Greg Cosell: Romo's Two Interceptions

[percyhoward]

Has there been ANY play in which there was a miscommunication that CZ has unanimously concluded was Romo's fault?

The first pick was Romo's fault, and for basically the same reason that the second one wasn't.

On the first one, the normal procedure is to check out of the run, because normally your goal is to maximize the potential yardage gained. But your goal can change according to the game situation. (For example, it's not normal procedure to go for 2 points after a TD, but that doesn't mean there aren't some situations when you would do just that). We had a 2nd and 6, and we had the lead with under 3:00 left in the game. Situational awareness should have told Romo that a run keeps the clock running, and maybe even gets a first down. Worst case, other than a fumble, is that you've got a 3rd down, with the lead and the clock still running. That's more important than the yardage, which is not worth the risk of an INT.

On the second one, the normal procedure is find the hole in the defense. Again, because normally, you want to maximize the yardage gained. But the situation was 2nd and 1, trailing, with one timeout left. Situational awareness should have told Beasley that the few yards he would have gained weren't worth the time we would lose because he was tackled in bounds. Worst case, other than a drop or bad throw, is that you only gain a yard while you stop the clock and get a fresh set of downs.

 

[TwoDeep3]

In the second one, the normal procedure is find the hole in the defense. Again, because normally, you want to maximize the yardage gained. But the situation was 2nd and 1, trailing, with one timeout left. Situational awareness should have told Beasley that the few yards he would have gained weren't worth the time we would lose because he was tackled in bounds. Worst case, other than a drop or bad throw, is that you only gain a yard while you stop the clock and get a fresh set of downs.

All this sounds so...ah...football-like.

But the fact remains that the receiver was in the open space where the risk of interception was the least and protecting the ball at its highest, with the assurance of a first down.

There was still well over a minute, and the team did not need a touchdown but a field goal. The way Dan Bailey was kicking, Dallas needed to be around the 35-yard line of GB.

Fact is there was 1:24 seconds left and the ball would have been on the Dallas 29-yard line.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/gametracker/playbyplay/NFL_20131215_GB@DAL

So Dallas, with one time out could very well have needed to run a couple of plays into the line to kill the clock at the end so GB would not get the ball back with enough to score again.

Your assertion is jaded and biased and not accurate at all.

Even a Super Bowl winning former head coach stated right after the game that Beasley ran the right route to stay away from the defense and find the soft spot, and Romo threw to the original spot of the route without reading the defender.

Your pseudo-football talk and justification ignores that even if Beasley had tried to shade the defender from where the ball was delivered, there was no guarantee he could have gotten out of bounds since he is 5'8" and smaller than the DB that ultimately grabbed the pick.

You assume so much in your defense of Romo.

The fact is the route was run to the open spot and the quarterback delivered the ball to the defender.

 

[percyhoward]

TD, how does Williams get to the ball before Beasley, if Beasley doesn't stop his route?

 

[TwoDeep3]

TD, how does Williams get to the ball before Beasley, if Beasley doesn't stop his route?

Did you actually read the article? Beasley ran the correct route. He cut it iff after reading the defender that did not run with the outside receiver.

Cosell even mentioned the name of this defense and it is a trap for the QB who doesn't read it correctly.

Richardson, the safety was in sort of a no man's land, not playing up or back. Romo would need to see what he did post snap.

Williams did not run with the outside receiver. he sat down in the spot for the out. Since you brought up the amount of time left, surely you agree that GB knew this too. They would assume Romo would be using the sidelines. Running with the outside receiver on that play would be logical, unless you were protecting the sidelines and first down. Which they were.

They trapped Romo who misread the defense. The tell-tale sign was the second corner - Bush - who sat on the inside of Beasley. He took away the quick slant which offered a soft spot still in the field of play and away from the sidelines.

Williams waited for the read then throw Romo did.

Your analysis may make sense if the defense was not prep[ared for it. And you can bet when Romo made the long throw to the spot you designate, the defender would have jumped that throw, becuase by your scenario Beasley was to keep churning to the sidelines and the defender would have had time to either break up the throw or cut him off to the ball.

Beasley read the correct spot and Romo made a bad throw.

 

[Fansince64]

TD, how does Williams get to the ball before Beasley, if Beasley doesn't stop his route?

Percy, you might as well stop talking logic and situational football on this board, most of these posters have no idea what you are talking about. They heard a talking head on one of the sports channels say it was a dumb/choke play by Romo and the fact that the QB and the WR said it was not an option route just means that they don't know what they are talking about because Dungy/Cosell/pick-a-talking-head obviously know more than the two players involved.

Like you said earlier, if Beasley simply runs the route without sitting down, it is an easy pitch and catch for a first down with maybe 3-4 seconds burned off the clock. The only thing Williams could have done in that situation was maybe - maybe - got one hand on Beasley to shove him out of bounds where he was going anyway. This simple observation obviously sails way over some people's heads.


