The Reason we didn't attack on our last possession

[Typhus]

Garrett coaches scared to me when the game is on the line

sorry man, off subject here, but without hair, your icon pic is the kid on the bridge playing the banjo in the movie Deliverance, cool.

 

[CATCH17]

The reason we didn't is about 6'1 and red headed.

 

[Idgit]

Playing for the fg in that situation was not actually the conservative play, anyway. Throwing it would have been dumber, and more aggressive. It was the penalty that was the obvious backbreaker.

If we're talking playing conservatively, though, nobody's talking too much about Romo stopping the clock on third down on the drive previously. We'd have been better off in that circumstance a: not calling a passing play to begin with and b: with Romo getting as much as he could and then taking the sack and keeping the clock going. I have no problem with smart, conservative play calling on the road in that situation, but if we're going that route, we need to be thinking about it more than one series ahead.

 

[cnhnyy]

No hold we win the game, simple as that.

we would just find some other way to screw up, like a PI on hail mary...

 

[ScipioCowboy]

All this hindsight second guessing is ridiculous. Garrett didn't know tyron would hold. If everything is executed without major flare ups lions get the ball with under 30 seconds no timeouts and have to drive for at least a fg. Basically any coach would take that.

Holding is a risk on every play.

Let me ask you what's more likely: the Cowboys pick up a first down by handing the ball to Phillip Tanner on a 3rd and 13, or someone holds and inadvertently stops the clock?

The first option is much more likely, in my opinion, especially given the state of the Cowboys running game.

Garret should kneel on the ball in that situation.

"But then a field goal ties the game!"

A tie is better than a loss, and once again, Garrett opted for the call that was most likely to get the Cowboys beat. And it did...again.

 

[Idgit]

Holding is a risk on every play.

Let me ask you what's more likely: the Cowboys pick up a first down by handing the ball to Phillip Tanner on a 3rd and 13, or someone holds and inadvertently stops the clock?

The first option is much more likely, in my opinion, especially given the state of the Cowboys running game.

Garret should kneel on the ball in that situation.

"But then a field goal ties the game!"

A tie is better than a loss, and once again, Garrett opted for the call that was most likely to get the Cowboys beat. And it did...again.

Holding is a much lesser risk on running downs. There's no excusing the hold, and it has to be on the coaches. The real issue, though, is that we've got to have a team by now that won't kill itself with such a stupid unnecessary penalty. These are safe calls we're calling, and they're costing us games. It's like the Dunbar fumble. There's something wrong if you can't trust your guys to hold onto the ball in that situation. In this case, with the hold, it happens to have been on one of our best or most important offensive players. To drop a road game on something like that is mind-boggling.

Note, I'm not discounting the role of the pass defense in coughing up this game one bit, here. It's just that that's been a known liability for so long. To have the offensive gift them another 40 seconds of time on the play clock for something so stupid is unbelievable.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Holding is a much lesser risk on running downs. There's no excusing the hold, and it has to be on the coaches. The real issue, though, is that we've got to have a team by now that won't kill itself with such a stupid unnecessary penalty. These are safe calls we're calling, and they're costing us games. It's like the Dunbar fumble. There's something wrong if you can't trust your guys to hold onto the ball in that situation. In this case, with the hold, it happens to have been on one of our best or most important offensive players. To drop a road game on something like that is mind-boggling.

Note, I'm not discounting the role of the pass defense in coughing up this game one bit, here. It's just that that's been a known liability for so long. To have the offensive gift them another 40 seconds of time on the play clock for something so stupid is unbelievable.

Then don't risk it at all...especially when you have a team prone to these kinds of mistakes.

Like I said, if you suffer one improbable loss, it's rotten luck. When you suffer a string of improbable losses, it's probably you. The players are who they are at this point, and you apparently think you can win with them.

 

[joseephuss]

Yes he didn't know Tyron would hold. Yet in that situation why allow a rookie running back to run it outside and risk a penalty, fumble or even running it out of bounds? A first down would have been nice. But what we needed to do was chew time off the clock.

