The Drive After the First Interception

[Zman5]

You're making a lot of assumptions there. Let's say we run and don't make it. First, you're assuming there's no fumble. Then, you're assuming the punt doesn't get blocked (already happened once this year). Then, who says McBriar pins them deep? Yeah, he's reliable but not automatic. And it's not like forcing the Lions to drive down a long field helped on their next drive. After the second pick, Dallas drove 75 yards in 9 plays, taking 5 min off the clock, and got a FG. The Lions then proceeded to go 80 yards in 5 plays to get their next TD, and cut the lead to 30-24.

Oh, but by then, they had all the momentum. Not really. Yes, the Lions were given new life. Yes, the defense had to be pissed, and a little shocked. But I would hope that, after playing all of 5 plays in the first 14:23 of the third quarter, having the offense drive 75 yards and score, taking 5 more minutes off the clock, they could have stepped up and not let the Lions go through them like a knife through hot butter.

You don't let off the gas, and you don't go away from what's working. That slant had been working all day, and there was really no reason to think it wouldn't work again.

We can play that game all day. It's called playing your percentages.

Would you drive drunk or take a cab? I mean you can say I'll drive drunk since that cab driver can get into an accident get me killed. How do I know he's not a drug addict?

The slant was working but so was the run at that point. I can even buy into passing but any way you look at it, passing out of the shotgun was the worst play selection. Tell the defense "hey we are going to pass and we are going to run the same route that has been working all day". JG went to the well one too many times when he didn't need to.

 

[Picksix]

Your QB has tendency to throw INT late in games.
That QB was just intercepted on the previous series.
You just ran 5 running plays that got you 7,6,4,7, 1 yards. Your running game is working at this point.
You are on 3 down and 2 to go for 1st.
You have 17 point lead at this point.
Detroit's offense hasn't done anything all game.
Your defense is playing great.
You are on Detoits 48, so if you don't make the first down you can punt and pinned them deep.



Is that enough reason for you?

Our QB also has a tendency to throw TD's late in games.
That QB threw for a TD the drive before that.
None of those runs came in short yardage situations.
Our short yardage running game is ineffective.
There's still over 20 minutes to play in the game.
So that means they won't for the rest of the game? Didn't happen.
So that means they'll continue to play great for the rest of the game? Didn't happen.
Already asked and answered.


Are those enough reasons for you?

 

[rcaldw]

We can play that game all day. It's called playing your percentages.

Would you drive drunk or take a cab? I mean you can say I'll drive drunk since that cab driver can get into an accident get me killed. How do I know he's not a drug addict?

You have yet to answer my question, and it is absolutely obvious why. Because OF COURSE you thought Garrett was wrong at some other point in that game and you were proven wrong. The fact is, you are convinced you are right when it doesn't work out, but you will never talk about it when it goes opposite of what you anticipated. I'll bet you didn't call the 37 yard completion to Witten when everyone was screaming "run the ball".... did you?

 

[Zman5]

You have yet to answer my question, and it is absolutely obvious why. Because OF COURSE you thought Garrett was wrong at some other point in that game and you were proven wrong. The fact is, you are convinced you are right when it doesn't work out, but you will never talk about it when it goes opposite of what you anticipated. I'll bet you didn't call the 37 yard completion to Witten when everyone was screaming "run the ball".... did you?

You know what I was thinking during the game? Whatever.

 

[Zman5]

Our QB also has a tendency to throw TD's late in games.
That QB threw for a TD the drive before that.
None of those runs came in short yardage situations.
Our short yardage running game is ineffective.
There's still over 20 minutes to play in the game.
So that means they won't for the rest of the game? Didn't happen.
So that means they'll continue to play great for the rest of the game? Didn't happen.
Already asked and answered.


Are those enough reasons for you?

We didn't need the QB to throw a TD at that point. We needed to protect the lead. We had a big lead.

Our offense just made a huge mistake. Try the run and if it doesn't work, punt the ball. Have Detroit sweat it out. Burn the clock. Playing your logic game, we could have gotten a picksix ourselves had we punted.

 

[Picksix]

We can play that game all day. It's called playing your percentages.

