***Rip on Romo Thread***

[UVAwahoos]

Romo gets multiple calls he'll usually go with what ever he thinks work against the defense a lot of those passes also had a run called. Kill kill kill = Romo changing the play. McGee and to some degree Kitna did not have that freedom and our offense looked very different with them. It's hard to blame Garrett for the play calling when a lot of the time it's Romo changing the play at the LOS

Well, if you read my quote from above in this page, Garrett himself takes partial blame for situation by admitting that he should have run the ball more. I can see no plausible defense of Garrett when he himself admits some blame.

 

[UVAwahoos]

You can't detail what WOULD have happened time wise, you can only speculate how it may have reasonably played out. Any such scenario is dependent on a lot of assumptions, and any number of events could end up blowing that speculation clear out of the water. A turnover of any kind, a big return, repeated 3 and outs, a couple of quick hit TD's byt Detroit ..... football cannot be predicted, otherwise there would be no need to play the game. I do know this, if one team is trying their damndest to score, and another team is sitting on their hands, an awful big deficit can be erased with most of a half of football left to play.

Uhh...you sure as heck would have to be a pretty big negative nancy to assume that a team would score 4 times in that situation.

This franchise will be mediocre at best as long as people not only continue to accept this kind of coaching stupidity, but actually embrace and defend it....

 

[bluenut]

What a bunch of whiners!! All of you..I think I've posted all of two threads Here..EVER. So shut the heck up already w the "Do we really need another blah blah blah"!

 

[DallasEast]

What a bunch of whiners!! All of you..I think I've posted all of two threads Here..EVER. So shut the heck up already w the "Do we really need another blah blah blah"!

Whining begets whining. Amen.

--from the Book Of CowboysZone, chapter 24, verse 3

 

[iceberg]

What a bunch of whiners!! All of you..I think I've posted all of two threads Here..EVER. So shut the heck up already w the "Do we really need another blah blah blah"!

so you come in whining and then get upset at our whining about all the whining.

like DE just said - amen.

 

[TNCowboy]

Detroit offense scored 3 points in 35 minutes. So you think that they could have scored 24points or more in 14 minutes? Yes it's possible. It's possible I could win the lottery tomorrow too.

Even without the 2 int returns, they still scored 17 points in the 2nd half. You can't go into a shell against a good team. No NFL team employs that strategy, especially when doing so goes directly into their strength, the middle of their DL.

I've taken a # of shots at Garrett over the years and believe that they were justified. But I think it's really reaching to criticize him for not running the ball every play in the 2nd half. The Cowboys did run the ball frequently. But, if you can't trust a highly paid veteran QB to manage the game better, he isn't worthy of that position in the first place.

The only thing I would criticize Garrett for was the 4th down call at the 1. Not that he went for it, but running right into their teeth like that when it is their strength and the Cowboys' weakness.

 

[TNCowboy]

Uhh...you sure as heck would have to be a pretty big negative nancy to assume that a team would score 4 times in that situation.

This franchise will be mediocre at best as long as people not only continue to accept this kind of coaching stupidity, but actually embrace and defend it....

By that rationale, you'd also have to be a negative nancy to think your starting QB would throw back-to-back pick sixes, and then another to set up the losing score. Unless you're admitting that your QB is fatally flawed, and if that's the case, you've lost the war before the battle is over. The rest of the team isn't good enough to get by with a run-run-pass Bill Parcells' style of offense. The whole thing is built on the passing game, for better or worse.

Garrett tried not to sit on the lead. That's what coaches should do the majority of the time. If Garrett has been deserving of heavy criticism the last few weeks, IMO it should have been directed at him when he ran the clock down to kick a long FG against Washington last week.

As for Sunday, I think he coached a fantastic game. His QB just let him down.

 

[bluenut]

Did we really need a new thread just so that you could continue to rip on Romo?

Mods, can we start to merge these things? Really.

I don't know or care what y'all needed..I felt like making a thread. Period.

