Tony Romo Has a 104.5 Passer Rating in Losses This Season

[5Stars]

If we try to milk the clock and they stop us from getting the first because they are lining up 8 and 9 guys in the box.. and we end up giving the ball back to them with 2 or 3 minutes left, fans would still be whining and complaining about that, too.

You know why? Because GB would do exactly what they did when they got the INT.. march right down the field for the game winning score because our defense can't stop anyone.

Its not Basic 101 football to play passive and not do everything you can to get the first down when you know if you let the other team get the ball back they are going to march it right down the field against your D.

This is where i disagree with you all. The playcall clearly caught the packers off guard, as was clear by the fact that Austin had not a single defender between himself and a TD on that play.

If we execute.. its a great play.. the problem was the execution.

Do you know what Murray's average runs were? I think around 5 per carry. He had at least 3 downs to gain I think four yards! Every incomplete pass stops the clock, a run play does not stop the clock and would make the other team use a timeout. Fottball 101. Romo screwed up because he is on the field, but the coaches should have never let him pass.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Yeah, on 3rd down it is a no brainer. Not on 2nd and 6 when you have been gashing the other team all day with the run game. Just because they stack the box doesn't mean they are going to stop the RB. Also, there is still 3rd down if they do. Pass on 3rd down.

No offense, but i don't think you'd work out well as an OC in the NFL.

Just because 3rd down is the usual passing down in a certain situation, doesn't mean the defense doesn't know that as well.

You want to try to fool the defense, so sometimes you need to try something different than what's expected in these situations?

Know what i'm sayin?

They clearly had that defense fooled with the play, there's no other reason that GB wouldn't have had either safety behind Austin on the play. It was a good call, and if Romo makes the pass there.. its a TD. No?

 

[ufcrules1]

Which is why, as a QB, if you see 9 guys lined up in the box, and you know they are all selling out against the run, switching to a pass and calling a play where you get your receiver wide open with no one between him and the end zone isn't a bad idea.

lol

If we are talking about a smart QB who you could trust, maybe I would agree with you, but this is Tony Romo and he has a history of choking in critical situations like this. Add to the fact that Murray had been gashing them all day. The smart play would be to run there. Just going to have to agree to disagree with ya.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

The problem is the Cowboys only attempted to run the ball ONCE on that possession. On first down with 4:17 left with a 5 point lead Romo came out throwing the ball. After his first pass attempt went incomplete he dropped back to pass again and got sacked which put the Cowboys in a 3rd and long a situation. After a 13 yard completion to Dez which gained a first down the Cowboys ran Murray for 4 yards that was the only carry he saw on that possession. Why not run the ball again and use up some clock? Murray had a nice gain on first down it only would have made sense to run it again and that was the plan until Romo changed the play. There was no reason to throw the ball on a second down and 6.

The Packers were having trouble stopping Murray you don't think there was a chance he could have churned out a couple of first downs? The Cowboys had a 5 point lead they needed to eat up some clock not come out throwing on a second and 6 and risk a big mistake by a QB who has a history of making them in that situation. I understand the defense may not have been able to stop the Packers but to go away from Murray with the game he was having made no sense in that situation.

Its fair to say keep going with Murray there.. i understand it. I may have stayed with him myself on 2nd and 6.

My point is simply that the playcall we went with there clearly had the D fooled and had it been a good throw, we'd all be talking about what a great decision it was since the D was focused on stopping Murray and they left Austin with no one between him and the end zone for what should have been an easy pitch and catch TD.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

If we are talking about a smart QB who you could trust, maybe I would agree with you, but this is Tony Romo and he has a history of choking in critical situations like this. Add to the fact that Murray had been gashing them all day. The smart play would be to run there. Just going to have to agree to disagree with ya.

Fair enough. Again, i wouldn't fault the playcall either way here.. but we clearly had their D fooled.

 

[Clove]

Romo is by far the #1 problem on this team and the reason we've been basically mediocre for 7 year, it evens out. No one cares about winning when it comes to Romo, they only care about if his stats are good. People act like Romo's been here one year with a bad defense, but I've clearly posted that other teams have had bad defenses and still were able to consistently make the playoffs, and actually win the Super Bowl. But Romo lovers have no real answer for that. They don't even acknowledge that. I also posted when we had the 14th ranked defense 2 years ago, no playoffs. While over 6 teams went to the post season with worse defenses than ours, yet Romo couldn't make it to the post season. They don't care about that.