Would you drive drunk or take a cab? I mean you can say I'll drive drunk since that cab driver can get into an accident get me killed. How do I know he's not a drug addict?

I get your point, but driving drunk is a poor analogy to throwing a slant that had been working all day. One is ridicuously risky. The other is not.

Look, I understand that when you're up 17 in the third quarter, you don't want to be careless. But you also can't be too careful. I grew up in Chicago watching the Bears do that seemingly week after week, and losing big leads because of it. We're a passing team. We built a huge lead passing the ball. Now you want to just go away from all that? That's playing not to lose, which ironically, tends to produce the result you're trying to avoid.

Green Bay got up big and Denver, and they kept throwing the ball. Worked pretty well for them. Didn't work for us. But just running the ball, thinking you can just punt and let your defense hold them drive after drive, for the rest of the game, with the weapons Detroit has, is almost just as dangerous.

 

[rcaldw]

You know what I was thinking during the game? Whatever.

No, I know human nature, just like you do. There were calls during the game I disagreed with too. Some worked out, some didn't. I actually AGREE with you in hating how often we run out of the shot gun. I agree with you. The difference is that apparently you think it makes Garrett an idiot. I don't. I think he is one of the better coaches in the game. I think we are lucky to have him. And I think anyone who tries to put that game this past Sunday on him, is either just plain dishonest about it (bias), or they don't know what they are watching. That team didn't put up 30 by accident. In addition, the 3 turnovers were not due to unreasonable play calls, but bad decisions, or poor execution by the QB.

My point in asking you the question is to make the point that it is EASY to say what we should or shouldn't have done AFTER it is done, or on one of the calls we disagreed with that DIDN'T work. Can you give credit for the ones you didn't think would work, but did?

 

[Picksix]

We didn't need the QB to throw a TD at that point. We needed to protect the lead. We had a big lead.

Our offense just made a huge mistake. Try the run and if it doesn't work, punt the ball. Have Detroit sweat it out. Burn the clock. Playing your logic game, we could have gotten a picksix ourselves had we punted.

Touche'. I see every one of your points. Just trying to get you to see mine. And if we had done what you propose, things may have worked out fine. But I'm sorry, throwing a slant to a hot receiver, for 2 yards, is still a high percentage play.

 

[Stautner]

It is unreasonable given the situation. Your QB just got picked for a TD. You just rip off some good runs. So why the heck do you go into a shotgun offense and pass on 3rd and 2? That's just dumb. At the minimum, if you want to pass, do it in a run formation and play action. But the right thing to do at that point was to run it since the run game was working.

As i have mentioned before, this is a very limited view. The running game had a couple of recent success, whereas the passing game had success the entire 1st half and the start of the second half.

In addition, we had been passing on 3rd and short the entire game with outstanding success.

Your view tells us that what happened in a few plays overrides what happened for 2 full quarters and a portion of a 3rd quarter. Accordingly, your statement that what Garrett called was dumb is ridiculous. Garrett considered the entirety of the game in making his decision, whereas you only considered a tiny portion of it.

But I'm sure you are one of those that believes we could have just run out the final 26 minutes of the game on the ground. It's not rational, but it apparently suits some fans.

 

[Stautner]

We didn't need the QB to throw a TD at that point. We needed to protect the lead. We had a big lead.

Our offense just made a huge mistake. Try the run and if it doesn't work, punt the ball. Have Detroit sweat it out. Burn the clock. Playing your logic game, we could have gotten a picksix ourselves had we punted.

yes, we had a big lead, but we also had almost an entire half of football to play.

For a team to abandon what had been working beautifully all day and kill all their momentum with that much time left in the game and against a team averaging 30 points per game ... now that would be risky and reckless.

Calling simple, short passes to mix in with the run is not, especially since those same simple, short passes were staples in building the lead to begin with..

