Romo's INT

[jordan20]

The throw was late. TO was open early

 

[YosemiteSam]

Felix got knocked into next week by McGinest who got into the area where Romo would have stepped into the throw on time.

I noticed several times Felix doesn't get low enough in his blocks. He will have to learn that if he wants to block guys that weight around 28-30 precent more than he does.

Heh, LaRon Landry learned the hardway that sometimes you have to tackle that way too!

 

[aikemirv]

Allow me to submit to the court all the things that went wrong on that play.

(1) We were throwing the ball inside the 5 with 47 seconds left against a defense that was helpless against our offensive line. Maybe this was driven by no Barber, however I think our wunderkind Garrett and Romo just can't help themselves. Take the good with the bad.

(2) Romo threw the ball too late. TO was open right off the bat. Romo hesitated. Why?

(3) Possibly because the blitz pickup was shakey. Jones got him, but the pressure was in Tony's face, directly in the path he needed to throw. I don't think that was anyone's fault. Good design by Cleveland.

(4) After a great initial jump, TO ran a bad route. Instead of flattening it out and keeping the defender from getting inside position like Tony clearly anticipated with his throw, TO drifted to the back of the end zone, Tony lost sight of him, and threw it directly to Wright - which is right where TO SHOULD have been.

I agree with 2-4 - 3 to blame on that play

 

[YosemiteSam]

I agree with 2-4 - 3 to blame on that play

So you agree with 2 and 4.

Personally I agree with all of them except 1, 3, + 4 and 2. :laugh2:

 

[aikemirv]

So you agree with 2 and 4.

Personally I agree with all of them except 1, 3, + 4 and 2. :laugh2:

No, "-" means thru and "&" means and!

I used "-":laugh2:

 

[FCBarca]

I saw two bad throws the entire game from Tony...The one earlier where it was nearly picked off and it looked like he simply forced it into a crowd...The eventual INT just looked bad because even if T.O. had a chance on the ball, it was thrown behind him...Nevermind that Romo telegraphed it from the snap and the DB could see Romo waiting for T.O. to make his move...Just shouldn't have thrown it nevermind telegraph it but if he was going to throw it, he should've led T.O. more so that the DB wouldn't have had such an easy play on the ball.

Then again, 30 some passes and only 2 of them looked bad, I say that isn't bad

 

[YosemiteSam]

No, "-" means thru and "&" means and!

I used "-":laugh2:

You said 2 through 4 (2-4) minus 3 ( - 3)

So, 2-4 - 3. That would be 2 and 4.

At least that is the logical interpretation of it in a technology since!

 

[YosemiteSam]

I saw two bad throws the entire game from Tony...The one earlier where it was nearly picked off and it looked like he simply forced it into a crowd...The eventual INT just looked bad because even if T.O. had a chance on the ball, it was thrown behind him...Nevermind that Romo telegraphed it from the snap and the DB could see Romo waiting for T.O. to make his move...Just shouldn't have thrown it nevermind telegraph it but if he was going to throw it, he should've led T.O. more so that the DB wouldn't have had such an easy play on the ball.

Then again, 30 some passes and only 2 of them looked bad, I say that isn't bad

Unless those bad passes are both picks. Or even pick sixes!

 

[cowboyed]

Some have stated it was slightly tipped others, have maintained that he held up and threw either misadventure we certainly came up well on top thanks to his efforst as well as the rest of the team.

 

[AbeBeta]

Over and over though we saw Romo's maturation as a QB.

He used snap counts and hard counts to force the Browns to show their hand pre-snap, made a check, and then diced that defense up. I think we can forgive a guy a garbage time INT (we were up by 21) given his amazing performance the rest of the game. Our phenomenal running game and goalline stops against Witten and Owens made Romo's stat line go from "Best QB performance of the day" to "Pretty good performance".

Another "maturation" we've seen is how he played in the first quarter.

Over his career Romo has been mediocre early in games - his PR in the first was 63 in 2006 and was 70 in 2007. This was primarily driven by his completion percentage, which fell below 60% - although it is early and only based on one 1st quarter drive, the Romo we saw yesterday seemed much more in control from the outset of the game.

If he can eliminate the slow starts, we are going to see some record breaking numbers.

 

[FCBarca]

Anyone else notice how Tony never looked to run either?

 

[aikemirv]

You said 2 through 4 (2-4) minus 3 ( - 3)

So, 2-4 - 3. That would be 2 and 4.

At least that is the logical interpretation of it in a technology since!

The "3" was related to the number of players to blame on the play.

We'll get this straight eventually!:laugh2: