Pendergast a Possibility?
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Feb 11, 2009 5:00 AM CST
in News
151 comments
Since the January 16th firing of defensive coordinator Brian Stewart, the Dallas Cowboys have yet to stir up any speculation as to who his replacement may be. Nearly a month later we can at least begin to crank up the rumor mill. ESPN's John Clayton is reporting that the team could possibly be interested in recently fired Arizona Cardinals defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast. Clayton's report does not suggest that the Cowboys have reached out to Pendergast, but his Cowboys connection at least makes sense.
Pendergast, as you all may know, is no stranger to Valley Ranch. The 41-year-old coach spent seven seasons in Dallas (1996-2002). From 1996-1999 he held the title of defensive assistant/quality control/linebackers coach. In 2000 he took over nickel responsibilities before becoming defensive backs coach in 2001 and 2002. Although Roy Williams may have recently talked his way out of town, Pendergast is said to have been instrumental in his development early on.
A Pendergast hire would be interesting because of the creativity that he brings to the table. In his five seasons as Arizona Cardinals defensive coordinator, Pendergast has developed a reputation for his mixed fronts and deceptive blitz schemes. The Cardinals defensive unit finished 19th in the league in total defense, but played well in the secondary despite average pass rush personnel. Pendergast's history of developing young talent in the defensive backfield may in fact be what makes him most intriguing. In an era of impact safeties, Pendergast has been ahead of the curve. Adrian Wilson is a special athlete, but Pendergast's scheme has allowed him to roam and make big plays all over the field. Roy Williams has never gotten his forever promised "freedom to roam", and Pendergast may be the one guy who could get some production out of him if he is retained.
The real question here is how hands-on will Wade Phillips be with this defense going forward. If Jerry Jones insists on Wade calling all the plays, then the Cowboys may be better suited by finding a more green positional coach who can learn the ropes under Phillips' guidance. However, if the Cowboys new defensive coordinator is going to be a real defensive coordinator, then a creative guy like Pendergast would be a great guy to pair with Wade Phillips. If the two were to collaborate, they ought to cook up some pretty exotic and unpredictable looks. We should see a sprinkling in of a true 4-3, and some more of Wade's 46 defense. Most importantly, the heat would keep coming, as both guys are quite fond of the blitz.
Clayton also mentioned former Cowboy assistants Todd Bowles and Paul Pasquoloni as possible candidates.
0 recs |
151 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
First!
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Feb 11, 2009 6:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Pendergast makes no sense to me
because he’s a 4-3 guy, I don’t understand why Wade would want this guy.
I think Clayton is way off.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 7:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
He's more of a hybrid guy. They run some 3-4 in Arizona as well.
They are just moving toward a more strict 3-4 now
IF YOU'RE LOOKIN FOR ME...I'M AT THE SCRIP CLUB WITH PACMAN......AND WE'RE BEING REBELLION!!
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Feb 11, 2009 7:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pass on Pendergast...
He would bring nothing to this defense. And as for linking RW to Pendergast it doesn’t matter because he is going to be cut.
by Boyzfan94 on Feb 11, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Clayton's a Putz
Clayton says “don’t be surprised if he ends up in Dallas…” Way to put yourself out there and be the first on a breaking story. Clayton’s got nothing. This is pure speculation. Clayton’s bio brags about his “vast” knowledge of the NFL and prodigious “list of contacts.” If he really thought he was onto something, my guess is he would have made a stronger statement. Just another mediot.
If this came from Schefter or Glazer, well, I’d be paying alot more attention.
by Boundforbeach on Feb 11, 2009 7:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Clayton looks like some kind of creepy cross between the dad from Alf and of course the Crypt Keeper (thanks, Sean Gannon.)
He would be better suited to be the host of the Snuff Film Channel like that old guy that introduces all the movies on TurnerClassic.
by MadMick on Feb 11, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It was Sean Salisbury that called him the Cryptkeeper...
