Vandy Should Be Blamed, But What About Romo & His 2 Red Zone INTs?!?

[TheEnigma]

BULL.... where do you get your inside information??? Do you clean the jockstraps or what?

It looks like he is giving an opinion more than giving a statement of fact. Of course, it could just be me.

 

[JackMagist]

Romo made some mistake it happens. I don't know what you want me to say, I guess we could have hit shot. It was a pre-season game and overall a lot of guys were making mental mistakes it happens especially when talking the last pre-season game. Over all I think this has been a very good camp for the team with a lot of positives coming out and I expect this club to be in the thick of the division this season.

This was the third game in a 10 day stretch with really only two days of practice between the last game and this game. Things are going to look a little rough around the edges in such a situation. I think this was good for the team though; they now realize that they are not as good as the Saints and 9ers made them look (and we realize it too). They are going to have to be sharp and focused and on top of their game it they are going to win in this league; Parcells will make that abundantly clear this week.

 

[superpunk]

Whocares about blame? It's the preseason. Here's what bothers me.

Other than the Saints game this offense moved the bal but didn't put points ont he board. Unacceptable. Vandy had 2 misses? Big deal. 6 points cannot replace 14 anyway.

I love it that we are throwing the football. I believe the offense will get it together. No critical injuries last night though some bumps and bruises to key players is concerning. Lucky there's a long week to Sunday. They'll be ready. We're moving the ball but not scoring. That has to change.

Let Commanders and Eagles fans play the blame game. In football there are basic irrefutable facts. It takes an entire team to win...and lose. We didn't play well enough to win. Bottom line.

Hopefully that and some anger by Parcells wakes some people up for Jacksonville.

Screw the "he's my favorite QB" agendas and finger pointing at individuals. As a team we need to score more. When the defense is giving us 10 point efforts we can't squander that away. That is what is unacceptable.

We had to lull the league to sleep at some point.

Our passing game needs some work, IMO. Yes, that high percentage stuff will work, and Bledsoe can do that. Even with the big fronts MIN brought, we played pretty well pass protect. Unfortunately, 8 yard dumps to our TEs aren't going to loosen other teams up. We weren't able to take any shots with the first team, even though we tried with TO one time. If they're gonna do that to us, and early indications are - they are - we've got to make them pay.



Go to sleep little league.....

 

[itoldyouSOE]

Since when did being able to move in the pocket = "scrambling QB"? I don't question peoples motives but when I hear them mischaracterize like that they don't have creditability with me. They say it, it gets repeated and suddenly it's a fact. Sort of like the "Romo has a weak arm" bs someone started on here. And, by the way, when was the last time Bledsoe won a Super Bowl?

Well let's see, in 1996 he took a team with the #14 ranked defense to the Super Bowl. And in 2001, he came off the bench cold in the AFC Championship game to lead the Pats to a SB appearance. How many SBs has Romo led his team to? How many passes has he thrown when a game counts?

I did not say Romo = Vick. My point is just because someone may take a few less sacks does not mean they are better than someone who takes more sacks and has less scrambling ability. Bledsoe is a seasoned vet who can throw the long ball, lead 4th Q game-winning drives under pressue, and win playoff games.

 

[JackMagist]

It looks like he is giving an opinion more than giving a statement of fact. Of course, it could just be me.

That's what it sounded like to me as well...some people get so worked up.

 

[JackMagist]

Well let's see, in 1996 he took a team with the #14 ranked defense to the Super Bowl. And in 2001, he came off the bench cold in the AFC Championship game to lead the Pats to a SB appearance. How many SBs has Romo led his team to? How many passes has he thrown when a game counts?

We all get your agenda...you can stop now.

 

[joseephuss]

Well let's see, in 1996 he took a team with the #14 ranked defense to the Super Bowl. And in 2001, he came off the bench cold in the AFC Championship game to lead the Pats to a SB appearance. How many SBs has Romo led his team to? How many passes has he thrown when a game counts?

I did not say Romo = Vick. My point is just because someone may take a few less sacks does not mean they are better than someone who takes more sacks and has less scrambling ability. Bledsoe is a seasoned vet who can throw the long ball, lead 4th Q game-winning drives under pressue, and win playoff games.

You basically compared Bledsoe's accomplishments to McNabb's. Both have played in a SB. You seemed critical of McNabb not winning, but not the same way for Bledsoe.

