For The TO Fans... A Highlight Video

[khiladi]

To quote:"Furthermore, Garrett demonstrated a level of patience and persistence WITH THE RUN GAME against Green Bay that he did not demonstrate against Washington. This, in my opinion, was the result of trying TO APPEASE one highly vocal and selfish player."

 

[khiladi]

To quote: "In the Washington game, Owens had more passing and rushing attempts than BARBER AND WITTEN combined, and the Cowboys lost. In the Green Bay game, the Cowboys were PERSISTENT WITH THE RUN and didn't force the ball to TO, and they won." You ignored the total passing attempts, including Crayton, in the Commanders game, showing you changed your argument.

 

[khiladi]

To quote: "But they didn't utilize him (MILES AUSTIN) as effectively because they were neither patient nor persistent WITH THE RUN GAME, largely because they were trying to placate one vociferous and divisive wide receiver."

 

[khiladi]

To quote: "Unquestionably, a number of those passes were uncatchable. However, the issue still remains: Why were they so intent on forcing the ball to TO -- even at the expense of taking away carries from BARBER and JONES?"

 

[khiladi]

To quote:"The following week, Washington employed the same strategy, jamming TO at the line with safety help over the top. Unfortunately, the Cowboys did not demonstrate the same patience they had in the previous game: THEY RAN THE BALL ONLY 8 TIMES; failed to give Felix Jones a single carry; and, did not incorporate Miles Austin UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE."Again, wrong...Miles Austin was playing the whole time and was targetted early on and throughout, and you argued that they abandoned the running game to appease TO.

 

[khiladi]

To quote:"The Cowboys ABANDONED THE RUN against Washington in an effort TO APPEASE TO. You're certainly free to criticize Garrett for this move, but you should also recognize that Garrett is no different from the other coaches who have worked with TO in the past."

 

[khiladi]

As far as broaching pass distribution, it has everything to do with the subject, because it demonstrates that Dallas went PASS FIRST against the Commanders and that is why they ignored the run. The passes didn't just go up for TO, they went up for Crayton and Miles Austin. The fact that Dallas has been a PASS FIRST TEAM EVER SINCE GARRETT IS HERE SHOULD BE A MAJOR CLUE TO WHY THEY PASS FIRST.

 

[khiladi]

To quote: "It also showed that Owens was thrown to or handed the ball more times than WITTEN and BARBER combined. These numbers strongly suggest that Owens was being force-fed the ball to the overall detriment of the team -- a conclusion that myself and several others have reached. You might've come to this conclusion as well if you weren't so intent on cherry-picking drives in order to ameliorate the impact of one Terrell Owens." So which is it? Witten and Barber combined, Barber being targetted less, Barber being a check-down? Not being patient? But they were patient in the Arizona game per your own words, going to the check-down.

 

[khiladi]

As I said, congratulations for teaching us that Dallas is better if they don't ignore the run game. Let me re-quote myself just to show how your avoiding the crux arguments: The fact is, Dallas did utilize the weapons it had at disposal. In the Commanders game, they tried using Crayton more, and Miles Austin. That didn't get it done. They tried against Arizona as well, but Barber was the primary target. They didn't get it done. Patience isn't an asset of Garrett's offense. In 2007, he didn't handle the running game. 2008 was his first year and not only that, the OL took a serious nose-dive. The timing-based run blocking schemes aren't the product of TO. The pass-blocking schemes are not a product of TO. Was it TOs fault the OL couldn't sustain a block? If Romo can be excused, then why not TO? You also ignored the fact of Dallas TRYING TO GET ROY WILLIAMS TO OPEN UP THE PASSING GAME. That is implicit and damning evidence regarding your claims, because it implicitly implies that the other receivers were not getting it done. You think they got Roy Williams to act as a decoy so they could toss more balls to TO?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There you go again, yet again avoidin to answer your own inconistencies.

I have nothing to avoid because there are no inconsistencies.

You can cut-and-paste and high-light what you want, but that doesn't change reality. IF TO BEING A MAL-CONTENT HAD ALREADY OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ARIZONA GAME, WHICH HAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MY POINT, THEN WHY WEREN'T THEY TRYING TO FEED THE BALL TO OWENS IN THE ARIZONA GAME, BUT WERE CHECKING DOWN TO BARBER? You claimed that they were forcing the ball to TO even in double-coverage simply to appease him in the Commanders game and because of that THE OFFENSE WENT ON A DOWNWARD SPIRAL. SO WHICH IS IT?