Which is also why he is no longer employed by BSPN. Clayton is such a whiny little b*tch. By now, he’s probably sick of the jocks STILL beating him up on a daily basis…
by AikmanNailedMySis on Feb 11, 2009 11:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right you are.
I must’ve amalgated Rich Gannon and Sean Salisbury because of that time they were both with the Vikings. I think Sean Gannon is actually the tubby cop that beat Kimbo in the gymnasium.
by MadMick on Feb 11, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Salisbury didn’t work for ESPN anymore because he sent picture messages of his genitals to ESPN interns? And also because he was a horrible analyst?
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No the genitals thing happened several months before the crypt keeper comments
and then after the crypt keeper comments he was shortly let go. But those two incidents were not the only ones he had, there was audio of him mocking some fans who took a shot at his “expert” status because he was mainly a back-up qb. As far as BSPN maintaing quality control on their analysts, I think we can rule that one out.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
by cowboy78 on Feb 11, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
See Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, Emmit (sorry Emmit), Berman, Keyshawn, Hoge, ect
are all examples of shock and awe hyperbole, or shoddy analysis; I think it had more to do with just too many times he was skating on the edge and they had more than enough bodies to fill what the brought to the table. Actually know that I have had the time to jog my memory it was also partly over his contract being up and that he was looking for more than BSPN was will to give; quite possible it could have been about money and bad press.
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
by cowboy78 on Feb 11, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
thin gruel from Clayton
Pendergast was a secondary assistant and could come back in that capacity, maybe as a secondary coach.
But let’s be honest. He’s a step down from Wade Phillips calling the defenses. And Pendergast’s teams were very, very inconsistent.
by Rafael Vela on Feb 11, 2009 8:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
As for Pasqualoni and Bowles, huh?
This is proof positive that Clayton is talking out his ass. These guys ran Parcells two gap 34, which is far, far different from Phillips. Wade isn’t going to turn over his D to these guys so they can “vanilla-ize” it.
Yeah, they’re the worldwide leaders all right — in merde.
by Rafael Vela on Feb 11, 2009 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1...Pasqual is solely a Parcells guy, and is Miami's DC...he isn't doing any lateral moves..
Crayton sucks….just as bad as anyone else coming from ESP La La land..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 11, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It is thin gruel
It’s about the same as Michael Lombardi saying on his National Football Post that maybe Jerry can work out a trade for TO to the Raiders. Pure speculation. Nothing else. Gotta keep the rumor monster fed…
by Boundforbeach on Feb 11, 2009 9:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The trade part of Lombardi's post looks speculative
but he was crystal clear that Owens will be gone. And he’s about the fourth big name to state that, with Schefter, Glazer and King all saying the same thing.
And really, if Dallas is going to move him it makes sense to speculate on who they might contact as a potential trade partner. Oakland is as good a place to start as any. At least Lombardi worked there, so he knows the culture and how Al Davis operates.
by Rafael Vela on Feb 11, 2009 9:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's sobering...
I know we’ve been all over it in the threads, but I really am surprised that they are going to get rid of TO. If the decision is a fait accompli, I wonder what the plan for receivers is this year. Will Jerry look for a Reggie Williams, TJ, Boldin, or someone else; draft a WR; or just go with what we have.
by Boundforbeach on Feb 11, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
go with what we have
I can think of a lot of teams, actually over half of the teams in the league, who have a worse WR corp than RW2, Crayton, Austin and Hurd, although if T.O. is cut I’m sure we’ll be drafting a WR at some point in the draft as well.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably 3rd or 4th round Terry
We need a burner for the slot.
by Boyzfan94 on Feb 11, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sold, mediots can take a lot of credibility hits in the spring and no one remembers
when the fall rolls around. They have more to lose in the fall.
by AustonianAggie on Feb 11, 2009 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Mediots are like politicians and weatherforecasters
If they are 50% right they are a genius.
