News: Garrett: Rushing Success Affected Romo’s Rhythm

[Nav22]

Keep "LOL"ing if you think it makes you look like you know what you're talking about.

And keep instigating trouble with everyone who doesn't think the same way you do. I see how and where these issues for the moderators to clean up continue to start.

Really illustrates all of the "smarts" and intelligence you keep quoting.

You contributions to this topic have truly been an inspiration to all who have had the pleasure of reading them.

I'll "LOL" as long as posts that are irrational and emotional pop up, thank you very much. That's how I choose to respond because a) it's hilarious to me, and b) emotional people simply can't be reasoned with.

Idgit's doing his best, but he can't fix the unfixable and neither can I. But I do thank you for the unintentional comedy.

Laughing is my right, just like it's your right to enter a thread regarding a general, noncommittal comment from Garrett regarding a QB's rhythm... IMMEDIATELY jump to hasty conclusions based on the headline... and finally, shift the premise of the thread into a Garrett bash-fest because you don't like the guy and his "history".

 

[Nav22]

I think he'll take the wins all day long.

Ride that run game as far as it'll take us and let the QB ease back into things. He already said more than once that stats don't mean anything without the W.

Nuh-uh, Tony just wants his stats!

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=dallas-cowboys&id=4733818&city=dallas

Call it what you want, but Romo insists that he would be ecstatic to continue playing a complementary role, as he did while handing the ball off 10 more times than he dropped back to pass.

"That's what a really good team is; everyone is complementary of each other," Romo said. "I'm all for going out and having games like we just had and playing the way Seattle has the last few years and just having those style of games. It makes everyone's job easier. If we continue to do that I think we'll have a great chance to be where we want to be at the end of the year."

 

[Zimmy Lives]

I think so. In it's larger context, especially. But, hay, it's Thursday after a win in Dallas. There ought to be something to be unhappy about. I'm shocked it's this and not three team leaders missing the gameplan-install practice session, though.

Idg, you have my utmost respect but I'm going to put this out there…

• Does a clear sky (sunny) affect Tony's vision?
• Does crowd noise affect Tony's calls/hearing?
• Does the field affect Tony's traction mobility?

My point is that Jason could have said that rushing success precludes the necessity of having Tony at the top of his game.

 

[Stash]

History supports being concerned no matter what Garrett says. But there's no objective reading of the totality of Jason Garrett's post-TEN game comments that supports the fear that "we're gonna throw it more." Tony's comments either, for that matter. You can only get there from cherry picking and THEN reading between the lines. Not that that stops anybody from jumping conclusions.

And I'll clearly tell you that it's not your, nor anyone else's place to tell anyone else how they should or should not interpret said comments. Otherwise, they are overstepping their boundaries.

You can think whatever you want about them, and the rest of us will do the same.

And I know full well which side history supports.

People have seen the pass-happy Garrett long enough to form a conclusive opinion based on history. Benefit of the doubt has long left town. He no longer deserves or gets it.

Fans are worried enough already that he will look for any excuse to run back to his pass-happy ways. Lord knows we've seen enough excuses made for it already.

Comments like these only fan the flames of fear. Fear that someway, somehow, this team will abandon a running game that is clearly and irrefutably working, and find ways to undermine and minimize a running back that's off to a career year.

And many of us want no part of it.

 

[Idgit]

Idg, you have my utmost respect but I'm going to put this out there…

• Does a clear sky (sunny) affect Tony's vision?
• Does crowd noise affect Tony's calls/hearing?
• Does the field affect Tony's traction mobility?

My point is that Jason could have said that rushing success precludes the necessity of having Tony at the top of his game.

He could have. I bet he'd agree with that.

I'm sure Jason himself would be really surprised with the volume of discussion his offhand rhythm observation generated. It's such a minor point in the context of his remarks from that game. Bundle it in with his usual "we all want to improve every day, and this is an area where I'm sure Tony wants to improve" stuff, and we can just move on.

 

[Idgit]

And I'll clearly tell you that it's not your, nor anyone else's place to tell anyone else how they should or should not interpret said comments. Otherwise, they are overstepping their boundaries.

