***Rip on Romo Thread***

[Chocolate Lab]

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

Huge difference.

I didn't, either. I meant the site. That's why I said "it" and not "they".

 

[Zman5]

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.

Coaches should do whatever it takes to win games and if sitting on the lead is the best option, then that's what you should do. Being up 24 points with your defense playing lights out, sitting on the lead was the best option to win the game.

 

[Beast_from_East]

This is getting old...quick. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. I'm not saying to bench him or even trade or release him. I AM saying we should start figuring out who our next QB is now. Either through the draft, free agency or maybe "he" is already on our roster.
My point is that Romo, is just not that guy.

If we are going to get a new QB, add a new OC to the list as well.


I am sick of watching our "run n shoot" OC calling plays he practiced on his Playstation the night before.

 

[Stautner]

I absolutely agree with this.

You don't assume a team will complete a 60 yard hail mary to win a game either, but you know it is possible and you do what you can to prevent it and you certainly don't open the door to allow it to happen.

I don't assume a team will score 4 TD's against the Cowboys with 26 minutes left to play, but you know it's possible, and you do what you can to prevent it, and you certainly don't open the door to allow it to happen by putting your offense in the position of going 3 and out over and over.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Isn't the grooming thing what we are doing with McGee? Knowone we have or can get in the near future will be able to beat out Romo.

We are grooming McGee for our "run n shoot" offense?


CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!



:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Going 3 and out throwing the ball 3 straight times, IMO, is worse than going 3 and out running the ball 3 straight times. At least with the 3 runs you have the ability to run time off the clock where as 3 straight incomplete passes does nothing to work the clock.


I'm not saying they should have only run the ball in the second half but I do believe the majority of their offense should have been about running the ball. Even getting only 2-3 yards on those runs and punting after 3-6 plays is much better than throwing picks and throwing incomplete passes giving the Lions more time with their oppurtunities.

 

[TNCowboy]

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

Absolutely it does jibe. Teams make mistakes. Players make mistakes. Often, there's nothing a coach can do about it. A coach can call a perfect play, but if the snap is botched, the WR drops the ball, whatever, his play fails.

Some fans don't like it, but this is a passing team. If you want to change that, that's a whole other discussion. The OL isn't constructed to be a power running OL, especially not against a D with Suh in the middle. The offense is built on its QB throwing to 3 elite receivers, protected by 2 young, talented OTs (who are both more suited for pass blocking than run blocking). The whole thing is made to pass the ball. 27 minutes. If there were 7 minutes left, I would agree. At that point, your opponent is reduced to trying to onside kick after a score, given how much clock is left. But 27 minutes? Almost a half. You have to play your game. Period. I think it's foolish to argue otherwise. A coach has to be able to trust what built the lead to begin with.

 

[TNCowboy]

Coaches should do whatever it takes to win games and if sitting on the lead is the best option, then that's what you should do. Being up 24 points with your defense playing lights out, sitting on the lead was the best option to win the game.

There's no way to prove it one way or the other statistically, but it seems to me I've seen way more games over the years where teams lost a lead trying to sit on it than being aggressive and trying to put the dagger in the heart.

There was almost a half to play. If it were say, 10 minutes left, then run the ball and punt. But with half a game to play, put out a signal that your offense has packed it in for the day and good opponents will smell blood in the water, and psychologically, they know they have a good young QB, a stud WR, and plenty of time to keep getting the ball back.

 

[Stautner]

Going 3 and out throwing the ball 3 straight times, IMO, is worse than going 3 and out running the ball 3 straight times. At least with the 3 runs you have the ability to run time off the clock where as 3 straight incomplete passes does nothing to work the clock.


I'm not saying they should have only run the ball in the second half but I do believe the majority of their offense should have been about running the ball. Even getting only 2-3 yards on those runs and punting after 3-6 plays is much better than throwing picks and throwing incomplete passes giving the Lions more time with their oppurtunities.

You are right, throwing 3 staright times and going out is worse, but it has absolutely no bearing on anything being discussed. Garrett was not calling 3 straight passes and nobody has advocated throwing 3 straight passes, so I have no idea what point you think this makes.

