We have to pass the ball early, and on first, on Sunday

[50cent]

Just admit, that your strategy is part of the reason we lost 2 weeks ago. It is plain to everyone, why not just admit it.

Why would I do that? Maybe a short week played part?! Maybe our QB not being able to get his normal prep played part?! To simply say running the ball early is what lost us the game is crazy. Maybe Romo's 2 INT's and his 2nd lowest completion% played part?! Pass first got us 8-8, now.we.run and are.winning and yet folk still want to pass. Why don't you admit that our run first philosophy has us over .500 for.the first time.i. forever and passing first with Romo is futile?

 

[JD_KaPow]

I see Romo doing well early against the Eagles, yet us falling behind 30-7 because we used your strategy of run, run, and then run some more.

You see what you want to see.

First drive against the Eagles. Three first-down runs led to conversions. Then after a 3-yard 1st-down run, we passed twice for -1 yards on 2nd and 3rd down and punted.
Second drive. Five runs, two passes, touchdown.
Third drive. A 4-yard run and a short pass put us in 3rd and 3, but the 3rd down pass was incomplete. Punt.
Fourth drive. Starting from our 2-yard line, four straight runs get us to another 3rd and 3 at the 23. Sack. Punt.
Fifth drive. One play, pass, Beasley fumble.

That's the first half. No idea how you can look at that and conclude we ran ineffectively or too much.

 

[endersdragon]

Why would I do that? Maybe a short week played part?! Maybe our QB not being able to get his normal prep played part?! To simply say running the ball early is what lost us the game is crazy. Maybe Romo's 2 INT's and his 2nd lowest completion% played part?! Pass first got us 8-8, now.we.run and are.winning and yet folk still want to pass. Why don't you admit that our run first philosophy has us over .500 for.the first time.i. forever and passing first with Romo is futile?

He was 9 of 12 before the game was over. I am totally cool with running the ball 30+ times (is that enough for you?) I just want us to do it at different times, so we get more yards on those runs and so we score more than 3 points in the first quarter. What is so wrong with that?

 

[endersdragon]

You see what you want to see.

First drive against the Eagles. Three first-down runs led to conversions. Then after a 3-yard 1st-down run, we passed twice for -1 yards on 2nd and 3rd down and punted.
Second drive. Five runs, two passes, touchdown.
Third drive. A 4-yard run and a short pass put us in 3rd and 3, but the 3rd down pass was incomplete. Punt.
Fourth drive. Starting from our 2-yard line, four straight runs get us to another 3rd and 3 at the 23. Sack. Punt.
Fifth drive. One play, pass, Beasley fumble.

That's the first half. No idea how you can look at that and conclude we ran ineffectively or too much.

Ummm that 2nd drive the 5 runs were for a total of 13 yards, the 2 passes were for a total of 54 yards lol. Also on that first drive we had success passing the ball as well with 2 of our first downs being on a pass, and the third being because of a 5 yard pass on second down. I suppose maybe if we ran it more on 3rd and 3 we might have had more success running the ball, but we don't (and that is part of what got us to 9-4 as 50cent likes to point out) so when 3rd and 3 means a likely pass (happy that I didn't say "sure pass"?) yes... the running game was ineffective.

 

[50cent]

He was 9 of 12 before the game was over. I am totally cool with running the ball 30+ times (is that enough for you?) I just want us to do it at different times, so we get more yards on those runs and so we score more than 3 points in the first quarter. What is so wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is 2007-present. The pass to set up the run Era for Dallas is over! And hopefully for the remainder of Romo's career. The players know it, the coaches know it and more importantly Jerry and Stephen have acknowledged it! Your turn

 

[50cent]

Ummm that 2nd drive the 5 runs were for a total of 13 yards, the 2 passes were for a total of 54 yards lol. Also on that first drive we had success passing the ball as well with 2 of our first downs being on a pass, and the third being because of a 5 yard pass on second down. I suppose maybe if we ran it more on 3rd and 3 we might have had more success running the ball, but we don't (and that is part of what got us to 9-4 as 50cent likes to point out) so when 3rd and 3 means a likely pass (happy that I didn't say "sure pass"?) yes... the running game was ineffective.

