Video: Film Study: Analyzing Dak Prescott's first game back

[khiladi]

The first play they break down is typical poor play design. Why are all of the receivers running the same direction? Defense just flows to the ball easily that way. Outside receiver Z should be running a comeback to the far sideline.

If you want to dumb down the offense for the QB and make him a game manager which includes more 2 TE sets, the selection of play calls is going to be limited.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I’ve already stated that very clearly multiple times and I’ve got no problems spelling out my motivation. Just like many Dak-lovers on here, think Dak is better than Romo for ‘socio-cultural’ reasons, but they don’t spell it out. It was a downright disrespect what they franchise did to Romo for this joke if a QB, who can’t throw against a zone to save his life.

I never said Dak was better than Romo. that wasn't the premise of the comment....but obviously you have an emotional issue with Dak taking over Romo's job in 2016. after 7 years, you are not over it.

 

[Qcard]

We are not arguing Romo is a nice guy. We also know that Romo was light years better than Dak in practice when he came back and that he wasn’t allowed to compete for his staring jobs back and Dak has never had to compete. Hardly a meritocracy as Dak continues to suck.

See....we have Tony Romo ON VIDEO saying "Football is a Meritocracy"

But Dak Haters Eye Test...hear a Dog Whistle...

There is NOTHING Prescott can do to change Dak Hater's world view.....

Dak Haters view has nothing to do with Meritocracy

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Facts are facts, and among them you are engaging in nothing but trying to spin your way out of what the clear facts are. So now, you have gone from “Romo checking out of pass plays” to the BRAIN TRUST of all three coaches being responsible for it. Your original contention was that Romo was basically doing things on the fly and wanted to absolve everybody, including Garrett, except Romo.

Facts are facts, and your facts are wrong. You said Garrett was stripped of play-calling in 2014, and that was wrong. What I can't figure out is if you were wrong because you just didn't know, or wrong because you want to try to pretend like 2013 never happened.

Here are the facts:

The only thing I ever originally disputed was your claim that "Romo FORCED the issue to be given more power during the contract...It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game." Most everything else you're babbling on about here is pure nonsense that I never said to begin with.

My ONLY two points are:

A.) Romo didn't force anything. It was never about him wanting power. Jerry forced Romo to become more involved and spend more time on preparation during the week. That is beyond obvious from Jerry's quotes and anyone who lived through it knows it.

B.) You saying "It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game" is nonsense, until you can answer why, in 2013 - after Romo signed his extension - Dallas ran the ball less than it did in 2012, and Romo threw the third most pass attempts of his career. You also likely cannot answer why Linehan himself said it was Garrett who personally told him he wanted to beef up the running game when they hired him.

Now to make it easy for you, nobody here was arguing that Callahan was a good play-caller, what was stated was that Garrett was so incompetent for the job that Jerry banished him from play-calling while Romo was being given more power. This is the reality, which you and your Dak jock-sniffing self is doing everything in your power to ignore. If Garrett started interfering with this and Jerry tolerated to an extent his “adopted son” and “chosen one” to interfere in the first year, doesn’t change anything of this point. Facts are when Linehan came, Jerry explicitly stated Garrett is not wanted on the offense and he will be a walk-around head coach, he can spend more time on the defense and his role will be AMBIGUOUS. The fact is, you Dak jock-riders cannot change these facts.

So Garrett supposedly had all his power taken away by Romo - but yet, they elevated someone who was already on his staff to play caller, even though Garrett had his fingerprints on the play calling all season, eventually took it over late in the season, and Jerry admitted after the year that Garrett was really the true OC all season. Wow, yeah, really sounds like he got all his power stripped away because of Romo.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

So now you’ve moved on from flat-out denial to “Jerry gushes about everything”. What is clear per Jerry, is Jason as the play-called could not even let go of calling the plays and that Romo’s input wasn’t even in the game-planning.

What is clear is all the evidence points to exactly what I stated:

Jerry was demoting Garrett and with Romo’s new contract, giving him more and more power.

Yes, Jerry gushes about everything. Nothing in the quote you posted about Linehan and Romo disputes anything I'm arguing in the first place. So I don't see what relevance it has here.

As far as the bolded, again, I'm not disputing this. Garrett was getting demoted on offense, where you are wrong is that it was Romo who forced the issue and not Jerry trying his best to placate the fanbase while still being able to keep Garrett around, as well as demanding his highest-paid QB in the NFL to step up his effort.

Your claim that it meant that he was just doing things on the fly is the Cabo narrative and why Dak jock-riders like you, gush about how Dak built a football field in his backyard to throw to Amari Cooper abd his other WRs, demonstrating a work ethic unlike the lazy Romo.

Honest to God, what on earth are you babbling about here? I've read this back 5 times and I have no clue what you think you're trying to say.

When in reality, what are facts us Jerry actually gage an incredible amount of power to Jason Garrett and all the blame his lackeys cast on Romo were actually w result of his own incompetence, as he didn’t even have Romo involved in game planning.

