The Garrett Thread

[TrailBlazer]

Well, you and I disagree on the Romo v. Weeden debate. There's a 0% chance I'm rolling with the backup if Tony's willing and able to come back into the lineup. Honestly, I don't even think it's a consideration. Tony's your starter. If he can play, he plays. If you don't play your starter when he can go in, you get all sorts of trouble.

And we really want Weeden handling the RB exchanges back on our own goal line when he gets a fraction of the snaps in practice? You'd rather have him throwing into that zero coverage at the end of the game? Because he didn't see it on first down, and he didn't see it on the drives where Murray's putting the ball on the six yard line for him. But you better be prepared for them to blitz your backup with the game on the line once he's shown he can move the ball against your base defense. That blown pickup by Murray that knocked the ball out of Tony's hands is going to get to Weeden, too. That third down play in overtime that Witten dropped...you think Brandon makes that throw? The grounding call against the blitz at the end of regulation looked bad, but where's Brandon going to go with that? Because there's no time to get it downfield. Even buying time on 4th down on the last play of the game by moving around in the pocket, Brandon's not going to get you anything there.

I know we want to blame the coaches whenever we lose a game, but this was a case of us not protecting the ball playing against a fired up division rival who was willing to bet the house over and over and over again that we couldn't get the ball out or break a tackle against across-the-board single coverage of our play makers. It paid off, and hats off to them, but it's a very, very risky way to play NFL defense. Nine times out of ten it's going to get you blown out, but when you tackle well and your coverage players play over their heads and the other team doesn't hold onto the ball in the running game, it lets you get a rare road win over a better team who happens to be your biggest division rival.

You can't go play by play and say "oh well Brandon couldn't have done any better right there." You don't know that the play calls would've been the same. You don't know if Romo audibles to a bad play bc he wasn't seeing the field well. Weeden was executing the offense well. Romo was obviously not right. Why risk further injury and take out the guy who got you in position to win? Weeden would've gave us the best chance.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

I blame the football gods. In their infinite wisdom, they felt it was time for this team to experience a humbling reality check at the hands of what once was their most hated enemy who is currently downtrodden and down on their luck.

If this game does not help the team refocus for the second half of the season then I don't know what will. The football gods may be smiling.

 

[Idgit]

Yep. I would rather have had Weeden in last night. No even a question in my mind on that one Idgit. Tony didn't have it to start the game and his effectiveness definitely didn't improve upon his return. Weeden was 4 for 6 last night with one TD dropped. Weeden wasn't the problem.

Not only do we want to blame the coaches but we do. We do it because they are to blame. The buck stops there. It's completely understandable and correct to do so. Skins couldn't cover our backs out of the backfield, they couldn't stop our run game and they couldn't stop short crossing routes over the middle. Yet, we didn't do any of those things very much last night. When we did, we were very successful with them. That's on the coaching staff IMO.

Well, it's ok to agree to disagree. Did you see Weeden handling the zero coverage blitz though? Because it didn't look to me like they were taking the risks with him in the game that they were taking when Tony was in there. And I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think that Haslett would have been likely to sit there and let Brandon run the ball and drop it to the underneath receivers in overtime the way he did in the third quarter. No matter which QB we had in there at the end of regulation and in overtime, he's going to be playing under center and throwing against an all-out blitz. I just can't comprehend wanting Brandon Weeden setting the protections and making the hot reads after not doing it in practice all week when you have one of the best players in the NFL at doing just that on the sidelines strapping on his helmet and telling the team doctors he's coming in.

As to the coaching, if you want to blame them, then blame them for not coaching the RBs to hold onto the ball sufficiently, because that's what killed us even more than not beating the all out blitzes last night.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, it's ok to agree to disagree. Did you see Weeden handling the zero coverage blitz though? Because it didn't look to me like they were taking the risks with him in the game that they were taking when Tony was in there. And I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think that Haslett would have been likely to sit there and let Brandon run the ball and drop it to the underneath receivers in overtime the way he did in the third quarter. No matter which QB we had in there at the end of regulation and in overtime, he's going to be playing under center and throwing against an all-out blitz. I just can't comprehend wanting Brandon Weeden setting the protections and making the hot reads after not doing it in practice all week when you have one of the best players in the NFL at doing just that on the sidelines strapping on his helmet and telling the team doctors he's coming in.