You can think whatever you want about them, and the rest of us will do the same.

And I know full well which side history supports.

People have seen the pass-happy Garrett long enough to form a conclusive opinion based on history. Benefit of the doubt has long left town. He no longer deserves or gets it.

Fans are worried enough already that he will look for any excuse to run back to his pass-happy ways. Lord knows we've seen enough excuses made for it already.

Comments like these only fan the flames of fear. Fear that someway, somehow, this team will abandon a running game that is clearly and irrefutably working, and find ways to undermine and minimize a running back that's off to a career year.

And many of us want no part of it.

"Fan the flames of fear..." Sounds about right to me. This is fear talking. Not reason.

And I'm not telling you you can't be afraid over nothing if you really want to be. I'm just here pointing out that this is really nothing.

Personally, I put a lot more stock in what they do than what they say, anyway. I'm happy to wait and see it play out.

 

[Stash]

I'll "LOL" as long as posts that are irrational and emotional pop up, thank you very much. That's how I choose to respond because a) it's hilarious to me, and b) emotional people simply can't be reasoned with.

Idgit's doing his best, but he can't fix the unfixable and neither can I. But I do thank you for the unintentional comedy.

And there's the true hypocrisy of it all, that you or anyone else think you have the responsibility or the right.

Newsflash, you don't.

What you do have is the right to believe whatever you want about the comments, but if you actually felt they were meaningless, why devote 20 posts?

Maybe because you mistakenly feel it's your job to tell anyone else how it should be?

Laughing is my right, just like it's your right to enter a thread regarding a general, noncommittal comment from Garrett regarding a QB's rhythm... IMMEDIATELY jump to hasty conclusions based on the headline... and finally, shift the premise of the thread into a Garrett bash-fest because you don't like the guy and his "history".

Again the hypocrisy comes out.

You talk about 'rights', yours of course, and then try to take away someone else's 'right' to express their own opinions.

Check yourself.

 

[Stash]

"Fan the flames of fear..." Sounds about right to me. This is fear talking. Not reason.

Once again, not YOUR place to say.

And I'm not telling you you can't be afraid over nothing if you really want to be. I'm just here pointing out that this is really nothing.

No, you're presenting your opinion and your stance on it as if that's the only right one. Out of line.

Personally, I put a lot more stock in what they do than what they say, anyway. I'm happy to wait and see it play out.

Then YOU do that.

And let anyone else react in whatever way they see fit.

If it means nothing to you, why are you posting here?

Maybe, like another poster, you mistakenly feel it's your right to tell everyone else how they should react?

And like him, you'd be wrong.

If the comments mean nothing to you, this thread should too.

 

[Idgit]

Once again, not YOUR place to say.

No, you're presenting your opinion and your stance on it as if that's the only right one. Out of line.

Then YOU do that.

And let anyone else react in whatever way they see fit.

If it means nothing to you, why are you posting here?

Maybe, like another poster, you mistakenly feel it's your right to tell everyone else how they should react?

And like him, you'd be wrong.

If the comments mean nothing to you, this thread should too.

stash, we're never going to agree on whether or not I have the right to point out the flaws in your reasoning. You just have to deal with it.

I did notice you've pivoted to telling me how I can or can't present my argument, but have ignored the comments from Garrett re the explicit heart of your concern in this thread. I've posted them twice now. Can I ask: are you ignoring them for a reason?

 

[Nav22]

And there's the true hypocrisy of it all, that you or anyone else think you have the responsibility or the right.

Newsflash, you don't.

What you do have is the right to believe whatever you want about the comments, but if you actually felt they were meaningless, why devote 20 posts?

Maybe because you mistakenly feel it's your job to tell anyone else how it should be?



Again the hypocrisy comes out.

You talk about 'rights', yours of course, and then try to take away someone else's 'right' to express their own opinions.

Check yourself.

LOL what hypocrisy? I reaffirmed both of our rights, not just mine, and I wasn't being sarcastic. This after you passive-aggressively tried to suggest that I was breaking forum rules by laughing at your posts.