So you believe that if Romo voluntarily wanted to spend more time on game prep, he would have been denied?

The rumors of Romo getting more involved in game planning already started.



https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/28/romo-will-be-getting-new-duties-in-2013/

The it was actually confirmed from the mouth of Jerry himself.

Uh, there were no "rumors" of Romo being more involved - it was said directly from Jerry that he wanted Romo to put in more time.

 

[khiladi]

Facts are facts, and your facts are wrong. You said Garrett was stripped of play-calling in 2014, and that was wrong. What I can't figure out is if you were wrong because you just didn't know, or wrong because you want to try to pretend like 2013 never happened.

Here are the facts:

The only thing I ever originally disputed was your claim that "Romo FORCED the issue to be given more power during the contract...It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game." Most everything else you're babbling on about here is pure nonsense that I never said to begin with.

My ONLY two points are:

A.) Romo didn't force anything. It was never about him wanting power. Jerry forced Romo to become more involved and spend more time on preparation during the week. That is beyond obvious from Jerry's quotes and anyone who lived through it knows it.

B.) You saying "It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game" is nonsense, until you can answer why, in 2013 - after Romo signed his extension - Dallas ran the ball less than it did in 2012, and Romo threw the third most pass attempts of his career. You also likely cannot answer why Linehan himself said it was Garrett who personally told him he wanted to beef up the running game when they hired him.


So Garrett supposedly had all his power taken away by Romo - but yet, they elevated someone who was already on his staff to play caller, even though Garrett had his fingerprints on the play calling all season, eventually took it over late in the season, and Jerry admitted after the year that Garrett was really the true OC all season. Wow, yeah, really sounds like he got all his power stripped away because of Romo.

No facts are facts. You entered into this conversation trying to argue that the changes made were a result if Romo not doing his job, after I stated many things to point to the fact that the changes that were made by the Cowboys were a result of STRIPPING Jason Garrett of his power, to give Romo more power. Thus is why you brought up the term “Peyton Manning” responsibilities as a negative to try and discredit ALL THE CHANGES made as a result of this.

This is why you stated the following:

What? This is hilarious. It was actually the complete opposite of praising Romo; it was a public effort to prod Romo to be more involved.

Here is the part of the quote from Jerry that you are ignoring:

"“I CAN SPEAK FOR JASON in this respect: Everything he is about wants more buy-in and more participation from the player,” Jones said. "So if Tony, for instance, would be here Monday through Saturday and be here from seven in the morning to six o’clock at night all over this place, then that’s better than the way it’s been.We’ll have more success, and JASON BELIEVES THAT believes that. It’s certainly at quarterback but he believes it at the other positions, too."

1. Jerry is literally outright telling you here that Tony wasn't putting in as much time as they wanted and that they were requiring him to do more than he had been. You're attempting to spin this as Romo "forcing the issue" when it is the opposite, it is the team telling Romo they needed him to do more. Romo not being involved in game-planning meetings was on his own accord. Do you think if he had come to Jerry and Garrett in 2011 or 12 and said "hey guys, I really want to be involved in all the game prep meetings" they would have told him no? Because that's the rewrite of history you're attempting to make here. The team expected him to go beyond what he was doing and put in Peyton Manning-level time. That is not praise, that is a directive.

Jerry in the quote, is literally saying Romo needs to be in the office 6 days a week, from morning until night, and that would be better than the way things have been. Meaning, that is not the time that Romo is currently putting in, but if he does that then things will be better.

What part of this is confusing you?

This extension came on the heels of a season-ending loss to Washington which caused them to miss the playoffs, where Romo threw 3 picks and there was a ton of heat on Garrett as a playcaller/coach and on Romo for his lack of preparation/checking out of runs. Jerry is telling you here as clear as day that Romo putting in more work is part of the deal. It's not "responsibilities offered" to him, it's a directive.

The mental gymnastics you're doing to try and flip "we need Romo to spend more time" into "Jerry is trying to justify Garrett losing power to Romo" is just absurd.

We all know Jerry did it because he thought it would be better for the organization and we all know Jerry did it after the loss and the offense blew chunks to end the season. What is clear is you were trying to refute my narrative that all these changes were a result if stripping Garrett of power and giving Romo more control, including to run the ball more as well as more input in game planning meetings as well as influence of personnel decisions such as the drafting of Frederick, to “Peyton-Manning” responsibilities of being lazy.

The fact of the matter is you tried to argue this had everything you do with Romo not PUTTING in the time and it was a directive by Jerry to make him so. And as I pointed out, such a claim is complete garbage because, first of all, Peyton basically was running the offense and Jerry clearly meant it as a praise and further, Jerry himself is defending the decision not in regards to Romo, BUT JASON GARRETT, thus his phrases “I can speak for Jason” and “Jason believes that”.

So since you couldn’t deny this, you starting flopping course and starting including Garrett and Callahan in the ‘trio”, meaning you had to flip flop course by no longer just saying it was about Romo.

