The Results Of Interceptions

[TwoDeep3]

Yesterday is a prime example of Garrett holding Romo to a short leash.

Many people here came up with the somewhat ridiculous notion that instead of hammering the Lions with what got us a huge lead we needed to go into a shell and run the ball.

This team is not a running team. And especially in the red zone. This season there have been 23 times in the redzone we have run the ball and we have either one yard, no yards or loss of yards. Hitzges gave that stat this morning.

And in this case we were in the middle of the field but everyone knew this and treated this as short yardage.

So we have the ball with around 3 minutes left. We need two first downs.

Garrett's trust in Romo in this type of scenario was revealed when he called three running plays that lost yards.

I am pretty critical of Romo, but that decision was wrong. Romo can do some amazing things, and you will not win a game against Tom Brady giving him 2:47 and one time out and the two minute warning.

I understand the defense held them the entire second half. But this is the game winning drive.

We needed to take a risk then, and didn't because Garrett is gun shy.

This is the results of the interceptions Romo has thrown.

I am not blaming Romo, but the trust factor is out the window now and we lost because Garrett didn't have the nuts to do what needed to be done and move the ball through the air.

Now assault the message and messenger because that is what fans do.

But we are in a pickle if we cannot dictate to the other team with all our plays and not just lame running plays behind a line that cannot open holes.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

I think it showed how mentally weak Jason Garrett is. He let the criticism of the Detroit game get to him and that play calling looked like a direct response to that criticism.

It was like, "OK, you all said I should run more, so here, I'm going to run THREE TIMES IN A ROW."

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Situational coaching. If a play is executed well, nobody thinks about whether or not it was a good call. But because our O-line can't run block, every decision to run will be questioned. Against Detroit, they should've run because we had some success in that game. Against New England, not so much.

 

[Hostile]

ost:

When a man is right, he's right, and that is true. We'll have to move past that. The team will learn that.

 

[Switz]

This team has zero offensive idenity

 

[TwoDeep3]

Situational coaching. If a play is executed well, nobody thinks about whether or not it was a good call. But because our O-line can't run block, every decision to run will be questioned. Against Detroit, they should've run because we had some success in that game. Against New England, not so much.

I agree with your point. I think so much of the post game acrimony are results oriented posts.

But this team is a passing team whether we like it or not. And to suggest we continue to three and out by trying to run isn't going to get us much but perhaps in the Andrew Luck lottery.

 

[TNCowboy]

Yesterday is a prime example of Garrett holding Romo to a short leash.

Many people here came up with the somewhat ridiculous notion that instead of hammering the Lions with what got us a huge lead we needed to go into a shell and run the ball.

This team is not a running team. And especially in the red zone. This season there have been 23 times in the redzone we have run the ball and we have either one yard, no yards or loss of yards. Hitzges gave that stat this morning.

And in this case we were in the middle of the field but everyone knew this and treated this as short yardage.

So we have the ball with around 3 minutes left. We need two first downs.

Garrett's trust in Romo in this type of scenario was revealed when he called three running plays that lost yards.

I am pretty critical of Romo, but that decision was wrong. Romo can do some amazing things, and you will not win a game against Tom Brady giving him 2:47 and one time out and the two minute warning.

I understand the defense held them the entire second half. But this is the game winning drive.

We needed to take a risk then, and didn't because Garrett is gun shy.

This is the results of the interceptions Romo has thrown.

I am not blaming Romo, but the trust factor is out the window now and we lost because Garrett didn't have the nuts to do what needed to be done and move the ball through the air.

Now assault the message and messenger because that is what fans do.

But we are in a pickle if we cannot dictate to the other team with all our plays and not just lame running plays behind a line that cannot open holes.

Extremely well put, 2deep.

 

[TNCowboy]

This team has zero offensive idenity

To the contrary, it very much has an identity. Throw it most of the time, mix in a few draw plays.

Until we get in the red zone or final few minutes, then it goes haywire.

 

[joseephuss]

Garrett's trust in Romo in this type of scenario was revealed when he called three running plays that lost yards.