To quote:"Furthermore, Garrett demonstrated a level of patience and persistence WITH THE RUN GAME against Green Bay that he did not demonstrate against Washington. This, in my opinion, was the result of trying TO APPEASE one highly vocal and selfish player."

To quote: "But they didn't utilize him (MILES AUSTIN) as effectively because they were neither patient nor persistent WITH THE RUN GAME, largely because they were trying to placate one vociferous and divisive wide receiver."

To quote: "Unquestionably, a number of those passes were uncatchable. However, the issue still remains: Why were they so intent on forcing the ball to TO -- even at the expense of taking away carries from BARBER and JONES?"

To quote: "It also showed that Owens was thrown to or handed the ball more times than WITTEN and BARBER combined. These numbers strongly suggest that Owens was being force-fed the ball to the overall detriment of the team -- a conclusion that myself and several others have reached. You might've come to this conclusion as well if you weren't so intent on cherry-picking drives in order to ameliorate the impact of one Terrell Owens." So which is it? Witten and Barber combined, Barber being targetted less, Barber being a check-down?

You're asserting yet another false correlation, which can be summarized thusly:

Against Arizona, Romo threw the ball to Marion Barber, and did not force the ball to Owens into double coverage (as Romo had done against Washington); therefore, one cannot argue that Garret was abandoning the run in order to "feed the ball to TO," or that TO was responsible (on some level) for the gradual demise of the offense.

Even upon the most cursory reading, your assertion is not logically valid, and it becomes even more fallacious once we consider the actual statistics from the Arizona game.

Almost every time you quote me above, I mention the run game and lament the Cowboys' lack of offensive balance. Against Arizona, my concerns were validated; the Cowboys passed the ball 39 times, and ran only 22 times -- three times less than than their season average, which ranked a pathetic 25th in the league.

Now, follow this next sentence closely because this is the important part: The fact that Romo wasn't forcing passes into TO against Arizona does not mean that Garrett wasn't trying to "feed the ball to Owens." It only means that Romo learned a valuable lesson from the Washington game -- he might as well check down to Barber because TO is going to be a whiny, divisive snit regardless of how many times he's thrown the ball.

Furthermore, Owens was already complaining to the media and being his typical vociferous, selfish, and divisive self by the time of the Arizona game; therefore, he was already a detriment to team cohesion and contributing to the team's demise.

I included passes thrown to Barber in the Washington game for the sake of being fair to Owens; he had two rushes that I was always considering.

Not being patient? But they were patient in the Arizona game per your own words, going to the check-down.

Incorrect.

In your list of quotations from me, I repeatedly define patience in conjunction with the run game. The Cowboys offense showed patience against Green Bay because it ran 38 times and had a fairly even run/pass ratio.

Against Arizona, the Cowboys ran 22 times and had a run/pass ratio of 36/64. These numbers are not indicative of patience per my words and definition.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

As far as broaching pass distribution, it has everything to do with the subject, because it demonstrates that Dallas went PASS FIRST against the Commanders and that is why they ignored the run. The passes didn't just go up for TO, they went up for Crayton and Miles Austin. The fact that Dallas has been a PASS FIRST TEAM EVER SINCE GARRETT IS HERE SHOULD BE A MAJOR CLUE TO WHY THEY PASS FIRST.
To quote: "In the Washington game, Owens had more passing and rushing attempts than BARBER AND WITTEN combined, and the Cowboys lost. In the Green Bay game, the Cowboys were PERSISTENT WITH THE RUN and didn't force the ball to TO, and they won." You ignored the total passing attempts, including Crayton, in the Commanders game, showing you changed your argument.

Your argument above is riddled with fallacy, as I explained here, here, and here.

Pass first does not automatically mean Owens-centric.

To quote:"The following week, Washington employed the same strategy, jamming TO at the line with safety help over the top. Unfortunately, the Cowboys did not demonstrate the same patience they had in the previous game: THEY RAN THE BALL ONLY 8 TIMES; failed to give Felix Jones a single carry; and, did not incorporate Miles Austin UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE."Again, wrong...Miles Austin was playing the whole time and was targetted early on and throughout, and you argued that they abandoned the running game to appease TO.

You continue to misunderstand my Austin point, which I explained here.

If Romo can be excused, then why not TO? You also ignored the fact of Dallas TRYING TO GET ROY WILLIAMS TO OPEN UP THE PASSING GAME. That is implicit and damning evidence regarding your claims, because it implicitly implies that the other receivers were not getting it done. You think they got Roy Williams to act as a decoy so they could toss more balls to TO?