I think you're more stubborn than stupid. Again you might be wise to get versed with nflgsis.com, because if you did, you'd know that you'd be right saying sure pass on 3rd and 3 since we've passed every single time on that down and distance this season. Every single time. So yes, if we do run more on 3rd and 3 we'd be more successful.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Ummm that 2nd drive the 5 runs were for a total of 13 yards, the 2 passes were for a total of 54 yards lol. Also on that first drive we had success passing the ball as well with 2 of our first downs being on a pass, and the third being because of a 5 yard pass on second down.

Your point? Nobody said that passing is ineffective. You're the one trying to argue that running is ineffective.

I suppose maybe if we ran it more on 3rd and 3 we might have had more success running the ball, but we don't (and that is part of what got us to 9-4 as 50cent likes to point out) so when 3rd and 3 means a likely pass (happy that I didn't say "sure pass"?) yes... the running game was ineffective.

Sigh. Regarding your snide paranthetical: you claimed before that we pass "95% of the time" on 2nd and 8 and that therefore the opponent knows what's coming. Except that we pass less than 60% of the time on 2nd and 8, which means the opponent has no idea what's coming. That's not simply exaggerating something, that's making up a number and using it to come to exactly the wrong conclusion.

So anyway, your argument has now become completely incoherent. You seem to be saying that we need to pass more on 1st down because getting to 3rd and short is bad, because we don't run enough on 3rd and short, which makes passing ineffective on 3rd and short. And now my head's spinning.

Once again, there's no rational way to look at that first half and conclude that we fell behind because we ran the ball too much.

 

[endersdragon]

I think you're more stubborn than stupid. Again you might be wise to get versed with nflgsis.com, because if you did, you'd know that you'd be right saying sure pass on 3rd and 3 since we've passed every single time on that down and distance this season. Every single time. So yes, if we do run more on 3rd and 3 we'd be more successful.

Aren't we #1 in the league on 3rd down?

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think you're more stubborn than stupid. Again you might be wise to get versed with nflgsis.com, because if you did, you'd know that you'd be right saying sure pass on 3rd and 3 since we've passed every single time on that down and distance this season. Every single time.

No we haven't. We've run twice on 3rd and 3.

 

[50cent]

Aren't we #1 in the league on 3rd down?

When you find which point you're trying to prove get at me, because you're all.over the place right now and with no evidence to back your OPINIONS!

 

[endersdragon]

Your point? Nobody said that passing is ineffective. You're the one trying to argue that running is ineffective.

Sigh. Regarding your snide paranthetical: you claimed before that we pass "95% of the time" on 2nd and 8 and that therefore the opponent knows what's coming. Except that we pass less than 60% of the time on 2nd and 8, which means the opponent has no idea what's coming. That's not simply exaggerating something, that's making up a number and using it to come to exactly the wrong conclusion.

So anyway, your argument has now become completely incoherent. You seem to be saying that we need to pass more on 1st down because getting to 3rd and short is bad, because we don't run enough on 3rd and short, which makes passing ineffective on 3rd and short. And now my head's spinning.

Once again, there's no rational way to look at that first half and conclude that we fell behind because we ran the ball too much.

Except for the fact that the one time we did score we threw the ball for over 50 yards and Romo was averaging over 10 YPA and Murray was averaging less than 3 YPC.

 

[50cent]

No we haven't. We've run twice on 3rd and 3.

I go by nflgsis.com, the same research tool used by the teams. They have us with 0 rushes on 3rd and 3.

 

[50cent]

No we haven't. We've run twice on 3rd and 3.

You're right, the team changed on me when I switched sites. 2 is correct.

 

[endersdragon]

When you find which point you're trying to prove get at me, because you're all.over the place right now and with no evidence to back your OPINIONS!

