Colinshaw: Garrett lacked common sense in leaving Romo in game

Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
The next time you see Jerry Jones on the Cowboys’ sideline during a game, don’t scream at your TV set. Don’t even complain about it. He may just be down there dispensing common sense.

There wasn’t much of that to be found in head coach Jason Garrett’s handling of a 31-17 win over the hapless Jacksonville Jaguars in London on Sunday. The game itself was filled with Cowboys highlights, offering assurances that this team is very much back in the thick of things in the NFC playoff chase following a two-game losing skid.

But as a 31-7 third-quarter lead became a 31-7 fourth-quarter lead, Cowboys fans across the pond here were all shouting the same question:

Why is Romo still playing?

I don’t need to recite all the details of the fractures in his back. You’ve heard about that for two weeks. And you saw how this offense failed to function without him in a 28-17 loss to the Arizona Cardinals, so you know what he means to this team’s future.

But there he was, third-and-10, less than nine minutes to play, Cowboys holding a 31-7 lead. And there he went, sacked to the turf, very deliberate in getting to his feet after a 6-yard loss. With 8:07 to play, the Cowboys punted and when they got the ball back, Brandon Weeden finally entered the game.

That was almost a quarter too late.

Once the game got to 31-7 in the third quarter, there was no sense in sending Romo back into harm’s way. The Jaguars’ defense was still capable of the occasional sack, but the Jacksonville offense wasn’t mounting a comeback.

I know how quickly things can unravel in an NFL game, but this is a Jaguars team that starts a rookie quarterback, two rookie wide receivers and first- and second-year men all over the offensive line.

This is a Jacksonville team whose drives from first to fourth quarter Sunday went: Touchdown. Punt. Punt. Fumble. Punt. Punt. Downs. Punt. Downs.

Garrett seemed baffled afterward that questions would be raised as to how he handled Romo in his current delicate state. And that’s always been part of the problem with Garrett as head coach.

A Princeton graduate, he fears coming across as a pointy-headed intellectual at all costs. He wraps himself in the history of the game, spinning Pudge Heffelfinger stories and talking toughness.

At some point a little cold-blooded logic is in order. Just because Romo didn’t suffer debilitating injuries on the fourth-quarter hits he absorbed doesn’t make it OK.

We have seen it for years, and every coach in football is reluctant to pull his starting quarterback, but look how two teams with Super Bowl aspirations handled their blowout situations Sunday.

Denver’s Peyton Manning did not set foot on the field in Oakland in the fourth quarter. Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers turned the reins over to Matt Flynn against Chicago with seven minutes left in the third quarter.

Scores and opponents make for different situations, but neither Manning nor Rodgers were nursing damaged backs in the wake of off-season surgery.

On Saturday night at Amon Carter Stadium, I wondered — if only briefly — why TCU head coach Gary Patterson still had his electrifying quarterback, Trevone Boykin, on the field in the fourth quarter after he had landed awkwardly out of bounds in the third and appeared to injure his left wrist.

TCU held a 41-14 lead at the time, and Kansas State wasn’t rallying from that. But Patterson knows what happened to a 21-point lead with eight minutes to go in Waco last month. In addition — right or wrong — seemingly every passing and rushing yard counts when a player is in the middle of a Heisman Trophy chase. Boykin has injected himself into that conversation.

With six minutes to play, Boykin finally retired to the bench. He can continue his Heisman pursuit Saturday in Lawrence, Kan.

Romo gets a much needed week of rest. No harm was done when Garrett allowed him to overstay his return from last week’s inactive list. That doesn’t make it right. Poor decisions that somehow avoid costly results should not be applauded.

And the next time the Cowboys find themselves having put away an opponent long before the final gun sounds, I’m all for the general manager transporting himself to the sideline and telling the head coach to do the right thing.
 

cmd34(work)

Draft Pick
Messages
4,342
Reaction score
0
The next time you see Jerry Jones on the Cowboys’ sideline during a game, don’t scream at your TV set. Don’t even complain about it. He may just be down there dispensing common sense.
No.

Why is Romo still playing?
My guess, Jerry wanting to sell.
A Princeton graduate, he fears coming across as a pointy-headed intellectual at all costs. He wraps himself in the history of the game, spinning Pudge Heffelfinger stories and talking toughness.
Sounds familiar.

And the next time the Cowboys find themselves having put away an opponent long before the final gun sounds, I’m all for the general manager transporting himself to the sideline and telling the head coach to do the right thing.
The fact that anyone even thinks this is necessary should be more than enough proof that Garrett should not be the coach.

Name one respected NFL coach who would be okay with getting in-game instructions or orders from the GM.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
I think Romo and Murray were still in there because they wanted to be. I think the players, at least the better players like those guys, basically run the team and do what they want. Garrett doesn't have the stones to tell Romo, "I don't care if you want to keep playing, you're sitting down now and that's that."
 