 

[Zman5]

No, I know human nature, just like you do. There were calls during the game I disagreed with too. Some worked out, some didn't. I actually AGREE with you in hating how often we run out of the shot gun. I agree with you. The difference is that apparently you think it makes Garrett an idiot. I don't. I think he is one of the better coaches in the game. I think we are lucky to have him. And I think anyone who tries to put that game this past Sunday on him, is either just plain dishonest about it (bias), or they don't know what they are watching. That team didn't put up 30 by accident. In addition, the 3 turnovers were not due to unreasonable play calls, but bad decisions, or poor execution by the QB.

My point in asking you the question is to make the point that it is EASY to say what we should or shouldn't have done AFTER it is done, or one the calls we disagreed with that DIDN'T work. Can you give credit for the ones you didn't think would work, but did?

OK. I'll make it simple for you. I have same issue with JG and Romo. They do things very well for the most part but they always have few *** was that type of plays that cost us games.

JG being the HC/OC needs to fix this problem. For both himself and Romo. To blame Romo and not JG for the mistakes they made on Sunday is just ridiculous. The reason I fault JG more is because he is the main leader of that organization.
Like in any corporation, he should be held responsible for these mistakes.

The problem I have people here is that they blame Romo for everything but not JG. Tha's just wrong. JG should be blamed if not more.

The plays gets called by him and the players try to execute it. It's the responsibility of the coaches to put his players in best situations to succeed. JG sometimes put his players in situations to fail. The 3rd and 2 play is an example of that.

 

[Stautner]

OK. I'll make it simple for you. I have same issue with JG and Romo. They do things very well for the most part but they always have few *** was that type of plays that cost us games.

JG being the HC/OC needs to fix this problem. For both himself and Romo. To defend Romo and not JG for the mistakes they made on Sunday is just ridiculous. The reason I fault JG more is because he is the main leader of that organization.
Like in any corporation, he should be held responsible for these mistakes.

The problem I have people here is that they blame Romo for everything but not JG. Tha's just wrong. JG should be blamed if not more.

The plays gets called by him and the players try to execute it. It's the responsibility of the coaches to put his players in best situations to succeed. JG sometimes put his players in situations to fail. The 3rd and 2 play is an example of that.

So, the guy that called the same type of play that had worked beautifully all day should be blamed more than the guy holding the ball and in a position to read the defense, see the coverage, and make a decision based on what was occurring on the field, yet threw into coverage anyway.

Sorry, your logic is a complete failure.

In most cases what people claim are bad play calls are just plays that are poorly executed. An O-coordinator can only call plays based on what he knows of the opposition and what he knows to be successful. He does not have the advantage of seeing the defensive alignment in advance, nor of making an adjustment based on the alignment or the reaction of the defense once the ball is snapped.

All of that is the job of the QB, and if the QB decides the defensive alignment will prevent a play from being successful it is his job to call and audible. If he does not call and audible, but sees the defense has read a play well, it is the job of the QB to go through is progressions and either throw to another receiver or throw the ball away. That is the job of EVERY QB in the NFL, not just Romo, and it is neither unreasonable, nor unusual to expect a QB do do those things. That is a standard requirment for an NFL QB.

 

[28 Joker]

Your QB has tendency to throw INT late in games.
That QB was just intercepted on the previous series.
You just ran 5 running plays that got you 7,6,4,7, 1 yards. Your running game is working at this point.
You are on 3 down and 2 to go for 1st.
You have 17 point lead at this point.
Detroit's offense hasn't done anything all game.
Your defense is playing great.
You are on Detoits 48, so if you don't make the first down you can punt and pinned them deep.



Is that enough reason for you?

You did a nice job spelling that out and were short and to the point.

I have supported Garrett, but I think he is at a cross-roads with Romo and this team. He can't sit back and allow the QB to continue to give games away. He will lose the team and his job, eventually. So, we will see what he does after his QB's ridiculous, horrible decisions have gifted two football games away.

Garrett puts too much trust and confidence in Romo, and Romo needs someone to really ride him about protecting the football and playing smart, fundamental football. Bill Parcells is gone. Who is going to get in Romo's face and keep him honest and grounded? You wouldn't think a 9 year vet would need his hand held when it comes to solid, fundamental game management. Romo is not Drew Brees or Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers or Phillip Rivers. When Romo attempts more than 34 passes, you will most likely see all the Tony Romos, just like against the Lions. Garrett needs to figure this out fast, because heavy damage has already been done to this season.