They are more like 30 % which would get anyone else fired who holds a real job………………..
by oldtimer on Feb 11, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
what I don’t understand is a lot of people want to believe everything bad about what the mediots are saying about TO but don’t want to believe anything that they are saying about Romo. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
T.O. has a history of insubordination...Romo doesn't
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't consider throwing Garrett under the bus
Insubordination? I do
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Romo didn't do that IMO.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hold on
I’m typically siding with you about Romo but they asked him in that interview about his postgame comments and when he said Phiily’s defense figured out the offensive scheme. Romo admitted after a game like that “everbody is mad at everybody”. I think insubordination is a little strong and not on the same level as TO but he admitted to that perception of calling JG out
by cow_fanatic on Feb 11, 2009 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disgaree
He actually said Philly exposed a fundamental flaw in our protection schemes, that could be directed at a number of people, including Houck.
I don’t think it was necessarily directed at Garrett per se.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
besides what has romo ever done without TO?
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Feb 11, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True
Even though you’ve only seen him not have him, really once.
by AirforceBat on Feb 11, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Romo has never had that opportunity
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you'll see the real Romo if TO goes....
mediocre at best, and will never win a SB….
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 11, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Romo will still post great numbers
with or without T.O., I can guarantee you that.
And you’re right, Romo will never win the SB, but the Cowboys sure will with him as their qb.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol...heck, lets just Brad Johnson, or Trent Dilfer then...
cuz they both have something Romo doesn’t..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 11, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
you're right, they both
were qbs on teams with great championship defenses, Romo has never had that luxury.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the Romo 6-pack.....
2 TDs, 2 fumbles, 2 INTs…..we’ll see how many of those we have next year with Romo scrambling around waiting for Crayton and RW2 to get open…
we are going to miss TO
by McLovin9 on Feb 11, 2009 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and his spectacular drops that could of won games?
Is this just Spam from TO’s web site or what?
by AustonianAggie on Feb 11, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree with Terry's boy on this one.....
Romo will still be very good….he may actually become the leader of this team when TO goes…..ie., Eli Manning..Shockey. Again, doom and gloom when TO goes….how are you people going to live with yourselves when he is gone…lol..
by Boyzfan94 on Feb 12, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize if you cut
TO you are going to have some guys in the locker room that will blame Romo and Witten for this implosion. It’s not just a simple problem. TO has a lot of support in the locker room as well. This will put even more pressure on Romo to perform well if they cut TO. Do you think he can handle that? From past experience, I don’t think so.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not true
If T.O. is cut there will be much less pressure on Romo because he won’t feel the need to make him happy.
If T.O. is cut, Romo can assume the leadership role on the team. T.O. has prevented that in the past because of his confrontational personality.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 12, 2009 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not when a lot of the team
was on TO’s side. Romo will have to bring the locker-room together. Don’t know if he’s capable of that. A lot of the player’s were pretty disgusted with Romo last year. Did you not know that?
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Romo is more than capable
The only players disgusted with Romo’s play were the receivers who thought they weren’t getting the ball enough like T.O. and RW2.
I’m sure Witten would sing a much different tune.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 12, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How about his center?
He was not exactly happy with Romo and I think you kinda need him on your side.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hog wash....Romo will be exposed for the weak minded celebrity QB that he is..
expect his turnovers to move up the charts..and injuries from the consistant pounding to be too much for him to handle..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 12, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And Tim Tebow will come into the league and.....
throw 30 TD/5 INT, have 700 yards rushing and another 10 TD’s because what he looks forward to most is playing catch with Jesus when he dies.
(Disclaimer: For the record, I would be intrigued if the Cowboys drafted Tebow but just remember Danny Weurffel was also a super duper guy who chomped up SEC defenses.)
by MadMick on Feb 12, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You wouldn't.
You’ve already decided some photo you saw of Romo with a bar floozy on the cover of some tabloid rag means he’ll throw 30 picks this upcoming season.
by MadMick on Feb 12, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not true
it’s not just the tabloid garbage. It’s an accumulation of things-comments that he has made. I’m not against Romo. Why is it that with some, you either have to be a “hater” or in love with the guy. I’m not either. I want him to be better and lead us to the promised land. I’m not so naive to believe all the tabloid garbage either but why set yourself up in these situations etc.?