Facts are you have not brought a single shred of evidence to substantiate your claims and now you are yapping about how Garrett interfering and tried resisting with the eventual hiring of Linehan in respect to Callahan somehow negates the fact that it was Garrett’s incompetence as a PLAY CALLER that led to the changes.

 

[khiladi]

Uh, there were no "rumors" of Romo being more involved - it was said directly from Jerry that he wanted Romo to put in more time.

What’s comical is you acting like you are the one posting articles as proof of your point, when all you were trying to do is make it seem like Romo was the one who was lazy and now that were shown as wrong, you are trying to flip flop YOUR narrative that it wasn’t just about Romo not being lazy, but also include Garrett sucking at play calling.

I quoted Werder tweet with a clear point as I stated, that the rumors of Romo being more involved CAME PUT before Jerry PUBLICLY stated it, which is why I immediately stated afterward in the portion you cut off and provided the article with the time stamp:

The it was actually confirmed from the mouth of Jerry himself.[/qupte]

 

[khiladi]

B.) You saying "It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game" is nonsense, until you can answer why, in 2013 - after Romo signed his extension - Dallas ran the ball less than it did in 2012, and Romo threw the third most pass attempts of his career. You also likely cannot answer why Linehan himself said it was Garrett who personally told him he wanted to beef up the running game when they hired him.

This is just more nonsense and you just trying to continue to re-write the narrative that you originally claimed these changes were not because of Garrett, but Romo, thus your comments about Peyton-like responsibilities and Romo “checking out of run plays” that were allegedly called.

1. You have provided zero evidence that Linehan quoted Garrett as saying they wanted to run more. But even if he said that, it only follows Jerry explicitly stating that thus is they they brought in Linehan, to run more and use Dez like the X receiver. He stated that what coaches claim they are going to do with running, is different than what they actually do. And that the don’t want Jason in the offense, but Callahan was still obviously going to be involved.

2, Jerry specifically stated Garrett kept interfering and it was Garrett’s playbook and it wasn’t fair to Callahan. Whether or not 2013 succeeded is irrelevant, it still demonstrates the adopted son of Jerry sucked at play-calling, was still interfering, dk he had to personally relegate him to be a walk around head coach that would spend more time on the defense and he would have ambiguous role. On the other hand, you got statement after statement of Jerry gushing about Romo being more involved in everything and being like Peyton-Manning.

3. As I stated before, Stephen McGee threw it 38 times in December when Romo went down after 2 attempts against the Eagles in 2011 and Kyle Orton tossed it 47 times agains GB in 2013 on December, both playoff defining games,. Facts of the matter it it doesn’t wash to claim Romo was ignoring the run, when the backups were tossing the ball at such a high rate on playoff games that Romo had no part in constructing the game plans around.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

No facts are facts. You entered into this conversation trying to argue that the changes made were a result if Romo not doing his job, after I stated many things to point to the fact that the changes that were made by the Cowboys were a result of STRIPPING Jason Garrett of his power, to give Romo more power. Thus is why you brought up the term “Peyton Manning” responsibilities as a negative to try and discredit ALL THE CHANGES made as a result of this.

No, that's not at all what I argued. I suggest you slow down and take time to actually read what you are replying to. What I said, and all I have ever said, is that Romo was not responsible for pushing the team in a run-heavy direction, and Romo was not the one who "forced the issue" to be more involved in the offense. It was Jerry, the owner of the team, who forced the issue. We have now gone over numerous quotes from Jerry saying this exact thing. Are you old enough to have been following the team in 2013? Do you recall Jerry telling anyone who would listen that Romo needed to stop "drawing up plays in the dirt" or whatever and work more within the offense? That is all part of the core point which is Jerry was the one who demanded Romo to be more involved in the weekly gameplanning. I don't know how much more clear this can be or why you keep trying to pretend it didn't happen.

You still haven't answered how the Peyton Manning comparison can be considered praise. If you ask a girl on a date and she says "no, maybe if you start acting more like this other guy" are you going to take that as a good thing? Please explain how that can be considered praise.

We all know Jerry did it because he thought it would be better for the organization and we all know Jerry did it after the loss and the offense blew chunks to end the season. What is clear is you were trying to refute my narrative that all these changes were a result if stripping Garrett of power and giving Romo more control, including to run the ball more as well as more input in game planning meetings as well as influence of personnel decisions such as the drafting of Frederick, to “Peyton-Manning” responsibilities of being lazy.

This is yet another example of you not comprehending what you're reading and arguing against talking points that are in your head, but that I never actually said. When have I ever said Garrett didn't suck? I have a picture in my sig detailing how bad of a coach he was. There are two facts:

1. Garrett sucked, and needed to have his grip on the play calling taken away.

2. Romo needed to put in more time and involvement in game plan/preparation.

These two things are not mutually exclusive; they can both be true, and Jerry made the call on both.

