DMN Blog: Here's Troy Aikman on the ill-fated Romo to Hurd incompletion

[Doomsday101]

Yea, but they were in man coverage weren't they? If so, then when the routes began to play out (2 slants on the left side), all the receivers to the left have to do is beat the DB just like the guy on the right? No?

You are correct however you still have the 2 DB's to one side as well as the backers to worry about. You have the possiablity to that side that the 2 DB's are not strickly playing a man cover but when you have 1 DB and 1 WR to the other side you leave no doubt what the cover is to that side. I really do not have an issue with the play because I did not think it was a bad call or a bad read.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think it's interesting to read the comments Troy made. Let me say that I think Troy was a great, great player. I think he is better then just a good commentator. I also think that Troy would never have thrown to Hurd if he were in Tony's shoes. It's well known that Troy would not throw to receivers he was not familiar with. He just wouldn't.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the first throw. Heck, he read the single coverage and the DB was playing outside technique which is a no, no in that situation. He read the coverage and threw the ball to the receiver the coverage dictated. Bailey made a good play on it. The problem I have is that once Bailey demonstrated that he could make the play, even with the wrong technique, he should not have tried to throw that route again. To me, that doesn't make much sense.

I don't have much problem with Garrett on that deal. Both plays had a receiver open for the TD. Romo just didn't find him.

 

[skinsscalper]

Oh I see if the play does not work that is what makes it a bad call. At least now I know you don't have a fricken clue while before I was only guessing you didn't. :laugh2:

You tell me brain child. Was it a successful call? If you answered anything but no, then I believe it's you that doesn't have a fricken clue. The play didn't work. Therefore it was a bad call. You call on your 4th player on the WR depth chart to win the game TWICE and it failed TWICE and you're dumb enough to argue that it was the right call? Are you serious? I can't believe someone that stupid would even question whether or not someone else had a clue.

FAIL!

 

[rcaldw]

I think it's interesting to read the comments Troy made. Let me say that I think Troy was a great, great player. I think he is better then just a good commentator. I also think that Troy would never have thrown to Hurd if he were in Tony's shoes. It's well known that Troy would not throw to receivers he was not familiar with. He just wouldn't.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the first throw. Heck, he read the single coverage and the DB was playing outside technique which is a no, no in that situation. He read the coverage and threw the ball to the receiver the coverage dictated. Bailey made a good play on it. The problem I have is that once Bailey demonstrated that he could make the play, even with the wrong technique, he should not have tried to throw that route again. To me, that doesn't make much sense.

I don't have much problem with Garrett on that deal. Both plays had a receiver open for the TD. Romo just didn't find him.

I read what the other poster contributed about Jaws breaking down the film and saying that both throws were good. (I didn't see Jaws do that)

And I will go back tonight and look at it again. But that is not my memory of it. That first throw to Hurd sailed high, was what I remember. I'll look again. If so, then Bailey didn't so much make a play on the first one as we missed a play.

 

[rcaldw]

You tell me brain child. Was it a successful call? If you answered anything but no, then I believe it's you that doesn't have a fricken clue. The play didn't work. Therefore it was a bad call. You call on your 4th player on the WR depth chart to win the game TWICE and it failed TWICE and you're dumb enough to argue that it was the right call? Are you serious? I can't believe someone that stupid would even question whether or not someone else had a clue.

FAIL!

Just so we are all clear. Any play that doesn't RESULT in something positive was a BAD PLAY CALL?

So, if a guy is running wide open down the middle of the field after a play action fake, and the QB air mails him by 10 yards.... remember, the guy was WIDE OPEN. YOU would say that was a bad play call?

I just want to be sure that we hear you correctly?

If that is NOT what you are saying, then Doomsday is right. Just because a play doesn't work out, it doesn't mean it was a bad play call.

 

[Doomsday101]

You tell me brain child. Was it a successful call? If you answered anything but no, then I believe it's you that doesn't have a fricken clue. The play didn't work. Therefore it was a bad call. You call on your 4th player on the WR depth chart to win the game TWICE and it failed TWICE and you're dumb enough to argue that it was the right call? Are you serious? I can't believe someone that stupid would even question whether or not someone else had a clue.

FAIL!

Are you kidding? Are you saying if that play that was called was caught for the TD you then would say it was a great call but since it is not then that makes it a bad play? OK :laugh2:

 

[wileedog]

Just so we are all clear. Any play that doesn't RESULT in something positive was a BAD PLAY CALL?

So, if a guy is running wide open down the middle of the field after a play action fake, and the QB air mails him by 10 yards.... remember, the guy was WIDE OPEN. YOU would say that was a bad play call?