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
I just don’t see the point in wasting time with it because it’s not going to improve his decision making if he locks himself in an underground bomb shelter and stops appearing in those brain rotting rags or golf tournaments. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with the Cowboys on-the-field product. Romo’s problem is impulse control on the field, not off it.
Take Favre for example.* He married his high school sweetheart and was always a good ole boy but living the good family life never made him any less of a foolish gunslinger. He actually got worse as he got into the middle stages of his career when he should’ve already matured well to the point of knowing better. Hell, I guess he was almost the football equivalent of Hunter S. Thompson feeling he had to live up to his reputation as some concsienceless gunslinger.
Romo could shift his attentions to doing good wholesome lord’s work like assisting Bob Larson with exorcisms or whatever but that wouldn’t alter his wreckless ways on the field just because he devoted his leisure time to something other than partying.
(*Caveat: Of course, part of the reason Favre got traded from Atlanta is that Glanville viewed him as too much of a party animal. But that was before the intrawebs blew up, of course and he was just a rookie.)
by MadMick on Feb 12, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I for one am horrified by the thought of having to rely on roy crayton and miles to keep the double team off of witten and make anyone pay consistently for doin so. with TO on the field you have to roll coverage his way or you will pay. Ask San Fran.
Do we really want TO coming in here with a chip on his shoulder and vengeance on his mind? I know i don’t he decimated us on the regular every time he played us. Raf was raving about him in camp last year what happened was Raf drinking coolaid or looking through rose colored glasses? I genuinely pray we do not find out what this qb can do with only one stud wr(our te) and a line that at times looked like a siv and from flozells pro bowl performance doesn’t seem to be on too stable of ground.The team needs to embrace each other , and the team concept not jettison one of its few known commodities while having to eat 9 million in cap space and get nothing out of it.
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Feb 11, 2009 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 It's really that simple stoproyce...
The team needs to embrace each other , and the team concept not jettison one of its few known commodities while having to eat 9 million in cap space and get nothing out of it.
some fans should prescribe to that as well..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 11, 2009 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What did Joe Montana ever do without Jerry Rice?
If a QB has been playing with a WR his whole career, it’s kind of hard to expect him to have done something WITHOUT that player. You know, since he has never played without him.
I don’t count the weeks at the end of the 2007 regular season, since we were winding down due to the bye.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Montana won a Super Bowl without Rice
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Feb 11, 2009 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually he won two without Rice.
Of course, even Montana has had playoff nightmares. In the same strike-shortened season where Rice caught 22 TD passes despite only playing 12 games Montana played so horribly against an 8-7 Vikings team that (coupled with a monster game from Anthony Carter) the 13-2 9ers got upset in their opening playoff game.
And that was following back-to-back playoff losses to the Giants where the 9ers lost by a combined score of 66-6. So there’s a reason Steve Young was brought in to push him.
by MadMick on Feb 11, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Got me
Haha— alright, that was quick. Sorry guys, I should’ve said “What did Steve Young ever do without Jerry Rice?”
The example’s not particularly important— the overall point is that it’s tough to ask what Romo has done without TO when he has never had a chance to actually play without TO.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well you saw what he did without him
at the end of the 2007 season …couldn’t move the ball at all in 2nd half of Carolina game, not at all in meaningless game @ Wash and we all know what happened in Giants game with TO being a non-factor
its a small body of work – and there may be alternate explanations….but dont be so sure that the train keeps rolling without TO
by McLovin9 on Feb 11, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because Crayton would be a three on most teams.
And he was the de facto lead receiver in that group once T.O. went down.
There’s a difference between great receivers, starting quality receivers and monkey crap like Crayton, a still wet- behind-the-ears Austin (who had a few drops against the ’Skins) and a gimpy Glenn as your receivers.
by MadMick on Feb 11, 2009 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Romo played very well in the playoff Giants game
You didn’t?
