So, What can we do right now, that makes us better?

[craig71]

Isnt that exactly what garrett did last year though? And didnt he in turn get blamed for everything under the sun because he didnt change up enough?

I don't know what to think of the Dallas offense the past two games.I think part of the blame is on Romo and part of the blame goes to Garrett.It seemed that yesterday that they were trying to run the ball and then got away from it to try to get a passing game established.Once they figured out Romo was struggling Garrett tried to go back to the running game,only to find out it was also gone.It just seemed that they never could get the running game going again after they went away from it.Give Denver credit in that they took away the run and Witten and forced Romo to beat them and he couldn't.

Craig

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Somebody mentioned that we don't seem to have hot receivers when we get blitzed. I don't really think that's the case. I see open receivers when we get the blitz. It's interesting, the only sack I saw yesterday that I can say was the result of not getting it blocked was the dog right up the middle. That came untouched and Romo had nothing much to do with that. However, you watch Romo yesterday and I think that you will see that he is holding the ball way too long. As an example of this, the sack he took when he fumbled. He had time but he held the ball too long. If he didn't have anybody, then he should have just gotten rid of the ball. You can't just stand in the pocket and tap the ball. At that point, we were up 10 zip with the ball. He takes that sack, turns it over and the Broncos are right back in the ball game. To that point, Denver's offense had really done nothing. It's the difference between understanding that your own the road against a good team that plays tough at home and not understanding. We gave Denver life right there. Had he just thrown it away, we could have punted and I believe probably gotten the ball back in good field position. We score another TD on them and that game was over. Instead, we commited a TO because we didn't understand the situation. The accuracy issue really concerns me but the other stuff, that is just a matter of understanding the game. The guys on the other side get paid to play football too.

I believe that Garrett needs to focus his attentions on proper mechanics, getting the football out in good time and making positive yards on 1st down. This is a 1st down league. If you can't get that done, then your going to get beat IMO.

 

[panchucko]

Wish for a speed reciever, I don't care about their forty time but get someone that plays fast (Jerry Rice)

I wish we could replace Spencer, he just doesn't seem to be very good. Even though I don't know all of his assignment.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Isnt that exactly what garrett did last year though? And didnt he in turn get blamed for everything under the sun because he didnt change up enough?

I would like to add that this is the exact type of week and situation where Dan Reeves would have been a tremendous help.

but we know how that goes. No way we keep a reality tv star on the practice squad with reeves around. But that is a lost cause, just like any real changes are.

I dunno, did we? I didn't...

Are you talking about the criticism from Ed Reed and other defenders we played about being predictable? Not sure here... But IMO those were more about figuring out the checks we ran in response to defensive shifts, things like that.

Anyway... It just seems to me that somehow Garrett has gotten away from one of the most basic tenets of football, which is to play to your strengths and get the ball to your best players. And it drives me nuts because I can't understand why, even if he got off track for a while, he doesn't see what's going on and correct himself.

And ugh, don't even get me started on Jesse Holley. Sometimes I really wonder if the quid pro quo wasn't that Irvin would be nice and complimentary of Jerry on his radio and TV appearances if Jerry would keep this guy around.

 

[craig71]

Somebody mentioned that we don't seem to have hot receivers when we get blitzed. I don't really think that's the case. I see open receivers when we get the blitz. It's interesting, the only sack I saw yesterday that I can say was the result of not getting it blocked was the dog right up the middle. That came untouched and Romo had nothing much to do with that. However, you watch Romo yesterday and I think that you will see that he is holding the ball way too long. As an example of this, the sack he took when he fumbled. He had time but he held the ball too long. If he didn't have anybody, then he should have just gotten rid of the ball. You can't just stand in the pocket and tap the ball. At that point, we were up 10 zip with the ball. He takes that sack, turns it over and the Broncos are right back in the ball game. To that point, Denver's offense had really done nothing. It's the difference between understanding that your own the road against a good team that plays tough at home and not understanding. We gave Denver life right there. Had he just thrown it away, we could have punted and I believe probably gotten the ball back in good field position. We score another TD on them and that game was over. Instead, we commited a TO because we didn't understand the situation. The accuracy issue really concerns me but the other stuff, that is just a matter of understanding the game. The guys on the other side get paid to play football too.

I believe that Garrett needs to focus his attentions on proper mechanics, getting the football out in good time and making positive yards on 1st down. This is a 1st down league. If you can't get that done, then your going to get beat IMO.

The sack where he fumbled the ball came from a corner blitz I believe.If he would of picked it up he should have thrown the ball into the blitz or into the stands.It boils down to pocket awareness,an area that Romo seems to be regressing in.In his defense that same play happens to alot of quarterbacks,although the corner blitz he didn't pick up in Tampa came from his open side.

Craig