Jimmy Johnson "I Want To Score."

[65fastback2plus2]

I agree, Romo plays to avoid criticism that why he doesnt throw the ball to Dez more he afraid of the int. Stephen Jones said that Tony can throw deep when he wants, its his decision.

people that believe this junk baffle me. 50 and 60 yard td's back-to-back at the end of the game into tight, double coverage and tony is scared? really? throwing where a cb is within 1" of the ball is scared? get real now. lets be serious here. he isnt scared of nothing but getting pancaked, ribs broken and missing games. thats it.

 

[Red Dragon]

You're comparing two vastly different situations. In the Giants and Patriots games, the Cowboys were backed up in their own territory with well over two minutes to go. An aggressive strategy made sense then.


In the Lions game, the Cowboys had the ball, 1st-and-10 well within Detroit territory, with less than two minutes to play.


The two situations are very, very different.

 

[Red Dragon]

In reference to the 1992 NFC Championship Game:

There was 4:22 left on the clock, and Dallas had the ball on their own 20.

See the difference? That was the Cowboys-Niners game.


In Cowboys-Lions, the Cowboys had the ball with less than 2:00 on the clock, AND on the Detroit 31.


Much less time left on the clock, AND 49 yards further in the direction of the opponent.


Enormously different situation we're talking about.

 

[birdwells1]

people that believe this junk baffle me. 50 and 60 yard td's back-to-back at the end of the game into tight, double coverage and tony is scared? really? throwing where a cb is within 1" of the ball is scared? get real now. lets be serious here. he isnt scared of nothing but getting pancaked, ribs broken and missing games. thats it.

He had 66 yards passing In the 1st half, he looked really good in the "hey we got nothing to lose" game against Denver but he's playing to avoid criticism. Look at this Romo and compare him to the 2007 Romo and its a noticable difference. He took more chances then, yeah he had ints but made more big plays, which we are going to need to go deep in the playoffs.

 

[ufcrules1]

The coaching staff was in a no win situation. If you let Romo throw the ball at the end of the game, there is no telling what would happen. Interception, Pick 6, or something else. If they let Romo throw and he choked, everyone would be saying... "We should have ran the ball there and ran out the clock". On the other hand, if we run 3 times and don't get it, everyone says we should have thrown for the first down.

After the meltdown in 2011 against the Lions, JG was in the same situation after the bye week when we played NE. You either let Romo "Try" to throw for the first down to end the game.. or run it 3 times to take time off the clock and punt to NE and let your defense try to hold them. If he let Romo throw and Romo choked.. he would have never heard the end of it.

No win situation!

 

[ufcrules1]

In reference to the 1992 NFC Championship Game:



See the difference? That was the Cowboys-Niners game.


In Cowboys-Lions, the Cowboys had the ball with less than 2:00 on the clock, AND on the Detroit 31.


Much less time left on the clock, AND 49 yards further in the direction of the opponent.


Enormously different situation we're talking about.

Aikman > than Romo. Aikman could be trusted NOT to choke at an inopportune time.

 

[Red Dragon]

The coaching staff was in a no win situation. If you let Romo throw the ball at the end of the game, there is no telling what would happen. Interception, Pick 6, or something else. If they let Romo throw and he choked, everyone would be saying... "We should have ran the ball there and ran out the clock". On the other hand, if we run 3 times and don't get it, everyone says we should have thrown for the first down.

Exactly. What's going on here on Cowboys Zone right now is nothing more than hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Red Dragon]

Aikman > than Romo. Aikman could be trusted NOT to choke at an inopportune time.

My point is, I was referring to the game situation. 4 minutes left and ball on your 20 is vastly different than less than 2 minutes left and ball on the opponent's 31. Different situations call for different strategies.


Gifting the Lions with a free timeout by throwing an incomplete pass would have been an epic blunder.

 

[CaptainCreed]

In reference to the 1992 NFC Championship Game:



See the difference? That was the Cowboys-Niners game.


In Cowboys-Lions, the Cowboys had the ball with less than 2:00 on the clock, AND on the Detroit 31.


Much less time left on the clock, AND 49 yards further in the direction of the opponent.