I agree that we don’t have proof that the offense will click without TO, but I don’t think we should assume Romo’s production is utterly dependent on him either.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 4:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I'd add to that....
People who are already clamoring for and even looking forward to seeing Romo fall flat on his face without T.O. have already made up their minds, are the furthrest thing from objective and will ignore whether or not Williams/Austin/Crayton are a competent receiving corps before lambasting Romo should T.O. no longer be on the roster next season.
by MadMick on Feb 11, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can succeed without a stud at every WR spot
Austin/Williams/Crayton and JASON WITTEN (please don’t ignore #82 as part of our receiving corps— I’d argue he is our #1 option on offense) are in the top half of receiving corps in the league. And they are BETTER than the receivers of the Baltimore Ravens, the Philadelphia Eagles, the San Diego Chargers, the New York Giants, and the Tennessee Titans. All playoff teams this year.
This is an offensive era. I readily admit that you need talent at receiver to succeed. But you don’t need a Pro Bowler at every spot. We can have a manageable WR corps without TO. I’m not saying cut him, but I do think that our offense SHOULD be able to succeed without him if it has to.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
tim - i really think that Witten will
be the one that suffers the most…that safety that needed to roll over in coverage to help with TO will now be all over Witten…..unless RW2 returns to his 2006 form
by McLovin9 on Feb 11, 2009 4:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our offense should not need TO to succeed
We have enough weapons even without TO that a competent offensive gameplane should allow us to put up plenty of points, and should allow Witten to get excellent numbres, particularly because there will be more balls to go around. Tony Gonzalez gets plenty of yards/TDs in Kansas City, and the only threat complementing him has always been the threat of a solid run game (which we should be able to provide). In the past 2 years Dwayne Bowe has been added to that offense, but does anyone really think our WR corps is worse than KC’s, even without TO?
Heck, John Carlson of the Seahawks had some monster games this year as well, and there is almost ZERO offensive firepower on that offense. Top tier players like Witten will be double-teamed from time to time. If they are worth their hype and their salary (which I believe Witten is), they succeed anyway.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 9:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Most teams mentioned are better than any TO-less group here...c' mon man...
Antonio Gates = Witten
Chris Chambers = Roy Williams
Vincent Jackson > Patrick Crayton
Chris Davis >/= Miles Austin
NYG
———
Burress > Roy
Boss < Witten
Smith > Crayton
Toomer > Miles
Philly
———
Jackson > Roy
LJ Smith < Witten
Curtis > Crayton
R Brown > Miles
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 12, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Go listen to Michael Irvin's podcast
the problem was not scheme. It was receivers not beating their man to the ball. It was Romo not releasing the ball quickly. IT WAS NOT SCHEME. I don’t buy that everyone’s mad with everyone else for not doing their jobs. I don’t care how mad you are and so forth, you don’t ever throw anyone whether it be coaches or teammates under the bus. It’s immature and shows that you are not accountable.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not in the Philly game it wasn't
There were protection breakdowns that caused the fumbles.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True, there were protection fumbles
but Romo fumbled on his own. The line did not fumble the ball.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Man, I can't type today
I meant there were protection breakdowns in the Philly game, but Romo fumbled the ball not the Oline. You can’t blame that one on the Oline. Romo is the one that had the ball in his hands, not the OLine.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Romo didn't fumble on his own
he was hit by DL who were free because of the OL.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
you have got to be kidding me. The OL didn’t fumble the ball Romo did. Have you not ever heard of tucking the ball away?
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I'm sure Romo can see
DL and LB through the back of his helmet…I know he’s magical, but he doesn’t have eyes that pierce throug the back of his helmet to see defenders coming at him.
The guy is looking downfield to make a play, it’s the OL job to keep the DL off his back and prevent the fumbles from happening.