Monte Sliger

 

[TwoDeep3]

Percy, you might as well stop talking logic and situational football on this board, most of these posters have no idea what you are talking about. They heard a talking head on one of the sports channels say it was a dumb/choke play by Romo and the fact that the QB and the WR said it was not an option route just means that they don't know what they are talking about because Dungy/Cosell/pick-a-talking-head obviously know more than the two players involved.

Like you said earlier, if Beasley simply runs the route without sitting down, it is an easy pitch and catch for a first down with maybe 3-4 seconds burned off the clock. The only thing Williams could have done in that situation was maybe - maybe - got one hand on Beasley to shove him out of bounds where he was going anyway. This simple observation obviously sails way over some people's heads.


Monte Sliger

It is a crying shame that in all the time I have been watching this game, and watching this team - I used to sit in the endzone when they allowed kids into the Cotton Bowl for a dollar and was at the very forst Dallas Cowboy regular season game - that I did not pick up one ounce of understanding of this game.

Nor the fact that a Super Bowl winning former head coach in Tony Dungy also didn't have any football understanding when he made the same claim Cosell did in this article a mere few minutes after this game ended.

From now on I better check with Percy so I can understand what I am seeing.

 

[5Stars]

Here is the question I want answered.

I spent an afternoon - or wasted an afternoon, perhaps - arguing with the people who find little fault in Romo's game about the GB game's ending.

I was informed it was not Romo's fault, it was the defense, and Romo has 24 come from behind games which indicates he is not a choker.

Then the Madden comments were tossed out and that was the justification since Madden said Romo is one of the ten best going now and it is difficult to win with this defense.

Allow me to say this again since most of you don't read it. I like Romo. But I refuse to make excuses for him when he is the reason the team lost the game.

So here is the question.

If you credit Romo for a comeback, he leading the team to victory by scoring the game winning points, then how do you also blame the defense when Romo has the ball, in the same comeback scenario and tosses a pick to end the game?

This is the singular point of my push back on all of you who call the hater name and argue that Romo is not at fault when he has the ball last and needs only a field goal to win the game and then throws the pick.

If the shoe fits for the comeback, then it fits for the loss.

And if the shoe fits, you cannot acquit.

I expect the usual Three Stooges stana-frana-scan double talk, because this is a clear cut question that has a clear cut answer.

Wow, you are right on with this post! Stupid Romo. Why he let the defense let the Packers come from behind a 23 point lead is beyond me! Garrett better have the defensive coaches talk to him about that!

 

[TwoDeep3]

Wow, you are right on with this post! Stupid Romo. Why he let the defense let the Packers come from behind a 23 point lead is beyond me! Garrett better have the defensive coaches talk to him about that!

I have personally seen you tell me about all the come back games Romo has won.

How, in your mind, can he come back from behind in some games, and yet not fail in other games where he throws the pivotal interception?

In both cases the defense allowed the opposing offense to score more points.

And yet our hero Romo brought the team back in those games.

Yet our hero Romo when trowing the interception which ended any shot at a come back is not at fault for that.

You can't have it both ways

 

[Oh_Canada]

Wow, you are right on with this post! Stupid Romo. Why he let the defense let the Packers come from behind a 23 point lead is beyond me! Garrett better have the defensive coaches talk to him about that!

You are missing the point.

Do you think QB's are the highest paid players in the sport by accident? They are paid to win games even when the defense struggles and especially against crappy defenses like Green Bay's. Did Romo lose last week on his own? Of course not, but he sure didn't win it and in the end that's all that matters.

 

[5Stars]

You are missing the point.

Do you think QB's are the highest paid players in the sport by accident? They are paid to win games even when the defense struggles and especially against crappy defenses like Green Bay's. Did Romo lose last week on his own? Of course not, but he sure didn't win it and in the end that's all that matters.

So, you are saying this is a team game, huh? Romo did not lose the game, but he did not win it.

Circular logic does not work down here. Stay up there with that dizzy reasoning.

 

[TwoDeep3]

So, you are saying this is a team game, huh? Romo did not lose the game, but he did not win it.

Circular logic does not work down here. Stay up there with that dizzy reasoning.

What you don't get, and attempt to dispute by hiding behind your team game comments is this.

I am not saying Romo is a bad quarterback. Nor am I saying I don't like him or am glad her is here.

I do not absolve any player of their mistake that costs a game. Be it a defender that allows the winning touchdown be thrown against him, or a running back that fumbles the ball on the goal line to lose a game.

Or a quarterback that throws an interception that closes the come back door.

It is a team game, but sometimes one player can be the reason the game is lost. Parity makes teams very close in talent and ability. Therefore the team that plays closer to flawless is usually the victor.

That means one mistake can cost the game regardless of the defense or offense. One mistake on the last drive by the quarterback not reading the defense or being fooled by a defensive set meant to fool him can be the difference.

You want to hang the defense out for allowing them to score enough to get back into the game.

But I wonder what your post would have been if Romo drove them down for the winning field goal?

We both know you would have been crediting him for the win.

So if he can save a game by his actions, how is it he cannot lose a game by his actions?

You have yet to answer that in any way but this is a team game. Yet you fault the defense, as seen in an above post, but they did not turn the ball over that sealed the defeat, did they?