I don't think so. It is because they lost yards on the first two plays and then had a 5 yard penalty that they were forced to call a running play on 3rd and 18. I think they were going to throw it on 3rd and 13, but Tyron's penalty forced their hand.

 

[TNCowboy]

Situational coaching. If a play is executed well, nobody thinks about whether or not it was a good call. But because our O-line can't run block, every decision to run will be questioned. Against Detroit, they should've run because we had some success in that game. Against New England, not so much.

We haven't been able to run consistently against anyone, certainly not against NE yesterday. What would make anyone think that we could run with the Pats stacking the LOS like that? Garrett knew that was going to be a 3 and out.

IMO, even if you think the odds of Romo throwing a pick are 50/50 at that point, I like those odds better than stopping Brady in this situation. Over 2.5 minutes, a timeout, and the 2 min warning, keeping the clock going was a non-factor. With that much time for Brady, there might as well have been half the quarter left. Garrett should have approached it like the game was tied and we needed a score.

 

[shockandroll]

Yesterday is a prime example of Garrett holding Romo to a short leash.

Many people here came up with the somewhat ridiculous notion that instead of hammering the Lions with what got us a huge lead we needed to go into a shell and run the ball.

This team is not a running team. And especially in the red zone. This season there have been 23 times in the redzone we have run the ball and we have either one yard, no yards or loss of yards. Hitzges gave that stat this morning.

And in this case we were in the middle of the field but everyone knew this and treated this as short yardage.

So we have the ball with around 3 minutes left. We need two first downs.

Garrett's trust in Romo in this type of scenario was revealed when he called three running plays that lost yards.

I am pretty critical of Romo, but that decision was wrong. Romo can do some amazing things, and you will not win a game against Tom Brady giving him 2:47 and one time out and the two minute warning.

I understand the defense held them the entire second half. But this is the game winning drive.

We needed to take a risk then, and didn't because Garrett is gun shy.

This is the results of the interceptions Romo has thrown.

I am not blaming Romo, but the trust factor is out the window now and we lost because Garrett didn't have the nuts to do what needed to be done and move the ball through the air.

Now assault the message and messenger because that is what fans do.

But we are in a pickle if we cannot dictate to the other team with all our plays and not just lame running plays behind a line that cannot open holes.

I don't agree many people said this. I said and believe what most were saying is it was a bad idea to throw from our own 27 when we were up 24 points in the 3rd quarter. If we had driven down field and were not in such risky territory for a turnover, then open it up again.

I agree we needed to be more aggressive but more then that, we need to fix the dang running game already. I don't mean to be overly critical of Garrett, I think he's doing a good job overall. He does need to better understand what his players and team do/does well and poorly. I think he puts players and the team in positions to fail rather then succeed at times.

I remember a while back when he asked cricket to run the ball on 3rd and short, one of if not the only time he'd run all year. To top it off, he had him run behind Proctor who was filling in at LG and Proctor was terrible. Needless to say he got stuffed. Fine if you want the FB to run it for the first time ever, have him run behind Bigg and Colombo who were playing well at the time.

That's an example of what I mean, he gave the ball to our worst runner and asked him to run behind our worst blocker. He set the offense up to fail rather than succeed.

He's also drawn up some amazing plays and made some great calls. Just when you think he's great, he'll do something like call run 3 times in a row to the exact same side getting stuffed all 3 times. I guess if he went play action the 3rd time and asked Romo to throw a fade and it went incomplete or got picked, we'd all gripe he should have tried to run again though, lol.

 

[TNCowboy]

I don't think so. It is because they lost yards on the first two plays and then had a 5 yard penalty that they were forced to call a running play on 3rd and 18. I think they were going to throw it on 3rd and 13, but Tyron's penalty forced their hand.

