It's Better to Share: Cowboys 2009 Offense
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 17, 2009 1:00 AM CDT
in General
114 comments
When the Dallas Cowboys offense next trots onto the field, it will do so without its most dangerous playmaker in recent history. Last season Terrell Owens tallied 69 receptions, just over 21 percent of the Cowboys' completions. Add in Owens' seven rushing attempts and he can be credited with 76 total touches in 2008. It kills me when people say that the Cowboys are "losing" those touches now that T.O. is gone. Those 76 opportunities don't disappear, the only issue now is the redistribution of the football. What Owens' absence has created is not necessarily a void, but an opportunity for others to step forward and contribute. Owens' release may in fact prove to be a true example of addition by subtraction.
Jerry Jones has stated that he aims to make the Cowboys offense more "Romo-friendly" in 2009. Take into consideration Tony Romo's ball-control issues and it would be fair to assume that a "Romo-friendly" offense would include an emphasis on running the football. The biggest beneficiary of such a change just might be Felix Jones. Marion Barber averaged 19.5 carries per game before his Week 13 toe injury. Barber is still the lead dog, but he may have to surrender some carries to Jones and Tashard Choice. Felix Jones is just too explosive to keep off the field and he doesn't necessarily need to be handed the football to be effective. Jones is a linebacker's nightmare in coverage and should catch a ton of balls out of the backfield. Also, it shouldn't surprise anyone to see Jones flexed-out and moved around on a consistent basis. Opposing defenses should be playing Where's Waldo before every snap.
Jason Garrett may want to scrounge around the complex to see if he can find any loose pages from Bill Parcells' playbook. With Jason Witten and the immensely talented Martellus Bennett in the fold, this offense is screaming for some of those Bill Parcells Ace Double-Tight sets. Jason Witten is Jason Witten. He is the best tight end in football and is a lock for a bare minimum 80 receptions. Martellus Bennett has displayed tenacity as a blocker, soft hands and unlimited athletic ability after the catch. He is too good not to be involved and two tight-end formations present a unique set of mismatches.
Roy Williams will take over Owens' "split end" or "X" position. The Cowboys hope Williams can post numbers in the neighborhood of what they are accustomed to getting from Owens. Jerry Jones cited the development of Miles Austin as a reason for T.O.'s release. Whether or not Austin is ready for the big time remains to be seen, but he will most certainly get his chances. If nothing else Austin should provide a viable deep threat and possibly a few of those long touchdowns we have gotten used to seeing out of Owens. Say what you will about Patrick Crayton, but the Cowboys could do a lot worse as far as a slot guy. Crayton does a good job at working the middle of the field and has a little more speed than he gets credit for. His numbers should see a small spike as well in a more equal-opportunity offense.
Terrell Owens is gone. Jason Garrett and Tony Romo can now operate without the fear of what may happen if the beast goes unfed. Garrett will no longer feel obligated to silence the chirping in his ear. Romo should finally be able to truly work through his reads and find the open man. Even in the absence of Owens, the Cowboys have a catalog of weapons that rivals that of any other team in the league. With T.O. out of the picture, the Cowboys will finally have an opportunity to truly spread it around.
114 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
49-51
run to pass ratio
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Mar 17, 2009 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geez who are you Tom Osbourne?
Maybe we could drag Tommie Frazier out of retirement to run the offense.
"If your good at something never do it for free." - The Joker
by houseofprime on Mar 17, 2009 5:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or draft Pat White in the second round
LOL
by Impatient on Mar 17, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You apparently missed the Patriots' recent 16-0 season...
…in which they dominated the league by throwing on almost every down.
Even a 50-50 split is considered very run heavy in today’s NFL. I’d be happy with 3 more runs per game. Over the season, that tips your ratio a bit.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
by Tim Wilson on Mar 17, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pats passed 56.5% of the time.
Which acutally makes your point I think. That’s only a handful of passes more than 50% but the perception is they passed almost exclusively.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
An 80-20 split...
Would make the Cowboys the most predictable and easy team in NFL history to defend.
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
by gee-roj on Mar 17, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No More Scapegoats Left
With Terrell Owens gone, Jason Garrett and Tony Romo are all out of excuses. The offensive buck stops with them this season.
by Cowboys4Life on Mar 17, 2009 1:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Who
on the team ever made Owens a “scapegoat”? Show us where Garrett or Romo ever blamed the player for anything.