You talk as though Romo just fumbles without getting hit.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well actually he has
fumbled without getting hit-LOL
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh so you're fine
with Romo holding the ball out like it’s a loaf of bread trying to make a play? Simply not true. Other QB’s make plays and they don’t fumble every time they are hit.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Most qbs fumble
while they’re looking downfield trying to make a play and don’t see the defender, ie Warner in the SB.
It happens all the time. If the qb can see it coming, thats a different story, but most of the time Romo doesn’t because he’s looking downfield trying to make a play. I don’t fault him for that, I fault the OL for failing to protect him.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You would never fault him even
if he was at fault IMO. Romo fumbled 13 times this past year. That’s too many. As a QB you have to know who’s around you and feel the pressure. So you’re okay with him fumbling 2 times in the Philly game?
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the fumbles in the Philly game
weren’t his fault, but the fumbles that occur without a defender blinding him, yes those are his fault.
I can’t fault a qb looking downfield to make a play, thats what they’re supposed to do.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The fumbles are on Romo
in the Philly game. Even Wade said that Romo needs to take care of the ball better. He said that the turnovers are what really hurt this past year. Just like when we were driving in the Philly game and Barber fumbled, it killed the drive. Why can’t you just admit it that Romo hurts our team when he doesn’t protect the ball. It’s not that we are “haters” as you like to say, but it hurts the team.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Quoting Wade
does not strengthen your position, I would leave him out of it if I were you
by cow_fanatic on Feb 11, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I can’t see how a qb can be faulted on those plays, just my opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm convinced that you are Jessica Simpson, Terry
lay off the Bennigans and get on the treadmill
by McLovin9 on Feb 11, 2009 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I heard Nutri-System
is running a special
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wish I had her money
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i think you really wish
that you were spooning with Tony every night
LOL
by McLovin9 on Feb 11, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no, I have a hot girlfriend for that
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Terry it's no use
Some fans will not stop blaming Romo for everything until he guides the team to some post season victories.
Although he does need to work on securing the ball better under duress. I look at the way Rivers puts two hands on the ball when moving in and outside of the pocket looking for an open receiver when he feels pressure, he still gets the pass away when he finds an opening without risking the possible fumble if he gets hit.
Feb. 18-24 -- NFL Scouting Combine
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Feb 11, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
rivers is a textbook example of how to protect the ball while moving in the pocket….now Rivers and Romo have completely different games but if Romo could study a bit of that (as opposed to studying Brady’s throwing motion) i think he would be better served
by McLovin9 on Feb 11, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rivers also has the mobility
of a snail and couldn’t make a play after protection breaks down to save his life.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 12, 2009 7:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather punt the ball to the other
team than a turnover any day.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and rather score than punt
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 12, 2009 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let quit splitting hairs
befcause that’s not what’s being discussed. Ball security is what we’re talking about. It’s always better to throw the ball away or run for what you can get than to fumble or get an interception. Do you not agree on that? Turnovers will kill you. I’d much rather punt the ball away than give the other team any type of momentum.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
its all in how you look at it
You propose a more conservative approach, while I think you have to take some risks to make plays.
Just different philosophies.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 12, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I will be happy to name that games
that cost us points if you like say Philly,Pitt,AZ. Listen, I understand trying to make plays but you have to be smart about it. The saying, trying to make a play is a cop out for turning over the ball.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take Rivers over Romo...
on leadership qualities alone…let alone the fact he’s a much more accurate QB, with a stronger arm, ta boot…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 12, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Numba 1 have you heard Laufenberg’s comments (DC Fanatic) on his interview with Romo yet? Laufenberg has been a big defender of Romo in the past but he doesn’t sound so sure now.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not to say I dislike Romo...
I love Romo, and beg, pray, and plea he regains the mojo he seemed to be missing this past season..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 12, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Romo as well
but some of the comments coming out of his mouth this year make me question him. What happened to the guy that sat by his locker and cried when he botched the snap?
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i miss him too...
money and women change people…for better or worse..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 12, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
that’s why when he makes some of these goofy comments like “if this is the worst thing that happens blah blah” it really bugs me. It’s because this doesn’t even sound like the same guy.
by texstar on Feb 12, 2009 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he's not thre same guy..that's the disturbing part...