The onus is on Jason Garrett to get control of Romo or risk getting fired, imo. Garrett is a very talented coach, but he isn't above criticism. The Garrett apologists don't see any flaws or room for growth for Garrett, so talking to them is not going to do any good.

You are exactly right. The run was working on this drive, and you have a 17 point lead. Plus, the Cowboys rushed for 115 yards and averaged 4.2 yards per carry in this game. It's 3rd and 2, and the shotgun formation severely limits the run options that you can dial up. It is too predictable. It takes play-action away, just like you stated. It's just about a dead give away that a pass or draw is coming.

The Lions played pass all the way, and the Cowboys went to the slant one too many times. They got greedy. Houston was all over that slant and had it blanketed. Even Tony Dungy (who had Peyton Manning) stated that the coverage was too tight to attempt that throw, especially in that situation. Plus, Romo had a guy right in his face when he attempted the pass. In that tight coverage, when the CB has seen that play during the day, that throw becomes risky to your # 3 WR. There is nothing but end-zone between the defender and the football if that throw goes bad.

That ball shouldn't have been thrown. The call is questionable, and I hate the formation. What about a screen to the back in that situation? 2 yards and the clock continues to move, and the drive is alive. Then, you can continue to work the clock. The clock was still the Lions' worst enemy at that point in the game. A safer pass (from under the center) or a run for a first down, or a punt is much better than the shotgun, pick six on 3rd and 2.

If your QB is under the center, the defense has to respect the possibility of multiple types of runs in that situation. Again, a run in that situation and a punt (if necessary) is better than giving a TD away. You still have a 17 point lead, and you have a great punter to pin the Lions deep and make them use the clock and drive the field.

It's elementary football 101.

Romo's third horrible turn-over somehow managed to trump his previous two horrible decisions.

There is nothing like the Tecmo Bowl 4 minute offense when your QB lobs up a pop-fly, pick off his back foot (with a 3 point lead) and sets up the Lions on your 40, with 4:00 minutes left in the game. Romo is Garrett's responsibility. There is no defending that first down pass on your own 20 yard line. The ball had no business flying down the field in that situation, and the Cowboys should have been running the football at least 2 out of 3 times to start that drive in order to milk the clock and either get a first down or set up a manageable 3rd down for the QB to convert. At the worst, you punt the ball to the Lions and make them drive the field to score.

Of course, you can't run the ball and milk the clock when you give the other team the ball on your 40 by playing Tecmo Bowl. You can't even punt them deep and make them earn a TD by using the clock and driving the field. Some where Parcells is shaking his head.

The smart play is to run the football (especially when your QB is throwing TDs to the other team with a 24 and 17 point second half lead) at least 2 out of 3 times and give the QB a manageable 3rd down to convert to keep the ball and the clock moving. Again, the Cowboys averaged 4.2 YPC in this game and rushed for 115 yards, so they may have netted a first down running. They had 115 yards on the ground, and Felix Jones never touched the football with 4 minutes left in the game. He torched the Commanders 8 and 9 man fronts, especially late in the game.

Romo deserves to be benched for his terrible decisions. Romo just couldn't help himself on that last pick. He just had to "make a play" and be the hero. He just had to throw that bomb. Garrett has do get this under control, because blowing 24 point leads at home and 14 point fourth quarter leads on the road will get you fired some day. That is how playoff spots are blown.

You only get 16 games, and now the Lions have the tie breaker over Dallas. Again, Garrett has to clean up the Tecmo Bowl football (in his offense), or the team and fans are in for a real disappointing season. I've never seen a more deflating 2-2 in all my life. As a big fan, it's really frustrating and disappointing. I'd rather play with Stephen McGee and live with some growing pains, than watch Romo continue to give games away by making horrendous, ridiculous decisions.

I think Stephen McGee has something, and he would force Garrett to play his cards closer to his vest. Importantly, the team would become weapon centered and not QB centered. The team had big success with Kitna at QB. The running game would become more important, and I think the team would get better running the football as a result. We saw it last year behind an old, slow, weak, and really bad offensive line.

