ESPN: Romo demanding larger role in playcalling and gameplanning

[Sportsbabe]

According to Ed Werder today on ESPN radio, during negotiations Romo insisted on having a more significant say in offensive gameplanning, including playcalling, especially as it relates to running more no-huddle at certain times during games.

He also said the additional involvement lately was purely the demand of Romo, not Jerry or Garrett.

There has been apparently a mild rift between coach and quarterback over this for some time.

I don't know if I believe all that. It's Ed Werner for petes sake

 

[Sportsbabe]

So does this mean that we can go from 'Jerry needs to shut up' to 'Garret sucks so bad his QB needs to run the offense?'

Good one

 

[Picksix]

Great news. The less say Garrett has in play calling, the better, IMO.

So if Romo, or Callahan, or whoever, takes over, and things don't improve, then what? I think Garrett could do a better job with the play calls, but our execution is so poor, we could have Bill Walsh circa 1984 calling plays, and it wouldn't make much difference. Our playcalling was just fine in 2007. People argue that teams "figured Garrett out", and he became too predictable, but when you watched the Colts with Manning, they didn't change much over the years. They just outexecuted everybody.

 

[Coy]

He even tweeted it:

Edwerderespn: Biggest misconception about Tony Romo's new level of involvement _ that Jerry mandated it. Reality is that Romo insisted upon having it

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/Edwerderespn/statuses/331890484974850048

 

[CATCH17]

So if Romo, or Callahan, or whoever, takes over, and things don't improve, then what? I think Garrett could do a better job with the play calls, but our execution is so poor, we could have Bill Walsh circa 1984 calling plays, and it wouldn't make much difference. Our playcalling was just fine in 2007. People argue that teams "figured Garrett out", and he became too predictable, but when you watched the Colts with Manning, they didn't change much over the years. They just outexecuted everybody.

Our execution is never going to be great if we don't play guys to their strengths.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So does this mean that we can go from 'Jerry needs to shut up' to 'Garret sucks so bad his QB needs to run the offense?'

Or maybe we can just say, "Tony needs to shut up."


This, IMO, is not a good thing. This, to me, suggests more of a throw 50 times a game type situation and that will only lead to more of the same IMO.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

All I know is I'm excited about this upcoming season. More than I've been in a long time. Romo has more weapons than ever. We may have the personnel finally to run a two TE offense. The tempo may pick up with Romo calling the shots. The switch back to the 4-3 might give Ware and Spencer opprtunity to rush the passer every play. Our linebackers are finally healthy. We. Will. See.

 

[JIMMYBUFFETT]

Or maybe we can just say, "Tony needs to shut up."


This, IMO, is not a good thing. This, to me, suggests more of a throw 50 times a game type situation and that will only lead to more of the same IMO.

Why does it suggest that? You've got no idea what type offense Romo would call. All we know for sure is what type offense Garrett called.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think Romo will be more involved in the process but that does not mean Garrett is out of the process. I think like always some are taking this to the extreme.

 

[kirkjrk]

So does this mean that we can go from 'Jerry needs to shut up' to 'Garret sucks so bad his QB needs to run the offense?'

Yes!!

 

[DFWJC]

Or maybe we can just say, "Tony needs to shut up."


This, IMO, is not a good thing. This, to me, suggests more of a throw 50 times a game type situation and that will only lead to more of the same IMO.

I don't think so, ABQ.

I'm pretty sure he just wants the option to go into full throttle when the opportunity presents itself. This will in turn, make the offense less predictable.
Plus, as New Orleans and New England have shown, there are huge opportunies in the running game as well when you mix up the pace.

I really don't think this would be a core offense, just a ready-made option.

 

[VirusX]

Here we come playoffs!!!

*ducks*

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why does it suggest that? You've got no idea what type offense Romo would call. All we know for sure is what type offense Garrett called.

Oh, and you do? Here's what I know. Romo likes to throw the ball. He won't be inclined to run the ball unless he's foreced out of the pass but his inclination will be to throw first. That does not suggest a balanced offensive approach and that means that you are going to make it much harder on your OL and on your Defense.

A lot of the plays we ran, over the past few seasons, have been called at the line. We also know that. More of that is not what I want to see.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think so, ABQ.

I'm pretty sure he just wants the option to go into full throttle when the opportunity presents itself. This will in turn, make the offense less predictable.
Plus, as New Orleans and New England have shown, there are huge opportunies in the running game as well when you mix up the pace.

I don't want him to have that.

 

[theogt]

There have been trickles of evidence over the years that Romo is not a fan of Garrett's playcalling. This is the nail in the coffin.

 

[Miller]

I've always been more of a fan of Romo than Garrett. That may seem strange to some since I am sometimes torn on Tony but I think he can control the pace better than Garrett, considering Garrett seems to try WAY too hard to keep within his system instead of going with what works. I never liked him as an OC either. Listen, many have said that Romo, in his 30s, may be the guy that can never get over the hump...others have said he still has it in him. I'd rather see him push the chips "all in" and go for it than sit and watch more up and down offensive days like last year.

 

[VirusX]

He won't be inclined to run the ball unless he's foreced out of the pass but his inclination will be to throw first.

If you had the running game we do over the past several years would you choose to hand it off if things aren't going well!?

Trust me i'm pretty sure Romo would LOVE to hand it off if we could get positive yards on a consistent basis...

I can give it to Murray and get nothing or get my lunch eaten while running for my life and hopefully make a play...

Poor Romo opts for getting his lunch eaten to try an get us a W...

 

[JIMMYBUFFETT]

Oh, and you do? Here's what I know. Romo likes to throw the ball. He won't be inclined to run the ball unless he's foreced out of the pass but his inclination will be to throw first. That does not suggest a balanced offensive approach and that means that you are going to make it much harder on your OL and on your Defense.

A lot of the plays we ran, over the past few seasons, have been called at the line. We also know that. More of that is not what I want to see.

Pure speculation. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

 

[VirusX]

Pure speculation. Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

I think ABQ is actually hurting his own argument there...

Those times when we called them at the line in a hurry up offense are when he had a higher success rate... Didn't we hear the media last year asking for this because of poor game-time adjustments?!

 

[Little Jr]

There have been trickles of evidence over the years that Romo is not a fan of Garrett's playcalling. This is the nail in the coffin.

I agree.