Throwing Bones to Our WR's?

[percyhoward]

I was wondering why, after witnessing the power of a no-turnover performance against the Giants, Garrett would call the high-risk passes that he did in the first half last night. Especially in light of the recent success we've had with screens and runs.

I went back and looked at the last four big wins we had this season: at GB, vs. TB, at Was, vs NYG. In none of those games did we have a deep pass play called that resulted in a completion in the first half. We won all four of those games. In two of those games, there were no completions on passes thrown more than 25 yards all game long. So why were we thinking that this game last night was going to be different?

On two separate 2nd-and-short situations (the only two 2nd-and-shorts that we had in the first half between the 30's) we decided to go deep. The first one, intended for Roy, was picked. The second, for Owens, was thrown out of bounds. We went right back to it the very next play, and Reed got his second interception. The length of the throws on the INT's wasn't the only thing they had in common. Each pick followed a string of successful plays. Romo's first pick came after gains of 7, 4, and 7 yards to start the game. His second came after gains of 8, 9, and 8 (and then the pair of bombs to Owens).

We weren't following any established winning pattern with those playcalls. Maybe Garrett felt pressure to get the WR's involved, and decided that he would do so if presented with a favorable down and distance--no matter what kind of success we were having at the time by going with short, high-percentage plays.

Yeah, maybe I'm reading too much into it, and sure, you could talk about execution, etc. But why not stick to the plays that we know we can execute, and more importantly, that we know have led to wins? Winning--not placating--has to be the ONLY objective.

 

[dbair1967]

Ask the QB, he's the one who ultimately decides who to throw too.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

We weren't following any established winning pattern with those playcalls. Maybe Garrett felt pressure to get the WR's involved, and decided that he would do so if presented with a favorable down and distance--no matter what kind of success we were having at the time by going with short, high-percentage plays.

Yeah, maybe I'm reading too much into it, and sure, you could talk about execution, etc. But why not stick to the plays that we know we can execute, and more importantly, that we know have led to wins? Winning--not placating--has to be the ONLY objective.

There's no way to prove it, but I think you're exactly right.

I think we've been forcing it to TO in particular.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

it's Garrett's philosophy

time-consuming drives are not an option

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

There's no way to prove it, but I think you're exactly right.

I think we've been forcing it to TO in particular.

Forcing to TO is what gave us any shot in even winning the game. When you see Ed Reed back there with a corner on TO I just don't see any reason to force anything. TO should only get the ball when open. If you're going to force to someone i'd like for it to be Witten or Roy. Nothing against TO but he's a beast after the catch. I don't think this team puts him in the best position to see what he can do after the catch. We did later on last night. A screen pass to TO....but I don't know why we don't do more of that to TO whether than throw up a prayer to him.

 

[theogt]

What I don't get is that for the vast majority of playcalls we have 2 passes -- go routes and dumpoffs. It's too feast or famine for my taste.

Why is it that we only go to Witten and RW11 on the intermediate routes when the game is on the line?

 

[Jon88]

Forcing to TO is what gave us any shot in even winning the game. When you see Ed Reed back there with a corner on TO I just don't see any reason to force anything. TO should only get the ball when open. If you're going to force to someone i'd like for it to be Witten or Roy. Nothing against TO but he's a beast after the catch. I don't think this team puts him in the best position to see what he can do after the catch. We did later on last night. A screen pass to TO....but I don't know why we don't do more of that to TO whether than throw up a prayer to him.

If you don't get the ball to TO you'll hear it on the sidelines. It doesn't matter who's on him.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Forcing to TO is what gave us any shot in even winning the game. When you see Ed Reed back there with a corner on TO I just don't see any reason to force anything. TO should only get the ball when open.

I guess I don't follow you... I agree with your last two sentences. You shouldn't "force" the ball to anyone -- even TO -- except maybe in true desperation situations.

I also agree with theo. When an QB is having a tough game, whatever happened to calling some shorter routes? It's okay if they aren't huge plays, but you want to get the QB some rhythm and confidence. It feels like we almost double down and go deep more often sometimes when Romo is struggling.

 

[JordanTaber]

If you don't get the ball to TO you'll hear it on the sidelines. It doesn't matter who's on him.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[DABOYZ]

Garret does not determine who his QB throws the ball to. I think Steve Mariucci pretty much summed up the type of Quarterback Romo is and Romo proved him right.

Before the game yesterday he said that Romo is the type of QB who is always looking for the big play. Sometimes thats good, sometimes thats bad. He said that Romo needed to learn how to extend drives instead of always looking for the big play. Romo's first interception was a good example of this. He had the opportunity to run and slide on a 2nd and 3 and instead chose to throw the ball into double coverage. Mariucci went on to say that Romo would not win a big game until he learned how to extend drives.

I have not rewatched the game but I think Mariucci is totally right about Romo. I don't know how many times he has thrown the big interception when he had the opportunity to simply run or throw the ball away. It would be nice to have the light come on this week before the Philly game. Having to many three and outs or turnovers is killing this defense.