I give him this season to rectify the problems in his game…..if not, he losses alot of my support..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 12, 2009 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So if he was mobile
would he be permitted to hold the ball in a reckless manner? The two things are not connected. Every QB should secure the ball regardless of mobility.
Holstering the ball at your hip is not a calculated risk that can lead to rewards, it is simple recklessness.
(Romo) still gets excited when he buys a new t-shirt at Target for crying out loud
by I_miss_Switzer on Feb 12, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Irvin tends to make all problems about WRs and QBs
He seldom discusses line play. The source of the analysis may be biased here.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
splitting hairs
a good fan has the ability to be objective
by cow_fanatic on Feb 11, 2009 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no fan is truly objective
if he was, he really wouldn’t be a fan. A fan by definition has a built in bias towards his favorite team or player.
Anyone who is truly 100% objective is an interested spectator, not a fan.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
An objective fan
is a fan who sees through personal infatuations with players on their favorite team to see what is the greater good for the team. Not necessarily railing on you Terry but you are unable to admit faults with your favorite player which does not coincide with what is best for the team
by cow_fanatic on Feb 11, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and what pray tell is the greater good
for the team??
I’ve never said Romo was flawless, not at all, no player has a flawless game. However, when all fans want to do is hammer on the flaws and ignore the strengths, of course I’m going to have a problem with that.
The Romo bashing has gotten out of hand.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed and I'm not one of them
but you have been labeled as his best friend. Why have you taken this stance? In my opinion it’s because of your lack of objectivity.
The greater good is discussing the issues objectively, giving a little and taking a little
by cow_fanatic on Feb 11, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not my lack of objectivity
it’s because the vast majority of his criticism is unfair and unwarranted. IMO, it’s ridiculous.
Does Romo have flaws that hurt the team, absolutely, but he also is a huge reason this team has won 27 games over the last 2.5 years he was the starting qb. I’ve never ever said he was perfect or doesn’t need to improve.
Fans that are so called objective should try remembering that for change.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
but your greater good of the team differs from the majority of the objective fans here...
TO is wanted by over 65% of the fans that visit this site, yet you argue that TO is no good for the team ? Isn’t that bias and unobjectable ??
your not a fan….your a hater….
by CowboysRnumba1 on Feb 11, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not true,
I’m a fan of the Dallas Cowboys. Not just an individual. I will criticize every one of them when they make dumb decisions whether it’s Romo,Witten,Barber etc. There’s nothing wrong with criticism and it doesn’t make you any less of a fan.
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said otherwise
I just said a fan can’t be truly 100% objective and that is true.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But a fan has to live in reality
and not some fairyland
by texstar on Feb 11, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
which I don't
I’m as realistic as any fan on this site.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well show me one thing
I’ve ever said that was completely unrealistic, I’d be interested to see that.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Schefter is wrong more often than he isright, and King followed up his original report by writing that he had no info just a 'gut feeling"
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Feb 11, 2009 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's quite a lot of feeling.
John 14:6
by DMorgan on Feb 11, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LMAO!!!
Celebrity or Imposter?
YOU Decide...
http://www.xanga.com/metaltometal/689036052/celebrity-or-imposter/
by silverblue5 on Feb 11, 2009 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wrong....Shefter is usually on....
Shefter and Glazer are usually on point. Just recently when ESPN Chris Mortenson said Shannahan was in negotiations with the Jets I believe, Shefter bluntly came out and said ESPN’s Chris Mortenson was wrong. Later that day Mortenson backed off on his original report. Subsequently, Shannahan was never in negotiations. Shefter was also the one who said Al Davis was going to fire there HC a few years back and Davis blasted him for a false report. The next week the HC was fired. Shefter is usually dead on…
by Boyzfan94 on Feb 11, 2009 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
According to Schefter, Norv Turner is the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Feb 11, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lombardi's usually pretty good
He doesn’t go in the for ESPN MO of passing speculation off as news. He is clear on when he is speculating and when he is not.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Feb 11, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's be honest
Does anyone want someone OTHER than Wade calling plays next season? I sure don’t. The question is, can the to-be-hired DC take some pressure off of Wade to be able to be the head coach? This is what is needed. Wade’s coaching career, and maybe his last shot, is on the line this season; he calls the plays.
