That Deep Ball Though!

[BAT]

The entire offense has become more efficient. Some will factor in maturity, chemistry or both. But I will beat the drum that most are beating, Linehan. His playcalling and personnel use has been off the charts good, especially on 1st and 3rd downs. Linehan is not just responsible for emphasizing the running game and getting the entire O to embrace it but his use of guys like Dunbar, Williams, Escobar and Harris is underrated. Cowboys talked of utilizing these players in the past, but could never walk the talk. Every game some different role player steps up, sometimes 2 or 3. Linehan is doing this AND still letting his stars make the bulk of the plays: Murray, Dez and Romo.

Romo is also understanding and embracing situational football and allows the rushing attack to do what it needs to do. The fact that the Cowboys are using the play action pass more than the shotgun is telling of the small but successful tweaks made in the offense. Shotgun told everyone what the Cowboys were going to do and the D could just pin their ears back go after Romo and double/bracket our playmakers: Dez & Witten. Now, play action forces Ds to respect our rushing game and takes a lot of pressure off both Romo and the OL, but most importantly Dez and Witten are seeing less double teams.

Romo is better because the playcalling is better, and he is all in with this new offense.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Watch games much??

I would think before this year you could say that about Brees as he only threw for over 5,000 yards a season in his last three seasons and his team went 31-17 during that time...and that includes the year they had the BountyGate fiasco. He was also averaging over 40 attempts per game.

So yes, I do watch the games and going into this season I don't think anybody in their right mind would claim that Romo was as good as Rodgers, Brees, Brady or Peyton.





YR

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't mind saying less is more hell this team won 3 SB by having a very good QB yet not asking him to carry the entire team. Troy was not putting up as many 300 yard games as others were in the league he did not have to he had a league leading running back who could help shoulder the load and in the end it was Dallas with the rings.

I really don't understand why some fans are upset by the saying "less is more with Romo"? I mean, for years, some of these same fans have been complaining about Romo having to do too much and not having complementary players surrounding him. For years, Cowboys fans have been saying Romo is carrying the team. And yet, those teams have one playoff win in the 11 years Romo has been quarterback. So when we get more parts to complement Romo, now it's "less is not more"?

 

[Doomsday101]

I really don't understand why some fans are upset by the saying "less is more with Romo"? I mean, for years, some of these same fans have been complaining about Romo having to do too much and not having complementary players surrounding him. For years, Cowboys fans have been saying Romo is carrying the team. And yet, those teams have one playoff win in the 11 years Romo has been quarterback. So when we get more parts to complement Romo, now it's "less is not more"?

I agree. I do think if put in a situation where Dallas is having to pass then I have faith in Romo to go out there and battle. I would rather see games where we are running and throwing consistently but on those occasion where we may not be able to stick with the run as long it is nice to know I have a QB who is more than a bus drive.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

So you're just going to ignore my point about how adding Martin improved 4 of our 5 offensive line positions?

I haven't ignored it. I'm saying we had virtually the same talent on offense we had last year outside of Martin. And even then, the Packers defensive players stated that when they watched us on film that we had the best running game in the league and they could not believe that we kept throwing the ball. So, it's not like we made a massive overhaul to personnel on offense and that we went from being a poor offense in 2013 to the offense we have this season.

Instead, we had a really good offensive line that the Packers defenders felt we had the best running game in the league. The biggest change is that we no longer throw the ball 60%+ of the time. Even when we are down big, we stick to the run. Even when the opponents stack 8 or 9 in the box or they blitz, we are unafraid to run the ball

You're going to ignore Murray being healthy being a difference from last year?

He was healthy for a long stretch last year and averaged 5.2 yards per carry. We simply refused to give him the ball. Particularly in the Packers game when we were running at will against them and had built a big lead.

You have to ignore a lot of things all to make a pretty bad point. But do your thing

You ignored my question...

Should we just throw the ball 45 times against the Commanders because less is not more with Romo according to you?

I would like to see how many people here would be on board with the team doing that.




YR

 

[ufcrules1]

I really don't understand why some fans are upset by the saying "less is more with Romo"? I mean, for years, some of these same fans have been complaining about Romo having to do too much and not having complementary players surrounding him. For years, Cowboys fans have been saying Romo is carrying the team. And yet, those teams have one playoff win in the 11 years Romo has been quarterback. So when we get more parts to complement Romo, now it's "less is not more"?

Romo will get his chance to shut up the critics in the playoffs and carry the team. When you get in those type of games that is where you earn your money and reputation. There is a good chance we play a very tough defensive line that is able to stop the run and put pressure on Romo. That is when he will have to deliver and lead the team. We will desperately need him to come through.