Now, will McGee play. Probably not, but I think McGee could succeed with the developing young offensive line and the weapons on this team.

The first down play calling on the 20 yard line while up 24 is questionable, too. There is nothing like the first down pick six to Barbie Carpenter. Run the football twice and set up a manageable 3rd down please. You are up by 24 in the second half, and the Lions only chance is huge Dallas mistakes.

There is a reason why the Giants win games under Tom Coughlin. The Giants would have gone into grind mode and stomped the Lions into submission if they were up 24 in the second half. They would have gotten their rushing attempts in and wore the Lions down. Long runs happen in the 4th quarter when the other team gets tired and desperate.

The only chance the Lions had in this game was a Romo melt-down, and they got it.

 

[Zman5]

So, the guy that called the same type of play that had worked beautifully all day should be blamed more than the guy holding the ball and in a position to read the defense, see the coverage, and make a decision based on what was occurring on the field, yet threw into coverage anyway.

Sorry, your logic is a complete failure.

In most cases what people claim are bad play calls are just plays that are poorly executed. An O-coordinator can only call plays based on what he knows of the opposition and what he knows to be successful. He does not have the advantage of seeing the defensive alignment in advance, nor of making an adjustment based on the alignment or the reaction of the defense once the ball is snapped.

All of that is the job of the QB, and if the QB decides the defensive alignment will prevent a play from being successful it is his job to call and audible. If he does not call and audible, but sees the defense has read a play well, it is the job of the QB to go through is progressions and either throw to another receiver or throw the ball away. That is the job of EVERY QB in the NFL, not just Romo, and it is neither unreasonable, nor unusual to expect a QB do do those things. That is a standard requirment for an NFL QB.

With your logic, if a flea flicker worked few times early in the game when the score was 0-0, you would use it when we are leading by 40 and on our 1 yard line.

It's your logic that is complete failure.

I've explained to you several times in other threads, it's called a situational football. The situation should dictate what play should be called. The pass plays weren't the only plays that worked earlier in the game.

 

[rcaldw]

So, the guy that called the same type of play that had worked beautifully all day should be blamed more than the guy holding the ball and in a position to read the defense, see the coverage, and make a decision based on what was occurring on the field, yet threw into coverage anyway.

Sorry, your logic is a complete failure.

In most cases what people claim are bad play calls are just plays that are poorly executed. An O-coordinator can only call plays based on what he knows of the opposition and what he knows to be successful. He does not have the advantage of seeing the defensive alignment in advance, nor of making an adjustment based on the alignment or the reaction of the defense once the ball is snapped.

All of that is the job of the QB, and if the QB decides the defensive alignment will prevent a play from being successful it is his job to call and audible. If he does not call and audible, but sees the defense has read a play well, it is the job of the QB to go through is progressions and either throw to another receiver or throw the ball away. That is the job of EVERY QB in the NFL, not just Romo, and it is neither unreasonable, nor unusual to expect a QB do do those things. That is a standard requirment for an NFL QB.

Great job Stautner, that was nailed.

 

[rcaldw]

With your logic, if a flea flicker worked few times early in the game when the score was 0-0, you would use it when we are leading by 40 and on our 1 yard line.

It's your logic that is complete failure.

I've explained to you several times in other threads, it's called a situational football. The situation should dictate what play should be called. The pass plays weren't the only plays that worked earlier in the game.

Zman, you ignored his response, as it was presented in its entirety. The fact is, there is NO explanation that will change your mind, because you have a viewpoint no matter what the facts say.

 

[rcaldw]

You did a nice job spelling that out and were short and to the point.

I have supported Garrett, but I think he is at a cross-roads with Romo and this team. He can't sit back and allow the QB to continue to give games away. He will lose the team and his job, eventually. So, we will see what he does after his QB's ridiculous, horrible decisions have gifted two football games away.

