We have to take more risks in this modern NFL

[FLCowboyFan]

I don't think you can play risk adverse if you want to beat good teams. Strum made the following point and I think he is right. We have to take the shots when we have them.

And, then we move to the coaching staff and Jason Garrett. Risk averse and stubborn to a fault, they were asked to create something out of very difficult circumstances. Even yesterday, they were going to need to roll the dice a bit to try to create an advantage in a game where they may have been talent deficient. Instead, they kick a Field Goal on 4thand Goal from the 3 yard line in the 1st Quarter, and an inexplicable field goal in the 3rd Quarter to cut the score only slightly to 23-6. In both cases, you need to go for those if you plan on winning a "must-win" game. Instead, they play it safe and see hopes go down the drain.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...-another-game-with-ugly-tony-romo-results.ece

 

[Wolfpack]

Sturm is the only local writer calling JG out. The rest of them are sheep.

 

[mahoneybill]

Risk aversion also means don't force the ball, and gift the other team 14 pts.... Tony too rusty to be trying to Houdini us to a win. Even the Miami game we were a left handed lob away from a safety, and 2 stands from our D to overcome 2 other picks.....

 

[Amy50632]

Playing it safe won't work with a 10-0 team like the Panthers, have to take risks.

 

[craig71]

I think you need to know when to take a gamble and when to play it close to the vest. The aforementioned can be more art or feel than science. It's real easy to sit in the bleachers or to write a column being critical of a coaches decision, it's an entirely different perspective for those folks on the sideline calling the plays and also for the players themselves. How many negative plays have we seen as of late? What is the mental state of the team at that particular point of the game? Lots of variables to be accounted for in those situations that we "fans" don't consider or don't even acknowledge.


Craig

 

[texbumthelife]

It's not just about being willing to the risks, its about understanding the flow of the game and the circumstances of your team, being in touch with the psyche and situations.

I don't want to name names due to recent events, but there is a culture perpetuated here that has no feel for the game, in any situation. It is the biggest hindrance this team faces week in and week out. It is why we consistently play down to our opponents even in good seasons. It's why this team seems to lack a go for the throat mentality that eventually leads to games being closer than they should be.

 

[Nightman]

Game management, clock management, risk management are not strengths of JG.

He is vanilla in scheme, in play calling and in personality.

Which is so strange since we have a wildcatter for an owner.

JJones is old and is tired of learning new coaches. We are stuck with JG for awhile.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Won't happen with this staff

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

I don't think you can play risk adverse if you want to beat good teams. Strum made the following point and I think he is right. We have to take the shots when we have them.

And, then we move to the coaching staff and Jason Garrett. Risk averse and stubborn to a fault, they were asked to create something out of very difficult circumstances. Even yesterday, they were going to need to roll the dice a bit to try to create an advantage in a game where they may have been talent deficient. Instead, they kick a Field Goal on 4thand Goal from the 3 yard line in the 1st Quarter, and an inexplicable field goal in the 3rd Quarter to cut the score only slightly to 23-6. In both cases, you need to go for those if you plan on winning a "must-win" game. Instead, they play it safe and see hopes go down the drain.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...-another-game-with-ugly-tony-romo-results.ece

But he wouldn't Trade for Manziel. Get Jerry Jones and Roger Staubach back here in Dallas at the Draft. Mark it down, Manziel better than Cassell today and better than Romo in 2017. You heard it first right here folks, blame me but Captain America and Jerruh knew first. Brownies want him there so he's not getting away but the athlete is a freakish talent and still has a nice ceiling.

 

[Redball Express]

I don't think you can play risk adverse if you want to beat good teams. Strum made the following point and I think he is right. We have to take the shots when we have them.

And, then we move to the coaching staff and Jason Garrett. Risk averse and stubborn to a fault, they were asked to create something out of very difficult circumstances. Even yesterday, they were going to need to roll the dice a bit to try to create an advantage in a game where they may have been talent deficient. Instead, they kick a Field Goal on 4thand Goal from the 3 yard line in the 1st Quarter, and an inexplicable field goal in the 3rd Quarter to cut the score only slightly to 23-6. In both cases, you need to go for those if you plan on winning a "must-win" game. Instead, they play it safe and see hopes go down the drain.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...-another-game-with-ugly-tony-romo-results.ece

This team has created an enormous dependency on Romo.

It creates too. much pressure for him.

He fails as a result and the team fails.

Been going on since the fumbled FG in Seattle years ago.

Not much has changed

 

[EST_1986]

We kick field goals down 20 points. If that's not living on the edge I don't know what is...

 

[dallasdave]

Playing it safe won't work with a 10-0 team like the Panthers, have to take risks.

Dallas needs to play to win !!!!!

 

[CyberB0b]

He's always lacked the stones to take calculated risks. A lot of these "risky" plays are actually mathematically correct. You would think an Ivy league grad would be up to date on analytics, statistics, and advanced game management, but I guess not.

 

[TheCount]

Ah, ye of short memory.

It's easy to forget when we regularly singled up CB's with corner's in single coverage and team were throwing 60 yard bombs on us with regularity.

I agree we need to take more risks, but don't forget the flip side of that coin. Especially when our offense is inept.

 

[Nightman]

He's always lacked the stones to take calculated risks. A lot of these "risky" plays are actually mathematically correct. You would think an Ivy league grad would be up to date on analytics, statistics, and advanced game management, but I guess not.

Exactly, risky is going against the 'book'. The unwritten coaches book that his Dad gave him from the 60s.

He doesn't want to be criticized for thinking outside the box. It is the same thing that handicaps most coaches besides Belichick.

 

[AmericanCowboy]

We play football scared.

 

[pugilist]

Jason Garrett, take risks..

does not compute

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I don't think you can play risk adverse if you want to beat good teams. Strum made the following point and I think he is right. We have to take the shots when we have them.

And, then we move to the coaching staff and Jason Garrett. Risk averse and stubborn to a fault, they were asked to create something out of very difficult circumstances. Even yesterday, they were going to need to roll the dice a bit to try to create an advantage in a game where they may have been talent deficient. Instead, they kick a Field Goal on 4thand Goal from the 3 yard line in the 1st Quarter, and an inexplicable field goal in the 3rd Quarter to cut the score only slightly to 23-6. In both cases, you need to go for those if you plan on winning a "must-win" game. Instead, they play it safe and see hopes go down the drain.

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...-another-game-with-ugly-tony-romo-results.ece

Good or bad teams. It doesn't matter. But you are right we need to take risks.

Biggest risk is go all out on defense like we did last week,

What's the worst that can happen?

The cons:
We get burned on a few big plays? If so, so be it.

The pros:
opposing teams don't have long methodical drives that wear out or defense.
We will force turnovers.

Just sitting back on defense WONT WORK!

 

[Daillest88]

Yes we must attack on both sides of the ball! Cassel did hit dez and Williams on some deep routes against Washington, more play action, more blitzes from our defense, I mean come on you got Hardy and Crawford who take double teams, the running back who's blocking is always looking for Hardy, that's why you blitz, the offense line won't know what to do and that's how we had success against Washington, that's why Sean Lee ran free into that backfield. Believe it or not our front 4 are more than a hand full. BLITZ BLITZ BLITZ!!

 

[cowboyblue22]

in this modern nfl you have to get turnovers or u lose. In last night Vikings cards game turnovers determined the outcome of that game as it does most games without turnovers you are not going to win very often.