It's also my right to believe emotional, irrational people could use fixing (even if it can't be done). Just like it's your right to disagree or to keep unintentionally entertaining me.

Personally, I wouldn't dream of trying to fix you guys. I said way back in my first reply that I love threads like this, and I even provided a reason.

 

[DallasEast]

It sounds crazy but...

DeMarco Murray may get a good number of carries versus the Rams.

Tony Romo may have a fair or better passing game against St. Louis.

And this time next week, Jason Garrett may comment how Murray
ran the ball a lot and Romo got into a good rhythm versus the Rams.

Mind. Blown.​

 

[Stash]

stash, we're never going to agree on whether or not I have the right to point out the flaws in your reasoning. You just have to deal with it.

Or we can escalate the situation and cause a huge mess around here. I'll leave that to you. I don't see where I have to "deal with" anyone telling me what to think.

I did notice you've pivoted to telling me how I can or can't present my argument, but have ignored the comments from Garrett re the explicit heart of your concern in this thread. I've posted them twice now. Can I ask: are you ignoring them for a reason?

You can present your argument any way you like, just give the rest of us that same respect. If the comments mean little to you, feel free to state that. I welcome your opinion. Just don't overstep your right and call out anyone who feels differently. That is NOT your right. That an attempt at censoring and it's wrong.

If you truly take no issue with the comments, I see little reason to spend so much time in a thread discussing them and the fears that some have about them.

And, to answer your question with dignity and respect, I haven't commented on the other comments as I give them less credence considering Garrett's track record.

The fact is that I know him to be unqualified in handling a run game with evidence and history to back that up and I do not trust him to stick with the running game, no matter how successful.

I do not suddenly trust him after one week, that trust must be earned back from me, and apparently plenty of other fans.

I'm hopeful that he will learn and he and the team will stick with it, but past history makes me worry, and seeing comments like this - in any context - increase those concerns.

You might not agree with that position, but it's my right to have them and to express them.

 

[Idgit]

It sounds crazy but...

DeMarco Murray may get a good number of carries versus the Rams.

Tony Romo may have a fair or better passing game against St. Louis.

And this time next week, Jason Garrett may comment how Murray
ran the ball a lot and Romo got into a good rhythm versus the Rams.

Mind. Blown.​

That'd be a nice problem to have. I'm already looking forward to the thread about how Jason needs to be more consistent with his post game comments.

 

[Nav22]

Once again, not YOUR place to say.



No, you're presenting your opinion and your stance on it as if that's the only right one. Out of line.



Then YOU do that.

And let anyone else react in whatever way they see fit.

If it means nothing to you, why are you posting here?

Maybe, like another poster, you mistakenly feel it's your right to tell everyone else how they should react?

And like him, you'd be wrong.

If the comments mean nothing to you, this thread should too.

Hahaha boy, where did anyone ever get the idea that you're irrational and emotional!?!?!?

Quicksand. Keep sinking.

 

[Nav22]

Or we can escalate the situation and cause a huge mess around here. I'll leave that to you. I don't see where I have to "deal with" anyone telling me what to think.



You can present your argument any way you like, just give the rest of us that same respect. If the comments mean little to you, feel free to state that. I welcome your opinion. Just don't overstep your right and call out anyone who feels differently. That is NOT your right. That an attempt at censoring and it's wrong.

If you truly take no issue with the comments, I see little reason to spend so much time in a thread discussing them and the fears that some have about them.

And, to answer your question with dignity and respect, I haven't commented on the other comments as I give them less credence considering Garrett's track record.

The fact is that I know him to be unqualified in handling a run game with evidence and history to back that up and I do not trust him to stick with the running game, no matter how successful.

I do not suddenly trust him after one week, that trust must be earned back from me, and apparently plenty of other fans.

I'm hopeful that he will learn and he and the team will stick with it, but past history makes me worry, and seeing comments like this - in any context - increase those concerns.

You might not agree with that position, but it's my right to have them and to express them.

You sure do! Keep at it!

(Oh wait, nobody ever told you that you DON'T have the right to have your views and express them.... did they? Nah. Must be that emotional side talking again.)

