Romo Letting the Play Clock Always Run Down

[CATCH17]

I remember seeing an article that said that other QB's do this too.

The article said Brady is the best at using this to read defenses.

The article also said Romo was the 2nd best, and that it is to his/our advantage to do so because he is so good at it.

There is a difference between using it and just spamming it like we do.

 

[xwalker]

I think it does help the defense. They know when the ball will be snapped and can time their blitz. IMO

It might give the defense a better sense of when the snap is coming, but it would be almost impossible to time the snap with the play clock.

The play clock is in increments of seconds but timing the snap would require millisecond level timing or at least in the hundredths of a second.

The Center is not going to snap it in exact sync with the play clock on each snap. He might snap is 1/100 of a second before the play clock hits 0:01 or he might snap it 1/100 of a second or more after the play clock hits 0:01. I'm not saying that he could intentionally time it, just that he is not going to be in perfect sync with the clock.

It would be great for the offense if defenses did jump every time they see the play clock hit 0:01. It would be easy to get them to jump off-sides on critical downs.

 

[burmafrd]

I would make sure there is no pattern the D can use; snap it early some times and late others.

Anything that is a variable use as much as you can to make the D think more.

 

[Proximo]

I watch players Like Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Brees, etc play and they RARELY let the clock wind down to zero. Peyton tries all the time to snap the ball fast when the defense isn't paying attention. A

Romo snapping the ball at zero seconds is dumb because it gives the defense a jump. He does it so often that there is no surprise. Quite honestly it has NEVER helped us and they should change it up.

Do you have some actual data to support your statement about how often those other QB's you named let the clock run down? Or are you just speculating? I highly doubt you've watched enough snaps from all of those other QB's plus Romo to make a valid comparison.

And for the last time it does NOT give the defense a jump! They're not watching the clock, they're watching the offense.

 

[Chuck 54]

It's on Romo completely.

For the short spell when Callahan talked the team into giving Tony less to think about and less freedom to audible, plays went off faster.

However, when you have a team that executes as poorly as the Cowboys, I'm okay with Tony waiting until the final seconds to see the defense and audible to a play that gives us an advantage, even if that means occasional penalties.

The truly great TEAMS have been able to keep it simple and run fewer plays because they didn't care what defense you were in, they were going to be successful by doing a better job of excecuting every nuance of the play.

Back in the 70s the Cowboys were perhaps the best screen team in the league. In the 80s the Skins ran Counter-Trey against everyone.

Right now, our team needs every advantage it can get.

 

[conner01]

it may give the "d" some advantage. i most certainly gives the "o" more time to see what the coverage is. if mixed in with some quick snaps i think that would off set any advantage to the "d"
but to me tony is a master of the 2 min drill so i would mix in alot more no huddle into this offense

 

[Doomsay]

Well, we do lead the league in false starts, I think that there is some correlation.

 

[Clove]

If you get to the line early, they are still forced to show their hand at some point. It's a silly thing to do unless you're purposely trying to waste time because you're winning by a nice margin.

 

[ufcrules1]

Do you have some actual data to support your statement about how often those other QB's you named let the clock run down? Or are you just speculating? I highly doubt you've watched enough snaps from all of those other QB's plus Romo to make a valid comparison.

And for the last time it does NOT give the defense a jump! They're not watching the clock, they're watching the offense.

Sadly, I obsessively watch football. I'm am a huge fan of the NFL and play fantasy football. Because of this I watch a ton of games. I'm not saying I am an expert but what I can say is all those QB's vary their snaps. They are always random with when they snap.

And yes, the defense does in fact have the upper hand when you always snap the ball with zero seconds on the clock.

 

[Proximo]

Sadly, I obsessively watch football. I'm am a huge fan of the NFL and play fantasy football. Because of this I watch a ton of games. I'm not saying I am an expert but what I can say is all those QB's vary their snaps. They are always random with when they snap.

Oh, ok. So you don't have any actual data then? You just watch "a ton of games". Cool.

I guess that puts you in a position to state such things as being fact even though you have no actual figures to review or analyze.

 

[5Stars]

Sadly, I obsessively watch football. I'm am a huge fan of the NFL and play fantasy football. Because of this I watch a ton of games. I'm not saying I am an expert but what I can say is all those QB's vary their snaps. They are always random with when they snap.

And yes, the defense does in fact have the upper hand when you always snap the ball with zero seconds on the clock.

And Madden, huh?

:laugh2:

The defense still does not know where the ball is going or what play is called, run or pass.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Guarantee they incorporate more hurry-up offense this year when they are not in catch-up mode. fwiw

I was saying this would have worked better since the beginning of the season last year. I'm glad it's finally catching on.

 

[conner01]

It's on Romo completely.

For the short spell when Callahan talked the team into giving Tony less to think about and less freedom to audible, plays went off faster.