You got it backwards. Owens was the one who trashed others whenever things went south.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Mar 17, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
shenanigans ! not to beat a dead horse but all you TO haters used him as a scapegoat. Aparently someone or
some people in Valley Ranch(Garrett) viewed him as a problem ,thus a scapegoat as well.
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Mar 17, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your premise is false
It’s not being a “hater” to think the team might be better without him. Does it make you a “lover” if you wanted him to stay? I also think injuries to the OL hurt the team. Does that mean I’m making them a scapegoat? I don’t think so, it simply means I think the team will be better if they are healthy and play better.
I don’t understand why TO “lovers” can’t discuss him without being completely emotional. It’s like they have had a spell cast over them. They tell us our offense will fall apart now he is gone. That is just irrational thinking in my mind. Dallas has more talent on offense than 80% of the teams in the NFL. I think they have more offensive playmakers than the NYG had when they won the SB or NE had when they won 3.
I’m like a lot of other Dallas fans. I don’t hate or love TO. I do think he was a distraction and did more to hurt the team than help them. For that reason, I am glad he is gone.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Mar 17, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your premise is flawed he's gone and he comes up every day because people cannot stop thinking we are better without him.
Is there a scenario where we are? i certainly hope so but if he wasn’t a scapegoat in Valley Ranch then why was our only proven big play receiver cut at a cost of 9 million? Someone there put last season squarely around his neck. And yes i did love TO he was a hell of a player for us and i wish him well.If we win a superbowl without him I will be sad for him. I never said our offense will fall apart either i just think you are being totally disingenuous if you believe he wasn’t viewed as a scapegoat by many many fans and at least a few people at Valley Ranch.
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Mar 17, 2009 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To me it's still gonna come down to O-line
If they give Tony time to make his reads then he’ll find the open guy. If they don’t then we’re toast. Plain and simple.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 17, 2009 1:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Kameleon
I agree. The line of scrimage is where the game is won or lost. That’s why I would like the Boys to draft the best lineman (offensive or defensive) that is available at #51.
I have to admit that I am really excited about the offense this season. I thought Felix, Choice and Bennett were outstanding in their rookie year. With Witten, Bennett, Felix, RW, and Miles A. on the field is it a run or pass play? Witten and Bennett are both good at blocking and catching.
The run to pass ratio I would like is 55 to 45. Hold the ball a little longer so the Defense is a little fresher.
by DaBoys on Mar 17, 2009 1:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely
Our O-Line needs to hold up. Bottom line.
by rotovibe on Mar 17, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Two tight end sets should play a large role in this offense.
I wouldn’t mind if that is the primary package.
I think it’s all about getting your best players on the field as much as possible, and this formation could really cause havoc with defenses.
We could see some real power this year.
by connery on Mar 17, 2009 2:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I remember reading the same thing last season
Eespecially aboot Felix. Bt I don’t think I ever saw him line up at receiver. I thought he had good hands. Does anyone know different?
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Mar 17, 2009 5:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The one time I did see him flex out...
he drew coverage and Witten got wide open on a TD pass.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I felt the same way
Going into the year, I expected to see a lot of Jones involved in the passing game but it hardly happened at all. Does Garrett or Wade have a wedgy for rookies? That was a total waste of talent, just like keeping Choice buried on the bench until he was forced into playing.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He only played in, 3-4 games?
I don’t think we saw anything close to what will ultimately be able to do in the offense. He was still getting his feet wet when he got hurt.
by DannyWhite on Mar 17, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Must not get into another T.O. argument....
I just don’t buy into the argument that Romo was “forced” to throw it to T.O..
"If your good at something never do it for free." - The Joker
by houseofprime on Mar 17, 2009 6:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't either
I’m humoring those who think so. He’s gone now, and gone with him are the excuses.
Draft Day Rules: Rule #4: If Bill Parcells calls, just hang up. Because whatever he want's to talk about ain't gonna be good for you.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 17, 2009 6:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude.
I feel this is something that has needed to be said ever since the end of the season. We’re on a path here, ya’ll just have to recognize the weapons in which we possess. I can sleep at night knowing the potential of our ‘09 season. Really, don’t start screaming ‘SuperBowl’ yet, but you cannot deny we potentially have an AWESOME power at our hands. ’09. Hooah.
Hooah.
by .FRoST.USAF on Mar 17, 2009 7:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 house & Glory.........couldn't of said it better....This BS with the forced balls has been played out for too long, and can never be an excuse again...