 

[Idgit]

Or we can escalate the situation and cause a huge mess around here. I'll leave that to you. I don't see where I have to "deal with" anyone telling me what to think.



You can present your argument any way you like, just give the rest of us that same respect. If the comments mean little to you, feel free to state that. I welcome your opinion. Just don't overstep your right and call out anyone who feels differently. That is NOT your right. That an attempt at censoring and it's wrong.

If you truly take no issue with the comments, I see little reason to spend so much time in a thread discussing them and the fears that some have about them.

And, to answer your question with dignity and respect, I haven't commented on the other comments as I give them less credence considering Garrett's track record.

The fact is that I know him to be unqualified in handling a run game with evidence and history to back that up and I do not trust him to stick with the running game, no matter how successful.

I do not suddenly trust him after one week, that trust must be earned back from me, and apparently plenty of other fans.

I'm hopeful that he will learn and he and the team will stick with it, but past history makes me worry, and seeing comments like this - in any context - increase those concerns.

You might not agree with that position, but it's my right to have them and to express them.

Nobody's stomping on your rights to believe what you want to believe. We're just saying what you want to believe is based on emotion and bad logic. I should probably say, too, that not all emotional posts are necessarily bad. Bad logic should probably be avoided, where possible, though.

You just admitted to not crediting his direct quote on running the football in favor of what you are afraid might have been *implied* to the contrary, for example. Either don't credit anything he says, credit it all, or just admit you prefer to be arbitrary and to read between the lines to react to content that may or not be there at all. But don't expect us to think that last option is convincing. Or to not point out its obvious inconsistencies.

And I completely agree with you re 'action, not words.' I've said as much.

Now, I think we haven't run more in these situations because the staff didn't have faith in our ability to do so, rather than attributing it to the head coach not liking to call running plays, but we're about to find out, one way or another, how committed the team is to running the ball.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Hahaha boy, where did anyone ever get the idea that you're irrational and emotional!?!?!?

Quicksand. Keep sinking.

I don't see him being irrational or emotional, to be frank.

Philosophically, I'm aligned with you and Idgit: I think Garrett gets more criticism than he deserves.

But as I indicated in an earlier post, there's good reason, historically, to be apprehensive about Garrett's commitment to the run and what the comments that are the subject of this thread evince in respect of that commitment. (Perhaps the admission that it's "fear" or "apprehension" that Garrett's comments evoke that provokes the quick conclusion that the response is merely irrational and emotional. But this overlooks that the fear and apprehension is itself grounded in historical reason.)

Idgit (and you, I presume) choose to look to Garrett's other comments -- the ones Idgit quotes -- to inform your interpretation of the comments at issue. Stash (and others, I presume) prefer to look to Garrett's past conduct for the relevant interpretive context. There's nothing irrational in that. Quite the contrary, most would agree.

 

[Section446]

Always an excuse for Romo, maybe the guy just isn't that great of a QB?

 

[DallasEast]

You can present your argument any way you like, just give the rest of us that same respect. If the comments mean little to you, feel free to state that. I welcome your opinion. Just don't overstep your right and call out anyone who feels differently. That is NOT your right. That an attempt at censoring and it's wrong.

Censorship is deleting or altering posts that are not violating forum rules. I would suggest ridicule as a more accurate assessment.

 

[Sydla]

I can't speak on the behalf of others but for me, my opinion isn't shaped by some dislike of Garrett. I actually like Garrett and wish he was more successful to date because I think he's a good guy and represents the Cowboys well.

But when a pass happy coach talks about being more ground based and then starts talking about how the QB is out of sync because he didn't throw enough, how anyone can not look at the comment with a raised eyebrow is puzzling to me. This happened in Philly with Reid. He talked about running more, they would have games where they would really run the ball well and often, the fans would think "finally, he gets it" and then it didn't take long for Reid to go back to his passing ways.

So for anyone to suggest that some fans are being too negative over this comment, I would suggest they are simply burying their heads in the sand. I hope I am wrong and they continue to shape this offense around their OL and RBs.