News: Moore: Cowboys offense is indeed too Romo-friendly; Danny White explains what needs fixing

[ConstantReboot]

How come everyone in the known universe can see this but Jerry and Jason can't?

DENIAL is not just a river which flows thru Egypt.

 

[conner01]

I think a strength of Jerry Jones the owner is that he's loyal to his players. And that quality is valuable when you need to keep a team together.

I think a weakness of Jerry Jones the GM is that he's loyal to his players. And that quality is restrictive when you have to let players go or you have to bring in new players to compete with your stars.

Maybe this is a shallow observation, but it seems to me when Jerry likes a player, he's not willing to challenge that player with another who can take his place, or he tends to ride with that player until the player can't play anymore. Examples?

1. Drafting the likes of Derrick Lassic, Sherman Williams, etc.., as "backups" to Emmitt Smith. Our strategy in the 90s post-Johnson was not to pick players who could compete with the stars but to sign backups. It's almost as if we were scared to provide competition for Aikman for Emmitt, etc. Not that any of the guys we picked or acquired via free agency would have taken their spot, but the mentality of not wanting to challenge players can be crippling for a franchise.

2. Holding to Aikman for too long. I said after the 97-98 season that the Cowboys need to start looking for Aikman's replacement or even, gasp, trade him. It looked to me like Aikman's play was declining, and it was time to move on. But Jerry thought Aikman (and the roster) had one more Super Bowl run in them. And year after year, that was the mindset until Aikman was forced to retire. We should have been looking for his replacement in 97.

3. Romo. One of the reasons I believe we haven't start looking for a backup to Romo is because we don't want to "offend" him or create an issue where there's a quarterback controversy. The general media want to start such a controversy because the narrative of "Romo can't win the big one" is out there. And rather than feed that, Jerry avoids it all together by not bringing a guy in to challenge Romo. But ... you have to bring competition to your squad and your starting quarterback. Look at what Green Bay did with Rodgers even though Favre was still playing. Look at what San Francisco did in bringing in Young when Montana still had another Super Bowl ring to win. Yes, there was tension as the conflicts between Favre-Rodgers and Montana-Young were well documented. But look at the results: The Packers and the 49ers won Super Bowls with all their quarterbacks.

I sure hope we don't "spare" Romo's feelings by not drafting one of the top three quarterbacks (assuming we rate them that high) if they're available.

And, yes, I understand Jerry wanted Manziel. But I really don't believe Manziel was ever in consideration, despite what Jerry says. If he was their top-rated player, they would have taken him. He wasn't. Nor was he on the top board of most teams otherwise, he would have been taken in the draft. Manziel had to call the Browns and beg them to take him, based on some reports.

I don't think it's about Romo's feelings
It's about fixing other needs. When you have a QB you think can play 5 more years then QB is just not that big of a priority
Now romo is down to his last few years do I suspect we take a QB early. It's not like jerry didn't want to take one last year and it's a blessing we didn't
Sure we might have won a few more games but we wouldn't have made the playoffs and we would have another contract to deal with for a guy who wouldn't be sober enough to be your future

 

[Floatyworm]

Excellent insight by Danny White.

I said this 3 months ago.........

 

[CATCH17]

This article is a nice way to say the coach sucks in public.

 

[Redball Express]

That's the thing...this coaching staff hasn't proved they know how to adjust.

I'm not sure it is about being too Romo-Friendly.

I mean other teams design their Qbs and offenses to feature teir QB's skill sets.

Rodgers, Brady and Brees come to mind there as well as Romo.

Romo has become a sort of on-the-field coach and that is not something many QBs can do.

So while it's not interchangeable with other QBs..

Frankly we have not had any quality backup QBs in the Romo Era.

It was the same with Aikman.

Which is how we ended up with Garrett as a backup.

and now he's the HC.

So Garrett is just replicating what was done when he was QB.

Which is what Jerrah wants.

Never overlook that.

It's all about the money..money for Romo..

money for Garrett

and no desire to invest big money on somebody who the team feels will not play much as a backup.

This is the guts of the Cowboy's philosophy.

It's not going to change.

