Run the friggin ball!

[big dog cowboy]

The problem is that when it made the most sense to run, we went away from it.

Been saying this for years. It's not like this is a new problem.

 

[Hook'em#11]

Still not a GUARANTEE that he gets in the endzone either. After all, he had a Turnover in the game as well.

I will take my chances on Murray, at the 1 yd line, getting in the endzone, as well as on the 2 yrd line. When they had been running all over them. Instead of having to go possibly 14-18 yrds on a pass to get in the endzone..

I don't know, I guess my math is different then the "coaches" on the team.

 

[DFWJC]

Im pretty sure Romo called an audible. They need to take away his chance to audible in goal line situations. You supposedly have one of the top 5 offensive lines yet you don't trust them to get a yard on second and 1 from the two yard line?? PLAY SMASH MOUTH BALL!!

Not to mention you QB is coming off an injury and playing horrible. Run the DANG ball!

I agree that they should've run the ball. Especially with how off Romo seemed and how good the run game was going anyway.

But Dallas was outstanding in the redzone last year. The audibles were not an issue for the most part down there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not out in left field here...a principal applied, is relevant, and not limited to a single sport. Football or another.

How would Romo look, if instead of throwing a bunch of deep patterns to Dez Bryant, and into a forced double coverage...crossing patterns and shorter routes were instead thrown to Dez? Then increased with play action and other routes as with both Harris and Beasley worked harder. Romo wouldn't move into a view of similar effectiveness?

Sports are not War and the same sets of rules or even the way you go about achieving objectives are different. I'd prefer we kept this more in line with Football.

If Tony Fails, nobody dies. It's just a game.

 

[CCBoy]

Sports are not War and the same sets of rules or even the way you go about achieving objectives are different. I'd prefer we kept this more in line with Football.

If Tony Fails, nobody dies. It's just a game.

You stated on a comparative basis, that is still open for a discussion...but examples of application in sport were offered as well. No comments there, although.

If rank is being pulled here...end of conversation.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You stated on a comparative basis, that is still open for a discussion...but examples of application in sport were offered as well. No comments there, although.

If rank is being pulled here...end of conversation.

Very well. How does what you posted earlier correlate to Tony developing into Payton Manning or Drew Brees?

 

[CCBoy]

Very well. How does what you posted earlier correlate to Tony developing into Payton Manning or Drew Brees?

Reread...you already stated opinions.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Reread...you already stated opinions.

OK. It's not going to become any more clear by re-reading. Tony is who he is and physically, he is not going to get better. He's going to start declining. It's unrealistic, IMO, to believe that after 7 full seasons in the same offense, he's going to become Manning or Brees. Even if you bring in another coordinator, he's not going to become that. It's more likely that it will be another head coach and if that happens, Tony will likely become a lame duck QB. A new HC will probably develop a younger QB. Tony's window is two years or less IMO. In no way do I see him becoming either one of those QBs with the time he has left, in Dallas.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All three INTs were in the first half I believe. The problem is not that we didn't run the ball IMO. The problem is that when it made the most sense to run, we went away from it.

There is a difference between saying establish the run in the end zone by scoring a rushing TD first then use play action later and saying simply 'run the ball more.' I am of the mind that a FG is an acceptable outcome on the first trip into the red zone to try and establish the run. Rushing TDs have a mental effect on a defense and force changeups.

I thought we ran the ball a lot and to good effect. We just never finished them off.

That is also a far cry from cherry picking Romo's bad throws and pretending running the ball will fix stupid.

 

[mmohican29]

1st quarter SF - 7 - DAL - 0 - 2nd and 1 at the SF 2 and we're passing. Blame whoever you want for the decision, but it's a terrible one.

1st quarter - SF 14 - DAL - 3 - 1st and 10 at the DAL 32 - yet another pass play and Romo forced a joke into coverage and nearly gets Bryant broken in half in the process. I know who I blame for that one, but the playcall is still what it is.

2nd quarter - SF 21 - DAL 3 - 1st and 5 at the SF 5 - yet another pass play and Romo forced another joke into coverage (seeing a pattern?, I am.) and gets intercepted and we walk away with zero points.

2nd quarter - SF 21 - DAL 3 - 1st and 10 at Dallas 12 - yet another pass play and Romo is again intercepted

I just hope Bill Parcells isn't watching. Every bit of fundamental football he ever brought to Valley Ranch has been flushed away.

Parcells sucked too, but I do agree with the fundamentals football thing. It warrants a like.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is a difference between saying establish the run in the end zone by scoring a rushing TD first then use play action later and saying simply 'run the ball more.' I am of the mind that a FG is an acceptable outcome on the first trip into the red zone to try and establish the run. Rushing TDs have a mental effect on a defense and force changeups.

I thought we ran the ball a lot and to good effect. We just never finished them off.