How can you have an honest debate when I point these things out, they are FACT, yet they continue to talk about the defense? I'm willing to put Romo lovers and Jerry Jones in the same boat. Jerry doesn't mind us losing as long as we put on a good show. And Romo lovers don't care if we lose, as long as Romo doesn't make any mistakes and post a great QB rating. That's just how I feel based on these threads/posts.

I want what's best for the Cowboys and not what's best for Romo, Dez, Lee, Ware, Garrett, nor Jones. But I would almost bet that if Romo were to be traded, his fans would follow him to that team and abandon the Cowboys.

 

[5Stars]

Fair enough. Again, i wouldn't fault the playcall either way here.. but we clearly had their D fooled.

Only a fool would try and fool someone. Football is not supposed to be played by fools, smart people should play the game in the situation they were in...run the ball, milk the clock, don't allow a possible INT by throwing...but the coaches did, and Romo lost the game.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Parcels saw Romo and his upside and realized he would never achieve what he wanted because he would need to break the spirit of Romo and make him a pure pocket passer and eliminate the free lancing he does that gets him in trouble.

What did Parcels do after the Seattle loss?

He quit instead of molded Romo into something he will never be.

Has there ever been more of an affirmation on what a coach would do after seeing a kid with moxey and a sandlot nature play for half a season?

This is total horse crap. Parcells didn't quit because of Romo. He quit because he got his money after his divorce, couldn't handle the time dedicated and pressure to coaching anymore, and could now live out the rest of his life retired and well.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Romo is by far the #1 problem on this team and..

..aaaaaand its gone.

 

[5Stars]

Romo is by far the #1 problem on this team and the reason we've been basically mediocre for 7 year, it evens out. No one cares about winning when it comes to Romo, they only care about if his stats are good. People act like Romo's been here one year with a bad defense, but I've clearly posted that other teams have had bad defenses and still were able to consistently make the playoffs, and actually win the Super Bowl. But Romo lovers have no real answer for that. They don't even acknowledge that. I also posted when we had the 14th ranked defense 2 years ago, no playoffs. While over 6 teams went to the post season with worse defenses than ours, yet Romo couldn't make it to the post season. They don't care about that.

How can you have an honest debate when I point these things out, they are FACT, yet they continue to talk about the defense? I'm willing to put Romo lovers and Jerry Jones in the same boat. Jerry doesn't mind us losing as long as we put on a good show. And Romo lovers don't care if we lose, as long as Romo doesn't make any mistakes and post a great QB rating. That's just how I feel based on these threads/posts.

I want what's best for the Cowboys and not what's best for Romo, Dez, Lee, Ware, Garrett, nor Jones. But I would almost bet that if Romo were to be traded, his fans would follow him to that team and abandon the Cowboys.

Judas Priest!

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Only a fool would try and fool someone.

lol

Say what, now?

 

[5Stars]

lol

Say what, now?

In a critical situation like this, you don't try and fool the other team at this point. You play it smart and run the clock.

 

[ufcrules1]

No offense, but i don't think you'd work out well as an OC in the NFL.

Just because 3rd down is the usual passing down in a certain situation, doesn't mean the defense doesn't know that as well.

You want to try to fool the defense, so sometimes you need to try something different than what's expected in these situations?

Know what i'm sayin?

They clearly had that defense fooled with the play, there's no other reason that GB wouldn't have had either safety behind Austin on the play. It was a good call, and if Romo makes the pass there.. its a TD. No?

Yes, I know what you are saying. I have been watching football for many many years. I get the whole surprise part but I have explained to you why it was a bad idea.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

In a critical situation like this, you don't try and fool the other team at this point. You play it smart and run the clock.

So what if we had kept with the run and they stopped us from the first and got the ball back with 3 minutes or so left and marched right down the field on our D for the game winning score?

There'd be crying then too.. about how JG is too scared with his playcalling and not aggressive enough in trying to get the first down with a D that we know can't stop anyone.