10 yards per play >>>> 3.75 yard per play (forgot the next to last drive of the first half before, prior to that it was exactly 3 YPC). Can we at least agree to that? Please, please, please tell me that we can agree to that. Once again I don't mind running the ball 30+ times per game... I just want to make those runs as effective as possible and that is done by getting guys out of the box, especially when you are going up against a very good front 7. That is what good teams do, they gameplan for the teams that they are playing against. It isn't rocket science to throw the ball when they are expecting run, and vice versa.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Except for the fact that the one time we did score we threw the ball for over 50 yards and Romo was averaging over 10 YPA and Murray was averaging less than 3 YPC.

Again I ask, what's your point?

1. Yes, pass plays result in more yards per play than run plays. Is that now your argument? Because, well, duh.
2. One-yard TD runs do tend to bring down the ypc.
3. None of the passes were on first down. Your argument is (or used to be, anyway) that the first down runs are killing us, and yet that drive's a perfect counterexample.
4. The first two runs on that drive put us in a very manageable 3rd-and-3, which we managed. The last two runs on the drive put us in the end zone.

 

[endersdragon]

Again I ask, what's your point?

1. Yes, pass plays result in more yards per play than run plays. Is that now your argument? Because, well, duh.
2. One-yard TD runs do tend to bring down the ypc.
3. None of the passes were on first down. Your argument is (or used to be, anyway) that the first down runs are killing us, and yet that drive's a perfect counterexample.
4. The first two runs on that drive put us in a very manageable 3rd-and-3, which we managed. The last two runs on the drive put us in the end zone.

1) When your QB is second in the league in completion % and YPA, it might be an identification that it is okay to pass the ball on first down and early. That yes, it might lead to a second and 10, but A) the chance of that are low, and B) it really isn't that much different than 2nd and 8.

2) I actually forgot that run, thanks. That leaves him below 3 YPC over the first 3 drives. Not exactly the best stats if you want to win a game.

3) The other drives are a counter example to that counter example. Fact is, if you score on 1 of 4 drives, you aren't going to win many games against good offensive teams.

4) Yes totally ignore all the yards through the air we had that put us in the red zone

For years people have said Garrett was way too predictable. It seems to me that we are just as predictable this year, but we don't want to change things up because we are 9-4, even against a team that crushed us 2 weeks ago.

 

[50cent]

10 yards per play >>>> 3.75 yard per play (forgot the next to last drive of the first half before, prior to that it was exactly 3 YPC). Can we at least agree to that? Please, please, please tell me that we can agree to that. Once again I don't mind running the ball 30+ times per game... I just want to make those runs as effective as possible and that is done by getting guys out of the box, especially when you are going up against a very good front 7. That is what good teams do, they gameplan for the teams that they are playing against. It isn't rocket science to throw the ball when they are expecting run, and vice versa.

No we can't agree! Romo for years audibled out 8 man fronts for passes and it got us nowhere. Last year, I think broke the camel's back. Teammates became frustrated as well as coaches, not to mention FANS. So no, throwing just because they show an 8 man front doesn't mean success. Run first regardless. Romo had his time to prove what his arm can do, now it's the Oline and Murray's turn.

 

[endersdragon]

No we can't agree! Romo for years audibled out 8 man fronts for passes and it got us nowhere. Last year, I think broke the camel's back. Teammates became frustrated as well as coaches, not to mention FANS. So no, throwing just because they show an 8 man front doesn't mean success. Run first regardless. Romo had his time to prove what his arm can do, now it's the Oline and Murray's turn.

Ahhhh at last we get to the truth. Thanks, but please go away. I don't have time for people that just hate Romo.

 

[50cent]

Ahhhh at last we get to the truth. Thanks, but please go away. I don't have time for people that just hate Romo.

again, all over the place. I don't have time for folk that incorrectly label me or that still think this is 2007 or 2009 Romo. Bye!

 

[endersdragon]

again, all over the place. I don't have time for folk that incorrectly label me or that still think this is 2007 or 2009 Romo. Bye!

LOL real quick, you are right. This isn't 2007 or 2009 Romo. This Romo is playing better than those Romo's in terms of YPA, Completion %, and TD/INT ratio (I would say 3 of the most important stats). Yes fewer yards, but I am not saying he should have more attempts, just more attempts early.