Bledsoe did not come in and lead the Pats to victory in that 2001 game. They already had a lead and played great defense and special teams.

 

[wileedog]

I did not say Romo = Vick. My point is just because someone may take a few less sacks does not mean they are better than someone who takes more sacks and has less scrambling ability. Bledsoe is a seasoned vet who can throw the long ball, lead 4th Q game-winning drives under pressue, and win playoff games.

And Romo is someone who seems to have great pocket awareness, good field vision and very good accuracy. If he's more than that we don't know yet, because we haven't had a chance to find out.

This isn't a zero sum game - its okay to be happy that we potentially have two good QBs on this team.

 

[Doomsday101]

This was the third game in a 10 day stretch with really only two days of practice between the last game and this game. Things are going to look a little rough around the edges in such a situation. I think this was good for the team though; they now realize that they are not as good as the Saints and 9ers made them look (and we realize it too). They are going to have to be sharp and focused and on top of their game it they are going to win in this league; Parcells will make that abundantly clear this week.

I agree. Main thing I wanted last night was to get out without any major injuries and we did that. I'm not going over react to this pre-season game. I still have a lot of confidence in this team and the season

 

[itoldyouSOE]

You basically compared Bledsoe's accomplishments to McNabb's. Both have played in a SB. You seemed critical of McNabb not winning, but not the same way for Bledsoe.

Bledsoe did not come in and lead the Pats to victory in that 2001 game. They already had a lead and played great defense and special teams.

I'm not comparing Bledsoe to McNabb. And I was not critical of McNabb not winning. I just said that QBs who are more mobile do not always = better than QBs who are less mobile, and pointed to the fact that the most nimble of QBs have yet to win a SB.

And you not giving Bledsoe any credit for the '01 victory v. PIT shows your agenda.

In addition to the TD pass, Bledsoe put the Patriots in position for Adam Vinatieri's fourth-quarter field goal and allowed his team to hold the ball enough to avoid constant pressure late in the game as the Steelers tried to complete their comeback.

This is digressing further beyond where I wanted it to go. Let's stick to last night's game and why its ok to blame Vandy but not the second string QB.

 

[tyke1doe]

I prefer to look at the positives in this game with respect to our quarterbacks.

Romo has a little Brett Favre in him. I think he relied more on ability than caution with his interception on the Crayton throw.

I suspect with more playing time, and Bill Parcells yelling in his ear "just throw it away" he'll get better.

With respect to Bledsoe (did you see him wobbling on the sideline?), clearly he wasn't himself so the INT can be excused.

I still think Bledsoe should be the starter for the season. But I like what I see in Romo.

As for Vandershank, I think he was trying too hard.

Hopefully, though, with the firepower on this offense, we won't need to win games in the last seconds. (where's the crossing fingers smilie?)

 

[itoldyouSOE]

And Romo is someone who seems to have great pocket awareness, good field vision and very good accuracy. If he's more than that we don't know yet, because we haven't had a chance to find out.

This isn't a zero sum game - its okay to be happy that we potentially have two good QBs on this team.

In my original post I gave Romo credit for making some very good plays and said I was comfortable with him as the back up.

I just do not believe that because he is the Johnny Come Lately to some on this board that he escapes all criticism while these same people jump on Bledsoe any chance they get.

This is a team game, as many have already pointed out, and there was enough blame last night to go around. Again, its only a preseason game, so I am not overly concerned.

 

[wileedog]

Let's stick to last night's game and why its ok to blame Vandy but not the second string QB.

Because the 2nd string QB did his job and put Vandy in range twice for chip shots to end it. That's what he is supposed to do.

Vandy missed said chip shots. That is not what he is supposed to do.

Can we get over the agenda now?

 

[itoldyouSOE]

I prefer to look at the positives in this game with respect to our quarterbacks.

Romo has a little Brett Favre in him. I think he relied more on ability than caution with his interception on the Crayton throw.

I suspect with more playing time, and Bill Parcells yelling in his ear "just throw it away" he'll get better.

With respect to Bledsoe (did you see him wobbling on the sideline?), clearly he wasn't himself so the INT can be excused.

I still think Bledsoe should be the starter for the season. But I like what I see in Romo.

As for Vandershank, I think he was trying too hard.

Hopefully, though, with the firepower on this offense, we won't need to win games in the last seconds. (where's the crossing fingers smilie?)

