News: Garrett: Rushing Success Affected Romo’s Rhythm

[DallasEast]

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

I have always wondered why Tony Romo needed to be a great quarterback. He is a very good quarterback--although the first two games of this week have not exactly been a good reflection of that. Very good quarterbacks have led teams to Super Bowl appearances and/or championships. Heck, simply good quarterbacks are wearing rings. I don't get the Canton bust requirement for quarterback. This is 2014. It's not like this is the 70's or 80's.

Please excuse the mini rant.

 

[Idgit]

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.

Honestly, I'm waiting to see what he actually does. I'm not convinced until I see us sticking with the run in the third quarter, down by two scores. Then again, I only care about the running game inasmuch as it helps us avoid the mistakes in the passing game that get NFL teams beat.

My point is only that Jason's made it really clear publicly that he wants to run the ball, so it's silly to read into one comment anything to the contrary and call the guy an idiot based off of that unsupported interpretation.

Anybody just saying "I don't believe him," I wouldn't bat an eye at. But the never ending reaching to criticize even the smallest wished-for inconsistency...that wears on my sanity after a point. Mostly because it's such unfair criticism. And it happens so often.

 

[gmoney112]

When did this thread become about Garretts commitment to the run game?

 

[Idgit]

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.

I don't think anyone's arguing JGs actions might not continue to match his words as the season wears on. Are you seeing that someplace? I know I'm not saying that.

 

[Idgit]

When did this thread become about Garretts commitment to the run game?

Good point.

I think that implication is what fueled the interest in the original comments about Tony's rhythm, or lack thereof.

 

[Stash]

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.

And where is it written anywhere that it's your RIGHT to validate or invalidate WHAT I believe? You and your buddy are overstepping your rights as posters, whether you choose to believe that or not. People have the right to their opinions without having anyone try to tell them what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate.

This is exactly where issues and arguments start, requiring moderators to step in. Nobody gave you the job of determining 'good logic' or 'bad logic'. You doing that, you or anyone else, is out of line and the cause of arguments.

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.

Again, I gave my opinion, one not asking for nor requiring your support or approval. And when I presented that opinion, I quoted the man's history of failure when it comes to the running game. If you want to question my opinion, we can further explore the support I have for it.

I'm basing my concerns off of Garrett's comments and proven history. You yourself expressed concerns about Garrett staying committed to the run, but then followed up by trying to tell us what we should or shouldn't be worried about. What we should or shouldn't give credence to.

With all due respect, who died and made you boss?

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.

And at the end of it all, we can agree here.

For the record, I'm actually very happy with this past game, very happy they ran the ball, and thrilled that they won.

I hope to see more of all of it again this week.

But, given recent history, I don't see how anyone can attack me for being concerned that a coach with this track record may not stick with it.

While I hope for the best, I still fear the worst.

 

[Stash]

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

OK, call it whatever you would like, do you want to go on record condoning or supporting it?

Do you feel it makes this place better or worse?

 

[Stash]

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.

Thanks for the eloquent explanation, much appreciated.

 

[Doomsday101]

Regardless if rushing this much affects Romo rhythm or not to start the game fact is he was much sharper in the 2nd half. It falls to Romo to get it going early. I saw nothing in Garrett comments to suggest we will not continue to run the ball

 

[Section446]

I have always wondered why Tony Romo needed to be a great quarterback. He is a very good quarterback--although the first two games of this week have not exactly been a good reflection of that. Very good quarterbacks have led teams to Super Bowl appearances and/or championships. Heck, simply good quarterbacks are wearing rings. I don't get the Canton bust requirement for quarterback. This is 2014. It's not like this is the 70's or 80's.

Please excuse the mini rant.

Don't disagree with you at all, though, he's a very good QB in a very fast decline. He never has been a Super Bowl caliber QB, and his physical decline isn't going to help that any.

 

[Nav22]

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.

Fair enough, but Garrett's comments weren't the least bit committal to anything. This is a guy who answers questions from the press almost daily and is the master at giving generic answers. Part of the job of being an NFL head coach.

As someone else pointed out, Murray could rush 30 times for 150 yds next week while Romo looks great and throws for 3 TDs. Then if Garrett is asked about the run game helping Romo's rhythm, is there anyone on Earth who thinks Garrett would say, "No! Like I said last week, those rush attempts can only hurt a QB's rhythm!"?

Of course not. He'd give an equally generic, noncommittal answer about how a strong run game can be a QB's best friend. Which is something he's said time and time again. Idgit posted a similar quote in this very thread!

The truth is that these generic answers he gives to the press are essentially meaningless. And we're all diehard-enough fans to know that by now. So yes, I certainly believe that leaping to a conclusion regarding this particular statement is irrational and emotional. Fear can still be emotional and irrational even if there's historical precedence of your nightmare scenario taking place.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Honestly, I'm waiting to see what he actually does. I'm not convinced until I see us sticking with the run in the third quarter, down by two scores. Then again, I only care about the running game inasmuch as it helps us avoid the mistakes in the passing game that get NFL teams beat.

My point is only that Jason's made it really clear publicly that he wants to run the ball, so it's silly to read into one comment anything to the contrary and call the guy an idiot based off of that unsupported interpretation.

Anybody just saying "I don't believe him," I wouldn't bat an eye at. But the never ending reaching to criticize even the smallest wished-for inconsistency...that wears on my sanity after a point. Mostly because it's such unfair criticism. And it happens so often.

Yeah, that's basically where I'm at: willing to let it play out but still sceptical.