The fact of the matter is you tried to argue this had everything you do with Romo not PUTTING in the time and it was a directive by Jerry to make him so. And as I pointed out, such a claim is complete garbage because, first of all, Peyton basically was running the offense and Jerry clearly meant it as a praise and further, Jerry himself is defending the decision not in regards to Romo, BUT JASON GARRETT, thus his phrases “I can speak for Jason” and “Jason believes that”.

So since you couldn’t deny this, you starting flopping course and starting including Garrett and Callahan in the ‘trio”, meaning you had to flip flop course by no longer just saying it was about Romo.

Facts are you have not brought a single shred of evidence to substantiate your claims and now you are yapping about how Garrett interfering and tried resisting with the eventual hiring of Linehan in respect to Callahan somehow negates the fact that it was Garrett’s incompetence as a PLAY CALLER that led to the changes.

Again, what are on earth are you babbling about here? When did I ever say it was just about Romo? In 2013, Callahan called the plays, Garrett still "coordinated" the offense and Romo (according to you) had more control/input - so all 3 are responsible for the offensive failures of 2013. What part of that has you confused?

 

[DOUBLE WING]

1. You have provided zero evidence that Linehan quoted Garrett as saying they wanted to run more. But even if he said that, it only follows Jerry explicitly stating that thus is they they brought in Linehan, to run more and use Dez like the X receiver. He stated that what coaches claim they are going to do with running, is different than what they actually do. And that the don’t want Jason in the offense, but Callahan was still obviously going to be involved.

For the guy calling the plays, the Cowboys' commitment to the run is anything but new. Scott Linehan said the ground game was one of the main selling points from coach Jason Garrett when he took the coordinator position in Dallas all the way back in January.

"He said 'the No. 1 thing we're going to do is we're going to get this run game like the old days,'" Linehan said of Garrett. "He was thinking of the days when he was wearing a uniform here. That was loud and clear, and we were all-in, I was all-in from the get-go."

2, Jerry specifically stated Garrett kept interfering and it was Garrett’s playbook and it wasn’t fair to Callahan. Whether or not 2013 succeeded is irrelevant, it still demonstrates the adopted son of Jerry sucked at play-calling, was still interfering, dk he had to personally relegate him to be a walk around head coach that would spend more time on the defense and he would have ambiguous role.

Yeah, he did. Garrett was a problem, but nobody is arguing he wasn't. What I'm arguing is your idea that Romo forced control of the offense from Garrett, when it's clear that did not happen.

On the other hand, you got statement after statement of Jerry gushing about Romo being more involved in everything and being like Peyton-Manning.

If you fail to comprehend what you are reading with the Jerry-Peyton quote, then let's just stop talking about it. Jerry said "If Tony would put in Peyton Manning-level time, we would be better." What that means is Romo is a good player, but we need him to put in more preparation like Peyton does. If you call that gushing, then we just have to agree to disagree because you're clearly not able to comprehend the words that you're reading.

3. As I stated before, Stephen McGee threw it 38 times in December when Romo went down after 2 attempts against the Eagles in 2011 and Kyle Orton tossed it 47 times agains GB in 2013 on December, both playoff defining games,. Facts of the matter it it doesn’t wash to claim Romo was ignoring the run, when the backups were tossing the ball at such a high rate on playoff games that Romo had no part in constructing the game plans around.

And when Romo had a hand in constructing the game plans and changing the calls from the line of scrimmage in 2013, they still threw the ball almost more than ever in his career. What is your response to that?

 

[khiladi]

For the guy calling the plays, the Cowboys' commitment to the run is anything but new. Scott Linehan said the ground game was one of the main selling points from coach Jason Garrett when he took the coordinator position in Dallas all the way back in January.

"He said 'the No. 1 thing we're going to do is we're going to get this run game like the old days,'" Linehan said of Garrett. "He was thinking of the days when he was wearing a uniform here. That was loud and clear, and we were all-in, I was all-in from the get-go."




Yeah, he did. Garrett was a problem, but nobody is arguing he wasn't. What I'm arguing is your idea that Romo forced control of the offense from Garrett, when it's clear that did not happen.



If you fail to comprehend what you are reading with the Jerry-Peyton quote, then let's just stop talking about it. Jerry said "If Tony would put in Peyton Manning-level time, we would be better." What that means is Romo is a good player, but we need him to put in more preparation like Peyton does. If you call that gushing, then we just have to agree to disagree because you're clearly not able to comprehend the words that you're reading.



And when Romo had a hand in constructing the game plans and changing the calls from the line of scrimmage in 2013, they still threw the ball almost more than ever in his career. What is your response to that?

1. No Jerry did not say what you claim he said and already explained why the numbers went up with the year Callahan was there.

2. Like I already stated regarding even if Linehan stated that, it was after Jerry made it explicitly clear that is what they were going to do. Which is why I brought up both McGee and Orton numbers when Romo wasn’t in the fans.

