Greg Cosell: Romo's Two Interceptions

[Corso]

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.

Yes. Thank you.
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

Everybody wants to talk about what happened before, the moments and the play leading up to that final series and whether it should have gotten there.
Well, so-called realists and whatever else people out there call themselves- Romo had the ball last. He had a chance to not even have to go for a TD, but just get into FG range.
I get it- it never should have happened to begin with, but there he was- in the moment. THIS IS HIS JOB.
And in those final moments he failed. Again. You can't blame the defense for that. The defense did not throw that interception.

They did him no favors, even failed him, but he still had that chance- that Final Chance and HE FAILED.

Again. And that's that. It's something he's done numerous times so it shouldn't be a shock or defensible to anyone in my mind any longer.

 

[pastordug]

I know who he is thanks. It makes no sense in any way shape or form that 5 days after a bad team loses and its defense gives up an unheard of 34 points in the second half this would be a top story on yahoo.com

its sad and pathetic. Lots of players had bad games this weekend.

if we were the number 1 seed and just blew the superbowl or something maybe I get it, but for a terrible team with one of the worst front offices in the league and a horrendous coaching staff this is just a sorry thing to do.

you can spout that Americas team nonsense till your blue in the face, this makes no sense.

True about players having bad games that week-end. However Romo has a history of doing what he did for the last 6 years. One of the reasons it is a story.

 

[TwoDeep3]

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?

If the defender was playing the ball he could have bumped Beasley and gained the premium position.

Yes.

Now your rebuttal, which I read states that could not happen. Then you told me not to speculate, which I say I didn't anymore than you did with your comments.

 

[texbumthelife]

It's a story and it's on the front page because, like it or not, the Cowboys are polarizing. You read it. I read it. This forum read it. It's somewhat old news and we read it for different reasons (to lend credence to our argument or to get a better grasp of the situation), but either way, yahoo is a business as well as a news reporting agency and its there for exactly this reason. You came here and posted a link. A link many people followed. Those clicks made Yahoo an untold amount of money from sponsored ads. Period.

Some of you people will attack the dumbest stuff for the most near-sighted reasons.

 

[percyhoward]

If the defender was playing the ball he could have bumped Beasley and gained the premium position.

Yes.

My point is that he was in no position to do anything like that. Williams was 5 yards away from Beasley.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

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.

Sorry I probably should have clarified.

I meant INT's that involved a miscommunication between WR and QB

 

[Miller]

This Cosell guy got his opinion from watching so many games, but he could have listened to the two people involved in the play. Romo and Beasley both said the route called for him to continue toward the sideline, not sit down. Cosell seems to be just another writer who. when in doubt, puts the blame on Romo.

This is just ignorant it is frustrating when reading these boards. Cosell has been doing this for 20-30 years. He is probably the top film guy out there. He has zero agenda. He reads film, looks at the situation and makes a call. The guy is as professional as can be. On the otherhand I've never known players to cover for other players on mistakes...eyeroll

As for why Beasley would stop when stopping the clock is important..easy...the DB read the play correctly and stepped into the right place. So poor on execution and situation. There are two teams involved

 

[gimmesix]

Tramon Williams lined up at the 35 and then backpedaled to the 37. If Beasley doesn't stop running toward the sideline, there is no way short of teleportation that Williams gets his body between Beasley and the sideline at the first down marker on the 30. Williams was, however, in position to make the tackle in bounds if Beasley had turned it up field like he was planning on doing.

You can't just ignore the situation, which is that you need to gain a yard and stop the clock. If Romo had ignored the situation, completed the pass to Beasley where he stopped, and Beasley gained 6-7 yards with the clock still running, I would want to know why we ran a play that helped the opponent more than it helped us.

I think people believe Williams was just right there to break up the pass if Beasley had continued his route. He wasn't he was several yards back, but with Beasley not there to catch the ball, it kept traveling to where Williams was able to dive for the interception.

If Beasley continues his route, he easily catches the pass and gets out of bounds, which was the goal on that play considering it was a short pass to get the first down with time running down.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

Dungy has said a ton of extremely dumb things over the years on NBC where he obviously didn't have a clue of the situation, or didn't give it much thought.

I think people believe Williams was just right there to break up the pass if Beasley had continued his route. He wasn't he was several yards back, but with Beasley not there to catch the ball, it kept traveling to where Williams was able to dive for the interception.

If Beasley continues his route, he easily catches the pass and gets out of bounds, which was the goal on that play considering it was a short pass to get the first down with time running down.

Yep, they keep throwing out "into coverageb or that Williams was "in position," but that just wasn't the case.

 

[percyhoward]

As for why Beasley would stop when stopping the clock is important..easy...the DB read the play correctly and stepped into the right place.

Where on the field was this "right place" that he stepped into?

 

[Miller]

Where on the field was this "right place" that he stepped into?

Taking away the outside. Read Cosell. It makes sense. The play before Cole ran same route and ran out of bounds. This time the DB read play, stayed home and was waiting. Beasley read this and stopped. Romo didn't and threw to spot. They has 3 timeouts and just wanted a first. Beasley blames himself. Romo blames himself. Garrett takes no blame. The point is, we won't know the exact reason but breaking down the film by a guy who has done it for NFL Films for decades opens eyes. I'm actually a Romo fan but I like objectivity in analysis instead of blind faith.

 

[Miller]

I think people believe Williams was just right there to break up the pass if Beasley had continued his route. He wasn't he was several yards back, but with Beasley not there to catch the ball, it kept traveling to where Williams was able to dive for the interception.

If Beasley continues his route, he easily catches the pass and gets out of bounds, which was the goal on that play considering it was a short pass to get the first down with time running down.