Well, this I agree with. I believe that physical teams (I even equate the run game to physical) can convert TDs on the goal line and it has an effect on what you can do the rest of the game and even the season. If you beat somebody down physically, that memory lasts. There is a reason I am more afraid of playing Seattle then I am Denver. It's a mental thing and I hate that we don't embrace it.

Those are more personal beliefs on how we should play football, more then anything. I was never afraid of San Francisco in the 90s. I was way more afraid of Pittsburgh in the 70s.

Go figure.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, this I agree with. I believe that physical teams (I even equate the run game to physical) can convert TDs on the goal line and it has an effect on what you can do the rest of the game and even the season. If you beat somebody down physically, that memory lasts. There is a reason I am more afraid of playing Seattle then I am Denver. It's a mental thing and I hate that we don't embrace it.

Those are more personal beliefs on how we should play football, more then anything. I was never afraid of San Francisco in the 90s. I was way more afraid of Pittsburgh in the 70s.

Go figure.

I am of a mind that my emotional attitude towards teams is completely separate from what happens on game day. Only time I get a fear response is on game day. I remember SF going up several scores and feeling fear. So you weren't anxious when SF went up 3 TD?

 

[mmohican29]

The truth of the matter is SF is a better team, but this team does not know how to handle success or adversity. We don't give opponents a reason to play tight, we take care of that on the first three snaps of the game (penalty, completion, fumble for TD). We then compound it by continuing to self-destruct by horrific situational football and bad QB decisions whilst the game is still in doubt.

It's why we're a 500 team. Good teams know we will wilt at some point. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later... but almost always, it WILL happen all talent being equal or greater to our own.

 

[CCBoy]

Physical abilities improve up to around the age of 30. Then sustained or lost.

Age isn't the qualifying part when mental ability still improves even up to and slightly beyond the age of 40. There, a military perspective of elements in individual achievements and development do come into view.

To a quarterback, his mental process are of utmost importance. Until physical limitation is shown to be a cause, not assumed, then improving the mental side of the position are relevant. That also improves with game's testing and improvement in game speed mental processing.

That simply, is not an element that can't be improved upon, despite team related comparisons, as with a Denver and New Orleans quarterback as a comparison.

Applied, that simply isn't true. Tony, if physically able to answer the bell, still has the ability to improve effectiveness, even now.

Myself, I don't sell short potential, until it is proven not to meet current needs.

The relationship between Tony Romo and new Offensive Coordinator, Bill Callahan points to this aspect more, not less. They are both in a intertwined growth process.

So yea, Tony could still attain a higher observed effectiveness as well.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Physical abilities improve up to around the age of 30. Then sustained or lost.

Age isn't the qualifying part when mental ability still improves even up to and slightly beyond the age of 40. There, a military perspective of elements in individual achievements and development do come into view.

To a quarterback, his mental process are of utmost importance. Until physical limitation is shown to be a cause, not assumed, then improving the mental side of the position are relevant. That also improves with game's testing and improvement in game speed mental processing.

That simply, is not an element that can't be improved upon, despite team related comparisons, as with a Denver and New Orleans quarterback as a comparison.

Applied, that simply isn't true. Tony, if physically able to answer the bell, still has the ability to improve effectiveness, even now.

Myself, I don't sell short potential, until it is proven not to meet current needs.

The relationship between Tony Romo and new Offensive Coordinator, Bill Callahan points to this aspect more, not less. They are both in a intertwined growth process.

So yea, Tony could still attain a higher observed effectiveness as well.

Romo is not Manning/Brees, and he's never going to be. He's just not.

The way he could be more effective, as you put it, is if given a "bus driver" role.

Bill Parcells hit the nail on the head from day one. You need to keep Romo "on the reservation." In his neverending quest to have his own personal Peyton Manning, Garrett (himself a quarterback) has come in here with the idea of flinging the ball around 40 times a game and giving Romo complete autonomy of the offense.

This has proven time and time again to be a foolish bet. Romo is great, and can (or could) make every throw, but he's NOT Peyton Manning. He's never been a good enough decision maker to be put in the spot of having to carry the offense on his own (even though he's bailed us out plenty of times with his heroics).

Lean on the running game. There's no reason, with Murray gashing the D, that we need to be spread out in shotgun, 3 or 4 wide, inside the 5-yard-line, asking Romo to yet again find a way to make a play. They continue to put far too much on Romo's shoulders (not to mention his ailing back) and it backfired horribly yesterday.

 

[CCBoy]

Romo is not Manning/Brees, and he's never going to be. He's just not.

The way he could be more effective, as you put it, is if given a "bus driver" role.

Bill Parcells hit the nail on the head from day one. You need to keep Romo "on the reservation." In his neverending quest to have his own personal Peyton Manning, Garrett (himself a quarterback) has come in here with the idea of flinging the ball around 40 times a game and giving Romo complete autonomy of the offense.