 

[ufcrules1]

I haven't ignored it. I'm saying we had virtually the same talent on offense we had last year outside of Martin. And even then, the Packers defensive players stated that when they watched us on film that we had the best running game in the league and they could not believe that we kept throwing the ball. So, it's not like we made a massive overhaul to personnel on offense and that we went from being a poor offense in 2013 to the offense we have this season.

Instead, we had a really good offensive line that the Packers defenders felt we had the best running game in the league. The biggest change is that we no longer throw the ball 60%+ of the time. Even when we are down big, we stick to the run. Even when the opponents stack 8 or 9 in the box or they blitz, we are unafraid to run the ball



He was healthy for a long stretch last year and averaged 5.2 yards per carry. We simply refused to give him the ball. Particularly in the Packers game when we were running at will against them and had built a big lead.



You ignored my question...

Should we just throw the ball 45 times against the Commanders because less is not more with Romo according to you?

I would like to see how many people here would be on board with the team doing that.

YR

Spot on. You know your stuff Rich.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Spot on. You know your stuff Rich.

No, I don't know nothing except for my anti-Romo bias. I should be demanding that we throw the ball 45 times a game now because less is not more with Romo and because our offensive has improved everywhere by leaps and bounds...throwing it more with Romo would only mean more points scored.

At least that's the logic by some here.






YR

 

[DFWJC]

He's playing like he always has, he's just got a) pass protection, b) no more post-op rust, and c) a running game to keep the defense honest.

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[ringmaster]

I agree. I do think if put in a situation where Dallas is having to pass then I have faith in Romo to go out there and battle. I would rather see games where we are running and throwing consistently but on those occasion where we may not be able to stick with the run as long it is nice to know I have a QB who is more than a bus drive.

I agree too Dooms all people have to do if they still don't believe Romo isn't capable of airing it out with the best of QBs look no further as we know from last season against the great Peyton Manning in which he throws for over 500 yds and 5 TDs even though they lost it was one of the best QB duels I ever seen.

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree too Dooms all people have to do if they still don't believe Romo isn't capable of airing it out with the best of QBs look no further as we know from last season against the great Peyton Manning in which he throws for over 500 yds and 5 TDs even though they lost it was one of the best QB duels I ever seen.

I agree, of course I would rather be able to run and pass but nice to know if you have to get into a passing war that you have the weapons to do so.

 

[ufcrules1]

I agree too Dooms all people have to do if they still don't believe Romo isn't capable of airing it out with the best of QBs look no further as we know from last season against the great Peyton Manning in which he throws for over 500 yds and 5 TDs even though they lost it was one of the best QB duels I ever seen.

It was a fun game to watch. 2 QB's airing it out against bad defenses. That doesn't happen in the playoff's though. There will be lots of pressure there and only the strong AND smart QB's survive there these days.

 

[ringmaster]

I agree, of course I would rather be able to run and pass but nice to know if you have to get into a passing war that you have the weapons to do so.

No doubt the weapons in this offense are scary for any defense in this league to contend with just ask that vaunted Seahawks defense about it.

 

[casmith07]

Yes, because saying less is more with Romo is CLEARLY an anti-Romo argument. And arguing that the main improvement for Romo's play and the offense's play is that the playcalling is geared towards Romo not having to do as much is CLEARLY an anti-Romo bias.

Sounds more like an argument against how Romo was *coached* to me.







YR

I'm talking about your body of work on this site since I've been a member and lurked before that. If the search feature wasn't disabled, it would be easy to document.

 

[Risen Star]

Not really. Dez currently has his worst yards per catch average.

I don't think this offense stretches the field anymore this year than any other in recent memory.

 

[casmith07]

No, I don't know nothing except for my anti-Romo bias. I should be demanding that we throw the ball 45 times a game now because less is not more with Romo and because our offensive has improved everywhere by leaps and bounds...throwing it more with Romo would only mean more points scored.

At least that's the logic by some here.






YR

Cry some more, dude. Nobody here said we should be throwing it 45 times a game. NO quarterback should be throwing the ball 45 times a game. A balanced attack is key to success across the board.

Football is a team sport, in case you didn't know that in however many years you've been watching the sport. Each unit complements each other, all the way down to individual players on each side of the ball and special teams. But I assume you knew that already, which is why your "less is more" argument is garbage. TEAM is more, not "less Romo."

 

[Risen Star]

Less Romo as in having balance. Not less Romo to hide the QB.

Tony Romo is an outstanding franchise QB. We've wasted his career to this point.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Well at least we're not arguing over whether a running game would greatly help this football team anymore,,,,

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Cry some more, dude.