I just want to be sure that we hear you correctly?

If that is NOT what you are saying, then Doomsday is right. Just because a play doesn't work out, it doesn't mean it was a bad play call.

I'll still stand by matching up my worst player vs. their best player twice while my best player is in the backfield blocking is not the optimal way to get a must have TD with time running down.

I have no problem with Tony's read or the throws - that was what the play was designed to do - I just don't think Sam Hurd should have been put in a position where he has to execute flawlessly to beat Champ Bailey - twice. There had to have been something else in the playbook that involved someone other than Sam Hurd, or Miles Austin for that matter who had been mis-connecting with Tony all day.

 

[khiladi]

and of course that all would be moot had the QB looked to his left to see the wide open guy

I thought he wasn't looking at other receivers because he was trying to force the ball to TO. So now Romo is at fault for not looking at the other guys, when TO isn't here. Or Garrett wasn't delivering the ball to other WRs because he was trying to appease TO... Keep the excuses coming...

 

[khiladi]

and of course that all would be moot had the QB looked to his left to see the wide open guy

I bet the 50 pard pass to Hurd was also a good play-call by Garrett as well and had nothing to do with Romo buying time in the pocket and finding a WR who had to break his route, because Garrett's pass play design was horrible... Oh yeah, forgot about that...

 

[wileedog]

Originally Posted by dbair1967 View Post
and of course that all would be moot had the QB looked to his left to see the wide open guy

I thought he wasn't looking at other receivers because he was trying to force the ball to TO. So now Romo is at fault for not looking at the other guys, when TO isn't here. Or Garrett wasn't delivering the ball to other WRs because he was trying to appease TO... Keep the excuses coming...

You guys know they blitzed 8 right? That there wasn't exactly time to go through a read progression?

 

[khiladi]

You guys know they blitzed 8 right? That there wasn't exactly time to go through a read progression?

I haven't said anything about that particular play... I'm just referring to the hypocrisy. Last year, Tony Romo per these very people were saying Romo forces the ball to TO instead of looking to the open man. Now suddenly, he's forcing the ball to players he shouldn't have and he has a choice in it....Why did they blitz 8 in this particular situation? Maybe because of tendencies that they have seen in this predictable offense.

 

[craig71]

When a game like the one that was played in Denver happens it would be nice to have a sacrificial lamb.Someone to fall on the sword for the team after an ugly loss.I wish Romo would come out and say that he didn't see Austin on the far side of the field or for Garrett to come out and say it was his fault for a bad play call.Even if the "lamb" is free and clear of any wrongdoing,just seems that it would relieve some of the pressure that has to be mounting on this team.

On second thought though we wouldn't have as much to discuss/rant about,but then again some of these posts are pretty useless.

Craig

 

[Bob Sacamano]

craIGGGGG !

 

[khiladi]

If it weren't for the fact that Tony Romo has an amazing abaility to keep plays alive with his feet and find receivers who have broken off their routes, Jason Garrett would look a hell of a lot worse than he does right now. The guy's image was built because of Tony Romo and now Tony Romo is supposedly at fault.Pick out a play or two here and there where Tony Romo misses a receiver, and you'll find thirty from Jason Garrett where the guy looks like an idiot.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I read what the other poster contributed about Jaws breaking down the film and saying that both throws were good. (I didn't see Jaws do that)

And I will go back tonight and look at it again. But that is not my memory of it. That first throw to Hurd sailed high, was what I remember. I'll look again. If so, then Bailey didn't so much make a play on the first one as we missed a play.

I don't know. I don't have a replay of the first throw here at work but I'll tell you this, on the second play, Romo leads Hurd right into the DB who was covering Crayton on the other slant. Crayton actually beats the DB off the line and has him beaten so bad that the DB is in a trailing position and the pass leads Hurd right into him. Doesn't matter because Bailey makes the play but I don't get that second pass. If Romo had thrown that earlier, he probably has a better chance for the completion with Hurd. As I watch the second pass again, Bailey is playing man to man but not press. His first step on Hurd's break is back and not towards Hurd on the break. The fact that Romo throws late basically brings the other DB into the play. Bailey was beaten but the throw brings him back into the play. If Romo throws it out in front enough, then the DB coverning Crayton probably makes a play. The fact that he throws it in tight as opposed to out in front of Hurd allows Bailey to get a hand in. Bailey was beaten on the play but the throw allows him to recover. That's interesting.

 

[khiladi]

Right now, for some people, EVERYTHING is the Coordinator.