This has proven time and time again to be a foolish bet. Romo is great, and can (or could) make every throw, but he's NOT Peyton Manning. He's never been a good enough decision maker to be put in the spot of having to carry the offense on his own (even though he's bailed us out plenty of times with his heroics).

Lean on the running game. There's no reason, with Murray gashing the D, that we need to be spread out in shotgun, 3 or 4 wide, inside the 5-yard-line, asking Romo to yet again find a way to make a play. They continue to put far too much on Romo's shoulders (not to mention his ailing back) and it backfired horribly yesterday.

Bus driver isn't in the picture here, at all. You are probably basing the above response, on an emotional disappointment. Not facts in application. Everyone knows a team needs to run.

As to a direct attachment to this last game, and truth...some more things need included in a non-knee jerk burn barrel routine.

First, on topic of run...the team ran the ball and ran it well against San Francisco. That, even with a reduced roster, is a point of distinction that complies with a more generalized view of needing to run the ball. I'm hardly comparing this to a Forrest Gump quote: 'Run Forrest, run!'

If one is going to instead highlight emotion and not a full picture, then take a read here first:

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/a...election/e465ade1-a0c2-42e1-ad3a-17b52df2bedf

ARLINGTON, Texas – It has not gone unnoticed that, despite a strong effort running the ball, the Cowboys turned away from their ground game in the red zone against San Francisco.

The Cowboys ran five plays in the red zone during the first half, all of them passes. On two of those passes, Tony Romo threw completions to Lance Dunbar and Cole Beasley for a combined 22 yards. On the other two, he threw an incompletion and an interception.


Of the five plays, though, none encapsulates the turn away from the run more than a second-and-1 from the San Francisco 5-yard line. Trailing 7-0 early in the first quarter, and with DeMarco Murray averaging five yards per carry, Romo appeared to check to another play. Tyron Smith missed the call, leading to a sack for a nine-yard loss.

The Cowboys kicked a field goal.

“I’m guessing right now to some degree, but I know that will be born out that what he saw was a pretty stiff defense to try to get the ball in for a couple of yards and thought he could throw the ball in there,” said Cowboys owner/general manager Jerry Jones. “We quite easily could have had a lineman not hear the checkoff and that’s why you got the sack, very easily.”


The 49ers, even with several key starters sitting, boast a stout defense, which probably contributed to the decision to pass. Jones added “He obviously thought they loaded it up,” to his assessment of the decision.

It still seems puzzling though, that with three first-round draft picks on the offensive line and a running back who averaged 5.4 yards per carry on the day, the Cowboys shied away from attempting to run near the goal line.

Jones attributed the decision to the quality of defensive fronts in the NFL – particularly in obvious running situations.

“I’m not second-guessing the call, but if you’re a yard from the goal line and you have two or three downs, they’d make them all in the NFL -- and they don’t at all,” he said. “Those guys dig in and can get under your offensive linemen and then the next thing you know you’ve had a stop.”

Cowboys coach Jason Garrett declined to comment on the mechanics of the playcalling, but Romo echoed Jones’ sentiments that trying to run against a concentrated defensive front can prove disastrous at the NFL level.

“If you have a run called but you have a hitter in the hole, it’s not going to turn out well,” Romo said. “I know it sounds easy to say ‘Just run the ball,’ but we have six blockers and if they have seven people, one of them is going to be free. If he’s in the spot where we are running the ball, not many good things are going to happen.”

____________
That hardly compares to the demonstrated chest pounding and yet another round of football basics 101 and non-directed applications. Just to be concise here.

 

[Bleu Star]

I'm beginning to think the staff hates Murray. Two trips in the first half inside the five....Zero carries.

It's a different game if we run the ball in the red zone.

I've also been ringing this bell for three years now. I'm all rung out.

 

[Stash]

We did run the ball particularly through the first three quarters.

In fact they ran the ball on that second drive of the second half where we got the second TD. It ran the clock over 7 minutes too which didn't help us win.

Three interceptions, all came on first downs.

 

[Stash]

All three INTs were in the first half I believe. The problem is not that we didn't run the ball IMO. The problem is that when it made the most sense to run, we went away from it.

This is well worth repeating.

 

[CCBoy]

I've also been ringing this bell for three years now. I'm all rung out.

That resolution lies merely in the replacement of Jerry Jones, or acceptance of the fact that Jerry bases his judgments and opinions on what are actually sound principals...and viewing some things a bit differently, or a return to gnashing of teeth or anger.

Does everyone really think that both Jerry Jones and Jason Garrett are complete incompetents and merely inserted as direct punishment to Cowboys fans?

Man, it's a good thing that today is a Monday. Or the the reasons of either play selections, head coach, or quarterback wouldn't be so familiar to the Monday Morning Quarterback's Club.