Regardless of the reasons for which Williams was acquired, he was barely utilized in the passing game -- a fact that corroborates my argument and hinders yours.

 

[khiladi]

I have nothing to avoid because there are no inconsistencies.

There are plenty of inconsistencies in your assertions.

You're asserting yet another false correlation, which can be summarized thusly:

Against Arizona, Romo threw the ball to Marion Barber, and did not force the ball to Owens into double coverage (as Romo had done against Washington); therefore, one cannot argue that Garret was abandoning the run in order to "feed the ball to TO," or that TO was responsible (on some level) for the gradual demise of the offense.

Even upon the most cursory reading, your assertion is not logically valid, and it becomes even more fallacious once we consider the actual statistics from the Arizona game.

It is not my correlation, it the logical fruition of your assertion. One more time for you:

You stated that Dallas forced the ball to Terrell Owens even into double-coverage in the passing game because TO was demanding the ball. This led to the offensive decline. When I pointed out the Arizona game, where Marion Barber was the product of the majority of touches by far, you then stated that the reason that Barber touched the ball so much is because TO couldn't get open. Now follow me:

By your logic, in one instance your saying that TO was being forced the ball despite the fact he couldn't get open, and in the same sentence, your saying that TO wasn't at the receiving end of balls thrown, because he couldn't get open.

That is a flat-out contradiction.

Almost every time you quote me above, I mention the run game and lament the Cowboys' lack of offensive balance. Against Arizona, my concerns were validated; the Cowboys passed the ball 39 times, and ran only 22 times -- three times less than than their season average, which ranked a pathetic 25th in the league.

Congratulations, you just pointed out that Dallas didn't have an effective running game and they were pass first attack. Does it ring any bells now? Man, your just screwing yourself big time.

Now, follow this next sentence closely because this is the important part: The fact that Romo wasn't forcing passes into TO against Arizona does not mean that Garrett wasn't trying to "feed the ball to Owens." It only means that Romo learned a valuable lesson from the Washington game -- he might as well check down to Barber because TO is going to be a whiny, divisive snit regardless of how many times he's thrown the ball.

It is good that you finally realized the implications of your argument, but your latest attempt at a spin is rather amusing. So what does it say for your argument that Dallas was trying to appease Owens, when now your saying Romo learned a valuable lesson, and that was not try and force it to Owens. So what your saying is that the rest of the year, Romo wasn't forcing the ball to Owens, but their offense still sucked. Thank you very much...

Furthermore, Owens was already complaining to the media and being his typical vociferous, selfish, and divisive self by the time of the Arizona game; therefore, he was already a detriment to team cohesion and contributing to the team's demise.

And yet, you fail to realize the implications of your point, which is TO was whining and that is why, per your own argument, they tried to force the ball to Owens. Fact check... TO started complaining when people were calling him out for losing a step, over and over again, harping on it day and night. That happened prior to the Commanders interview with Deion sanders. In fact, he was asked consistently about this alleged drop-off and he clearly stated that the Green Bay game in 2008 is where teams essentially realized how to slow down the Dallas attack. TO also stated that he wans't being used in slants and motion, where he was successful his whole career. When asked why, he stated that it was the call of the OC. TO was complaining about Jason Garrett the whole year. REven after the interview, Garrett went back to doing what he was doing. If he was trying to appease TO, why wasn't he doing things that took advantage of TOs talents and what TO was essentially sayin he should do?

You do realize that even Al Harris stated prior to the Green Bay game that they have a new game-plan to take TO from the game. Against Green Bay in 2007, they had Al Harris isolated on TO one-on-one and he got absued all day. In 2008, they started rolling help-over consistently and pressing at the line. The Green Bay game in 2008 was essentially the very start in which teams started deploying the same tactic, though the Giants in the second half of 2007 employed a tactic that exposed the Cowboys as well, which was press at the line and throw everything at Romo. The long-developing routes would give time for the DL to get to Romo forcing him into bad decisions. To argue that teams were playing the Cowboys offense in 2008 similar to the way they played the Cowboys in 2007 is about as absurd as it gets.

I included passes thrown to Barber in the Washington game for the sake of being fair to Owens; he had two rushes that I was always considering.

You included passes because you were talking about touches plain and simple. That is why your argument centered around Barber and Witten getting less touches than TO in the Commanders game. Don't even try and play such absurd games.