As to the coaching, if you want to blame them, then blame them for not coaching the RBs to hold onto the ball sufficiently, because that's what killed us even more than not beating the all out blitzes last night.

I saw Weeden show that he could throw the seem route on a line and after that, I didn't see Washington try to zero him. If you can throw that route, you can beat zero coverage for 6 at a pretty high rate of consistency. They didn't blitz him the same way they did Tony, in part IMO, because he can do things Tony could not last night. You know how you bust 80 yard TD runs? You do it against an all out blitz. We used Murray and the run game with Weeden, which allowed him to see less blitz. With Tony, he audibled into passing situations and that played right into the Skins game plan.

One of the best players in the NFL, after having come back onto the field, scored zero points. Called Audibles at lest twice out of short yardage situations. Fumbled once, had a dropped INT, had to have Witten call a TO for him to avoid a delay of game, and went 1 for 3 for minus 1 yard in OT. Do you seriously think that Weeden would have done any worse then that?

 

[Idgit]

I saw Weeden show that he could throw the seem route on a line and after that, I didn't see Washington try to zero him. If you can throw that route, you can beat zero coverage for 6 at a pretty high rate of consistency. They didn't blitz him the same way they did Tony, in part IMO, because he can do things Tony could not last night. You know how you bust 80 yard TD runs? You do it against an all out blitz. We used Murray and the run game with Weeden, which allowed him to see less blitz. With Tony, he audibled into passing situations and that played right into the Skins game plan.

One of the best players in the NFL, after having come back onto the field, scored zero points. Called Audibles at lest twice out of short yardage situations. Fumbled once, had a dropped INT, had to have Witten call a TO for him to avoid a delay of game, and went 1 for 3 for minus 1 yard in OT. Do you seriously think that Weeden would have done any worse then that?

Yes, I seriously think Weeden would have done worse than Tony in that end of game situation. We used Murray and the run game with Tony, too, it just doesn't always get you out of the situations Jim Haslett likes to blitz in.

And I don't think for a second Haslett stops throwing the blitz at us because he's worried about Brandon Weeden hitting him on the seam route.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, I seriously think Weeden would have done worse than Tony in that end of game situation. We used Murray and the run game with Tony, too, it just doesn't always get you out of the situations Jim Haslett likes to blitz in.

And I don't think for a second Haslett stops throwing the blitz at us because he's worried about Brandon Weeden hitting him on the seam route.

I don't agree. We used Murray once in the 4th quarter with Tony in. He ran for 9 yards on 1st down. The very next play, Tony took a sack and fumbled. They never went back to the run game. In OT, we used Murray once on 1st down for a gain of 8 yards. We never went back to him. The truth of the matter is that the only reason Haslett was able to use his blitz scheme was because we went away from Murray and allowed it. It's going to be interesting to see just how many times Tony audibled at the end of the game. I can't remember one play that he didn't audible in.

 

[Idgit]

I don't agree. We used Murray once in the 4th quarter with Tony in. He ran for 9 yards on 1st down. The very next play, Tony took a sack and fumbled. They never went back to the run game. In OT, we used Murray once on 1st down for a gain of 8 yards. We never went back to him. The truth of the matter is that the only reason Haslett was able to use his blitz scheme was because we went away from Murray and allowed it. It's going to be interesting to see just how many times Tony audibled at the end of the game. I can't remember one play that he didn't audible in.

Now you're talking about Tony's decision making, or about how having the player in the lineup affected signal calling, and not about Tony's physical ability to come back in the lineup after the hit. That's very close to saying you prefer Weeden at QB over Romo in that game situation, period. It's not like Tony was audibling into passing situations because of the injury. You might not like the audibles, or Tony's willingness to throw into a blitz, but there's very little doubt that he's the better QB than Weeden overall. So, if you're going to criticize his play in favor of the backup's, in my opinion, it ought to be primarily due to things relating to his physical condition and not his tendencies as a QB.

The truth of the matter is that that end of regulation drive with two minutes left and three time outs in our back pocket was going to be a passing series no matter which QB was in there. They ran the ball to get out of the danger of a safety, and then tried to pickup the 60 yards they needed to get into FG range. Most of that is going to come through the air for any QB or any backup QB in the league.