2. You put the lack of running game on Romo period. You tried to interpret Peyton-like Manning as a slight on Romo. That’s garbage. Now you are trying to twist it by saying that they aren’t mutually exclusive, as if I haven’t told over and over again that Garrett kept interfering and Callahan was running Garrett’s offense and he was a West coast guy and Linehan afforded them the opportunity to call plays in the same CORYELL offense. So when Jerry finally banished Garrett was from the offense for good, Romo and Linehan ran the ball.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

1. No Jerry did not say what you claim he said and already explained why the numbers went up with the year Callahan was there.

2. Like I already stated regarding even if Linehan stated that, it was after Jerry made it explicitly clear that is what they were going to do. Which is why I brought up both McGee and Orton numbers when Romo wasn’t in the fans.

2. You put the lack of running game on Romo period. You tried to interpret Peyton-like Manning as a slight on Romo. That’s garbage. Now you are trying to twist it by saying that they aren’t mutually exclusive, as if I haven’t told over and over again that Garrett kept interfering and Callahan was running Garrett’s offense and he was a West coast guy and Linehan afforded them the opportunity to call plays in the same CORYELL offense. So when Jerry finally banished Garrett was from the offense for good, Romo and Linehan ran the ball.

1. Yes, Jerry did say that exact quote. You can try to do whatever mental gymnastics to try to explain why he said it, but he said it. And no, you didn't explain why Romo's passing increased under Callahan. But please go ahead and do so.

2. All I can tell you is what Linehan said. He said Garrett was the one who wanted to run the ball more. I'm not here to analyze and pick apart comments to try and decipher what they really meant, I'm just telling you what he said.

3. I am not saying the lack of the running game was all on Romo. What I am saying is that, based on what happened in 2013, it is clear to me that Romo was NOT the driving force behind wanting to run the ball more (which was your initial take that I replied to). You tried to paint the picture that Romo seized control and forced the issue on emphasizing the run game, which is absolutely not what happened.

 

[khiladi]

1. Yes, Jerry did say that exact quote. You can try to do whatever mental gymnastics to try to explain why he said it, but he said it. And no, you didn't explain why Romo's passing increased under Callahan. But please go ahead and do so.

2. All I can tell you is what Linehan said. He said Garrett was the one who wanted to run the ball more. I'm not here to analyze and pick apart comments to try and decipher what they really meant, I'm just telling you what he said.

3. I am not saying the lack of the running game was all on Romo. What I am saying is that, based on what happened in 2013, it is clear to me that Romo was NOT the driving force behind wanting to run the ball more (which was your initial take that I replied to). You tried to paint the picture that Romo seized control and forced the issue on emphasizing the run game, which is absolutely not what happened.

I said many things in my first post, when you decided to to your mouth and went all in on bashing Romo and trying to forgot Garrett.

You Dak-stand harp on the most bogus analogies and re-write narratives. Dak inherited the PRIME team that supposed to be for Romo, which is why Jerry drafted Zeke after losing Murray. Romo wanted Murray signed.

In actuality, power was stripped from Garrett and Romo was given more power, the exact opposite of what you claimed. Romo wasn’t even part of game planning meetings with I said many things in my first post, of which when you decided to to your mouth you went all in on bashing Romo and trying to forgot Garrett.. Nothing was stripped from Romo, he FORCED the issue to be given more power during the contract, which is why Jerry credits him with prioritizing Frederick. It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game with the incompetent Garrett no longer interfering.

The run game correlates with Garrett being relegated to a walk around HC and Romo being given more power, which is more than evident when Stephen McGee ended up throwing 38 times in 2011 in December and Kyle Orton ended up throwing 46 times against the Eagles in a playoff contention game. Garrett couldn’t field a RG to save his life, and all of this became clearly evident with the Giants. Romo was carrying straight garbage and it was only in 2014 when he was finally given a Garrett-free offense.

Romo threw for close to 80% in December that year and destroyed the Colts and Eagles, two winning teams and beat Detroit and was practically flawless in sub-zero temperature in Lambeau, where the Packers were undefeated and got robbed on the Dez catch, while one can argue Murray fumbled the game away. Dak can’t beat a winning team to save his life.

With Romo Dallas that year was using play action at half the rate that Linehan used with Dak, meaning the run was the FOCAl point of Dallas with Dak. They weren’t using the RG to “manage” the game like they were with Dak, they were using the RG to make the passing game explosive, which is why the Cowboys used more to routes than any team that year and both Dez and TWill were two of the top 3 WRs in terms of go route usage. And TWill had 8 TDs on 65 targets. Dak couldn’t find that man to save his life.

Romo had ONE YEAR in that offense, while Dak basically inherited the golden years of that OL and looked like complete garbage. And Linehan had to dumb down the offense and couldn’t even use Dez properly, because he was so inaccurate.

Cut the bogus analogies. they’ve been babysitting this mediocre QB ever since he’s been here, while this organization was basically counting on Romo to save their ineptitude.