 

[BigStar]

I think the better analysis is that the offense is crap, as seen with the 3 different bkups one who won 2 games at houston.
and Romo just improvises a lot and makes it work!
It isnt Romo friendly , just the opposite, it holds tony back, and has for years.
He is just good enough t make it work at times, unless the other defense is really good and then even tony will struggle.

Now imagine tony with a actual good & innovative play book and offense! He would already have a ring or 2.

So you have a crap offense and tony is good enough and makes enough plays to make it seem like a ok offense but it isnt.

Basically tony has had his reins pulled back for years by this stale JG offense.
Opposing teams an their DC's love it though.

Now the 3 40 year old brains are looking at it, so no telling what they come up with.

Agree, way too much high 5'n has been going on the last 5 years due to nepotism and was made bearable bc of a special QB; they fooled themselves into thinking this RKG process=Superior talent at every position was a reasonable way to compete in the modern league?

"So, who knew we had to coach discipline and create mismatches that aren't necessitated by Romo's continuous audibles at the LOS pre snap? We rank high on O;dated scheme and lack of discipline year in and year out is acceptable and not involved with the HC, etc No worries, Romo will play another 5 years"

- 3 Stooges

 

[DandyDon52]

This article is a nice way to say the coach sucks in public.

pretty much , but more just saying the offense and playbook sucks.

 

[Risen Star]

"Those are the things we'll be going over,'' Stephen Jones said...

It's cool, guys. They're on it.

 

[Eddie]

After all this talk, don't be surprised if we draft Bosa with both Lynch and Wenz on the board.

Jerry Jones will talk about how far Tony's come in his rehab ...

We'll go into 2016 with a ton of IFs and HOPEs. IF this, If that ... HOPE this, HOPE that ...

 

[jobberone]

The primary key to every game is to get after the QB and disrupt the passing game.

What I'm hearing is something I've suspected for awhile but I'm not certain it is true. I think we are most vulnerable when we work out of a strict timing offense. I think this is stale and maybe it is dated.

I think we do better, in general not always ok, when we do break down and run an up tempo offense and Romo does improvise. Then you are not running a strict timing offense. Again, I'm more wondering about this rather than saying that is what is happening.

 

[Biggems]

I think a strength of Jerry Jones the owner is that he's loyal to his players. And that quality is valuable when you need to keep a team together.

I think a weakness of Jerry Jones the GM is that he's loyal to his players. And that quality is restrictive when you have to let players go or you have to bring in new players to compete with your stars.

Maybe this is a shallow observation, but it seems to me when Jerry likes a player, he's not willing to challenge that player with another who can take his place, or he tends to ride with that player until the player can't play anymore. Examples?

1. Drafting the likes of Derrick Lassic, Sherman Williams, etc.., as "backups" to Emmitt Smith. Our strategy in the 90s post-Johnson was not to pick players who could compete with the stars but to sign backups. It's almost as if we were scared to provide competition for Aikman for Emmitt, etc. Not that any of the guys we picked or acquired via free agency would have taken their spot, but the mentality of not wanting to challenge players can be crippling for a franchise.

2. Holding to Aikman for too long. I said after the 97-98 season that the Cowboys need to start looking for Aikman's replacement or even, gasp, trade him. It looked to me like Aikman's play was declining, and it was time to move on. But Jerry thought Aikman (and the roster) had one more Super Bowl run in them. And year after year, that was the mindset until Aikman was forced to retire. We should have been looking for his replacement in 97.

3. Romo. One of the reasons I believe we haven't start looking for a backup to Romo is because we don't want to "offend" him or create an issue where there's a quarterback controversy. The general media want to start such a controversy because the narrative of "Romo can't win the big one" is out there. And rather than feed that, Jerry avoids it all together by not bringing a guy in to challenge Romo. But ... you have to bring competition to your squad and your starting quarterback. Look at what Green Bay did with Rodgers even though Favre was still playing. Look at what San Francisco did in bringing in Young when Montana still had another Super Bowl ring to win. Yes, there was tension as the conflicts between Favre-Rodgers and Montana-Young were well documented. But look at the results: The Packers and the 49ers won Super Bowls with all their quarterbacks.

I sure hope we don't "spare" Romo's feelings by not drafting one of the top three quarterbacks (assuming we rate them that high) if they're available.