I'd also contest your description that 'Tony took a sack and fumbled.' Murray blew the blitz pickup and went out into his pattern, and it almost cost us the game. Had he picked up the blitz like he normally does, that's very possibly a big play down field for us at a point in the game where we needed it badly.

And when you're talking about audibling, are you referring to Tony changing the protections? Or do you mean changing the play out of a run and into a pass? I'm not sure how often he was doing either, frankly, but I assumed that in the passing downs and distances he was arranging protection after he'd read blitz. I didn't see a lot of situations where we were passing when the situation suggested we'd be as well off with another run.

 

[CowboyGil]

If not the HC then who's fault is it......Does Garrett have VETO authority on the play calling....Did Garrett do anything for Halftime adjustments.....Sorry my bad....its everyone else fault..........did they not think the Skins would blitz....they always blitz the cowboys....ALWAYS....should of been prepared......

Jon Gruden said it like 3 or 4 times after Romo getting sacked: "ROMO needs to change the blocking scheme at the line to help stop the free runner." And then a couple of times Murray just blew his assignment.

 

[Frosty]

I don't agree. We used Murray once in the 4th quarter with Tony in. He ran for 9 yards on 1st down. The very next play, Tony took a sack and fumbled. They never went back to the run game. In OT, we used Murray once on 1st down for a gain of 8 yards. We never went back to him. The truth of the matter is that the only reason Haslett was able to use his blitz scheme was because we went away from Murray and allowed it. It's going to be interesting to see just how many times Tony audibled at the end of the game. I can't remember one play that he didn't audible in.

I am a firm believer that Tony Romo needs to be managed in big games....no when to turn him lose and when to protect him from his self....especially in Skins games....he didn't throw the typical INT's but he looked flustered..constantly changing things...over excited or over thinking...not panicky.. but not the cool, mellow, .....I got this...attitude some would expect from a Vet like Romo.....

I like the bus driver Romo better than the gunslinger....

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Now you're talking about Tony's decision making, or about how having the player in the lineup affected signal calling, and not about Tony's physical ability to come back in the lineup after the hit. That's very close to saying you prefer Weeden at QB over Romo in that game situation, period. It's not like Tony was audibling into passing situations because of the injury. You might not like the audibles, or Tony's willingness to throw into a blitz, but there's very little doubt that he's the better QB than Weeden overall, so, if you're going to criticize his play in favor of the backups, in my opinion, it ought to be primarily due to things relating to his physical condition and not his tendencies as a QB.

The truth of the matter is that that end of regulation drive with two minutes left and three time outs in our back pocket was going to be a passing series no matter which QB was in there. They ran the ball to get out of the danger of a safety, and then tried to pickup the 60 yards they needed to get into FG range. Most of that is going to come through the air for any QB or any backup QB in the league.

I'd also contest your description that 'Tony took a sack and fumbled.' Murray blew the blitz pickup and went out into his pattern, and it almost cost us the game. Had he picked up the blitz like he normally does, that's very possibly a big play down field for us at a point in the game where we needed it badly.

And when you're talking about audibling, are you referring to Tony changing the protections? Or do you mean changing the play out of a run and into a pass? I'm not sure how often he was doing either, frankly, but I assumed that in the passing downs and distances he was arranging protection after he'd read blitz. I didn't see a lot of situations where we were passing when the situation suggested we'd be as well off with another run.

That's what this discussion has always been about. It's not a now thing.

At the end of regulation, I can understand that but your statement earlier, about using Murray when Tony was in and simply not being able to prevent the all out blitz was simply not accurate. Particularly in OT. You have a 2nd an 2. I mean, are we to believe that if you see an all out blitz, which Tony saw on three successive plays, he is unable to simply audible into a run? Are we to believe that Audibles only work for passing plays?

If you rewatch it, what you will see that it is Murray who actually recovers the fumble by Tony. He was not in the pattern. I don't know if it's Murray's pickup who gets the sack on that play or not, I would have to rewatch it but you can't say, with any degree of certainty that Weeden couldn't have avoided that sack or gotten the ball away. Romo couldn't move on that play. He did look like Fred Sandford, Chucky was right. For all we know, Murray was supposed to be out in the pattern and not staying in to pick up a blitz. When they send 8, the 8th guy is the QBs, it's not the responsibility of the back. That's the QBs guy.

When I'm referring to Audibling, I'm referring to both. As I said before, I would have to rewatch the game but it's going to be interesting to see what that shows.