***Rip on Romo Thread***

[jday]

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.

I think they look at McGee as a potential replacement for Kitna, not Romo.

 

[Stautner]

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.

Actually there are some saying we should have run exclusively.

I have no problem with the thought that maybe we could/should have run a little more, but I can't fault Garrett for small differences in the run/pass ratio. Either you make the decision you can sit on a lead with most of the second half or you decide you still have to move the ball and put together some drives, and if you choose the latter, which I believe is the correct choice, then you are going to have to pass. I'm not going to quibble over what the ideal pass/run ratio would be, and besides, I feel a lot depends on what has been working, the feel the coach and team have for the flow of the game and other factors. I don't know that there is a magic ratio.

As for the last INT, keep in mind that while it is true that Detroit scored with a minute and a half left, they got the ball with 4:13 left. That means if we had run off the additional minute and a half you mentioned, Detroit still would have got the ball back with 2:48 left. Not a lot of time, granted, but keep in mind Detroit didn't necessarily have to score a TD. All the had to do was get into FG range to tie it up, and Garrett had to be mindful of preventing that as well as preventing a TD.

That said, I see an argument for your position on the possession where Romo threw the last INT, but I don't see that there was a clear cut decisioin either way. Run and punt and you run a little clock but still give the Lions almost 3 minutes to move into FG range and tie the game. Pass and there is somewhat more risk of a negative play, and somewhat more chance of sustaining the drive and running out the clock. Seems like a pretty close call to me, and I don't think I would condemn Garrett either way.

 

[jazzcat22]

Couldn't you just put this in the Romo Bash thread, I mean really its not like you are providing a unique opinion

Right. Romo is our QB, and will be for a while. I will be critical, I will make jokes, but he still gives the best chance to win. He doesn't have too many melt downs. But when he does...their big. So seems like there are more than they actually are.

Romo has the highest 4th quarter QB ratings of all the QB's. And these QB's are the Brady's, Manning's, Rogers. Not the McNabb's, Collins.

He is here for a while, being Brett Favre's son or not...but I will still root for him and the team.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Actually there are some saying we should have run exclusively.

I have no problem with the thought that maybe we could/should have run a little more, but I can't fault Garrett for small differences in the run/pass ratio. Either you make the decision you can sit on a lead with most of the second half or you decide you still have to move the ball and put together some drives, and if you choose the latter, which I believe is the correct choice, then you are going to have to pass. I'm not going to quibble over what the ideal pass/run ratio would be, and besides, I feel a lot depends on what has been working, the feel the coach and team have for the flow of the game and other factors. I don't know that there is a magic ratio.

As for the last INT, keep in mind that while it is true that Detroit scored with a minute and a half left, they got the ball with 4:13 left. That means if we had run off the additional minute and a half you mentioned, Detroit still would have got the ball back with 2:48 left. Not a lot of time, granted, but keep in mind Detroit didn't necessarily have to score a TD. All the had to do was get into FG range to tie it up, and Garrett had to be mindful of preventing that as well as preventing a TD.

That said, I see an argument for your position on the possession where Romo threw the last INT, but I don't see that there was a clear cut decisioin either way. Run and punt and you run a little clock but still give the Lions almost 3 minutes to move into FG range and tie the game. Pass and there is somewhat more risk of a negative play, and somewhat more chance of sustaining the drive and running out the clock. Seems like a pretty close call to me, and I don't think I would condemn Garrett either way.

Yeah but it's not just running on the drive of that last INT. I'm saying, you run there and a couple of other times, like the 3rd and 2 when Romo threw an INT, and all of the sudden that 2:48 becomes 1:48, or 0:48. When you've got a 24 point second half lead you've got to figure that even if Detroit does somehow find a way to make a comeback, that it's going to come right down to the very end, so why not shave off as much time as possible to prevent that?

You mentioned the flow of the game and I think that's Garrett's problem. He doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the ebb and flow of the game. Just because our passing game worked in the first half, that doesn't mean it's going to have the same results in the second half. Detroit obviously made adjustments and played much better coverage in the second half. It's Garrett's job to recognize that and change course. Realize what is and isn't working and do what he has to do to control the game. Put Romo on a leash when it's obvious he's not making the right throws and reads. Instead, they adjusted to our passing game and Garrett was too stubborn to realize it was time to adjust his gameplan.

All things Garrett should have done as the head coach/offensive coordinator. And yet many people here still try to say he's blameless for this loss.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Since we all know the regular season doesnt matter wake me when/if the playoffs start. Weve seen him light it up in October for years. January is where we find who he is.

 

[Hostile]

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.

Can you guarantee me that Parcells would have ever been up that high or would have absolutely won it? I can't.

 

[Hostile]

: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.

You sound like me. I like it.

Hopefully you are not insulted by that.

 

[bluenut]

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.

Well put.

 

[Zman5]

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.

If JG really thought the Lions would score 24 points after only scoring 3 points in 34 minutes, he can't be too smart. There was no sign of it.

Detroit's defense is better at defending the pass then run. So what do JG do when up by 24points ? Pass more than run. Pass from the shot gun on 3rd and 2. etc..etc.. As I said, not too smart.

JG panics when there is no reason to. That routine goes hand in hand with Romo's ill advise throws to give the game away.

 

[Hostile]

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

So if I feel like merging this thread with the Rip Romo thread, I should just do it? Period?

Okay.

 

[Clove]

You cannot tell a Garrett offense to run it that much, that's not who we are. As a multimillion dollar leader on this team, you should always be trusted. Okay, so you make the first mistake, so what? Just don't make the second and third one.

If Garrett can trust him the first half, he should be able to trust him the second half. The best thing we can do as fans is admit fault where it should be placed, and move on. The reason people hate Romo more than they normally would is that certain people just can't be objective about Romo.

They love him so much, the fault belongs to everyone else. When he wins, he was the man. When HE loses, someone else should've done this or that. This goes for individuals that hate him so much, they can't give him credit when he does good things.

So because certain fans refuse to admit when he was the direct cause of a loss, then you will have fans that will be relentless, burn jerseys, it will get MUCH MUCH worse if it happens again.

I give Romo props when he leads his team, like the last 2 weeks, and I dog him out when he cost his team, like I did the first week and this week. Just be objective, that's all.

 

[iceberg]

So if I feel like merging this thread with the Rip Romo thread, I should just do it? Period?

Okay.

well he did set the precidence even after you took his side.