So I disagree with GloryDayz88, if Jerry wants Wade to call the plays then this should facilitate our DC not being ‘green’ or even a 3-4 guy. Adding a creative and adept Defensive coach who can (and has) coordinated whole defenses should be a must. This is where Pendergast’s experience, especially in the secondary, may be valuable.
That being said, I think that Raef is right in calling this a stretch.
…at least it is an interesting stretch in the midst of the lull.
by Kansas on Feb 11, 2009 9:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This may be ignorant, but...
Do we truly need a DC this year? If Wade is calling the defensive plays and Garrett is being entrusted with the offense, is there really a purpose in hiring a person who would be DC in name only?
by Boundforbeach on Feb 11, 2009 9:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
only to learn from Wade and help him formulate game plans and hold meetings
It would be like an assistant to Wade in that regard, which is why it would make more sense just to promote some positional coach within to help Wade out, like Campo.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm right with you here...
There’s no point in bringing in someone new if we’re going to (by the looks of it) bring in a completely new staff in 2010 anyways…
by AikmanNailedMySis on Feb 11, 2009 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Stewart was under Wade’s wing for 2 seasons, now they should put someone already on staff in that slot. I’d like to see them continue the progress they’ve made with the defense, and you don’t want the players to have to switch schemes when Wade leaves. Campo or Grantham seem like the two best choices if they stay in house.
Feb. 18-24 -- NFL Scouting Combine
Feb. 27 -- Veteran free agency signing period begins. Trading period begins.
April 25-26 -- NFL Draft
by APerfectStar on Feb 11, 2009 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
Wade is the HC for one reason and one reason only…to run the defense. Thats why he was hired in the first place. I think it’s pretty safe to say that Jerry told Wade he’s running the defense this year and nobody else.
Bringing in non Wade guy as DC makes absolutely no sense whatsoever…none.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Feb 11, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well the biggest thing we could do is run the ball 30 times a game, and start running early and often
this strategy of throwing early, run late only works when Romo is at the top of his game. I wish we’d run, run all game early and late. If Wade spending less time on D did that, he’d help his D and our win column
by AustonianAggie on Feb 11, 2009 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Todd Bowles would be a great choice
The players respect him, and he can be head coach plan B if Garrett doesn’t work out
by quincyyyyy on Feb 11, 2009 9:45 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It does make sense to bring in someone else if that person
has a skill set that can add a component to Wade’s defense and if that person can assume some (many) of the responsibilities that Wade would have.
I worry that if we hire from within there is a greater chance that whichever position coach is selected will not be able to as effectively work with their position and work effectively with the defense as a whole. This should be avoided.
Diversity of opinion, to a degree, can only benefit the Cowboys on either side of the ball. This was/is part of the logic of bringing in Reeves.
by Kansas on Feb 11, 2009 10:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Did you watch the Superbowl?
When the game was on the line, the Cards D folded. The Cards have a few nice players, even did okay in the playoffs but overall their defensive sucks.
by birdness on Feb 11, 2009 11:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
That could also be said about the Steelers' D
if Big Ben doesn’t lead them to a TD at the end. But I don’t hear anyone questioning the manhood of the Steelers’ D-coordinator.
John 14:6
by DMorgan on Feb 11, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
The best defense in football let Kurt Warner throw for 344 yards on them.
by AirforceBat on Feb 11, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That last drive was one example
The Steeler D was the top of the league and they played a nasty schedule. The Cards played 3 cupcakes twice each this year. Take a good look how they Cards D stood up to the Bradyless Pats – stood up, they would have to show up first!
by birdness on Feb 11, 2009 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