Garrett puts too much trust and confidence in Romo, and Romo needs someone to really ride him about protecting the football and playing smart, fundamental football. Bill Parcells is gone. Who is going to get in Romo's face and keep him honest and grounded? You wouldn't think a 9 year vet would need his hand held when it comes to solid, fundamental game management. Romo is not Drew Brees or Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers or Phillip Rivers. Garrett needs to figure this out fast, because heavy damage has already been done to this season.

The onus is on Jason Garrett to get control of Romo or risk getting fired,limo. Garrett is a very talented coach, but he isn't above criticism. The Garrett apologists don't see any flaw with Garrett, so talking to them is not going to do any good.

You are exactly right. The run was working on this drive, and you have a 17 point lead. Plus, the Cowboys rushed for 115 yards and averaged 4.2 yards per carry in this game. It's 3rd and 2, and the shotgun formation severely limits the run options that you can dial up. It is too predictable. It takes play-action away, just like you stated. It's just about a dead give away that a pass or draw is coming.

The Lions played pass all the way, and the Cowboys went to the slant one too many times. They got greedy. Houston was all over that slant and had it blanketed. Even Tony Dungy (who had Peyton Manning) stated that the coverage was too tight to attempt that throw, especially in that situation. Plus, Romo had a guy right in his face when he attempted to pass. In that tight coverage, when the CB has seen that play during the day, that throw becomes risky to your # 3 WR. There is nothing but end-zone between the defender and the football if that throw goes bad.

That ball shouldn't have been thrown. The call is questionable, and I hate the formation. What about a screen to the back in that situation? 2 yards and the clock continues to move, and the drive is alive. Then, you can continue to work the clock. The clock was the Lions' worst enemy at this point in the game. A safer pass (from under the center) or a run for a first down, or a punt is much better than the shotgun, pick six on 3rd and 2.

If your QB is under the center, the defense has to respect the possibility of multiple types of runs in that situation. Again, a run in that situation and a punt (if necessary) is better than giving a TD away. You still have a 17 point lead, and you have a great punter to pin the Lions deep and make them use the clock and drive the field.

It's elementary football 101.

Romo's third horrible turn-over somehow managed to trump his previous two horrible decisions.

There is nothing like the Tecmo Bowl 4 minute offense when your QB lobs up a pop-fly, pick off his back foot (with a 3 point lead) and sets up the Lions on your 40, with 4:00 minutes left in the game. Romo is Garrett's responsibility. There is no defending that first down pass on your own 20 yard line. The ball had no business flying down the field in that situation, and the Cowboys should have been running the football at least 2 out of 3 times to start that drive in order to milk the clock and either get a first down or set up a manageable 3rd down for the QB to convert. At the worst, you punt the ball to the Lions and make them drive the field to score.

Of course, you can't run the ball and milk the clock when you give the other team the ball on your 40 by playing Tecmo Bowl. You can't even punt them deep and make them earn a TD by using the clock and driving the field. Some where Parcells is shaking his head.

The smart play is to run the football (especially when your QB is throwing TDs to the other team with a 24 and 17 point second half lead) at least 2 out of 3 times and give the QB a manageable 3rd down to convert to keep the ball and the clock moving. Again, the Cowboys averaged 4.2 YPC in this game and rushed for 115 yards, so they may have netted a first down running. They had 115 yards on the ground, and Felix Jones never touched the football with 4 minutes left in the game. He torched the Commanders 8 and 9 man fronts, especially late in the game.

Romo deserves to be benched for his terrible decisions. Romo just couldn't help himself on that last pick. He just had to "make a play" and be the hero. He just had to throw that bomb. Garrett has do get this under control, because blowing 24 point leads at home and 14 point fourth quarter leads on the road will get you fired some day. That is how playoff spots are blown.

You only get 16 games, and now the Lions have the tie breaker over Dallas. Again, Garrett has to clean up the Tecmo Bowl football (in his offense), or the team and fans are in for a real disappointing season. I've never seen a more deflating 2-2 in all my life. As a big fan, it's really frustrating and disappointing. I'd rather play with Stephen McGee and live with some growing pains, than watch Romo continue to give games away by making horrendous, ridiculous decisions.