As you can see, the MAJOR contention is that by the time Dak came around, Garrett wasn’t even involved in the offense and play-calling, as Jerry Jones had already ‘demoted’ him from the role. It is you that’s engaging in mental gymnastics, not, because your whole post was to discredit this argument that the changes were a result of Romo given more power, not the incompetence of Garrett. I brought this post up to correct this bogus notion that they “were taking the ball out of Romo’s hands, just like they need to do for Dan”, when the reality is they were giving Romo more power and stripping Garrett of power. In the context of Dak, it’s actually dumbing down the offense for him, Whether Dallas needed to run the ball more as an offense is a separate issue to lessening the burden on a QB who is a bus driver. With Romo, the running game was used to set up the big passing play.

As os evident, I said many things in my first post, of which when you decided to to your mouth you went all in on bashing Romo and trying to forgot Garrett, when you said:

So it was Romo, who Jerry publicly said needed to put in more time ("Peyton Manning-level time" to be exact) after signing his extension, that was the one who needed to force the issue to get more control, not the other way around? You sure about that?

It was Romo, who routinely checked out of run plays late to throw brutal interceptions that cost the team games (think: Detroit 2011, Green Bay 2013), who needed to force the issue to run the ball more - you sure about that?

As is obviously clear, you took these moves as being done to check Romo, and not strip the incompetent play caller of his powers.


Your very first comments were that out was a slight on Romo, as he didn’t spend the necessary effort to prepare for games and was just rolling with it game day. You even said that if Romo wanted to be in the meetings he could have just asked.

Everything I stated in the article, I then went on and proved one way or another, while you just continued to talk away and modify your arguments the more you realized how much you were digging yourself a whole.

Facts are you realized this contention was dumb as:

1. Peyton Manning was effectively setting offensive records at the time and was known to be running his own offense in Denver. It was further a praise, as I clearly demonstrated by Jerry addressing reporters regarding Jason’s reaction, not Romo’s as this was a move to strip play calling powers from him.

3. You dug do deep into it, you realized you had to modify your opinions to not look like a complete buffoon, because as I stated from the beginning, all of these changes regarding the offense and Romo’s new contract led to Garrett losing more and more power over the offense and Romo gaining more and more power.

 

[USArmyVet]

See....we have Tony Romo ON VIDEO saying "Football is a Meritocracy"

But Dak Haters Eye Test...hear a Dog Whistle...

There is NOTHING Prescott can do to change Dak Hater's world view.....

Dak Haters view has nothing to do with Meritocracy

Dak haters eye test....dog whistle? Oh please just say what you mean as you have insinuated it numerous times.

 

[khiladi]

Facts are this:

Dak had been baby-sat this whole time here and he was given the keys, AFTER Romo finally had the stench of Garrett out of his way as far as play-calling is concerned. Dak has never thrown a single ball with Garrett calling the plays.

The issue was not Garrett’s “offense” here when Romo was here, as it was basically Coryell, it was Garrett’s play-calling within the context of that offense. So Dak running “Garrett’s offense” means nothing substantial as far as the context of Romo’s career here, straddled by the incompetence of Garrett calling plays. Dak has played under Linehan and Moore calling plays and both of them are completely different than Garrett in this regard, it’s not even close.

Further, they were still a big gun offense with Romo under Linehan. Dak on the other hand, the issue is the lack of versatility of the QB that caused them to dumb down the offense for him period. And this is evident in year 7, when we continue to talk about him in the context of 2016 and having to go back to that “formula”.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

I said many things in my first post, when you decided to to your mouth and went all in on bashing Romo and trying to forgot Garrett.



As you can see, the MAJOR contention is that by the time Dak came around, Garrett wasn’t even involved in the offense and play-calling, as Jerry Jones had already ‘demoted’ him from the role. It is you that’s engaging in mental gymnastics, not, because your whole post was to discredit this argument that the changes were a result of Romo given more power, not the incompetence of Garrett. I brought this post up to correct this bogus notion that they “were taking the ball out of Romo’s hands, just like they need to do for Dan”, when the reality is they were giving Romo more power and stripping Garrett of power. In the context of Dak, it’s actually dumbing down the offense for him, Whether Dallas needed to run the ball more as an offense is a separate issue to lessening the burden on a QB who is a bus driver. With Romo, the running game was used to set up the big passing play.

As os evident, I said many things in my first post, of which when you decided to to your mouth you went all in on bashing Romo and trying to forgot Garrett, when you said:



As is obviously clear, you took these moves as being done to check Romo, and not strip the incompetent play caller of his powers.


Your very first comments were that out was a slight on Romo, as he didn’t spend the necessary effort to prepare for games and was just rolling with it game day. You even said that if Romo wanted to be in the meetings he could have just asked.

Everything I stated in the article, I then went on and proved one way or another, while you just continued to talk away and modify your arguments the more you realized how much you were digging yourself a whole.