 

[Frozen700]

leave us alone...the loss was enough

 

[DallasEast]

By that rationale, you'd also have to be a negative nancy to think your starting QB would throw back-to-back pick sixes, and then another to set up the losing score. Unless you're admitting that your QB is fatally flawed, and if that's the case, you've lost the war before the battle is over. The rest of the team isn't good enough to get by with a run-run-pass Bill Parcells' style of offense. The whole thing is built on the passing game, for better or worse.

Garrett tried not to sit on the lead. That's what coaches should do the majority of the time. If Garrett has been deserving of heavy criticism the last few weeks, IMO it should have been directed at him when he ran the clock down to kick a long FG against Washington last week.

As for Sunday, I think he coached a fantastic game. His QB just let him down.

ost:

Every vowel and syllable.

 

[bluenut]

so you come in whining and then get upset at our whining about all the whining.

like DE just said - amen.

Again, making the statements I did was just that statements. If you call that whining, you need an English lesson.
Whining is you all crying to me about what I posted. Good grief..what a sewing circle you have here..lol

 

[DOUBLE WING]

By that rationale, you'd also have to be a negative nancy to think your starting QB would throw back-to-back pick sixes, and then another to set up the losing score. Unless you're admitting that your QB is fatally flawed, and if that's the case, you've lost the war before the battle is over. The rest of the team isn't good enough to get by with a run-run-pass Bill Parcells' style of offense. The whole thing is built on the passing game, for better or worse.

Garrett tried not to sit on the lead. That's what coaches should do the majority of the time. If Garrett has been deserving of heavy criticism the last few weeks, IMO it should have been directed at him when he ran the clock down to kick a long FG against Washington last week.

As for Sunday, I think he coached a fantastic game. His QB just let him down.

You can't coach a "fantastic game" when your team blows a 24 point lead. Those two just don't jive.

Why can't people hold Garrett accountable for Romo? Tony is his responisbility and has been since Garrett got here. Someone in another thread, I believe Stautner, mentioned that when Romo makes a mistake he tries too hard to make up for it and makes another mistake.

Garrett is supposed to be the guy to nip that in the bud. Take it out of Tony's hands when he's erratic. But Garrett is an enabler. He feeds into Tony's Favreian desires. He coaches Romo like he's Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees when he isn't. He's a GREAT quarterback, but he isn't those guys.

 

[DallasEast]

Again, making the statements I did was just that statements. If you call that whining, you need an English lesson.
Whining is you all crying to me about what I posted. Good grief..what a sewing circle you have here..lol

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/d21eb076.jpg

 

[Stautner]

Uhh...you sure as heck would have to be a pretty big negative nancy to assume that a team would score 4 times in that situation.

This franchise will be mediocre at best as long as people not only continue to accept this kind of coaching stupidity, but actually embrace and defend it....

No, I wouldn't assume they would, and that's not even close to what i am saying. The point is I neither would I assume they couldn't do it if my offense just layed over and didn't put together any drives.

Chicago, Green Bay and Balrimore all scored 24 or more points in a half yesterday, and that was without the opposing offense laying over. In fact, during the same half Chicago's opponent scored 17, Green Bay's opponent scored 20, and Baltimore's opponent scored 17. There were several other teams that scored 20-21 in a ghalf, also without the benefit of the other team's offense laying over. That's a hell of a lot of scoring taking place even without the opponent pulling in the reigns on their own offense.

Now, as for what I would recognize is that NFL teams put up big points in a single half all the time, and even with the opponent having their own possessions where they move the ball and get first downs. I would also recognize that Detroit was averaging over 30 points per game and had proven they could put up big points quickly. Finally, I would recognize that the only way to eat up the clock with most of a half of football left to play would be to sustain some drives, not just run 3 times an punt over and over.

As I've said, successful teams don't play scared to lose, the play with the heart to win. That doesn't mean you get crazy reckless, and we didn't, but it does mean that you understand when you can coast and when you can't.

We had built a lead by setting a certain tone in the game. You can't expect to suck that entire tone out of your team and coast for the majority of the second half.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

No, I wouldn't assume they would, and that's not even close to what i am saying. The point is I neither would I assume they couldn't do it if my offense just layed over and didn't put together any drives.