And you are right that running the ball and punting is preferable to interceptions, but Garrett doesn't get to call plays based on hindsight. He has to try and move the ball with plays that consider both the chance of success and the chance of a negative play. At the point Garrett had to call the plays the passing game had no problems, and there was no reason to believe short, simple passes would carry great risk. So he called them knowing that sustaining drives was the best way to narrow the time frame Detroit had to catch up, and knowing that at the same time it still kept in play the possibility that we could score again.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Absolutely it does jibe. Teams make mistakes. Players make mistakes. Often, there's nothing a coach can do about it. A coach can call a perfect play, but if the snap is botched, the WR drops the ball, whatever, his play fails.

LOL. And this from someone who loves to call people out for being homers.

Guarantee you Parcells wouldn't have called that game that way.

 

[Zman5]

There's no way to prove it one way or the other statistically, but it seems to me I've seen way more games over the years where teams lost a lead trying to sit on it than being aggressive and trying to put the dagger in the heart.

There was almost a half to play. If it were say, 10 minutes left, then run the ball and punt. But with half a game to play, put out a signal that your offense has packed it in for the day and good opponents will smell blood in the water, and psychologically, they know they have a good young QB, a stud WR, and plenty of time to keep getting the ball back.

It wasn't just a lead but a 4 score lead against an offense that had score 3 points up to that point. I have hard time believing that a offense that scored 3 points in 34 minutes will all of sudden score 24+ in 26 minutes. Can it happen? Sure it can. I can also win the lottery tomorrow.

 

[Stautner]

It wasn't just a lead but a 4 score lead against an offense that had score 3 points up to that point. I have hard time believing that a offense that scored 3 points in 34 minutes will all of sudden score 24+ in 26 minutes. Can it happen? Sure it can. I can also win the lottery tomorrow.

It was also an offense that was averaging over 30 points a game, and it's also not that uncommon for teams to score numverous TDs in a short time in today's NFL. Again, numerous teams Sucday scored 20+ points in the span of a half or less, with at least three scoring 24 points or more. And that was with the opposing offenses also eating up a lot of clock with their own sustained drives, yet you are advocating that Garrett should have used a philosophy that said drives be damned, just run and don't worry about whether it results in 3 and out.

 

[TNCowboy]

LOL. And this from someone who loves to call people out for being homers.

Guarantee you Parcells wouldn't have called that game that way.

:laugh2: as if anyone can accuse me of that. Read my posting history. I've been supercritical of Garrett in some instances.

But I'm not throwing him under the bus just because things didn't work out, when I believe he did the right thing. The team he has depends on Tony Romo throwing the ball. When that doesn't work out, what he has to turn to isn't very good. He stuck with the team's strength.

Cowboy fans owe Parcells a debt of gratitude. Whatever anyone may think of him, the Cowboys' personnel decisions were garbage before he got here, but most of the teams' best players are still guys acquired during his tenure. If he'd stayed on a few years as GM, I have little doubt we'd have an amazing roster right now.

But when it came to game day, he often made horrible decisions. He made decisions like he was still coaching the NYG, with a power running game, and a defense to fall back on with LT and Carl Banks. He played to his strengths there, just as Garrett has to play to his here. I believe he was still an excellent evaluator of talent, but when it came to today's game, it had passed him by.

 

[craig71]

Absolutely it does jibe. Teams make mistakes. Players make mistakes. Often, there's nothing a coach can do about it. A coach can call a perfect play, but if the snap is botched, the WR drops the ball, whatever, his play fails.

Some fans don't like it, but this is a passing team. If you want to change that, that's a whole other discussion. The OL isn't constructed to be a power running OL, especially not against a D with Suh in the middle. The offense is built on its QB throwing to 3 elite receivers, protected by 2 young, talented OTs (who are both more suited for pass blocking than run blocking). The whole thing is made to pass the ball. 27 minutes. If there were 7 minutes left, I would agree. At that point, your opponent is reduced to trying to onside kick after a score, given how much clock is left. But 27 minutes? Almost a half. You have to play your game. Period. I think it's foolish to argue otherwise. A coach has to be able to trust what built the lead to begin with.

