Greg Cosell: Romo's Two Interceptions

[LatinMind]

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.

When romo does good i can admit it, I can even admit when he's on he gives Dallas the best chance to win. But right now, this yr. Nomatter what situational stats people want to pull out, You cant ignore what your eyes see, And thats alot of bad throws by Romo. He's been above average this yr. The thing is, Dallas isnt paying him to be above average. They are already paying Orton.

 

[beevomav]

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

I really don't care what Cosell says or how long he has been doing this? I believe the players.

Beasley said he stopped his route, and Romo, like the play calls for, thought he was going to continue. You choose to think that Beasley is lying to cover Romo, and Romo is lying to throw a young receiver under the bus?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

No, I've heard excuses from the Romo apologists on the first pick as well. That he had to throw instead of pass and that the play call was poor and that somebody should have blocked Matthews, etc.

In fact, we have Callahan putting the blame on himself. Sounds just like the Beasley situation.

Obviously, you're going to get the Romo apologists going one way and the Romo haters going the other way. But when you have Dungy, Aikman and now Cosell...all of whom are 'neutral' towards Romo putting the blame on him it's hard to take the other side of the argument with more than a grain of salt.




YR

 

[Beast_from_East]

No, I've heard excuses from the Romo apologists on the first pick as well. That he had to throw instead of pass and that the play call was poor and that somebody should have blocked Matthews, etc.

In fact, we have Callahan putting the blame on himself. Sounds just like the Beasley situation.

Obviously, you're going to get the Romo apologists going one way and the Romo haters going the other way. But when you have Dungy, Aikman and now Cosell...all of whom are 'neutral' towards Romo putting the blame on him it's hard to take the other side of the argument with more than a grain of salt.




YR

We have a defense that cant even force a dam punt.............................5 TDs on 5 possessions in one half of football will get you beat 99% of the time in the NFL......................what the QB does really means jack compared to that.

 

[percyhoward]

Obviously, you're going to get the Romo apologists going one way and the Romo haters going the other way. But when you have Dungy, Aikman and now Cosell...all of whom are 'neutral' towards Romo putting the blame on him it's hard to take the other side of the argument with more than a grain of salt.

With so many people insisting the QB was at fault, you'd think that one person would be able to explain how Williams could possibly have defended that throw, had Beasley not stopped. Either that, or at least post a quote from one of these names that keep getting dropped that explains it.

RIch, you've been giving football opinions here for a long time, and you don't usually have to defer to "experts". Tell me why a DB who's trying to cut off a throw at the 31- or 32-yard line would line up at the 34 (5 yards off the ball), then back up 3 more yards after the snap, so that when the ball is thrown he's 5-6 yards away from where he needs to be.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

There isn't a way. If Williams had to dive to catch it at the 33 with Beasley stopping, it follows that he would have had to be at around the 31 to defend it with Beasley not stopping. If he had to dive to catch it at the 33, then Williams being upright at the 31 at the same time as the ball is an impossibility.

What Beasley did before he stopped is the same as what he would have done up until that point even if he hadn't stopped. So if Williams is watching that, he's seeing the same thing in either scenario. Nothing that Williams did before Beasley stopped would have been any different if Beasley hadn't stopped. Williams took himself out of the play. If Beasley doesn't stop, Williams still takes himself out of the play.

The ball is thrown the moment Beasley stops, so Williams' position when the ball is thrown is what tells you whether or not it was the right read by the QB.