Chicago, Green Bay and Balrimore all scored 24 or more points in a half yesterday, and that was without the opposing offense laying over. In fact, during the same half Chicago's opponent scored 17, Green Bay's opponent scored 20, and Baltimore's opponent scored 17. There were several other teams that scored 20-21 in a ghalf, also without the benefit of the other team's offense laying over. That's a hell of a lot of scoring taking place even without the opponent pulling in the reigns on their own offense.

Now, as for what I would recognize is that NFL teams put up big points in a single half all the time, and even with the opponent having their own possessions where they move the ball and get first downs. I would also recognize that Detroit was averaging over 30 points per game and had proven they could put up big points quickly. Finally, I would recognize that the only way to eat up the clock with most of a half of football left to play would be to sustain some drives, not just run 3 times an punt over and over.

As I've said, successful teams don't play scared to lose, the play with the heart to win. That doesn't mean you get crazy reckless, and we didn't, but it does mean that you understand when you can coast and when you can't.

We had built a lead by setting a certain tone in the game. You can't expect to suck that entire tone out of your team and coast for the majority of the second half.

Why does running the ball have to = playing scared to lose though?

 

[Naglfar]

I can't say that I disagree, the time to look for a new QB has arrived. I'm not going to trash on Romo but he's 31, been in the league for 8 years and is still making the same mistakes at crucial times. At this point they're not going away and you get what you get with him, a guy who when he is on is ON and when he is off is a one man blooper reel.

Count me in on drafting Matt Barkley or Landry Jones and giving one of them the opportunity. I would have added in Andrew Luck but unless we implode like never before he is out of our reach. Draft a QB of the future and either keep Romo for another season and groom the kid beside Jon Kitna OR put Romo on the trade block this year and let a rookie start. It's unfortunate we don't have someone competent to finish the season or I would say sucker Jeff Ireland and Sparano into trading for him this week. They're so desperate to save their jobs over in Miami they would give up a small fortune.

 

[Hostile]

What's absurd about it? I agree that Bleacher Report is 90% worthless. These are far better, and make sense.

It basically details what would've happened time-wise if we'd just not turned the ball over. If I quote enough of it to detail his argument, it will just auto-link anyway.

I didn't say these were absurd. I said I quit reading that site because it had become absurd.

Huge difference.

No problem on not wanting to clarify for me.

 

[Hostile]

By that rationale, you'd also have to be a negative nancy to think your starting QB would throw back-to-back pick sixes, and then another to set up the losing score. Unless you're admitting that your QB is fatally flawed, and if that's the case, you've lost the war before the battle is over. The rest of the team isn't good enough to get by with a run-run-pass Bill Parcells' style of offense. The whole thing is built on the passing game, for better or worse.

Garrett tried not to sit on the lead. That's what coaches should do the majority of the time. If Garrett has been deserving of heavy criticism the last few weeks, IMO it should have been directed at him when he ran the clock down to kick a long FG against Washington last week.

As for Sunday, I think he coached a fantastic game. His QB just let him down.

I absolutely agree with this.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

It might be easier to soldify an offensive line so that you have a running game and more than 1.5 seconds to pass the ball than it would be to find a QB that can carry an entire offense for and entire year.

 

[Stautner]

Why does running the ball have to = playing scared to lose though?

If that's all you are doing that's what it is, especially if you are trying to do it for almost an entire half of football. There has been absloutely no evidence that the Cowboys could sustain drives and eat up huge portions of the clock strictly running the ball, much less kill the bigger part of a half of football doing so, and if we tried to do that we would be taking a big risk that we would be running 3 times and punting and keeping our fingers crossed that Detroit runs out of time before they go ahead. That's playing scared.

If you have a mix of running and passing designed to move the ball and sustain drives it is not playing scared. That's how we played the game. A person may be able to make a reasonable argument that we could have run a little more, but that'skind of playing with if's and but's. If you are arguing we should have gone exclusively or almost exclusively to the run, that would be playing scared. successful teams don't play almost entire halfs of football that way.