Throwing the ball on 1st and 10 you have a good chance of picking up a 1st down. Throwing on 3rd and 13, your odds are low. No idea, but I'd say the NFL average is probably like 10 or 15%. Given that, you throw on 1st down, or at least approach the series with that attitude. The series was a total concession.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Two ways to win in the NFL IMO. One, which is what we had in the early 90s, is to be good enough to run your offense so well that it doesn't matter what the other team does. You can't stop it. The other is to take what the opposition gives you. In that situation, if they are taking away the TE or loading up on the run, then you go to the backs or you beat them deep. Maybe you hit them with quick slants and quick outs and make them pay for not covering with a safety. We are not good enough to impose our will so you have to take what the opposition gives you. In Detroit, we should have taken the run. In New England, they took the run away from us and we needed to exploit that. They didn't take the run away with base personnel so that means that they had to commit other assets. We should have capitalized on that. We didn't, be if because of execution or play call, we didn't.

That's the way it is.

 

[joseephuss]

Throwing the ball on 1st and 10 you have a good chance of picking up a 1st down. Throwing on 3rd and 13, your odds are low. No idea, but I'd say the NFL average is probably like 10 or 15%. Given that, you throw on 1st down, or at least approach the series with that attitude. The series was a total concession.

I don't think they anticipated losing yards on the runs on first and second down. They were probably thinking that at worse they would gain a yard or two on both carries. That comes down to execution and then it dictates what you do on third down. Forget worse case of turning it over. If you throw on first down and it is incomplete, you still have ten yards to go and the Pats save a timeout. I don't think Dallas was conceding anything. They just poorly executed the runs and left themselves with no options.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Throwing the ball on 1st and 10 you have a good chance of picking up a 1st down. Throwing on 3rd and 13, your odds are low. No idea, but I'd say the NFL average is probably like 10 or 15%. Given that, you throw on 1st down, or at least approach the series with that attitude. The series was a total concession.

Never a good idea to go with an empty backfield on short distance downs IMO. We do that too much IMO. Somebody made this comment earlier and I'm sorry I can't remember who it was but they were right.

I don't think that we did a very good job of taking what the defense gave us yesterday. It was obvious that the Pats were selling out to stop the run late in the game. We should have probably tried to throw early in the series as opposed to simply running the ball into a run blitz.

The other thing I think we did a poor job of was covering the TE. I mean, this is a very good offense so you probably pick your poison but having said this, we got burned by the TE repeatedly, particularly on 3rd down and all the way down the field on that last drive. That was hard to watch.

 

[baj1dallas]

I think it showed how mentally weak Jason Garrett is. He let the criticism of the Detroit game get to him and that play calling looked like a direct response to that criticism.

It was like, "OK, you all said I should run more, so here, I'm going to run THREE TIMES IN A ROW."

Either that or what he was seeing in the game dictated the play call.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Either that or what he was seeing in the game dictated the play call.

So, we had 62 yards on 20+ carries with the longest being 8 yards and he thought this dictated running?

 

[TNCowboy]

I don't think they anticipated losing yards on the runs on first and second down. They were probably thinking that at worse they would gain a yard or two on both carries. That comes down to execution and then it dictates what you do on third down. Forget worse case of turning it over. If you throw on first down and it is incomplete, you still have ten yards to go and the Pats save a timeout. I don't think Dallas was conceding anything. They just poorly executed the runs and left themselves with no options.

I'm sure he wasn't planning on losing yards, but we hadn't ran all day against their standard D, and then we were trying to run straight into a run blitz. I think Garrett's initial plan was run on 1st and 2nd down, then throw on 3rd and 8.

That's just a horrible plan, and everyone knows it was. With the Pats having timeouts and the 2 min warning, that's an eternity for Brady. No question we should've been trying to get 1st downs with no real consideration for the time....just too much was left.

 

[TNCowboy]

Either that or what he was seeing in the game dictated the play call.

They were daring us to pass. There's no way anything that could've happened previously or in the alignment dictated he run the ball there. It was a total give up.

Further, that Romo didn't check out of either 1st or 2nd down probably tells us that Garrett told him under no circumstance was he to audible.

Garrett couldn't have screwed his own team over worse yesterday if he had tried.

 

[AdamJT13]

It was obvious that the Pats were selling out to stop the run late in the game. We should have probably tried to throw early in the series as opposed to simply running the ball into a run blitz.

Instead of running the ball straight into the blitz, we could have at least tried to get Murray outside.