I think Stephen McGee has something, and he would force Garrett to play his cards closer to his vest. Importantly, the team would become weapon centered and not QB centered. The team had big success with Kitna at QB. The running game would become more important, and I think the team would get better running the football as a result. We saw it last year behind an old, slow, weak, and really bad offensive line.

Now, will McGee play. Probably not, but I think McGee could succeed with the developing young offensive line and the weapons on this team.

The first down play calling on the 20 yard line while up 24 is questionable, too. There is nothing like the first down pick six to Barbie Carpenter. Run the football twice and set up a manageable 3rd down please. You are up by 24 in the second half, and the Lions only chance is huge Dallas mistakes.

There is a reason why the Giants win games under Tom Coughlin. The Giants would have gone into grind mode and stomped the Lions into submission if they were up 24 in the second half. They would have gotten their rushing attempts in and wore the Lions down. Long runs happen in the 4th quarter when the other team gets tired and desperate.

The only chance the Lions had in this game was a Romo melt-down, and they got it.

Bench Romo and play McGee? Really? All you had to do was post this and it would have saved you a whole lot of typing.

 

[Zman5]

You did a nice job spelling that out and were short and to the point.

I have supported Garrett, but I think he is at a cross-roads with Romo and this team. He can't sit back and allow the QB to continue to give games away. He will lose the team and his job, eventually. So, we will see what he does after his QB's ridiculous, horrible decisions have gifted two football games away.

Garrett puts too much trust and confidence in Romo, and Romo needs someone to really ride him about protecting the football and playing smart, fundamental football. Bill Parcells is gone. Who is going to get in Romo's face and keep him honest and grounded? You wouldn't think a 9 year vet would need his hand held when it comes to solid, fundamental game management. Romo is not Drew Brees or Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers or Phillip Rivers. Garrett needs to figure this out fast, because heavy damage has already been done to this season.

The onus is on Jason Garrett to get control of Romo or risk getting fired,limo. Garrett is a very talented coach, but he isn't above criticism. The Garrett apologists don't see any flaw with Garrett, so talking to them is not going to do any good.

You are exactly right. The run was working on this drive, and you have a 17 point lead. Plus, the Cowboys rushed for 115 yards and averaged 4.2 yards per carry in this game. It's 3rd and 2, and the shotgun formation severely limits the run options that you can dial up. It is too predictable. It takes play-action away, just like you stated. It's just about a dead give away that a pass or draw is coming.

The Lions played pass all the way, and the Cowboys went to the slant one too many times. They got greedy. Houston was all over that slant and had it blanketed. Even Tony Dungy (who had Peyton Manning) stated that the coverage was too tight to attempt that throw, especially in that situation. Plus, Romo had a guy right in his face when he attempted to pass. In that tight coverage, when the CB has seen that play during the day, that throw becomes risky to your # 3 WR. There is nothing but end-zone between the defender and the football if that throw goes bad.

That ball shouldn't have been thrown. The call is questionable, and I hate the formation. What about a screen to the back in that situation? 2 yards and the clock continues to move, and the drive is alive. Then, you can continue to work the clock. The clock was the Lions' worst enemy at this point in the game. A safer pass (from under the center) or a run for a first down, or a punt is much better than the shotgun, pick six on 3rd and 2.

If your QB is under the center, the defense has to respect the possibility of multiple types of runs in that situation. Again, a run in that situation and a punt (if necessary) is better than giving a TD away. You still have a 17 point lead, and you have a great punter to pin the Lions deep and make them use the clock and drive the field.

It's elementary football 101.

Romo's third horrible turn-over somehow managed to trump his previous two horrible decisions.

There is nothing like the Tecmo Bowl 4 minute offense when your QB lobs up a pop-fly, pick off his back foot (with a 3 point lead) and sets up the Lions on your 40, with 4:00 minutes left in the game. Romo is Garrett's responsibility. There is no defending that first down pass on your own 20 yard line. The ball had no business flying down the field in that situation, and the Cowboys should have been running the football at least 2 out of 3 times to start that drive in order to milk the clock and either get a first down or set up a manageable 3rd down for the QB to convert. At the worst, you punt the ball to the Lions and make them drive the field to score.

