo see before snapping the ball?

The picture says a THREE MAN FRONT with intermediate-to-deep zone coverage. Number of passing options? Two.

1. Throw short beneath the zone, pray the receiver can make a few yards, and face 3rd and long. Or
2. Throw to a weak spot in the zone and make it either 3rd and short OR a possible first down.

Time is a luxury if choice number one is chosen. The offensive line does not need to maintain their blocks for very long. Simply dump the ball over the defensive line or in the flat and think happy thoughts that the running back or receiver will break a few tackles. Happy thoughts are squashed if the defense predictably does its job and puts the ball carrier on the ground after taking a few steps.

I do not know about other fans, but I usually say, "Why the blue hell are you passing for two yards?" whenever I see option one being taken in that situation. Me? I rather see Romo do what he is paid to do. I want to see Romo patiently wait for a receiver's route to find a soft spot and accurately deliver the ball.

Unfortunately, time is not a luxury with choice number two. It is a necessity. The offensive line has two responsibilities:

1. Maintain their blocks long enough for the receiver routes to fully develop. And
2. Provide a respectable pocket for the quarterback to work with.

With a THREE-MAN FRONT, one might think that the offensive line's two responsibilities would be less than if they would face a four man front with or without a blitzer coming off the corner--a la the first clip situation. Well, I think that would be the case. Experience has taught me beyond a shadow of doubt that every critic does not think that should be the case though. Regardless, a five-man offensive line should provide a quarterback enough space to scan his receivers and step into his throw.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me (at least). With the exception of one down during Denver's previous possession, Peyton Manning had both a respectable to exceptional pocket to work with. It served him well but it was against a four man front. The one time he got good penetration into the pocket was from his blind side after his offensive line had blocked well enough and he ample time to see the oncoming pressure.

Enough about Manning. There are three sides of protection a quarterback expects from his offensive line on any pass play.

Back to clip. Hike.

Tyron Smith gets driven back to within a yard of Romo. Smith maintains his block but the pocket is poor on that side. Romo feels pressure from his blind side but not enough to make him panic.

Doug Free does not have the Smith's problem. The defensive lineman choses to outrun Smith to Romo. No bullrush to offset. No swim move to counter. The guy just runs by him and Romo. The right side of Romo's pocket is so strong one would believe The Force played a part in creating it.

One side of the pocket left. One freaking side. Frederick is covered. Ron Leary is uncovered. Plus Leary has Smith taking care of Romo's blind side. The already deep sole linebacker left to defend underneath routes predictably drops back into coverage. Leary is looking for someone to block. Who? His mother? I do not know.

Two offensive lineman. One must block because the defensive lineman is covering him. One must provide support since he is uncovered. What happens next?

Frederick does not maintain his block. Defender penetrates the forward wall of protection. No problem though. Frederick has Leary for support. Unfortunately, Leary has flat feet. By the time Leary wakes up and realizes Frederick needs help, he cannot laterally move to counter the defensive lineman's penetration.

Quarterbacks must be able to step into their passes. Otherwise, their accuracy diminishes.

Romo sees where he wants to deliver the ball but he hurries the throw because a defender is rushing right up into his face. He begins to step into his delivery and trips on Smith's foot. A second later? Interception.

Yep. That's all on Romo. Wait. I gotta make a bathroom run. I'm back. Where was I? Oh yeah. A THREE-MAN FREAKING FRONT. That's all the offensive line needed to counter. They could have provided Romo with excellent protection and he may have thrown an interception anyway. No one will ever know for certain because that did not happen. What happen was five guys could not, with the game on the line, after allowing themselves to get beat for a sack on first down, maintain a respectable pocket for their quarterback.

A THREE-MAN FRONT. It's all Romo's fault.

Nothing against you. It's the clips, the second one in particular, which set me off. Sorry for the rant.

/rant

Dude, that was awesome. It should be its own thread.

 

[DallasEast]

Dude, that was awesome. It should be its own thread.

Thanks. With respect, I think that both critics and non-critics can mutually agree there have been quite a number Romo threads created through the years. One less thread is not necessarily a bad thing, lol.

 

[DFWJC]

I think we'll miss Romo, yes.
But there is that small chance that we get lucky and draft the next QB that is as good or better.
The odds are very slim, but it's certainly a real possibility.

Hey Indy got the 1st pick and got Luck. Can't even begin to describe how slim the odds are having those three highly improbable things collide at the exact same time:
1) best prospect in 10-20 years comes along
2) your team wants to draft a QB early
3) your team actually has the draft pick to get that player

Then again, build a dominant defense and you can get by with much less anyway.

 

[DallasEast]

Then again, build a dominant defense and you can get by with much less anyway.

I would add that improved offensive and defensive execution makes winnable games that much more possible. I could argue that anyone could factor in every real or imagined Romo quarterback error from last season, subtract a few of his teammates miscues (fumbles, dropped passes, unnecessary penalties, etc.) (edit: and poor coaching decisions) and Dallas would have ended the regular season above .500. Essentially, that is not discussed enough on sites like this, sports talk, sports television, etc. The overwhelming discussion is pro or anti-Romo. Not enough is said about what the rest of the team does to improve or not improve game outcomes.

Even though Romo receives both true and false criticism, the sum total of criticism itself has never been the problem. The problem has always been the ratio of criticism. It is WAY out of wack, always has been, and may always shall be. And that's incredibly sad.

 

[LatinMind]

You hope it would not have been 3rd and long. Or perhaps our definitions of 3rd and long differ. I call 3rd and long making a first down after a successful play has gained five or more yards dependent upon the placement of the ball following 2nd down.

My bad for typing receiver instead of running back. I refer to any legal offensive player receiving a pass beyond the line of scrimmage as receiver. I do not mean for anyone to interpret my comments as suggesting Murray is competing for a roster spot with wide receivers, for example.

Are you referring to Troy Aikman comments concerning Romo not throwing to Murray? Did he make the comments while calling another game, postgame, article, etc.? I wish to review his comments if possible.

My bad idk why i thought it was Aikman, but Phil Simms

 

[Szczepanik]

So you're telling me everyone but Romo sucks?
Hall of Fame Tight End Jason WItten?
One of the best WR's Dez Bryant? Terrance Williams?
Travis Frederick sucks? Tyron Smith?
Demarco Murray?

Someone give this man a trophy. He was able to pick 7 people out of our 53 man roster that are contributors to the team. That has always been the problem with this team, that we have maybe ~10 reliable players on the squad... followed by 43 inconsistent players.

Thank you for proving my point on accident.

Also notice you didn't name ONE defensive player