Facts are you realized this contention was dumb as:

1. Peyton Manning was effectively setting offensive records at the time and was known to be running his own offense in Denver. It was further a praise, as I clearly demonstrated by Jerry addressing reporters regarding Jason’s reaction, not Romo’s as this was a move to strip play calling powers from him.

3. You dug do deep into it, you realized you had to modify your opinions to not look like a complete buffoon, because as I stated from the beginning, all of these changes regarding the offense and Romo’s new contract led to Garrett losing more and more power over the offense and Romo gaining more and more power.

I have not "modified" a single opinion. My original reply to you and my subsequent points have all remained exactly the same. Let me be very clear, so you don't have any confusion:

Point 1: Tony Romo did not "force the issue" to take control away from Jason Garrett.

Supporting argument:

- Garrett never really lost control. The year after Romo's extension, Garrett was still more or less involved in if not outright calling the plays. And then the next year he hired his buddy Linehan who he previously coached with. These were calls that Jerry let Garrett make.
- Jerry wanted Romo to be more involved, not the other way around. As evidenced by the Peyton Manning comment, which you will continue to twist yourselves into knots trying to translate. What Jerry said is clear as day. There's really no point in continuing to litigate this topic because you heard something different from what Jerry actually said, and will not believe otherwise.

Point 2: Tony Romo did not "force the issue" to run the ball more.

Supporting argument:

- The year after his extension, Romo threw the ball more than he had the previous year. The third most pass attempts of his career. He was not a driving force behind wanting to run more and there is no evidence that he was.
- Linehan was hired the next year by his friend Garrett, whom he coached with in Miami, and told the media that Garrett told him he wanted to get back to the 90s running game.

These are my points. Very simple, clear as day.

 

[khiladi]

I have not "modified" a single opinion. My original reply to you and my subsequent points have all remained exactly the same. Let me be very clear, so you don't have any confusion:

Point 1: Tony Romo did not "force the issue" to take control away from Jason Garrett.

Supporting argument:

- Garrett never really lost control. The year after Romo's extension, Garrett was still more or less involved in if not outright calling the plays. And then the next year he hired his buddy Linehan who he previously coached with. These were calls that Jerry let Garrett make.
- Jerry wanted Romo to be more involved, not the other way around. As evidenced by the Peyton Manning comment, which you will continue to twist yourselves into knots trying to translate. What Jerry said is clear as day. There's really no point in continuing to litigate this topic because you heard something different from what Jerry actually said, and will not believe otherwise.

Point 2: Tony Romo did not "force the issue" to run the ball more.

Supporting argument:

- The year after his extension, Romo threw the ball more than he had the previous year. The third most pass attempts of his career. He was not a driving force behind wanting to run more and there is no evidence that he was.
- Linehan was hired the next year by his friend Garrett, whom he coached with in Miami, and told the media that Garrett told him he wanted to get back to the 90s running game.

These are my points. Very simple, clear as day.

The great thing about the Internet is the record trail is there for all to see. It doesn’t matter what you claim your points are NOW, what is clear is, is you tried to argue that, contrary to what I stated, Jerry had to make changes because of Romo, not Garrett.

1. After it became abundantly clear the case, you then tried to flip flop by saying that Garrett never really “lost control”, because he kept interfering, even though I already knew that and I pointed out in thar very first post that you decided to open your mouth to me that it was only in 2014 that Garrett was completely out of the equation. Basically as this argument proceeded with all the evidence I brought forth, all you have been doing is trying to re-Internet the evidence to somehow make Garrett being stripped of play calling, constantly interfering and trying not to relinquish the role, to Dallas realizing that Callahan can’t call plays in an offense not his, so they got Linehan, somehow proves that the problem was Romo, not Garrett. That’s insane, but what can one expect from a Dak jock-sniffer?

You have not taught me Jack squat, in reality I just provided you a course of what actually happened and all you have been doing ever since is trying to flip your story to redeem the foolishness of your argument that Jerry was trying to babysit Romo. You read my first post like Dak reads defenses and started yapping away thinking you were going to school me, but got schooled in the process period.

2. The fact is, we all know Jerry wanted Romo to be more involved, which is why he gave him Peyton-Manning like responsibilities. You tried to create a bogus narrative as this was a slight on Romo, when it fact it was nothing but a positive. The facts of the matter is as I stated in my first post, Romo was given more power and Garrett was stripped of power.

3.

What I actually stated was the following:

In actuality, power was stripped from Garrett and Romo was given more power, the exact opposite of what you claimed. Romo wasn’t even part of game planning meetings with Garrett. Nothing was stripped from Romo, he FORCED the issue to be given more power during the contract, which is why Jerry credits him with prioritizing Frederick. It was Romo who wanted to run more and take pressure off the passing game with the incompetent Garrett no longer interfering.