Tanner isn't a rookie and the play was not designed as an outside run. The play wasn't intended to get a first down. The intent was not to have a negative play and maybe also pick up a yard or two while in the process of burning off as much time as possible. Every coach would have done the same thing and have in the past.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

Do you think it's because Red wanted to protect Romo from losing the game? Can you imagine if Romo had thrown a pick at the end of the game? All hell would have broken loose in here! Personally, I think we should have gone 5 wide and tried to get that final first down. Let Romo lead this team like we are paying him to do. You play to win the game, don't play not to lose! Good God, I like Red...but c'mon man!

Take off the Tinfoil hat

 

[Idgit]

...When you suffer a string of improbable losses, it's probably you. The players are who they are at this point, and you apparently think you can win with them.

That's my argument, too. To the extent this stuff goes on the head coach, it's for not fixing these sorts of mental errors. Now, these things happen to every team, but it sure seems like the Cowboys have them more than other teams. If JG can't get it sorted, we'll need to bring in somebody who can. (This is not me wavering on Jason Garrett in the slightest, just making it clear that it's his job to do, and he needs to do it. He's done great work in some areas, but the mental errors at critical times has to get fixed if we're going to consistently beat good teams).

 

[TheDude]

He made the right decision. The penalty screwed everything up. Every coach in the league would've played it the exact same way.

Not denver

 

[Rockport]

Do you think it's because Red wanted to protect Romo from losing the game? Can you imagine if Romo had thrown a pick at the end of the game? All hell would have broken loose in here! Personally, I think we should have gone 5 wide and tried to get that final first down. Let Romo lead this team like we are paying him to do. You play to win the game, don't play not to lose! Good God, I like Red...but c'mon man!

We would've won the game with the play calling if Smith hadn't gotten the holding penalty. It was exactly the right thing to do. Smith blew it when Tanner started to scramble around. Jeez, no conspiracy theory here.

 

[Gameover]

Not denver

I like j. Fox but he's conservative as they come. It will lead to their downfall at some point in the playoffs. He coaches that team like hes throwing out Jake Delhomme instead of Peyton Manning.

Manning has been pissed several times at Fox for going conservative.

Like in the Cowboys game, why in the world are they running the ball on third down and settling for FG? The Cowboys had little chance of stopping them. His conservatism almost cost them that game.

 

[Ender]

During that situation, every decision was crucial. Thus its not easy to decide the best course of action. But I would certainly tell my rookie runningback not to get fancy and certainly not fumble the ball. Even though there was a holding call, Tanner held the ball loosely and came dangerously close to running out of bounds. He should have just done his job and run the inside dive. By then, Detroit would have around 20 seconds or less to make a field goal.

I dont even understand why tanner was in the game at that point.

 

[Rockport]

I dont even understand why tanner was in the game at that point.

Probably the coaches felt he was less of a risk to fumble the ball. It was an obvious running down and Randle's a rookie and Dunbar has a history of fumbles.

 

[KJJ]

Do you think it's because Red wanted to protect Romo from losing the game? Can you imagine if Romo had thrown a pick at the end of the game? All hell would have broken loose in here! Personally, I think we should have gone 5 wide and tried to get that final first down. Let Romo lead this team like we are paying him to do. You play to win the game, don't play not to lose! Good God, I like Red...but c'mon man!

Garrett has so little faith in Romo he trusted his defense that had just given up over 500 yards of offense with 300 to a receiver.

 

[cowboyfan4life2]

We didn't have to attack, all we had to do was not commit a stupid penalty and stop the clock, and we are 5-3 right now

 

[cowboyschmps3]

We should have put the game over with a touchdown instead of some dumb running plays, like everybody else and DEZ wanted!!!!

 

[Ender]

Probably the coaches felt he was less of a risk to fumble the ball. It was an obvious running down and Randle's a rookie and Dunbar has a history of fumbles.

well they ran randle the two previous processions.

 

[cowboyfan4life2]

We should have put the game over with a touchdown instead of some dumb running plays, like everybody else and DEZ wanted!!!!

If he goes for the td there, and the pass is incomplete and stops the clock, could you imagine the meltdown