 

[percyhoward]

Ask the QB, he's the one who ultimately decides who to throw too.

"We ran the ball pretty decent, and it gave us a chance early. But we were trying to throw the ball against these different coverages where they had a lot of people doubled with getting pressure. That's a difficult combination."

 

[dbair1967]

"We ran the ball pretty decent, and it gave us a chance early. But we were trying to throw the ball against these different coverages where they had a lot of people doubled with getting pressure. That's a difficult combination."

He's a ****** if he said that and believes it, thats unless he thinks Baltimore had 14 guys on the field.

They almost never got pressure w/o running some sort of a blitz.

 

[percyhoward]

He's a ****** if he said that and believes it.

Tell the QB.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't like the playcalling at all. I don't think TO runs the right kinds of routes, often enough, and I don't think Garrett does enough of taking the shorter, intermediate, routes to Witten and RW from the outset and just let us drive on people. He needs to be more patient and learn that there is nothing wrong with have 4 or 5 drives of 8-10 plays that allow us to score points and keep the other team off the field.

 

[jobberone]

"We ran the ball pretty decent, and it gave us a chance early. But we were trying to throw the ball against these different coverages where they had a lot of people doubled with getting pressure. That's a difficult combination."

So the WRs weren't getting open because there was too much double coverage and they were getting pressure at the same time. I suppose it happening more than we know. We often don't get to see the play develop esp away from the ball. But that just says we got out executed which is a fancy way to say they were beating us.

 

[Disturbed]

Garret does not determine who his QB throws the ball to. I think Steve Mariucci pretty much summed up the type of Quarterback Romo is and Romo proved him right.

Before the game yesterday he said that Romo is the type of QB who is always looking for the big play. Sometimes thats good, sometimes thats bad. He said that Romo needed to learn how to extend drives instead of always looking for the big play. Romo's first interception was a good example of this. He had the opportunity to run and slide on a 2nd and 3 and instead chose to throw the ball into double coverage. Mariucci went on to say that Romo would not win a big game until he learned how to extend drives.

I have not rewatched the game but I think Mariucci is totally right about Romo. I don't know how many times he has thrown the big interception when he had the opportunity to simply run or throw the ball away. It would be nice to have the light come on this week before the Philly game. Having to many three and outs or turnovers is killing this defense.

I agree. This has been a characteristic of Romo since he first started. He also seems to be less elusive, not extending plays. Romo is the primary reason this offense has struggled this year.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

It would be nice to have the light come on this week before the Philly game.

That is what I'm hoping for. He had a terrible game at Pitt, a turnover free game against NY, then a stinker against Bal. If the trend continues, he will do quite well at Philly. Maybe he got all the turnovers out of his system. One can hope, anyway. It's just hard to get your hopes up in light of recent events.

 

[Nors]

Romo is top 5 rated QB in NFL

He was given no protection and with Addition of Roy#11 by Jerry, team chemistry altered not to mention he never gets open and has poor hands. No suprise our offense has collapsed since his arrival. Crayton DESERVES to be starting.

That BS filters through the lockeroom. Those that think, thought now hope Roy #11 will "replace" TO the Hall of Famer are "Lost"

 

[DABOYZ]

That is what I'm hoping for. He had a terrible game at Pitt, a turnover free game against NY, then a stinker against Bal. If the trend continues, he will do quite well at Philly. Maybe he got all the turnovers out of his system. One can hope, anyway. It's just hard to get your hopes up in light of recent events.

My fingers are crossed?!!

 

[RainMan]

Garret does not determine who his QB throws the ball to. I think Steve Mariucci pretty much summed up the type of Quarterback Romo is and Romo proved him right.

Before the game yesterday he said that Romo is the type of QB who is always looking for the big play. Sometimes thats good, sometimes thats bad. He said that Romo needed to learn how to extend drives instead of always looking for the big play. Romo's first interception was a good example of this. He had the opportunity to run and slide on a 2nd and 3 and instead chose to throw the ball into double coverage. Mariucci went on to say that Romo would not win a big game until he learned how to extend drives.

I have not rewatched the game but I think Mariucci is totally right about Romo. I don't know how many times he has thrown the big interception when he had the opportunity to simply run or throw the ball away. It would be nice to have the light come on this week before the Philly game. Having to many three and outs or turnovers is killing this defense.

I totally agree. I've posted the same thing, so it'd be silly for me to dispute any of this. But I think the original poster has a point in that the offensive coordinator isn't helping Romo at all with his play calling. We want Romo to learn to win December games by taking the safe throws, not forcing things, extending drives, etc. -- yet our offensive coordinator consistently forgets about the run game and calls for the receivers to run long, down the field routes.

Garrett seems to do a lot of things in extremes. Overusing Barber in the first half of last year's playoff game comes to mind, as does completely forgetting about Felix Jones the majority of the time he was healthy.