The facts of the matter is, as I clearly established, which you originally tried to refute by thinking “Peyton-like” responsibilities means less control, because Romo was just chilling, and because Romo was checking out of Garrett’s run, not the other way around, though like I said you read posts like Dak reads defenses:

The run game correlates with Garrett being relegated to a walk around HC and Romo being given more power, which is more than evident when Stephen McGee ended up throwing 38 times in 2011 in December and Kyle Orton ended up throwing 46 times against the Eagles in a playoff contention game. Garrett couldn’t field a RG to save his life, and all of this became clearly evident with the Giants. Romo was carrying straight garbage and it was only in 2014 when he was finally given a Garrett-free offense.

Yes, Romo threw the ball more with Callahan. So what? I already said that Callahan couldn’t call plays in the system, but the driving force of these run fake changes were in fact that Callahan completely revamped the RG and blocking schemes and it took him 1 year for Jerry to think he could be the guy to call plays.

 

[khiladi]

Facts are, you were so shook by all the evidence, you even tried to refute these points by basically saying, “well if Romo wanted to be in game planning meetings, he just could have asked, but he didn’t, so that means Jerry had to baby sit him”.. That’s how ridiculously absurd your original contention was, so now you are trying to re-write the narrative.

The reality is, contrary to all this later smokescreen, you were just trying to argue Jerry and Garrett were trying to reign in Romo, when it was the exact opposite. It was Jerry reigning in Garrett and giving Romo more and more power.

Fact is Romo was given more and more power, unlike your boy Dak who just sucks with even competent play callers. The context between the two are completely different.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

The great thing about the Internet is the record trail is there for all to see. It doesn’t matter what you claim your points are NOW, what is clear is, is you tried to argue that, contrary to what I stated, Jerry had to make changes because of Romo, not Garrett.

Oh okay, can you link the post where I said this?

1. After it became abundantly clear the case, you then tried to flip flop by saying that Garrett never really “lost control”, because he kept interfering, even though I already knew that and I pointed out in thar very first post that you decided to open your mouth to me that it was only in 2014 that Garrett was completely out of the equation.

How was he completely out of the equation if he hired Linehan and then directed him as to what kind of offense they wanted to run?

There is no "flip flop" - again, the argument has been and has stayed very simple:

You: "Romo 'forced the issue' to take control away from Garrett."

Me: "No, Jerry wanted Romo to put in more work and be more involved."

You: "Romo forced the issue to run the ball more as part of his extension"

Me: "No, they passed more the year after he signed it and only committed to the run a year later when Jerry/Garrett hired Linehan."

Where have I said anything to the contrary of that?

Basically as this argument proceeded with all the evidence I brought forth, all you have been doing is trying to re-Internet the evidence to somehow make Garrett being stripped of play calling, constantly interfering and trying not to relinquish the role, to Dallas realizing that Callahan can’t call plays in an offense not his, so they got Linehan, somehow proves that the problem was Romo, not Garrett. That’s insane, but what can one expect from a Dak jock-sniffer?

Where did I say that?

2. The fact is, we all know Jerry wanted Romo to be more involved, which is why he gave him Peyton-Manning like responsibilities. You tried to create a bogus narrative as this was a slight on Romo, when it fact it was nothing but a positive. The facts of the matter is as I stated in my first post, Romo was given more power and Garrett was stripped of power.

So... you agree?

That was literally my point from post one in this thread. JERRY WANTED Romo more involved. Romo WAS GIVEN more responsibility. That is vastly different from "Romo forced the issue" but thank you for finally seeing things correctly.

Yes, Romo threw the ball more with Callahan. So what? I already said that Callahan couldn’t call plays in the system, but the driving force of these run fake changes were in fact that Callahan completely revamped the RG and blocking schemes and it took him 1 year for Jerry to think he could be the guy to call plays.

The "so what?" is that it flies in the face of your narrative that Romo was the one who forced the issue to run more. If that was the case, they would have run more. But they didn't. And he was checking out of run plays to pass.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Facts are, you were so shook by all the evidence, you even tried to refute these points by basically saying, “well if Romo wanted to be in game planning meetings, he just could have asked, but he didn’t, so that means Jerry had to baby sit him”.. That’s how ridiculously absurd your original contention was, so now you are trying to re-write the narrative.

The reality is, contrary to all this later smokescreen, you were just trying to argue Jerry and Garrett were trying to reign in Romo, when it was the exact opposite. It was Jerry reigning in Garrett and giving Romo more and more power.

Fact is Romo was given more and more power, unlike your boy Dak who just sucks with even competent play callers. The context between the two are completely different.

Where did I say Jerry had to "babysit" Romo? Can you link the post? Can you link the post where I ever typed the word "babysit" before this one?

I think the bolded really sums up the reading comprehension issue we are having here. You are inventing things in your head to argue about that I never actually said, and then in turn you start crying that I'm "flip flopping" my argument when in reality, I never actually said what you think I said, so we go 'round and 'round with you arguing about things you're fuming about internally and trying to fit as many buzzwords ("jock-sniffer") into one post as you possibly can.