Of course, you can't run the ball and milk the clock when you give the other team the ball on your 40 by playing Tecmo Bowl. You can't even punt them deep and make them earn a TD by using the clock and driving the field. Some where Parcells is shaking his head.

The smart play is to run the football (especially when your QB is throwing TDs to the other team with a 24 and 17 point second half lead) at least 2 out of 3 times and give the QB a manageable 3rd down to convert to keep the ball and the clock moving. Again, the Cowboys averaged 4.2 YPC in this game and rushed for 115 yards, so they may have netted a first down running. They had 115 yards on the ground, and Felix Jones never touched the football with 4 minutes left in the game. He torched the Commanders 8 and 9 man fronts, especially late in the game.

Romo deserves to be benched for his terrible decisions. Romo just couldn't help himself on that last pick. He just had to "make a play" and be the hero. He just had to throw that bomb. Garrett has do get this under control, because blowing 24 point leads at home and 14 point fourth quarter leads on the road will get you fired some day. That is how playoff spots are blown.

You only get 16 games, and now the Lions have the tie breaker over Dallas. Again, Garrett has to clean up the Tecmo Bowl football (in his offense), or the team and fans are in for a real disappointing season. I've never seen a more deflating 2-2 in all my life. As a big fan, it's really frustrating and disappointing. I'd rather play with Stephen McGee and live with some growing pains, than watch Romo continue to give games away by making horrendous, ridiculous decisions.

I think Stephen McGee has something, and he would force Garrett to play his cards closer to his vest. Importantly, the team would become weapon centered and not QB centered. The team had big success with Kitna at QB. The running game would become more important, and I think the team would get better running the football as a result. We saw it last year behind an old, slow, weak, and really bad offensive line.

Now, will McGee play. Probably not, but I think McGee could succeed with the developing young offensive line and the weapons on this team.

The first down play calling on the 20 yard line while up 24 is questionable, too. There is nothing like the first down pick six to Barbie Carpenter. Run the football twice and set up a managable 3rd down please. You are up by 24 in the second half, and the Lions only chance is huge Dallas mistakes.

There is a reason why the Giants win games under Tom Coughlin. The Giants would have gone into grind mode and stomped the Lions into submission if they were up 24 in the second half. They would have got their rushing attempts in and wore the Lions down. Long runs happen in the 4th quarter when the other team gets tired and desperate.

The only chance the Lions had in this game was a Romo melt-down, and they got it.

JG need to control/manage Romo. In certain situations he needs to keep reminding him not change the play. Tell him not to audible out of a run play. If Romo disobeys and passes, JG need to bench him. Romo and JG should not be above the team.

 

[rcaldw]

JG need to control/manage Romo. In certain situations he needs to keep reminding him not change the play. Tell him not to audible out of a run play. If Romo disobeys and passes, JG need to bench him. Romo and JG should not be above the team.

Wow. Just wow. I'm tired guys, have a good night. Enjoy the games.

 

[Stautner]

With your logic, if a flea flicker worked few times early in the game when the score was 0-0, you would use it when we are leading by 40 and on our 1 yard line.

It's your logic that is complete failure.

I've explained to you several times in other threads, it's called a situational football. The situation should dictate what play should be called. The pass plays weren't the only plays that worked earlier in the game.

No, that would be YOUR logic to let something that worked a few times override what worked over and over. What I said that apparently rattled around in your head but missed the comprehension lobe is that the run had worked a few times, but the short passing game had been a staple in building the lead. Accordingly, I was saying that Garrett was justified in making a call that had worked over and over, and it was you that said the few plays should override the tried and true.

And yes, there is situational football. You try to run out the clock on the ground with a lead late in the game, You don't try to run out the clock on the ground with almost an entire half to go. To run down the clock with that much time requires extended drives, and there has been literally no evidence at all that we could sustain extended drives without having a mix of passes to go with the runs.


you pull in the reigns too hard too soon you run a huge risk of changing the entire tone of the game and sucking out overy bit of the spark that helped you build the lead to begin with. You can do that late in the game because you only have to limp along like that for a few minutes. With most of the 2nd half remaining to be played the situation is different.