I think you also have to consider that, as a whole, this is a passing league and usually passing yards can equate to quick points. I saw a stat last night that said that there have been more passing yards through the first 4 weeks of this season than ever before. All of those yards are going to contribute to more comebacks as well as to more "what was he thinking" moments. Point is, the game has entered a dimension that is a far cry from the game of yesteryear and nursing leads; early in the game, is looking to be a thing of the past.


Craig

 

[TNCowboy]

I think you also have to consider that, as a whole, this is a passing league and usually passing yards can equate to quick points. I saw a stat last night that said that there have been more passing yards through the first 4 weeks of this season than ever before. All of those yards are going to contribute to more comebacks as well as to more "what was he thinking" moments. Point is, the game has entered a dimension that is a far cry from the game of yesteryear and nursing leads; early in the game, is looking to be a thing of the past.


Craig

Exactly. The rules, the players, everything dictates this be a passing league, and consequently, a higher scoring league.

We've seen like 4 20+ point comebacks already this season. Garrett decided the best thing to do was not sit on his hands and hope the Detroit offense didn't catch fire. I applaud him.

Romo just took a giant dump on everything. No coach can plan for that. Go with what got you on top to start with.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Come on now Hos you know me. It just gets old seeing people start threads Bashing Romo because they feel that their particular bash needs its own thread. Just put all the Love romo threads in one thread and all the bash romo threads in another. Makes it easier to navigate the board and we can talk football facts not fan over reaction.

Oh I get it if someone doesn't agree with the sunshine pumping for Romo it's a Fan overreaction? I think people have used plenty of football "facts" about Romo either way, but because YOU don't agree with them it becomes an overreaction. lol wow. Excuse some of us for being tired of "status quo" concerning him.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying run exclusively, but run more? Certainly. Our backs averaged 3.7 YPC in the second half. That's enough to set yourself up with manageable third and short while eating time off the clock.

Detroit scored the go-ahead TD with a minute and a half left. If, for example, we ran on first and second down on the drive where Romo threw his third INT, we would have taken a minute and a half off the clock and even if we didn't get the first, would have punted and probably pinned Detroit a lot deeper than they were after Romo's INT.

Is that hindsight? Yes, but those are the kind of things a coach/game manager has to factor in. Every minute that you burn is one minute less that Detroit has to come back and win.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Exactly. The rules, the players, everything dictates this be a passing league, and consequently, a higher scoring league.

We've seen like 4 20+ point comebacks already this season. Garrett decided the best thing to do was not sit on his hands and hope the Detroit offense didn't catch fire. I applaud him.

Romo just took a giant dump on everything. No coach can plan for that. Go with what got you on top to start with.

But.. can't a coach ADJUST to it?

When you see Romo is erratic.. when you see that he's off.. when you see that he's in one of his mistake modes, why add fuel to the flames?

That is precisely the time when Garrett should have pulled back. Taken the game out of Romo's hands and bled the clock. But he's just as bad as Romo. They enable each other. That is not the kind of coach Romo needs if he's going to reach the kind of success he has the potential to reach.

 

[jday]

Unless we tank the season completely, you won't be upgrading the position, because we won't be drafting high enough in the first round to get a guy who is an upgrade from Romo. And if we are being honest, who say's anybody available in next years draft is already better than Romo. I get the Luck conversation and even the Robert Griffen talk, but until they prove it in the Pro's, they are still unproven commodities.

 

[jday]

I can tell you right now, that guy isn't on our roster, at least this year. But I think the plan is to look to upgrade the position via draft regardless of what kind of season Romo has this year.

Unless we tank the season completely, you won't be upgrading the position, because we won't be drafting high enough in the first round to get a guy who is an upgrade from Romo. And if we are being honest, who say's anybody available in next years draft is already better than Romo. I get the Luck conversation and even the Robert Griffen talk, but until they prove it in the Pro's, they are still unproven commodities.