You fault them for putting him into a position to win or lose.

Romo is a good quarterback.

He makes mistakes, and sometimes they are critical to the win loss record.

I do not put individual players above the team. You lose track of that at times with your silly responses.

 

[5Stars]

What you don't get, and attempt to dispute by hiding behind your team game comments is this.

I am not saying Romo is a bad quarterback. Nor am I saying I don't like him or am glad her is here.

I do not absolve any player of their mistake that costs a game. be it a defender that allows the winning touchdown be thrown against him, or a running back that fumbles the ball on the goal line to lose a game.

Or a quarterback that throws an interception that closes the come back door.

It is a team game, but sometimes pone player can be the reason the game is lost. Parity makes teams very close in talent and ability. Therefore the team that plays closer to flawless is usually the victor.

That means one mistake can cost the game regardless of the defense or offense. One mistake on the last drive by the quarterback not reading the defense or being fooled by a defensive set meant to fool him can be the difference.

You want to hang the defense out for allow them to score enough to get back into the game.

But I wonder what your post would have been if Romo drove them down for the winning field goal?

We both know you would have been crediting him for the win.

So if he can save a game by his actions, how is it he cannot lose a game by his actions?

You have yet to answer that in any way but this is a team game. Yet you fault the defense, as seen in an above post, but they did not turn the ball over that sealed the defeat, did they?

Romo is a good quarterback.

He makes mistakes, and sometimes they are critical to the win loss record.

I do not put individual players above the team. You lose track of that at times with your silly responses.

Sure, whatever you say. The offense scores 23 in the first half. The defense let's the Packers back into the game. The coaches throw Romo under the bus trying to be cute by not running the ball.

But that damn Romo lost the game! Why oh why?

And, I like the part where you said the defense did not turn the ball over that sealed the defeat? Do you know just how friggen stupid that was? HELLO! The defense did not stop the Packers from overcoming a 23 point lead.

And, here is another little gem of yours. "I do not put individual players above the team." HELLO! you are doing just that. Par for the course.

Carry on.

 

[CowboyFan4Eva]

It's Friday...and there's a new game on Sunday against the Commanders. I really hope the team has moved on more than the media and the fans.


How many more writeups,/threads/opinions do we really need about a game that we can't turn back the clock on?

I'm not sure how any team "moves on" from a loss like that.......

I expect to see a lot of the players just going through the motions on Sunday. Sort of like the fans.....

 

[percyhoward]

And you can bet when Romo made the long throw to the spot you designate, the defender would have jumped that throw....

You don't have to speculate about what would have happened, because Romo did make that throw, and Williams did break on the throw, and had to dive to snatch it just before it hit the turf, 2-3 yards behind where Beasley should have caught it. If Beasley continues his route, the only thing Williams could have done was watch Beasley go out of bounds with the first down.

 

[theebs]

when romo became the flavor of the month with the media after the giants/raiders games, i dont remember yall having an issue with the praise and adulation lasting throughout the week.

Not comparable. No one said he was the reason we won and it was not the main story on a news site five days later.

Completely different.

 

[TwoDeep3]

You don't have to speculate about what would have happened, because Romo did make that throw, and Williams did break on the throw, and had to dive to snatch it just before it hit the turf, 2-3 yards behind where Beasley should have caught it. If Beasley continues his route, the only thing Williams could have done was watch Beasley go out of bounds with the first down.

Percy, you have speculated throughout this thread. Even against educated commentary by people like Dungy.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Sure, whatever you say. The offense scores 23 in the first half. The defense let's the Packers back into the game. The coaches throw Romo under the bus trying to be cute by not running the ball.

But that damn Romo lost the game! Why oh why?

And, I like the part where you said the defense did not turn the ball over that sealed the defeat? Do you know just how friggen stupid that was? HELLO! The defense did not stop the Packers from overcoming a 23 point lead.

And, here is another little gem of yours. "I do not put individual players above the team." HELLO! you are doing just that. Par for the course.

Carry on.

Hello, I am not putting Romo above the team.

Further, when Romo had the ball the last time in his hands the game was winnable.

Regardless of what happened before.

The game was finally lost by a pick by Romo.

 

[percyhoward]

Percy, you have speculated throughout this thread. Even against educated commentary by people like Dungy.

I'd appreciate it if you would address specific comments and refute specific points.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I'd appreciate it if you would address specific comments and refute specific points.

Then look back at the post I made where I outlined why you are wrong in this, thank you. It is a reply to your comments. It starts with:

"Did you actually read the article? Beasley ran the correct route. He cut it off after reading the defender that did not run with the outside receiver."

I do not feel like I should have to type it twice.

 

[percyhoward]

Then look back at the post I made where I outlined why you are wrong in this, thank you. It is a reply to your comments. It starts with:

"Did you actually read the article? Beasley ran the correct route. He cut it off after reading the defender that did not run with the outside receiver."

I do not feel like I should have to type it twice.

Right, that's the one where you said "the defender would have jumped that throw."

I take that to mean the defender would have put himself in between Beasley and the ball. Is this correct?