To Fade or not to Fade?

[adbutcher]

Any play call is an unkown before it's run. That's not hard to understand.

But the topic you brought up for discussion is what should have been the call at the time Garrett was deciding what play to run.

Most everyone agrees, (including the analysts and even our own Head Coach), that the play that probably would have given us the best chance to score from a 1/2 yard away was a simple run, not a pass play that Romo has failed to execute in similar situations.

That's my only point.

You are entitled to it. The rest of what you have said is based solely on conjecture and at best speculative opinion. In my opinion and the opinion of Red and every other coach that ever called a fade (successful or not) is that it gave them the best chance at scoring. My evidence, the ball hit Roy right in the hands and if you throw that ball 20 times, the same exact way, he would catch 18 to 19 of them. Your evidence is based on a running play that did not happen but oh well you are still entitled to your point.

One more thing, screw the analyst and regarding Wade, he was responding to should of(s) and could of(s) after the game. If he felt so strongly about it during the game at that moment, he would have objected when he heard the play call.

 

[aikemirv]

The fade is a low percentage play. It is even lower when Romo throws it and I love Romo. Like many have said, he does not throw it well.

Now ,that said, the play action and pass to the TE is a high percentage pass at the end zone and we have the players to execute that well and we have a running game that the D has to respect.

That is the play call for this team at the goal line if you choose not to run the ball. The play call should have been 1 pass and 1 run or 2 runs but not 2 passes.

Garrett is lucky we won. If he likes his job he needs to take the option away from Tony in that situation and because if he is letting Romo choose the play based on the defense he (Garrett)is going to take the heat.

I will just ask those saying it was a good call:

Why do you always see man coverage on the wide out in those situations?

I will give a hint, it has something to do with the rate of success versus the rate of success on running the ball from the 1.

 

[craig71]

Run or pass doesn't really matter as long they score points,scoring points is the goal.If they execute better on either fade it should result in 6 points.If you have confidence in your offensive line you run it in for 6 points.Either way you score 6 instead of settling for 3,settling for 3 too many times can result in a loss in this league.The fade call was not a bad call either time if you don't have confidence in your line in that situation.If you believe that your lineman can't get penetration on either goal line play,you have to pass it.The only thing that you accomplish by calling a running play in that situation and failing is giving some confidence to the opposition.This game can be a game of momentum/confidence,maybe the coaches thought the risk of running and failing wasn't worth the reward.


Craig

 

[ZeroClub]

Can't you almost imagine RJ singing this?

[youtube]veyPHzxNjog[/youtube]

I'm with Buddy and not the fade away.

 

[adbutcher]

The fade is a low percentage play. It is even lower when Romo throws it and I love Romo. Like many have said, he does not throw it well.

Now ,that said, the play action and pass to the TE is a high percentage pass at the end zone and we have the players to execute that well and we have a running game that the D has to respect.

That is the play call for this team at the goal line if you choose not to run the ball. The play call should have been 1 pass and 1 run or 2 runs but not 2 passes.

Garrett is lucky we won. If he likes his job he needs to take the option away from Tony in that situation and because if he is letting Romo choose the play based on the defense he (Garrett)is going to take the heat.

I will just ask those saying it was a good call:

Why do you always see man coverage on the wide out in those situations?

I will give a hint, it has something to do with the rate of success versus the rate of success on running the ball from the 1.

So far we are concluding that Romo cannot or will not be able to throw the fade based on what?

Also, you should be careful about using percentages to justify an argument of any kind. For example,, the percentage of throwing a fade to Bennett, Williams, Moss, et al are different than throwing it to Danny Amodola(s).

Under normal circumstances I am not a big fan of the fade but with our height advantage and what it will do for our offense in the long term is worth the necessary growing pains.

 

[Idgit]

Brad Johnson throws the fade better than Romo. What does that say?

Only problem is, Brad Johnson throws the fade when he's trying to 'go deep.'

 

[nalam]

The fade is ok as long as:

1. Romo throws it HIGHER so that Roy W, Marty B, J Witten, are the only ones with a chance at the ball.

2. Deeper into the endzone please. The fade to Roy was too shallow and scary thigs could have happened there.

3. NEVER two times in a row !

4. NEVER on third down... unless it is a 4 down situation.

The fade is nifty and all, but it is very doubtful that anyone could stop us if we simply ran between the tackles three straight times... Real runs, not shotgun draws.

+1000000000

I have been saying the same, throw it higher where only your guy can get it also into the corner of EZ . Romo hasn't got the ability or he didn't have the chance to perfect it so far ( read TO ) He can't throw the slant also well for some reason.

With RW and MB he should practice it regularly and use it when the situation demands.

 

[aikemirv]

So far we are concluding that Romo cannot or will not be able to throw the fade based on what?

