I'm not one to complain about play calling... BUT...

[jay cee]

I'm not forgetting that the offense turned the ball over 3 times yet were still in a position to win the game vs a quality team? I don't get why people can't understand how hard it is to go the length of the field despite not getting any turnovers and put up 31 points or how an offensive unit can go 4 for 4 in the redzone? Yes Romo made some bad mistakes and that is on Romo not Garrett, coaches do not call plays and tell the QB throw behind Witten or chunk it down field without looking to see where the safety is.

Yeah, but Dooms, for some reason you guys seem to want to absolve Garrett of any blame, because he did not throw the picks.

What I am saying is that it is not just the coaches job to call plays, but to put the team in the best position to win the game.

I don't believe the staff did a good job with that.

IMO, the reason the Giants seem to be playing the pass first was because they know Garretts tendencies. They know he wants to throw the ball. And in the 1st half he played right into their hand.

 

[Doomsday101]

Please don't ever use those two coaches (/coordinator) in the same sentence. Players feared and respected Landry, Wade is a jolly joke.

He is a joke in your eyes you don't have a clue as to how the players feel. Why is it people take their own personal feelings and put them on the player. You have no clue as to what the players think of feel. My point was a coach is not based on how much you jump and holler on the sideline. People act as because Cower does it that is the right way to do things well that is who Cower is not all coaches even great coaches conducted themselves.

 

[Juke99]

Thank you, I have been trying to come up with a decent analogy, but was unable to do so.

Just letting you know I'll be using yours.:

: It's just one of the many services the administrative staff provides to our members.

 

[Juke99]

Ya know what's ironic about this entire discussion?

One simple question.

Did the Cowboys win?

 

[Doomsday101]

Yeah, but Dooms, for some reason you guys seem to want to absolve Garrett of any blame, because he did not throw the picks.

What I am saying is that it is not just the coaches job to call plays, but to put the team in the best position to win the game.

I don't believe the staff did a good job with that.

IMO, the reason the Giants seem to be playing the pass first was because they know Garretts tendencies. They know he wants to throw the ball. And in the 1st half he played right into their hand.

Garrett has been blamed in the past and in some cases rightfully so how ever going into a shell abandoning the game plan that is producing would be more than stupid. Dallas did not go pass happy in the 2nd half of the game but we did not just abandon the pass either. Dallas continue to mix thing ups they were very effeicent in the redzone 4 for 4 with 4 TD's that is not bad play calling. Romo made some bad mistakes those mistakes were on him. Romo had a wide open Witten and threw the ball behind him that is not a bad call it is a bad pass period and to blame Garrett give me a break. Sorry people jumping on Garrett is about as rediculas as it gets but then when people have been doing that for the last year that is the 1st thing they turn to in a loss.

 

[Doomsday101]

Ya know what's ironic about this entire discussion?

One simple question.

Did the Cowboys win?

No they didn't but then this thread was about the play calling not the execution.

 

[Juke99]

No they didn't but then this thread was about the play calling not the execution.

They lost as a team.

We can discuss many aspects...the special teams, ultimately because of the Jones' fumble, blew it. The defense clearly blew it...and so did the offense.

No one escapes blame and that includes Garrett.

It's about results. Yep, Garrett would have been a genius if Romo completed the long pass to Hurd. He didn't...so Garrett is questioned for the play call, just as Romo is questioned for the throw.

That's sports.

Fact is, with Romo as bad as he was, he should never have been given the opportunity to blow the game.

 

[Doomsday101]

They lost as a team.

We can discuss many aspects...the special teams, ultimately because of the Jones' fumble, blew it. The defense clearly blew it...and so did the offense.

No one escapes blame and that includes Garrett.

It's about results. Yep, Garrett would have been a genius if Romo completed the long pass to Hurd. He didn't...so Garrett is questioned for the play call, just as Romo is questioned for the throw.

That's sports.

Fact is, with Romo as bad as he was, he should never have been given the opportunity to blow the game.