It's tougher for you as a mod. I'm not steeped in it so I can dismiss loose -- indeed irrational -- comments calling Garrett an idiot as just so much venting. Like you (I think), I have patience for the guy because I think he's brought some direction to the organization. But I have time for those whose patience has run thin after three consecutive non-playoff seasons. In other circumstances I could well imagine having the coach in my cross-hairs with an itchy trigger finger.

 

[Idgit]

And where is it written anywhere that it's your RIGHT to validate or invalidate WHAT I believe? You and your buddy are overstepping your rights as posters, whether you choose to believe that or not. People have the right to their opinions without having anyone try to tell them what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate.

This is exactly where issues and arguments start, requiring moderators to step in. Nobody gave you the job of determining 'good logic' or 'bad logic'. You doing that, you or anyone else, is out of line and the cause of arguments.



Again, I gave my opinion, one not asking for nor requiring your support or approval. And when I presented that opinion, I quoted the man's history of failure when it comes to the running game. If you want to question my opinion, we can further explore the support I have for it.

I'm basing my concerns off of Garrett's comments and proven history. You yourself expressed concerns about Garrett staying committed to the run, but then followed up by trying to tell us what we should or shouldn't be worried about. What we should or shouldn't give credence to.

With all due respect, who died and made you boss?



And at the end of it all, we can agree here.

For the record, I'm actually very happy with this past game, very happy they ran the ball, and thrilled that they won.

I hope to see more of all of it again this week.

But, given recent history, I don't see how anyone can attack me for being concerned that a coach with this track record may not stick with it.

While I hope for the best, I still fear the worst.

Everybody has a right to their opinions. And Everybody has a right to be treated with respect relative to the rules here at CZ.

That does not mean that Everybody has a right to not have their opinions questioned. And nobody needs to be a 'boss' on order to do so. Respectful disagreement fuels this board. It's the whole point.

That's not to say that all arguments are created equal. Not all arguments are valid, either. There are rules of logic that apply to rhetorical arguments. Pointing out exceptions to those rules is fair game.

That said, I don't want to drift afield of the thread topic defending my approach. You can have the last word re how debate at CZ should work if you care to.

 

[Idgit]

Yeah, that's basically where I'm at: willing to let it play out but still sceptical.

It's tougher for you as a mod. I'm not steeped in it so I can dismiss loose -- indeed irrational -- comments calling Garrett an idiot as just so much venting. Like you (I think), I have patience for the guy because I think he's brought some direction to the organization. But I have time for those whose patience has run thin after three consecutive non-playoff seasons. In other circumstances I could well imagine having the coach in my cross-hairs with an itchy trigger finger.

Thanks. I understand the impulse to be critical, too. It's natural. I'd just prefer we stick to more obvious targets. There's no shortage of things to criticize for an NFL team.

 

[Stash]

Everybody has a right to their opinions. And Everybody has a right to be treated with respect relative to the rules here at CZ.

That does not mean that Everybody has a right to not have their opinions questioned. And nobody needs to be a 'boss' on order to do so. Respectful disagreement fuels this board. It's the whole point.

Exactly, and if you or someone else wants to question WHY I feel the way I do, feel free. But the sense of entitlement to deem what is worthy or not? Out of line. I welcome people expressing their opinions and enjoy good debate.

What I take issue with are clear attempts at condescension and attempts to tell other how they SHOULD feel or what they SHOULD think. or hot and run 'stupid Cowboys fans' insults which somehow slip by, bringing nothing to the discussion.

That's not to say that all arguments are created equal. Not all arguments are valid, either. There are rules of logic that apply to rhetorical arguments. Pointing out exceptions to those rules is fair game.

Again, you get to be the judge? When did you get appointed to that position?

I think it's arrogance and hubris on the part of anyone who think they have the right to be that judge.

That said, I don't want to drift afield of the thread topic defending my approach. You can have the last word re how debate at CZ should work if you care to.

I've said my piece, thanks for the opportunity to express myself.

 

[DallasEast]

OK, call it whatever you would like, do you want to go on record condoning or supporting it?

Condoning or supporting it? That is an excellent question, one which made me stop and think. It may not be appropriate to answer your question in the following fashion but I feel more comfortable doing so.

I believe some of the posts within this thread, including comments created by members you have objected to, are not necessary. The thread has grown to nine pages. In my opinion, it should be less than four pages long. Additionally, I do not think the thread title matches the article exactly.

Admittedly, that is an evasive way to answer the question. If I am ridiculed for my answer, so be it. I would certainly understand.

Do you feel it makes this place better or worse?

As it relates to CowboysZone.com?

In my opinion?

This question made me pause for a good while as well.

In contrast to my earlier comment, my answer is better. I may not agree with comments posted, but this site has grown mightily through the years via its highly inclusive, opinionated format. It has been very successful. "Better" does not necessarily equate with success, but I think it does in this aspect. Just my opinion shaped by a warped mind.

Edited with "better"

 

[TwoDeep3]

Oh, this thread was about defending Garrett's "history" or slamming him for it? LOLLLLLL

Well, which side are you on?

It was the other...:C)

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I hope they're not somehow trying to blame how lousy Romo has looked on the running game.

Here's how it works

Game 1 - he was rusty
Game 2 - successful running ***** him up

U catch my drift?

 

[Reality]

Since this thread has deteriorated into mostly ranting and bickering, it has been moved to the Rant Zone.

 

[Reality]

When did this thread become about Garretts commitment to the run game?

Because some users here have "trigger" words that, I assume via conditioned response by now, require them to repost the same "pro" or "anti" rants they've posted hundreds of times already. Trigger words are words like Jerry, Garrett, Romo, win, lose, happy, optimistic, pessimistic, realist, homer, hater, etc.