 

[joseephuss]

I'm not comparing Bledsoe to McNabb. And I was not critical of McNabb not winning. I just said that QBs who are more mobile do not always = better than QBs who are less mobile, and pointed to the fact that the most nimble of QBs have yet to win a SB.

And you not giving Bledsoe any credit for the '01 victory v. PIT shows your agenda.

In addition to the TD pass, Bledsoe put the Patriots in position for Adam Vinatieri's fourth-quarter field goal and allowed his team to hold the ball enough to avoid constant pressure late in the game as the Steelers tried to complete their comeback.

This is digressing further beyond where I wanted it to go. Let's stick to last night's game and why its ok to blame Vandy but not the second string QB.

When did I not give Bledsoe any credit for 2001? I just don't give him all or the majority of the credit in that game. The Pats defense created turnovers and the special teams scored two TDs. It was easy to see what parts of the team were major contributors to that victory. Bledsoe played a part, but it is a myth that he led them to victory.

And what is my agenda? I want Dallas to win. I already said that Drew gives Dallas the best chance of that. Better than Romo right now.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm not comparing Bledsoe to McNabb. And I was not critical of McNabb not winning. I just said that QBs who are more mobile do not always = better than QBs who are less mobile, and pointed to the fact that the most nimble of QBs have yet to win a SB.

Uh, Elway anyone.
Uh, Staubach anyone.
Uh, Montana anyone.

Those quarterbacks were considered scramblers and "nimble" and they won Super Bowls. Plenty of Super Bowls, in fact.

At any rate, I think the whole "scrambling/running quarterbacks don't win a Super Bowl" argument is bogus.

If your quarterback is running, that means he's under heavy pressure.
If your quarterback is constantly running, that means your team may not have a very good running game.
If your quarterback is constantly running, that means your team is likely behind in points.

Conversely, if your quarterback has time to throw in the pocket, that means he likely has a great offensive line.
If your quarterback isn't forced to run, that means he likely has a strong running game.
If your quarterback isn't put in a position where he has to run, that means he's likely playing with a lead.

So what exactly is the point of mentioning that scrambling/running quarterbacks don't win Super Bowls?

Again, it's a flawed observation that really has nothing to do with the running quarterback as it has to do with the situations he finds himself in and the team he's playing for.

Staubach, Elway and Montana were all running/scrambling quarterbacks. They just happened to be very accurate throwers and had a team around them that lessened their need to run all the time.

 

[Rack]

Yup, and not only that but they showed a replay and his arm was hit when he threw it, which is why it came out the way it did.

So you make an excuse for Bledsoe (a valid one) but ignore the excuse for Romo (one of his ints wasn't his fault)?

 

[wileedog]

Staubach, Elway and Montana were all running/scrambling quarterbacks.

Steve Young even more so.

 

[Doomsday101]

One thing that should be said on Romo 1st int I place a bit of blame on crayton for stopping on the slant rout and anyone who watched the Cowboy broadcast could see the WR coach getting with Crayton on this. Now 2nd int that was just a bad mistake throwing it down field into a double coverage

 

[itoldyouSOE]

Uh, Elway anyone.
Uh, Staubach anyone.
Uh, Montana anyone.

Those quarterbacks were considered scramblers and "nimble" and they won Super Bowls. Plenty of Super Bowls, in fact.

At any rate, I think the whole "scrambling/running quarterbacks don't win a Super Bowl" argument is bogus.

If your quarterback is running, that means he's under heavy pressure.
If your quarterback is constantly running, that means your team may not have a very good running game.
If your quarterback is constantly running, that means your team is likely behind in points.

Conversely, if your quarterback has time to throw in the pocket, that means he likely has a great offensive line.
If your quarterback isn't forced to run, that means he likely has a strong running game.
If your quarterback isn't put in a position where he has to run, that means he's likely playing with a lead.

So what exactly is the point of mentioning that scrambling/running quarterbacks don't win Super Bowls?

Again, it's a flawed observation that really has nothing to do with the running quarterback as it has to do with the situations he finds himself in and the team he's playing for.

Staubach, Elway and Montana were all running/scrambling quarterbacks. They just happened to be very accurate throwers and had a team around them that lessened their need to run all the time.

I guess its a matter of perspective. I doubt many fans in Denver or SF would agree that Elway and Montana were run first, pass second QBs. The fact that you call them scrambling QBs who just happened to be good passers is laughable. They are agile but I don't think if you look in the dictionary under scrambling/running QBs that Montana or Elway are going to be pictured.