I've seen Romo, and before that, Aikman, make plenty of throws that unless it was in that perfect spot wouldn't have been the play that it turned out to be. Aikman's rocket TD throw to Irvin, right front corner of the Endzone, 1995 NFC Championship game, 2 defenders, 1 on each side of the play, perfect throw, TD.

PLAY CALLS REQUIRE PRECISE EXECUTION SOMETIMES.


The Hurd throw (1st one) just had to be where it had to be and it was a score. It wasn't. That isn't play call.

And thank Norv Turner for the offense that suited the talents of these people. Prior to Norv Turner, Aikman was running an offense with Michael Irvin, but Dave Schula was the coordinator and we know how pathetic that turned out. Then we had Ernie Zampese and the Cowboys were horrible in the red-zone. The timing based patterns worked for the Cowboys because Norv Turner created an effective play-action that forced DBs to cheat up, plus Irvin was one of, if not the best WR to shield the defender away from his body.Garrett never runs play-action, runs always out of shot-gun and sucks plain and simple.

 

[skinsscalper]

Just so we are all clear. Any play that doesn't RESULT in something positive was a BAD PLAY CALL?

So, if a guy is running wide open down the middle of the field after a play action fake, and the QB air mails him by 10 yards.... remember, the guy was WIDE OPEN. YOU would say that was a bad play call?

I just want to be sure that we hear you correctly?

If that is NOT what you are saying, then Doomsday is right. Just because a play doesn't work out, it doesn't mean it was a bad play call.

To a point Dooms is correct. I can own up to that. The problem that people have with the OC (and in effect the play calling) is the fact that our PLAYMAKERS were rendered useless by either design or injury. Witten in to block? Barber on the sidelines? The same pass design to the same player when the first time failed? Yes, I would call that an unsuccessful series of plays. Romo probably did make the right call. The flaw was in the fact that he had to try AGAIN to beat a HOF caliber player with a WR 4th on the depth chart. The OC created a mismatch in the DEFENSES FAVOR! The result was UNSUCCESSFUL! TWICE!

That's on the OC no matter how you slice it. The percentage of Hurd beating Bailey on the same play twice are low. The end result is the only obvious evidence needed to support the claim. Barber is an excellent blocker and receiver out of the backfield. Yet he sits on the bench. Witten creates the best mismatches on our team, yet he's called on to stay in and block. Like I said before, there's nothing that you could possibly post to validate that line of thinking or playcalling. THAT is on the OC.

Back to the original question. Yes, players have to execute, if they don't it doesn't necessarily reflect on on the OC. What does reflect on the OC is when you render your known playmakers insignificant when the game is on the line.

It's not rocket surgery bro.

 

[skinsscalper]

You guys know they blitzed 8 right? That there wasn't exactly time to go through a read progression?

Sounds like a screen to Barber (or even Choice) would have been a winner. Oh, that's right, he was on the bench.

 

[Doomsday101]

Sounds like a screen to Barber (or even Choice) would have been a winner. Oh, that's right, he was on the bench.

A screen by the goalline? to slow of a developing play by the goal line but just my opinion.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

To a point Dooms is correct. I can own up to that. The problem that people have with the OC (and in effect the play calling) is the fact that our PLAYMAKERS were rendered useless by either design or injury. Witten in to block? Barber on the sidelines? The same pass design to the same player when the first time failed? Yes, I would call that an unsuccessful series of plays. Romo probably did make the right call. The flaw was in the fact that he had to try AGAIN to beat a HOF caliber player with a WR 4th on the depth chart. The OC created a mismatch in the DEFENSES FAVOR! The result was UNSUCCESSFUL! TWICE!

That's on the OC no matter how you slice it. The percentage of Hurd beating Bailey on the same play twice are low. The end result is the only obvious evidence needed to support the claim. Barber is an excellent blocker and receiver out of the backfield. Yet he sits on the bench. Witten creates the best mismatches on our team, yet he's called on to stay in and block. Like I said before, there's nothing that you could possibly post to validate that line of thinking or playcalling. THAT is on the OC.

Back to the original question. Yes, players have to execute, if they don't it doesn't necessarily reflect on on the OC. What does reflect on the OC is when you render your known playmakers insignificant when the game is on the line.

It's not rocket surgery bro.

No, the more I watch this, the more I have to say that this is not on Garrett. On both plays, it was execution. Heck, if I'm the OC and I have two downs to get a TD throwing the ball and you tell me that the opposition is going to put their best CB on my weakest WR on the field, I'm thanking the Gods for that piece of luck. I want there best player on my worst. I want my best player on their weakest or weaker. That's what we got and what's funny is that we had open WRs on those plays. We just didn't execute. Especially on that second TD.