In your list of quotations from me, I repeatedly define patience in conjunction with the run game. The Cowboys offense showed patience against Green Bay because it ran 38 times and had a fairly even run/pass ratio.

And that does nothing to your point, which is patience is contingent on a running game, and Dallas ignored the running game to appease TO, per your argument, which is exactly what I stated.

Against Arizona, the Cowboys ran 22 times and had a run/pass ratio of 36/64. These numbers are not indicative of patience per my words and definition.

Jason Garrett's whole tenure is indicative of lack of patience. Good for your health, but that was never the argument. The argument is your claim that Dallas lacked patience and abandoned the running game because they were trying to appease TO, which is hog-wash. Dan Reeves doesn't play running back, he coaches, and even he said he focused his time on the running game. If it was simply a matter of forcing the ball to TO, why do you think Wade tried to bring in Dan Reeves as a consultant to primarily look at the running game?

 

[khiladi]

Pass first does not automatically mean Owens-centric.

There you go again. Now it is another argument.

By the way, in the context of Jason Garrett's philosophy it does. Terrell Owens was the "I" receiver, meaning he was the central receiver of the passing game, just like Michael Irvin was the primary receiver of the Cowboys offense in 1992. What you call 'forcing the ball to Owens" is at the very root of the offense Garrett calls. The problem is, Norv was a run first coach, with an effective play-action pass, who rarely used shot-gun. And the OL was always moving forward, playing smash-mouth. Garrett on the other hand just couldn't handle the whole offense once Sparano left and he was left with whole field to manage. This is why we saw the OL just look like absolute trash and they were running time-based running schemes. It wasn't just about Proctor.

You continue to misunderstand my Austin point, which I explained here.

There is no mis-understanding. The fact is you keep changing and modifying your argument as we go along. When I pointed out that Miles Austin touched the ball more and in fact was targetted not just at the end of the game, but the whole game, you resorted to the argument that he was being less effective because they abandoned the run in order to appease TO. As if the lack of a running game is all on TO, when garrett's track history is that of a pass happy coach. Hell, even everybody on this forum talks about how this is a pass-happy league.

Regardless of the reasons for which Williams was acquired, he was barely utilized in the passing game -- a fact that corroborates my argument and hinders yours.

Hinders mine? I guess when Roy Williams was busting on Garrett after the season was over, speaking about how he was never used in a slant, I guess that was on TO, right, because TO is the one calling the plays for Roy as well. I thought Romo learned his lesson not to throw to Owens, because of his whining, per your own argument in the Arizona game, which was before Roy Williams even played? So why is it, Garrett's buddies like Troy saying the reason Roy wasn't getting the ball is because he couldn't run routes?

 

[khiladi]

In 2007, Dallas ran the ball 419 times and passed 531 times. In 2008, Dallas ran the ball 401 times and passed it 547 times. They threw it only 16 more times in 2008, which is one more pass per game. But yeah, Jason Garrett abandoned the run to appease TO. The fact is, the numbers even for the run game are not much different, with a difference of 18 times, which is about one run per game. The pass:run ratio was not that much different from both years. The fact is, Garrett's play-calling was essentially figured out.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

In 2007, Dallas ran the ball 419 times and passed 531 times. In 2008, Dallas ran the ball 401 times and passed it 547 times. They threw it only 16 more times in 2008, which is one more pass per game. But yeah, Jason Garrett abandoned the run to appease TO. The fact is, the numbers even for the run game are not much different, with a difference of 18 times, which is about one run per game. The pass:run ratio was not that much different from both years. The fact is, Garrett's play-calling was essentially figured out.

I'm glad you mentioned the pass/run ratio because it actually supports my argument:

After the first three games of 2008 -- and Dallas was a perfect 3-0 -- their run/pass distribution was 90 runs to 93 passes: a 49/51 ratio, almost perfect balance.

Over the final 13 games of 2008 -- when TO started complaining incessantly to the media and the Cowboys finished 6-7 -- their run/pass distribution was 312 runs to 454 passes: a 40/60 ratio, no semblance of balance.

According to your numbers, in 2007, the Cowboys run/pass ratio was 44/56, not ideal balance but certainly better than the skewed proportion of the last 13 games of 2008.

It's quite telling that Garrett's offense did not become completely unbalanced until the final 13 games of last season, when TO started complaining to the media and becoming a divisive force in the locker room.