Garrett would have been a genius had Romo not screwed it up?

Please the call was not bad the play was you just said it yourself had Romo completed it would have been a great call?

Garrett is being raked over the coal by the same people who have had an agenda on him over the last year or so. Players job is to execute and the coaches job is to help put them in a position to win that was done the execution on the other hand cost us.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

They lost as a team.

We can discuss many aspects...the special teams, ultimately because of the Jones' fumble, blew it. The defense clearly blew it...and so did the offense.

No one escapes blame and that includes Garrett.

It's about results. Yep, Garrett would have been a genius if Romo completed the long pass to Hurd. He didn't...so Garrett is questioned for the play call, just as Romo is questioned for the throw.

That's sports.

Fact is, with Romo as bad as he was, he should never have been given the opportunity to blow the game.

Throwing passes is part of the game Juke.

You can't avoid it.

Each one of those plays that resulted in picks had no doubt multiple options for which receiver was the intended target. The problem wasn't the play, but the execution.

 

[jay cee]

Ya know what's ironic about this entire discussion?

One simple question.

Did the Cowboys win?

good point Juke. But I must admit even if they had won, I would still be concerned because I just don't think they can win it all with that type of offense. I don't think Romo is good enough to be the focal point of a Superbowl winning offense.

But I do think he is good enough to lead a run oriented offense.

Garrett has been blamed in the past and in some cases rightfully so how ever going into a shell abandoning the game plan that is producing would be more than stupid. Dallas did not go pass happy in the 2nd half of the game but we did not just abandon the pass either. Dallas continue to mix thing ups they were very effeicent in the redzone 4 for 4 with 4 TD's that is not bad play calling. Romo made some bad mistakes those mistakes were on him. Romo had a wide open Witten and threw the ball behind him that is not a bad call it is a bad pass period and to blame Garrett give me a break. Sorry people jumping on Garrett is about as rediculas as it gets but then when people have been doing that for the last year that is the 1st thing they turn to in a loss.

No one said abandon the pass, we said that he called too many pass plays. That is a huge difference.

You call it going into a shell, I call it giving your team it's best chance to win the game by leaning on your best weapons.

Romo is head and shoulders better than any dallas qb since Aikman, but IMO, he is not, nor will he ever be the type of qb that is going to be successful averaging close to 30 pass attempts a game.

I just don't see it.

 

[Doomsday101]

good point Juke. But I must admit even if they had won, I would still be concerned because I just don't think they can win it all with that type of offense. I don't think Romo is good enough to be the focal point of a Superbowl winning offense.

But I do think he is good enough to lead a run oriented offense.



No one said abandon the pass, we said that he called too many pass plays. That is a huge difference.

You call it going into a shell, I call it giving your team it's best chance to win the game by leaning on your best weapons.

Romo is head and shoulders better than any dallas qb since Aikman, but IMO, he is not, nor will he ever be the type of qb that is going to be successful averaging close to 30 pass attempts a game.

I just don't see it.

Dallas ran as many runs as they did pass it is called being balanced and it was producing. The team has faith in Romo if that is their fault for trusting their top QB then I guess a lot of great OC are in that boat as well.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No one said abandon the pass, we said that he called too many pass plays. That is a huge difference.

OK. You're the offensive coordinator-- how many is too many?

Keep in mind 60% of the plays attempted in the 2nd half were runs.

 

[jay cee]

They lost as a team.

We can discuss many aspects...the special teams, ultimately because of the Jones' fumble, blew it. The defense clearly blew it...and so did the offense.

No one escapes blame and that includes Garrett.

It's about results. Yep, Garrett would have been a genius if Romo completed the long pass to Hurd. He didn't...so Garrett is questioned for the play call, just as Romo is questioned for the throw.

That's sports.

Fact is, with Romo as bad as he was, he should never have been given the opportunity to blow the game.

That's my point exactly.

Throwing passes is part of the game Juke.

You can't avoid it.