I'm not the one crying.

Nobody here said we should be throwing it 45 times a game. NO quarterback should be throwing the ball 45 times a game. A balanced attack is key to success across the board.

Not for every QB. Brady, Brees, Peyton and Rodgers have all had success throwing as much if not more than Romo. They have done it with lower quality receiving threats, no running games and porous defenses. He is simply not good enough to throw it 40-50 times a game and the offense still be effective. When he does, mistakes are more apt to catch up to him and the team is less of a deep threat in the passing game and the opposing defenses can now just keep throwing blitzes, stunts and mixing coverages on him. For the most part, guys like Brady, Brees, Rodgers and Peyton were better at dealing with that.

The argument YOU and your buddy have made is that less is NOT more with Romo because I have stated that less *is* more with Romo. So, if less is NOT more with Romo as you have argued...then we should throw the ball more. Now you're just backpedaling.

which is why your "less is more" argument is garbage.

In case you didn't know, I'm not the only one making that argument. The majority of this board agrees with me.

The talent level on offense has *not* improved by leaps and bounds this season compared to last season. The only new player that is a significant contributor on offense this year versus last year is Martin. But, we still had what the Packers defenders called the best running game in the league that we simply refused to use. We also had excellent pass protection last year, but Romo struggled to find Dez who was open deep and we would try and use Witten on short, 6- yard pivot patterns which are not his game. And I don't think that our passy happy ways happened to coincide with the various meltdowns Romo had at the end of the game last year.

The main difference is that we run the ball much more often. We took the best running attack in the league and made it even better with the addition of Martin. We have limited Romo's pass attempts which limits his potential for making an error. And it has made the coverages more simple and teams are a more gunshy about blitzing along with throwing the ball against 8 or 9 in the box with Dez and Williams on the perimeter is just a favorable situation for any quarterback.

The less is more argument about Romo is recognizing his limitations so the Cowboys can optimize his performance. Parcells understood that with QB's and that's why he insisted on running the ball with his QB's even when the running game stunk. There are not many QB's that can throw it 40+ times in a game and continue to be effective and not turn the ball over. And Romo is not one of them either.





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm talking about your body of work on this site since I've been a member and lurked before that. If the search feature wasn't disabled, it would be easy to document.

It's just your opinion of me having an 'anti-Romo' bias.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias when I call him out for saying that turnovers don't matter and turnovers are what you are going to get when you have a QB that makes big plays. It's STUPID thinking for any QB to say that and they should be called out on saying something that is a detrimental mindset to the team.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias to rank other QB's who have a past history of much better winning records and especially in the playoffs like Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, Roethlisberger, etc. and say that they are, in my opinion, better QB's that Romo. And I've read people on this message board claim that Romo is better than each of those QB's listed on several occasions.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias to not consider him an 'elite' Quarterback.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias to criticize Romo for over-audibling and letting the clock run down to 1 second before snapping the ball and how that helps cause false starts and bad jumps by the O-Line and good jumps by the D-Line and noticing how much better the offense plays when we snap the ball earlier in the play clock.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias when I criticize him for holding onto the ball for too long and then sticking up for the O-Line when they give him 3+ seconds to throw the ball and he still gets sacked.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias for blaming him for throwing an interception in the Packers game and not blaming Beasley when Greg Cosell (an objective observer) completely agrees with my argument.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias for criticizing him when he audibles out of run plays into passing plays and we are throwing the ball 65% of the time and Wade, Garrett and Callahan have also mentioned that Romo was audibling out of running plays into passing plays.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias when you look at every game Romo has played and noticed that when we limit Romo's throws to under 36 pass attempts, even when the running game is NOT working well, that he plays better and the offense moves the ball better and then saying 'less is more' with Romo.

I don't think it's an anti-Romo bias to say before this year that Jason Garrett is the worst thing that happened to Romo.


I am unafraid of ever going into my past and looking at the things I've said. The lion's share of what I have ever said about Romo I still stand by today. I have always wanted Romo to succeed here which I've also said on numerous occasions. I've also pointed out the shortcomings in our offensive personnel over the years as well. But, I refuse to blindly support and make excuses for any player on this current team. There are no Emmitt Smith's or Roger Staubach's or Randy White's on this team that have built up so much credit with me that I can excuse some of their mistakes.

I'm just happy that the team is doing almost all of what I have said they needed to do (get a new play caller, draft a good center, get the plays off quicker and try to get Murray's attempts to over 20 a game and have Romo throw less often, have Beasley run the pivot patterns, etc.) and it is not only working, but working far better than I imagined it would.

If that's a bias against any player...then I would never want to have a bias *for* any player.




YR