These numbers make a compelling case that Garrett was attempting to appease TO at the expense of the running game, as I've contended all along.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There are plenty of inconsistencies in your assertions.

None at all, actually.

It is not my correlation, it the logical fruition of your assertion. One more time for you:

You stated that Dallas forced the ball to Terrell Owens even into double-coverage in the passing game because TO was demanding the ball. This led to the offensive decline. When I pointed out the Arizona game, where Marion Barber was the product of the majority of touches by far, you then stated that the reason that Barber touched the ball so much is because TO couldn't get open. Now follow me

By your logic, in one instance your saying that TO was being forced the ball despite the fact he couldn't get open, and in the same sentence, your saying that TO wasn't at the receiving end of balls thrown, because he couldn't get open.

That is a flat-out contradiction.

Actually, I never stated that. Here's my statement from a week ago:

Did Garrett suddenly forget how to utilize his abundance of weapons? Of course not. He was trying to placate his mercurial but vociferously selfish wide receiver, who, despite being thrown to 20 times during the game, still managed to complain about a lack of opportunities. From there, the offense went on a downward spiral.

I attributed the offense's decline to TO's incessant complaining and divisive antics. Forcing passes into double coverage against Washington was merely a symptom of those antics.

Furthermore, your attempt to manufacture contradiction is both laughable and transparent. We're dealing with two completely different games: the Washington game and the Arizona game.

It's not a contradiction -- not even close -- to assert that Romo threw passes into double coverage in one game (Washington), and checked down to his backs in another game (Arizona). In fact, it's fairly common in the NFL. Quarterbacks are not always consistent in their decision-making from game to game.

You clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a contradiction -- or a logical argument.

It is good that you finally realized the implications of your argument, but your latest attempt at a spin is rather amusing. So what does it say for your argument that Dallas was trying to appease Owens, when now your saying Romo learned a valuable lesson, and that was not try and force it to Owens. So what your saying is that the rest of the year, Romo wasn't forcing the ball to Owens, but their offense still sucked. Thank you very much...

And yet, you fail to realize the implications of your point, which is TO was whining and that is why, per your own argument, they tried to force the ball to Owens. Fact check... TO started complaining when people were calling him out for losing a step, over and over again, harping on it day and night. That happened prior to the Commanders interview with Deion sanders. In fact, he was asked consistently about this alleged drop-off and he clearly stated that the Green Bay game in 2008 is where teams essentially realized how to slow down the Dallas attack. TO also stated that he wans't being used in slants and motion, where he was successful his whole career. When asked why, he stated that it was the call of the OC. TO was complaining about Jason Garrett the whole year.

Now this is more akin to a contradiction.

First, you assert that TO only started complaining because of doubts that had been raised about his abilities. Then, less than a paragraph later, you state that "TO was complaining about Jason Garrett the whole year." Newsflash: Jason Garrett has nothing to do with whether or not TO is physically declining -- as much as TO might want to believe so.

Immediately after you erroneously accuse me of contradicting myself, you manage to contradict yourself. That's funny.

Now that you've finally conceded that TO had indeed been complaining about Jason Garrett all season, let's follow it to its natural conclusion: During the first half of the season, TO was complaining about his lack of opportunities. However, when it became apparent that he was getting numerous opportunities and plenty of passes thrown in his direction, he had to devise a new excuse for his declining production. So, going into the second half of the season, he sat down with Deion Sanders, and manufactured a new complaint: Garrett's offense didn't run the right routes.

Puh-lease.

It was virtually the same offense it was in 2007. The routes didn't change. Only TO changed.

You do realize that even Al Harris stated prior to the Green Bay game that they have a new game-plan to take TO from the game. Against Green Bay in 2007, they had Al Harris isolated on TO one-on-one and he got absued all day. In 2008, they started rolling help-over consistently and pressing at the line. The Green Bay game in 2008 was essentially the very start in which teams started deploying the same tactic. To argue that teams were playing the Cowboys offense in 2008 similar to the way they played the Cowboys in 2007 is about as absurd as it gets.

Do you honestly believe TO had never faced press coverage with safety help until last season?

Seriously?

After more than 10 years in the league, TO never faced a coverage that's been around for decades? Now, that's absurd.

TO has seen press coverage with safety help a myriad number of times throughout his career. The only difference last season was this: He couldn't beat it consistently anymore because his skills are deteriorating.

You included passes because you were talking about touches plain and simple. That is why your argument centered around Barber and Witten getting less touches than TO in the Commanders game. Don't even try and play such absurd games.