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
11
Cowlishaw didn't point out that the real opponent to a 31-7 lead is the clock and Dallas has the number one rushing offense in the history of the league and the world and the heavens and the eternity. They could still get first downs, score points, manage the game and most importantly,defeat the clock just by handing off the ball to a running back. The idea that if a Weeden came into the game to replace Romo meant that the offense was stalled or impotent is not only wrong but contrary to probability. There are so many variables that have to go right just to complete a pass during a game and if the pass is not completed there is so much that goes bad - the least of which is stopping the clock for the losing team to have another chance. Why put the game at risk to have to pass the ball? If there is no other way to run the passing offense other than with the plays that Romo is accustomed, then it would make sense to worry about Weeden in the game. The issue though is Weeden did not really have to throw at all but even if he did need to throw, there are so many large and dominant players at the skill position that Weeden should not have to throw more than 5 yards anyway. Run the ball, run the clock, win the game. Throwing the ball means incompletions and giving the other team more chances. In keeping Romo in the game and not giving the game to Weeden perhaps there is an underlying admission of Garrett's error of acquiring a QB in Weeden solely because he knew his offense (that he would not have teach) and not someone who was truly capable of directing an offense, executing successful plays and willing a team to win. Weeden was a failing QB with a 55% completion rate sacked 55 times in 2 years (played only 8 games one of those years and was sacked 27 times), had 25 interceptions in 23 games and a lifetime 77 QB rating. But the upside was he knew Jason's offense and was trained in Norv's system that has the speed and functional relevance of a telegraph machine. Garrett instead sacrificed competence for convenience. But who cares, the team is winning with the number of runs it attempts. Chris Jones could have just as easily handed off to Murray et al for the rest of the game without risking Romo by still trying to prove that the passing offense is worthy of continuing. Saw Romo scramble wayyyyyyy to much in that game to think that the Jags were fooled by the primary routes of the play design.
 
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
22
Yeah, in retrospect, it might have made sense to pull them a series or two earlier.

But let's be honest ... in the past several seasons, we have seen the Cowboys lose in the most unlikely of ways. We've seen them helplessly fritter away games that they most certainly should have won. If Garrett is being overcautious now ... not wanting to set the stage for an unlikely loss by possibly pulling players too early ... I guess I can't blame him.
 

yimyammer

Pro Bowler
Messages
10,902
Reaction score
4,950
Yeah, in retrospect, it might have made sense to pull them a series or two earlier.

But let's be honest ... in the past several seasons, we have seen the Cowboys lose in the most unlikely of ways. We've seen them helplessly fritter away games that they most certainly should have won. If Garrett is being overcautious now ... not wanting to set the stage for an unlikely loss by possibly pulling players too early ... I guess I can't blame him.

agreed
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
In retrospect, though? My friends and I were saying it live. That Jags team could barely get first downs.

And besides, this isn't baseball. If you take them out and the game by some miracle gets close, there's no reason you can't put them back in.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
22,794
Reaction score
5,665
Yeah, in retrospect, it might have made sense to pull them a series or two earlier.

But let's be honest ... in the past several seasons, we have seen the Cowboys lose in the most unlikely of ways. We've seen them helplessly fritter away games that they most certainly should have won. If Garrett is being overcautious now ... not wanting to set the stage for an unlikely loss by possibly pulling players too early ... I guess I can't blame him.
And that's all well and good until Tony takes that one hit he can't take, while we are up 31-7 against a very weak opponent. And lost for the season.

It's always that one play too many.

I was howling for Romo to be out of there as soon as the extra point making it 31-7, was kicked.
In retrospect, though? My friends and I were saying it live. That Jags team could barely get first downs.

And besides, this isn't baseball. If you take them out and the game by some miracle gets close, there's no reason you can't put them back in.
Yep.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
In retrospect, though? My friends and I were saying it live. That Jags team could barely get first downs.

And besides, this isn't baseball. If you take them out and the game by some miracle gets close, there's no reason you can't put them back in.

I was screaming for it.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
Clappy hands wouldn't be so bad if his teams could make adjustments within a game, or actually employ a backup QB that has a tiny bit of ability.

This team should be sitting at 9-1 right now. Inability to adjust and beat the blitz from Washington, and not having a halfway decent backup for a guy coming off two back surgeries has them sitting at 7-3.

Unforgivable IMO. There's just no excuse for it. This could have been one of those special years where you get that first round bye and home field throughout. Now you're probably looking at the 5 seed. Unless Arizona hits a rough patch and you sweep Philly. I don't see either if those things happening.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
They wanted to get Murray to 100, didn't want it to be that obvious and leave him in, so they left all the starters in until he got it.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
22,794
Reaction score
5,665
This team should be sitting at 9-1 right now.
I believe 10-0 would have been possible, had they played Tony more in preseason, on that "100 percent healed" back of his. Had he been sharp the fairy niners wouldn't have had a chance.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
22,794
Reaction score
5,665
They wanted to get Murray to 100, didn't want it to be that obvious and leave him in, so they left all the starters in until he got it.
That's really a idiotic reason to risk losing your hurt QB in a game you have well in hand.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
That's really a idiotic reason to risk losing your hurt QB in a game you have well in hand.

Think back to that ass whooping Washington put on them in 2007, they did the same shit. Had the #1 seed locked up, they couldn't do shit on offense, but they played Tony and Witten late into that game to get them some team records.
 

Doomsday

High Plains Drifter
Messages
22,794
Reaction score
5,665
Think back to that ass whooping Washington put on them in 2007, they did the same shit. Had the #1 seed locked up, they couldn't do shit on offense, but they played Tony and Witten late into that game to get them some team records.
Not saying it's unprecedented, I definitely hear ya.

But when your QB is as stove up as Tony is, you keep him in there and let him take at least one unnecessary sack?
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
They should have been able to yank Dez, Romo, Murray, and Witten at the start of the 4th qtr.

Free and Leary as well.
 
Top Bottom