However, when you have a team that executes as poorly as the Cowboys, I'm okay with Tony waiting until the final seconds to see the defense and audible to a play that gives us an advantage, even if that means occasional penalties.

The truly great TEAMS have been able to keep it simple and run fewer plays because they didn't care what defense you were in, they were going to be successful by doing a better job of excecuting every nuance of the play.

Back in the 70s the Cowboys were perhaps the best screen team in the league. In the 80s the Skins ran Counter-Trey against everyone.

Right now, our team needs every advantage it can get.

they never gave tony less ability to audible. callahan said they gave him less to think about as in reads. he still had two plays in the huddle with the ability to change from one to the other depending on the defense

 

[ufcrules1]

Oh, ok. So you don't have any actual data then? You just watch "a ton of games". Cool.

I guess that puts you in a position to state such things as being fact even though you have no actual figures to review or analyze.

lol @ you. First you tell me this below....

" I highly doubt you've watched enough snaps from all of those other QB's plus Romo to make a valid comparison."

And then when I respond that I have in fact "watched enough snaps" to compare you say this....

"Oh, ok. So you don't have any actual data then?"

How old are you?? 10? 12?

 

[Proximo]

lol @ you. First you tell me this below....

" I highly doubt you've watched enough snaps from all of those other QB's plus Romo to make a valid comparison."

And then when I respond that I have in fact "watched enough snaps" to compare you say this....

"Oh, ok. So you don't have any actual data then?"

How old are you?? 10? 12?

HA. My initial question to you was, and I quote "Do you have some actual data to support your statement about how often those other QB's you named let the clock run down? Or are you just speculating?".

The correct answer to this question by you should have been - No, I do not have any data. I'm just shooting off at the mouth because I "watch tons of football".

Your opinions will be received better if you don't state them as fact.

 

[Proximo]

And then when I respond that I have in fact "watched enough snaps" to compare you say this....

Oh, and by the way, your statement holds no water even if you think you've "in fact, watched enough snaps to compare", unless during your observation you recorded some sort of actual data. But you obviously haven't, and therefore you have no leg to stand on to support your statement.

 

[speedkilz88]

Well, we do lead the league in false starts, I think that there is some correlation.

That had everything to do with Ryan Cook not adjusting well to Romo's cadence. The other OL had a tough time knowing when he was going to get the snap off.

 

[Hoofbite]

I watch players Like Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Brees, etc play and they RARELY let the clock wind down to zero. Peyton tries all the time to snap the ball fast when the defense isn't paying attention. A

Romo snapping the ball at zero seconds is dumb because it gives the defense a jump. He does it so often that there is no surprise. Quite honestly it has NEVER helped us and they should change it up.

I just watched the condensed version of the Bengals vs. Broncos game and looked at the time left on the play clock for almost every snap the Broncos took. Couldn't see a couple plays that happened after an onside kick with like 0:50 seconds left in the game.

Anyway, the Broncos rarely went under 5 seconds. I counted 6 plays where they were snapping the ball with 5 seconds or less. 2 of these came on a drive late in the 4th quarter when they had the lead and were driving.

I counted 19 plays where they snapped the ball with more than 15 seconds on the play clock.

I counted at least 4 plays that had 20 seconds on the play clock. I say "at least" because a couple of the plays they actually snapped it before the play clock was on the screen and after the snap you could see 18 or 19 show up.

Interestingly, CBS seems to put the play clock up for every play. Or at least it seems that way. Seems like Fox only does so when it's down to single digits sometimes.

In total, they averaged over 12 seconds on the play clock at the time of the snap.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Oh, and by the way, your statement holds no water even if you think you've "in fact, watched enough snaps to compare", unless during your observation you recorded some sort of actual data. But you obviously haven't, and therefore you have no leg to stand on to support your statement.

One does not need to "record actual data" to have a legitimate opinion on a topic.

When speaking in a general sense, statements can be made that are valid even with the absence of "recorded actual data."

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I just watched the condensed version of the Bengals vs. Broncos game and looked at the time left on the play clock for almost every snap the Broncos took. Couldn't see a couple plays that happened after an onside kick with like 0:50 seconds left in the game.

Anyway, the Broncos rarely went under 5 seconds. I counted 6 plays where they were snapping the ball with 5 seconds or less. 2 of these came on a drive late in the 4th quarter when they had the lead and were driving.

I counted 19 plays where they snapped the ball with more than 15 seconds on the play clock.

I counted at least 4 plays that had 20 seconds on the play clock. I say "at least" because a couple of the plays they actually snapped it before the play clock was on the screen and after the snap you could see 18 or 19 show up.

Interestingly, CBS seems to put the play clock up for every play. Or at least it seems that way. Seems like Fox only does so when it's down to single digits sometimes.

In total, they averaged over 12 seconds on the play clock at the time of the snap.

Interesting, good post.



BTW, I wonder if this qualifies as "recorded actual data?"