It was a lose/lose with the type of fans we have on here.. but the play they did call fooled the D and should have been an easy pitch and catch TD, with no one between Austin and the end zone.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Yes, I know what you are saying. I have been watching football for many many years. I get the whole surprise part but I have explained to you why it was a bad idea.

..and i get why you think it was a bad idea. Noted.

 

[Nation]

It seems like the same people that have a problem with passing the ball to end the Packers game had a problem with running the ball to end the Lions game. The only real consensus is that they don't want Garrett executing the strategy, as opposed to any real consensus on the actual strategy for the moment.

 

[5Stars]

So what if we had kept with the run and they stopped us from the first and got the ball back with 3 minutes or so left and marched right down the field on our D for the game winning score?

There'd be crying then too.. about how JG is too scared with his playcalling and not aggressive enough in trying to get the first down with a D that we know can't stop anyone.

It was a lose/lose with the type of fans we have on here.. but the play they did call fooled the D and should have been an easy pitch and catch TD, with no one between Austin and the end zone.

How many minutes would have been left after 3 run plays, if the Packers did not call a time out to stop the clock? And if the Packers would have called time outs after every run, they would have been out of them. (hell I don't remember if they had all of their time outs).

Murray gaining about 5 per carry on designed RUNNING plays? I think the could have picked up 6 yards on two carries.

And, if the Cowboys would have not picked up the first down, the Cowboys would have punted with one of the best punters in the game, they might have needed to run the whole field without time outs.

 

[rpntex]

I usually stay out of these cause I flip flop on Romo a lot. But you consider 2007 playoff loss a Romo choke? If I remember correctly Crayton dropped a slant that probably would have scored, in the very least been a first down. And the last drive Crayton stopped on a route that he could have walked into the endzone with. Sure Romo threw a pick at the end but it was more of a desperate hailmary type of throw.

How about Jacques Reeves committing a costly 3rd-down penalty within the final two minutes of the 2nd quarter? On the same drive, DeMarcus Ware gets called on one of his infamous "phantom" offsides penalties. Both extended the drive which led to a NYG score and completely changed the flow of momentum in the game.

Romo's culpability in that game ranks near the bottom of the blame chart. But because he threw a pick in the end zone inside of a minute left, he gets the "choke" label.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

How many minutes would have been left after 3 run plays, if the Packers did not call a time out to stop the clock? And if the Packers would have called time outs after every run, they would have been out of them. (hell I don't remember if they had all of their time outs).

Murray gaining about 5 per carry on designed RUNNING plays? And, if the Cowboys would have not picked up the first down, the Cowboys would have punted with one of the best punters in the game, they might have needed to run the whole field without time outs.

To be honest, im not sure how many timeouts they had left either. But if we decided to run on 2nd and 6 and 3rd down as well and didn't make the first, they would have had well over 2 minutes left for their last drive. Plenty of time to torch our D.

I'm well aware of how well Murray had been running the ball this game, but keep in mind GB was starting to stack the box, they had 9 guys in there on the play where we threw the INT. Saying we would have picked up a couple first downs there, or even one, isn't a sure thing at all.

And again, if we had gone that route, and given them the ball back at some point, and our D let them walk all over them again for the game winning score.. people would be whining just as hard about that decision.

Like i said, its a lose/lose based on how fans on this board react.. but i don't fault the decision at all. When you call a play that gets a guy open behind their entire D, you've clearly fooled their D, and that's a good play call anyday, imo.

 

[5Stars]

To be honest, im not sure how many timeouts they had left either. But if we decided to run on 2nd and 6 and 3rd down as well and didn't make the first, they would have had well over 2 minutes left for their last drive. Plenty of time to torch our D.

I'm well aware of how well Murray had been running the ball this game, but keep in mind GB was starting to stack the box, they had 9 guys in there on the play where we threw the INT. Saying we would have picked up a couple first downs there, or even one, isn't a sure thing at all.

And again, if we had gone that route, and given them the ball back at some point, and our D let them walk all over them again for the game winning score.. people would be whining just as hard about that decision.

Like i said, its a lose/lose based on how fans on this board react.. but i don't fault the decision at all. When you call a play that gets a guy open behind their entire D, you've clearly fooled their D, and that's a good play call anyday, imo.

How many yards after the pick did the Packers need to get into the endzone? They sure as hell did not start around their 10 or 15 yard line with no time outs.