This makes zero sense. So the DB would have had zero chance on making a move on the WR if Certain kept going but made a diving interception with a ball in reach? It can't be both. He obviously sat on the play. Beasley said as much.

 

[percyhoward]

Taking away the outside. Read Cosell. It makes sense. The play before Cole ran same route and ran out of bounds. This time the DB read play, stayed home and was waiting. Beasley read this and stopped. Romo didn't and threw to spot. They has 3 timeouts and just wanted a first. Beasley blames himself. Romo blames himself. Garrett takes no blame. The point is, we won't know the exact reason but breaking down the film by a guy who has done it for NFL Films for decades opens eyes. I'm actually a Romo fan but I like objectivity in analysis instead of blind faith.

The Cowboys did not have three timeouts. They had used two timeouts on defense prior to the Packers' go-ahead TD. The Cowboys had the ball at their own 29 with one timeout and 1:24 left. This is why Beasley had to try to get out of bounds, and this is why he said, "normally I have the option (to stop), but not on that play."

I ask specifically what part of the field "the right place" was, because I want you to try to explain exactly how the defender would have prevented the completion or even stopped Beasley in bounds. "Taking away the outside" is just as vague as "stepping into the right place." What do you imagine the defender doing assuming Beasley hadn't stopped? That's the question.

 

[LatinMind]

While there isn't a lot new to read, still a good write up.

Not alot new to read but according to people on this forum Romo is god

 

[percyhoward]

I see the CB Williams going with the outside receiver (TWill) right up until Romo throws the ball. That's not what Cosell says at all.
"Instead of running with the wideout and carrying him, Williams sits looking inside."

Williams didn't "sit" at all. At the snap, he is lined up at the 34, and two seconds into the play, he's already backed up to the 37. He hits the brakes when he sees Romo throw it, but by that time he's already taken himself out of any chance to make a play on the ball at the first down marker, which is just outside the 30.

"This coverage is designed to bait the quarterback. You’re showing "Cover 2," and you want the ball thrown right where Romo threw it, because the corner is sitting right there."

Except he wasn't sitting right there.

 

[DABOYZ]

lets reverse the situation.

If romo hits Austin and he runs to the endzone and closes out the game, after the game during the press conference when the media asks garrett about the play he would say it was a big play and when they asked romo he would say miles did a great job and it was a big play...

guess what romo wouldn't say....well garrett called a run but I felt like that was a mistake and he really doesn't have any guts so I changed it to try and win the game.

nope, romo would never say that. Garrett did and showed his true colors and he knows he has two weeks

Your first post about Witten and Romo was quite comical especially using Cleveland, a team that has never raised the Lombardi trophy as a destination. Anyone that has been a Cowboy's fan for a long time knows that good or bad this team draws ratings and attention. If you don't like it switch teams. I don't blame Yahoo one bit for using the Cowboy's and Tony Romo to draw ratings. That is what they get paid to do.

Your next post moved on to the what if game. Well, the good news is no body can argue with "what ifs" because they are basically fantasy. The bad news is Romo didn't hit Austin in stride and that is reality. As for Brees or any other QB, well they don't play for the Cowboy's and they also have that one thing that gives them a pass whether you like it or not. It's called a ring. I'm ok with whatever makes headlines I don't get over excited cause I know I can't do anything to change how this team plays on Sunday.

 

[kramskoi]

I still can't understand why we didn't run the ball in the 2nd and one situation, first of all the refs didn't mark beastly down correctly, most of the times I have seen the crossing of marker like that is counted as first down. In any case it was a half a yard , either we can run the ball get 1st down and then spike or take the time out . We can work the the sideline for next 4 throws about 1:30 left in the clock , we needed a field goal only. Just the previous possession ended in a interception , so why the heck we throw in 2nd and one situation?

We did not run the ball because that is just NOT WHAT WE DO! It is a passing league my friend, and I'm trying on a daily basis to brainwash myself to the same way of thinking, "as it pertains to the Cowboys", it's just not taking! Give me nineties "thug ball", I've seen where it can lead!

 

[Beast_from_East]

Yall know if the defense forces just 1 single punt the entire second half, we win..........even with Romo's picks...................we still win.

And for those saying we need to bench Romo, well lets start on the defense first.............Ware and Hatcher sit next game as well because they got b-slapped from start to finish. Hatcher is making business decisions and old man Ware is just embarrassing himself at this point. How the hell do you get totally owned by scrub OTs week in and week out? Even Micky and Broaddus said they cant understand how Ware does jack against scrubs. Scandrick and Carr, take a seat as well. Freaking Sterling Moore comes in off the street and is already clowning you losers. Carr gets burnt more than french toast at IHOP and Scandrick either gets outmuscled for the ball or just drops it.

And while we are talking accountability, Garrett needs to take a game off as well. Worst coached game I have ever seen at any level..............Garrett doesnt make the trip to DC we might actually win.

 

[gimmesix]

This makes zero sense. So the DB would have had zero chance on making a move on the WR if Certain kept going but made a diving interception with a ball in reach? It can't be both. He obviously sat on the play. Beasley said as much.

The ball didn't stop traveling when it passed Beasley, it continued past him by several yards where Williams had to dive to catch it. I can't see any way he would have gotten to Beasley before he caught the ball and went out of bounds.

 

[gimmesix]

Not alot new to read but according to people on this forum Romo is god

People say this when their only argument is that they don't like Romo.

Ask anyone about the first interception Romo threw against Green Bay and I'm sure pretty much anyone in this thread defending Romo based on his receiver saying he didn't have the option to stop on that play would say Romo was completely at fault on that play and made a poor decision to throw that pass.

Some of us can look at his play objectively.