The coaches aren't to blame

[CATCH17]

What is a gutless play call? One that does not work?

What is a gutless play call? One that does not work?

Being conservative to the point of it being a detriment.

 

[Amy50632]

serious question here, If Romo has to sit out the rest of the year, and retires, do you think Garrett will ever win a game again as a head coach?

Not without an elite quarterback, elite wide receiver, offense, defense, etc. Garrett basically needs a complete team to even win one damn game.

 

[Rockport]

at this point its just the entire team/organization.

I dont care who is to blame. offensive, defense, Running game, coaches. special teams, refs, injuries, salary cap, bad contracts, management, bad drafts, the easter bunny, miley cyrus and the taliban......

go ahead, just make up another excuse...pick one, anything....it will work.

Its another L. so, now we go through the emotional false hope wishing well, and say, ...... if we beat TB, and Romo gets back ,, NFCE is bad....maybe we could.....

even if we do win the NFCE, its one and done. But I dont think we will have to even worry about it.

Next year......

I'm not giving up until mathematically eliminated. I see the potential with this team. Those who want instant gratification and are giving up are just losers. Enjoy your misery.

 

[cml750]

Hey, you know who never lost five games in a row as head coach of the Dallas Cowboys?

Dave Campo.

With a much worse overall roster and about the same level QB's, Campo never lost 5 in a row. Garrett is pitiful.

 

[Idgit]

How about just a little mixture of both. I understand the idea of conservatism, but you can also do it to a fault

That's definitely true. And Garrett really is very risk averse when he doesn't trust his signal caller.

I'm sure we'll probably see some opportunities to have taken bigger risks when we break down the tape. Beyond the obvious three-rushes in a row in that series late in the game where we went three and out. But it's still a fairly fine line between too much risk and too little when you're not getting turnovers and not getting any help at all from your ST return or coverage units.

 

[CATCH17]

I'm not wishing for Dave Campo.

I am merely pointing out five-game losing streaks are a rarity, especially for this franchise. Even the dregs of the NFL find a way to win one out of every four or five games.

Campo wishes he would've had Romo, Dez, and a OL.

 

[BRoni]

good effort, coaches. <Garrett clap>

 

[RoboQB]

I agree, for the most part. Garrett, generally, is really not likely to take chances that can lead to negative plays, and we were definitely doing that tonight. Last week, we took too many chances, and everybody gave Cassel the pass because it was his 'first game' or whatever, but it got us beat in a game we really needed.

I know the bad offensive football is not fun to watch at all, and I think that's really where most of the frustration comes in, but taking bigger chances with bad QBs is a recipe for getting blown out as far as I'm concerned. I'd much rather watch the boring muck and maybe have a chance at the end until Tony gets back, when things won't be boring and won't be much anymore.

I agree with your take on the conservative approach... would've been nice to see them take a shot in the end zone after Hardy's int.

 

[CATCH17]

With a much worse overall roster and about the same level QB's, Campo never lost 5 in a row. Garrett is pitiful.

Crazy if true.

 

[Rockport]

We didn't threaten to throw past the first down markers. Especially on 3rd down.

It's a joke to watch out there.




YR

Yes we did. At least 2 deep balls to Dez. I guess you didn't watch the game which makes your takes useless.

 

[coogrfan]

I want my backup QB to be an All Pro, but playing for a minimum salary. Then I want him throwing deep, until he throws 3 INTs and then I want the team running the ball. Unless they lose, then I want them throwing deep. I also want to play all 16 games at home.

Seriously, this was ugly but any team in the NFL will be average or worse with their backup in the game. At least in this game Dez was on the field, the OL was playing fairly well and DMC was gaining yards. You can at least see the light at the end of the tunnel. We were playing for the wildcard the minute Romo went down, this game is just a continuation of that.

I agree with everything you said except the wildcard part. This division ain't sending more than one team to the playoffs.

 

[mattjames2010]

I disagree.

The offense is way too conservative and predictable. It's great when it's working. But when it's not...you have to change things up. Garrett and Linehan can't figure out this concept which is something people should instinctively comprehend.

I'd rather let Cassel get his shots downfield and see what decisions he makes first and then if he's making bad decisions/throws....reign him in or just yank him.

It sets a bad tone for the team as well. You should always play to win instead of playing not to lose.

And it makes me wonder if Garrett will ever be able to develop the replacement for Romo when that time comes.





YR

It's "conservative" - why do you think this is?

Cassel wasn't accurate throwing down the field today. He overthrew/underthrew every deep ball. That's what you get with a backup QB, on and off weeks, that's why they are backups.

 

[RS12]

Sadly if Hardy returns that pick for six this thread would not exist. However it still needed to.

 

[popp1234]

Dumb question. Good coaches never call out a player.

So you would give a fake answer? Besides, that's not in question (calling out players). We are talking about who has is ultimately accountable for the team's performance. In my estimation, a "good coach" answer would be, "I/we have to do a better job coaching them up. It starts with me. But we also have to play better as a team"

However, when you (good coach) go home and look in the mirror, YOU take responsibility. "Good coach".

There is a reason head coaches are fired in football, at all levels, regardless of how bad their QB is.

 

[reddyuta]

That's definitely true. And Garrett really is very risk averse when he doesn't trust his signal caller.

I'm sure we'll probably see some opportunities to have taken bigger risks when we break down the tape. Beyond the obvious three-rushes in a row in that series late in the game where we went three and out. But it's still a fairly fine line between too much risk and too little when you're not getting turnovers and not getting any help at all from your ST return or coverage units.

i m sure he will go all in when we have no shot at the divsion just to thrash our draft position,this guy is true idiot.

 

[coogrfan]

The play calling is a joke. How is it that every team we face, they're able to get their play makers open with pick plays and we're not, nor do we know how to defend them? That's a coaching issue.

Because they have qb's that can threaten the entire field and we don't?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

That's definitely true. And Garrett really is very risk averse when he doesn't trust his signal caller.

I'm sure we'll probably see some opportunities to have taken bigger risks when we break down the tape. Beyond the obvious three-rushes in a row in that series late in the game where we went three and out. But it's still a fairly fine line between too much risk and too little when you're not getting turnovers and not getting any help at all from your ST return or coverage units.

Be he says McFadden was having a good game (he wasn't) and he was riding that hot hand.

 

[Rockport]

Can I please have what you're smoking?

I'm almost out.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

I'm not giving up until mathematically eliminated. I see the potential with this team. Those who want instant gratification and are giving up are just losers. Enjoy your misery.

instant gratification?
5 straight losses. 20 some off years!!!!!!!!!
okay Amber......

 

[Dave_in-NC]

i m sure he will go all in when we have no shot at the divsion just to thrash our draft position,this guy is true idiot.

I wouldn' be happy to tank games at all.