Also, you should be careful about using percentages to justify an argument of any kind. For example,, the percentage of throwing a fade to Bennett, Williams, Moss, et al are different than throwing it to Danny Amodola(s).

Under normal circumstances I am not a big fan of the fade but with our height advantage and what it will do for our offense in the long term is worth the necessary growing pains.

Based on having seen him throw them. I have not missed a game in the past 4 years I don't believe and his fades are not very good.

The % of a certain play, is based on who the QB and the Receiver is. Bennett and Romo already, before last night, this season, miscommunicated on a fade. I wish someone had the percentages with Romo on a fade because it is LOW.

The reason the defender is on an island is because the percenatge is low altogether. The pass has to be perfect, there is no seperation and the sideline is the defenders friend.

Absolutely stupid to call 2 in a row period.

 

[adbutcher]

Based on having seen him throw them. I have not missed a game in the past 4 years I don't believe and his fades are not very good.

The % of a certain play, is based on who the QB and the Receiver is. Bennett and Romo already, before last night, this season, miscommunicated on a fade. I wish someone had the percentages with Romo on a fade because it is LOW.

The reason the defender is on an island is because the percenatge is low altogether. The pass has to be perfect, there is no seperation and the sideline is the defenders friend.

Absolutely stupid to call 2 in a row period.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[TD-33]

Only problem is, Brad Johnson throws the fade when he's trying to 'go deep.'

lol :laugh2:yeah he does

 

[CowboyWay]

It has been discussed before but I don't recall this point being made about the two fade routes that were called on the goalline. In my opinion, they were excellent calls, more so for future games. It would have been a tremendous call had R. Williams caught the freaking ball, but I digress.

I respectfully disagree. I think it was a foolish call. In fact, I think it was one of the most foolish calls I've ever seen.

We are averaging over 8 yards per carry, and it is 2nd and goal from the 1 yard line? And you don't try to run the ball even once? Inexcusable.

The score was 7-10 at that point. If that ball gets picked, its going the other way for 7pts. Now we're down 14-10. Just like that, a 14 pt swing in the game. We punch it in for 7 there and we've clinched the game.

It was a horrific call. And then to do it again????? Maddening.

Remember on newmans pick 6, and we went for 2pt conversion on the 2 yard line? Tashard Choice went in UNTOUCHED. Yet 5 minutes prior, we don't even try to run the ball on the 1 yard line? Unfrickenbelievably stupid if you ask me.

 

[aikemirv]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, Garrett and Romo got your back on that one too so I am probably in the minority if you base it on alignment and matchup but:

I hate,hate,hate,hate,hate.hate that play anyway

and sometimes you just have to enforce your will - run it down their throats

and the play action - pass to the TE is a much higher percentage play;

So that is where I am coming from.


I think the play action to the TE is what we were going to run when Phillips had the false start. Just a guess, but I see no other reason him him to be in on that play otherwise.

 

[Jack Burton]

I respectfully disagree. I think it was a foolish call. In fact, I think it was one of the most foolish calls I've ever seen.

We are averaging over 8 yards per carry, and it is 2nd and goal from the 1 yard line? And you don't try to run the ball even once? Inexcusable.

The score was 7-10 at that point. If that ball gets picked, its going the other way for 7pts. Now we're down 14-10. Just like that, a 14 pt swing in the game. We punch it in for 7 there and we've clinched the game.

It was a horrific call. And then to do it again????? Maddening.

Remember on newmans pick 6, and we went for 2pt conversion on the 2 yard line? Tashard Choice went in UNTOUCHED. Yet 5 minutes prior, we don't even try to run the ball on the 1 yard line? Unfrickenbelievably stupid if you ask me.

Agreed 100 percent.

It was a case of getting cute, and it failed. I'll never understand why if you have a defense completely whipped, you take your foot off of their throat. I guess I'm not as smart as Red, because I would have kept on running until they showed they could stop it.

 

[adbutcher]

Yeah, Garrett and Romo got your back on that one too so I am probably in the minority if you base it on alignment and matchup but:

I hate,hate,hate,hate,hate.hate that play anyway

and sometimes you just have to enforce your will - run it down their throats

and the play action - pass to the TE is a much higher percentage play;

So that is where I am coming from.


I think the play action to the TE is what we were going to run when Phillips had the false start. Just a guess, but I see no other reason him him to be in on that play otherwise.

I can't disagree with any thing you said. I just wanted to give a little football 1 oh 1 to those who think that Garrett is just pulling plays out of his butt without a plan.

I also mentioned it a couple of times in and outside of this thread, that I don't like the fade. The only difference is, I understand it and apparently some here don't.

 

[Dat Dude]

I like the fade ..... but Romo needs to learn how to throw it .

Agreed. He for some reason doesnt throw it high enough. We need Jeff Brantley.