And, yes, I understand Jerry wanted Manziel. But I really don't believe Manziel was ever in consideration, despite what Jerry says. If he was their top-rated player, they would have taken him. He wasn't. Nor was he on the top board of most teams otherwise, he would have been taken in the draft. Manziel had to call the Browns and beg them to take him, based on some reports.

We were 3-0 before Irvin went down in Philly......also, had we drafted Moss instead of Ellis (and I was a big fan of Ellis), I think Aikman would have torn it up for his last years.

 

[CCBoy]

I said this 3 months ago.........

Where do you think that he got the idea?

 

[ccb04]

Pretty good read.

From the article: "These three, along with offensive coordinator Scott Linehan, must determine if the issue is the scheme or the players they have selected to fill-in behind Romo."

Combination of both.

Also from the article: "Backup quarterbacks have gone just 7-20 in this offense since Romo took over as the starter during the 2008 season."

Interestingly, the best back up they've had during that time (Jon Kitna), has 4 of those 7 wins in the same season playing in the same scheme.

Again from the article: "Watch New England's Tom Brady and Denver's Peyton Manning on Sunday afternoon. They will make one timing-route throw after another. They will take a five-step drop and release the ball when the receiver's back is turned to them."

Aside from systems, timing-routes, etc...while the Pats had some success with Cassel when Brady missed significant time in 2008...when Manning also missed all of the 2011 season in Indy, the Colts wound up with the #1 overall pick & Andrew Luck. And aside from 2008, Brady has remained remarkably healthy and started all 16 games in 13 out of the last 14 seasons. Not to mention, Belichick is one of the best coaches in NFL history. Interestingly, both Brady & Manning's teams have drafted QB's in the 2nd round to develop in their system.

As the article mentions, Rodgers & Romo have a similar improvisational style. I'd add that like Brady & Manning (among some of the other great QB's), both are also excellent at the LOS pre-snap.

I'd like to see more quick throws, timing patterns, hot reads, etc...because I think it would keep Romo upright more often & puts less pressure on the OL to sustain blocks for a longer period of time while Romo is trying to buy time.

 

[CCBoy]

The primary key to every game is to get after the QB and disrupt the passing game.

What I'm hearing is something I've suspected for awhile but I'm not certain it is true. I think we are most vulnerable when we work out of a strict timing offense. I think this is stale and maybe it is dated.

I think we do better, in general not always ok, when we do break down and run an up tempo offense and Romo does improvise. Then you are not running a strict timing offense. Again, I'm more wondering about this rather than saying that is what is happening.

Job, I'm thinking that Dallas needs to get over the good to great hump on offense, and just be able to again challenge teams to beat their strengths, and just win again.

That's why I'm for getting a strong quarterback in free agency, and then take WR and RB in the first two or three picks. Maybe a defensive end and a pair of defensive tackles in round four.
Sign a CB such as Johnson, and resign Claiborne.

Pretty good read.

From the article: "These three, along with offensive coordinator Scott Linehan, must determine if the issue is the scheme or the players they have selected to fill-in behind Romo."

Combination of both.

Also from the article: "Backup quarterbacks have gone just 7-20 in this offense since Romo took over as the starter during the 2008 season."

Interestingly, the best back up they've had during that time (Jon Kitna), has 4 of those 7 wins in the same season playing in the same scheme.

Again from the article: "Watch New England's Tom Brady and Denver's Peyton Manning on Sunday afternoon. They will make one timing-route throw after another. They will take a five-step drop and release the ball when the receiver's back is turned to them."

Aside from systems, timing-routes, etc...while the Pats had some success with Cassel when Brady missed significant time in 2008...when Manning also missed all of the 2011 season in Indy, the Colts wound up with the #1 overall pick & Andrew Luck. And aside from 2008, Brady has remained remarkably healthy and started all 16 games in 13 out of the last 14 seasons. Not to mention, Belichick is one of the best coaches in NFL history. Interestingly, both Brady & Manning's teams have drafted QB's in the 2nd round to develop in their system.

As the article mentions, Rodgers & Romo have a similar improvisational style. I'd add that like Brady & Manning (among some of the other great QB's), both are also excellent at the LOS pre-snap.