Enormously different situation we're talking about.

We also had the ball up 3 with like 3:30 left on our own 20 before a three and out. Is that more similar?

 

[ufcrules1]

Exactly. What's going on here on Cowboys Zone right now is nothing more than hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20, hindsight is 20/20.

Agreed. I was watching the game with 2 other huge Cowboys fans and we all agreed that the Cowboys should run the ball there. None of us were expecting the hold and ALL of us were worried that if Romo did throw the ball, something bad might happen.

 

[Red Dragon]

We also had the ball up 3 with like 3:30 left on our own 20 before a three and out. Is that more similar?

Yes, an aggressive strategy would have been good there. It's too bad Romo just wasn't completing passes well that day.

 

[ufcrules1]

My point is, I was referring to the game situation. 4 minutes left and ball on your 20 is vastly different than less than 2 minutes left and ball on the opponent's 31. Different situations call for different strategies.


Gifting the Lions with a free timeout by throwing an incomplete pass would have been an epic blunder.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. One thing to point out though is Barry Church got hurt and was out of the game, so you had 2 backup safeties in there. Also, Claiborne got hurt as well and Scandrick was in for him (not a huge fall off, but a falloff). Knowing those things, I may have wanted them to throw for it... but then knowing Romo's history in situations like that and how he played that whole game, I would be scared of what might happen. If Aikman was in there, I would have said to throw for it knowing our defense was so banged up.
Either way, I don't blame the coaching staff. It was a tough decision that they may have lost either way.

 

[ufcrules1]

Yes, an aggressive strategy would have been good there. It's too bad Romo just wasn't completing passes well that day.

Great point. Your QB is under 50% completion % for the day and is known for throwing INT's at the worst possible time in games. So as a coach.. what do you do? It's not like you are working with Peyton, Rodgers, Brady, etc.

 

[CowboyGil]

The other similar thing in each case is the offense was asking it's defense to get ONE stop and they couldn't do it.

 

[ufcrules1]

The other similar thing in each case is the offense was asking it's defense to get ONE stop and they couldn't do it.

The defense was ridiculously banged up and there were backups at safety at that point in the game. Not excusing them but when a team is trying to throw the long ball to score fast and your safeties are inexperienced and don't know where they are supposed to be, bad things happen.

That same crappy defense had 4 turnovers. That should have been enough for the offense to work with to take Detroit (who was ranked bottom 5 in the league on defense) out of the game.

 

[CaptainCreed]

Yes, an aggressive strategy would have been good there. It's too bad Romo just wasn't completing passes well that day.

I agree, he was off, 14-30 is not good at all, 3-13 on third down for only 2 first downs. Yet, the offense had two chances to ice this game under 4 minutes AND the defense forced a turnover on downs. We still find a way to lose.

 

[CaptainCreed]

The other similar thing in each case is the offense was asking it's defense to get ONE stop and they couldn't do it.

The defense stopped them the drive before with a turnover on downs. Offense had two chances to ice the game and choked. Simple as that.

 

[ufcrules1]

I agree, he was off, 14-30 is not good at all, 3-13 on third down for only 2 first downs. Yet, the offense had two chances to ice this game under 4 minutes AND the defense forced a turnover on downs. We still find a way to lose.

And then you start seeing everyone here blame the defense. They had a crucial stop at the end and 4 freaking turnovers. I'm really starting to think that our offense is one of the major problems with this team.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

He had 66 yards passing In the 1st half, he looked really good in the "hey we got nothing to lose" game against Denver but he's playing to avoid criticism. Look at this Romo and compare him to the 2007 Romo and its a noticable difference. He took more chances then, yeah he had ints but made more big plays, which we are going to need to go deep in the playoffs.

the romo from 2007 has been gone for years thanks to JG. compare this romo to last year's romo. same.

 

[ufcrules1]

the romo from 2007 has been gone for years thanks to JG. compare this romo to last year's romo. same.

Romo of 2007 is long gone. That Romo was actually a threat to run the ball. He was a nightmare for defenses. This Romo is slow as Christmas and teams don't have to ever worry about him running.