What are you even talking about? Are you arguing with the person in your head again?

:laugh2:

Jason Garrett's whole tenure is indicative of lack of patience. Good for your health, but that was never the argument. The argument is your claim that Dallas lacked patience and abandoned the running game because they were trying to appease TO, which is hog-wash. Dan Reeves doesn't play running back, he coaches, and even he said he was here to look at the running game. If it was simply a matter of forcing the ball to TO, why do you think Wade tried to bring in Dan Reeves as a consultant to look at the running game?

Actually, the numbers provide very strong support for the argument -- regardless of what Dan Reeves might have done.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There you go again. Now it is another argument.

Nope. It's the same argument.

If it wasn't the same argument, I wouldn't be able to constantly link back to posts I made days ago.

This is simple logic.

By the way, in the context of Jason Garrett's philosophy it does. Terrell Owens was the "I" receiver, meaning he was the central receiver of the passing game, just like Michael Irvin was the primary receiver of the Cowboys offense in 1992. What you call 'forcing the ball to Owens" is at the very root of the offense Garrett calls.

Forcing passes to receivers at the expense of the running game is not at the heart of any offensive philosophy.

There is no mis-understanding. The fact is you keep changing and modifying your argument as we go along. When I pointed out that Miles Austin touched the ball more and in fact was targetted not just at the end of the game, but the whole game, you resorted to the argument that he was being less effective because they abandoned the run in order to appease TO. As if the lack of a running game is all on TO, when garrett's track history is that of a pass happy coach. Hell, even everybody on this forum talks about how this is a pass-happy league.

Incorrect. The effectiveness with which Miles Austin was used has been my argument since I started posting on this thread a week ago.

See how I linked back to an earlier post? This indicate that it's the same argument and has not been altered in any way.

Hinders mine? I guess when Roy Williams was busting on Garrett after the season was over, speaking about how he was never used in a slant, I guess that was on TO, right, because TO is the one calling the plays for Roy as well. I thought Romo learned his lesson not to throw to Owens, because of his whining, per your own argument in the Arizona game, which was before Roy Williams even played? So why is it, Garrett's buddies like Troy saying the reason Roy wasn't getting the ball is because he couldn't run routes?

Regardless of the reason Williams wasn't involved in the offense, his lack of involvement still invalidates your earlier point.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://i18.***BLOCKED***/albums/b133/BrAinPaiNt/awesome.jpg

 

[khiladi]

After the first three games of 2008 -- and Dallas was a perfect 3-0 -- their run/pass distribution was 90 runs to 93 passes: a 49/51 ratio, almost perfect balance.

Man, you just don't stop with your shape-shifting arguments. So explain to me why TO started complaining incessantly per your own words, when the first game he had five receptions and one touchdown, while the second game he had 3 receptions, and two TDs, and they were 3-0? He just started to complain after one game?

 

[khiladi]

None at all, actually.

Actually, I never stated that. Here's my statement from a week ago:



I attributed the offense's decline to TO's incessant complaining and divisive antics. Forcing passes into double coverage against Washington was merely a symptom of those antics.

Furthermore, your attempt to manufacture contradiction is both laughable and transparent. We're dealing with two completely different games: the Washington game and the Arizona game.

It's not a contradiction -- not even close -- to assert that Romo threw passes into double coverage in one game (Washington), and checked down to his backs in another game (Arizona). In fact, it's fairly common in the NFL. Quarterbacks are not always consistent in their decision-making from game to game.

You clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a contradiction -- or a logical argument.

There you go again. I NEVER ASSERTED that is what you stated. I said it was the LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR ASSERTIONS, WHICH YOU FAILED TO REALIZE WHEN YOU MADE THE STATEMENT. Further, the irony of your consistent arguing is you just keep contradicting yourself. So the context of the Arizona and Green Bay game is different when it is clear you can't blame TO, but the context of the Green Bay game and Commanders game is the same when you need to blame TO. Further, it was not me that stated that Romo LEARNED HIS LESSON and did not try to force the ball to TO in the Arizona game, IT WAS YOU. Now you have subtly changed the argument into one about consistent decision-making, but even then, you again place yourself in a contardiction, with that being, the decision of FORCING THE BALL WAS ON ROMO, per your own words, NOT TO. If TO was complaining incessantly and they were trying to force the ball to him, especially after the Commanders game, per your own words, then why did Romo consistently check it down to Barber and not try and force it to TO?