I'd like to see more quick throws, timing patterns, hot reads, etc...because I think it would keep Romo upright more often & puts less pressure on the OL to sustain blocks for a longer period of time while Romo is trying to buy time.

Give this fan more sets that have routes that shield another receiver...

 

[Redball Express]

To me..

its totally unfair to blame Romo for anything.

If the expectations are too high..it's for the team..not necessarily Romo.

Other than 2007 and 2009 and 2014..

the teams have not been talented and many times their success occurred not so much for their superior play..

but because teams like the Jints, Skins and Eagles collapsed going down the stretch and Dallas was able to win usually because of weaker schedules.

So put strong players in the key positions and take the ball out of Romo's hands more like in 2014 and he will succeed.

The whole team will succeed.

It will take more time and possibly more losing to continue to draft well to get there.

That's possibly what is ahead.

I don't think just getting Romo back and Dez is going to flip the switch back to 2014.

We have to somehow change the philosophy that is causing the short-circuits.

 

[jobberone]

Job, I'm thinking that Dallas needs to get over the good to great hump on offense, and just be able to again challenge teams to beat their strengths, and just win again.

That's why I'm for getting a strong quarterback in free agency, and then take WR and RB in the first two or three picks. Maybe a defensive end and a pair of defensive tackles in round four.
Sign a CB such as Johnson, and resign Claiborne..

We scored 29.2 ppg in 2014 which was 5th. We need to try to improve that but more importantly you need a PPG diff in the 5-10 range. The higher the better. Obviously each game is different but in general if you score 25+ppg you are a playoff contender; consistently score that.

So I'd say we probably are better off spending our assets on defense more so that offense. Again that depends on who is there at a PON when we pick barring trades.

There is likely to be no one there at QB we want when we pick at 4 and I think we should trade down with someone wanting to pick up a QB in the top of the first; assuming that is available. We can obtain a good QB in the latter part of the first or in the 2nd or 3rd. Brissett is a guy I'd target depending on his postseason showing. There are others including Watson out of Clemson who may surprise. Picking up a vet is another process.

There is no way I'd pick up a QB in the first two rounds unless they were very exceptional. I don't see that in this draft.

I'd spend my money initially on DB, DL, LB or perhaps WR. Any playmaker needs a look.

 

[CCBoy]

We scored 29.2 ppg in 2014 which was 5th. We need to try to improve that but more importantly you need a PPG diff in the 5-10 range. The higher the better. Obviously each game is different but in general if you score 25+ppg you are a playoff contender; consistently score that.

So I'd say we probably are better off spending our assets on defense more so that offense. Again that depends on who is there at a PON when we pick barring trades.

There is likely to be no one there at QB we want when we pick at 4 and I think we should trade down with someone wanting to pick up a QB in the top of the first; assuming that is available. We can obtain a good QB in the latter part of the first or in the 2nd or 3rd. Brissett is a guy I'd target depending on his postseason showing. There are others including Watson out of Clemson who may surprise. Picking up a vet is another process.

There is no way I'd pick up a QB in the first two rounds unless they were very exceptional. I don't see that in this draft.

I'd spend my money initially on DB, DL, LB or perhaps WR. Any playmaker needs a look.

If the Cowboys don't want the top WR, and the top DE was not there, I would trade down considerably, and with the first round and two second round picks, I would take DT, DE, and CB.

 

[jobberone]

If the Cowboys don't want the top WR, and the top DE was not there, I would trade down considerably, and with the first round and two second round picks, I would take DT, DE, and CB.

IF you wish to trade down you need a partner. That determines where you end up obviously. We'll know more about where the top QBs end up after the Senior Bowl on the 30th and the rest of the postseason show me games. There are always risers and fallers.

 

[CCBoy]

IF you wish to trade down you need a partner. That determines where you end up obviously. We'll know more about where the top QBs end up after the Senior Bowl on the 30th and the rest of the postseason show me games. There are always risers and fallers.

That high up in the draft...there will definitely be red light shoppers in the upcoming draft...if not before it.

 

[jobberone]

That high up in the draft...there will definitely be red light shoppers in the upcoming draft...if not before it.

IDK where the top players at their positions will end up.