But you can help your QB out by running the ball until the defense brings 8 men into the box. Or at the very least is forced to cheat those safeties up some.

There are things that coaches can do to give their players the best chance to succeed.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

That's my point exactly.



But you can help your QB out by running the ball until the defense brings 8 men into the box. Or at the very least is forced to cheat those safeties up some.

There are things that coaches can do to give their players the best chance to succeed.

Cliches.

Check out Dan Marino's stats without an imposing running game or countless other excellent passing teams through the ages that couldn't run the ball worth a lick. Or the reverse, teams that had excellent running games that were pathetic passing the football.

Go look at the teams that have been among the league leaders in rushing and then check their passing stats. Then do the reverse.

A great running game doesn't automatically lead to a great passing game.

The Cowboys ran the ball 60% of the time in the 2nd half.

What do you want-70%, 80%?

 

[Juke99]

Cliches.

Check out Dan Marino's stats without an imposing running game or countless other excellent passing teams through the ages that couldn't run the ball worth a lick. Or the reverse, teams that had excellent running games that were pathetic passing the football.

Go look at the teams that have been among the league leaders in rushing and then check their passing stats. Then do the reverse.

A great running game doesn't automatically lead to a great passing game.

The Cowboys ran the ball 60% of the time in the 2nd half.

What do you want-70%, 80%?

Enough to win.



Morning Mikey.

 

[jay cee]

Dallas ran as many runs as they did pass it is called being balanced and it was producing. The team has faith in Romo if that is their fault for trusting their top QB then I guess a lot of great OC are in that boat as well.

The Cowboy passing game was producing almost as much for the Giants as it did for them. You don't have to have 50-50 ratio to have a good offense.

OK. You're the offensive coordinator-- how many is too many?

Keep in mind 60% of the plays attempted in the 2nd half were runs.

That's impossible to answer MW. But as the OC, I would have run the ball more than 15 times in the 1st half.

I counted 3 passes in their 1st 5 plays of the 2nd half. It was after those struggles that it finally seemed to sink in that they needed to run the ball to beat the Giants.

Garrett likes to throw the ball a lot, IMO it played into the hands of the Giants.

 

[Doomsday101]

The Cowboy passing game was producing almost as much for the Giants as it did for them. You don't have to have 50-50 ratio to have a good offense.



That's impossible to answer MW. But as the OC, I would have run the ball more than 15 times in the 1st half.

I counted 3 passes in their 1st 5 plays of the 2nd half. It was after those struggles that it finally seemed to sink in that they needed to run the ball to beat the Giants.

Garrett likes to throw the ball a lot, IMO it played into the hands of the Giants.

Your right but OC will look to play off of the running game which was having success that is part of attacking. Had Garrett called 80% run and we lost the same people would be hollering about why did we not pass more? The play calling was fine there comes a point where the players have to execute and if they don't that is on them not the staff.

 

[jay cee]

Cliches.

Check out Dan Marino's stats without an imposing running game or countless other excellent passing teams through the ages that couldn't run the ball worth a lick. Or the reverse, teams that had excellent running games that were pathetic passing the football.

Go look at the teams that have been among the league leaders in rushing and then check their passing stats. Then do the reverse.

A great running game doesn't automatically lead to a great passing game.

The Cowboys ran the ball 60% of the time in the 2nd half.

What do you want-70%, 80%?

Cliches? Why?

Are you saying that there is nothing the coaches can do to help their players succeed?

Don't you think the offense performed better in the 2nd half than they did in the 1st?

IMO, Romo is a good QB, all he needs is a little help from his coaches.

IMO, Romo is not as good as Marino or Moon or Fouts, those are some guys that put up great numbers, and I don't think any of their teams had great running games.

But none of them won superbowls either. I think if the Cowboys would feature the run more they could contend with Romo as the QB.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Enough to win.



Morning Mikey.

Morning John.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

But none of them won superbowls either. I think if the Cowboys would feature the run more they could contend with Romo as the QB.

Maybe. Maybe not.


At this juncture it's conjecture.