If he’s “forced” to throw the ball to his check down receiver every play this upcoming season, I’ll then realize he’s finally starting to get it….
You don’t force anything…there is should be an option on every play…RB, TE, WR…..there should be one within Romo at all times to dump off to at any given moment…IF there isn’t…you throw it away and live to play another play…..
Would you rather throw a little dump off ball to Felix hovering nearby in open space, being shadowed by a LB, or throw it up for grabs 30 yards downfield into double coverage like we seen countless times over the past few years ?
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 17, 2009 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This negates the objectivity of the post
Truly disappointed.
If you don’t believe it to be true, then don’t write it. Don’t placate us. It’s insulting.
I was neither a fan of getting T.O., nor releasing him. I cheered him in the star and cringed when he opened his mouth. His production was top-shelf. His devisive personality (even in his own head?) was a distraction, but only because the team let them be.
But your stat is somewhat misleading. While he only accounted for 21% of total completions, he was thrown to (a stat that DMN started tracking upon his arrival) was nearly 40%.
He accounted for a significant amount of attention…from both sides. But you’re right, he’s gone and we’ll see. I just wish we’d stop talking about the player.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 17, 2009 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent reply Fighter
I don’t need to be “humored” GD. You write very well. Stop the childish games. If you feel so strongly, write a post about how you actually feel.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glory I get what you were doing. Everybody else lighten up. He was taking on a premise.
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Mar 17, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Forced
But the focus was on TO; from Jerry on down, the focus was on getting TO the ball. If TO was ignored too often, then TO made sure the team noticed. It is this focus that will be gone. It is this concern for the psychological well being of TO that will ge gone. Instead, the offense can more squarely game plan on mismatches and other reasons to design and execute certain plays. The key point in this article is that TO’s opportunities will now be spread among a whos of who of good playmakers, from the three backs, to the two TEs, and Roy Williams and the other receivers. What the TO apologists fail to recognize is that TO was a declining talent. He disappeared all too often and was not a game changer anymore. It is truely a better situation with TO gone.
by Iowacowboy on Mar 17, 2009 6:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, he is still a game changer.
It is that defenses have figured him out. Defensive coordinators know how to game plan him effectively. I would have had no problem with him if he could catch the ball with that big mouth, or maybe even his hands once in a while. The drops just drove me out of my mind.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 17, 2009 7:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The drops!
Man you ain’t lying! While he often made fantastic plays, he also killed drives by not catching some easily caught balls. I’d rather sustain drives than have one big play. Remember, the faster you score, the more your defense is on the field. We want to score on some big plays obviously, but really it’s far more important to sustain drives if you ask me.
by sublimezg on Mar 17, 2009 9:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not only the drops that killed me...
it was when he would catch a 3rd down ball a yard or so short of the first down, and then instead of diving forward to get the first down and keep the drive alive, TO would slow down or even stop while he tried to juke a DB and make a big play, and in doing so, get tackled from behind by a LB or DL and we’d have to punt.
I swear that happened at least 5 times last season, and I had to restrain the urge to chuck my remote through the TV every time.
by DannyWhite on Mar 17, 2009 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A guy trying to make a play doesn't usually bother me
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
It doesn’t bother you when a player repeatedly kills a drive by not getting the easy first down on a 3rd and short play? How is that possible?
by DannyWhite on Mar 17, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It bothered me too
He COULD get the 1st down, instead he dances and it’s 4th and short instead
by AustonianAggie on Mar 17, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
then why does Romo bother you when he tries to make a play?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 17, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the ratio is going to be run heavy...
The o line has to do a better job of blocking early in games. Far to many time this year the team would run the ball for short gains early.
I get running the ball, but if it puts the team in 3rd and long, not so much.
by T. on Mar 17, 2009 9:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
Second sentence is supposed to read – far too many times…
by T. on Mar 17, 2009 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We need to go to a airforcebat "friendly" board.
In which avatars are mandatory and only one person can have the word “cowboy” in their name.
I suggest a fight to the death for this.
Using foam bats with a tack taped to the tip.
Happy St. Patricks Day.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 9:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Does "forced" require a definition?
The people who are obsessed with TO often say nobody “forced” Tony Romo to throw to him or Jason Garret to call a play for him. Using a literal definition that is of course true. How about from a practical perspective? The answer is almost certainly yes.
Do you honestly believe, in the millisecond Romo has to make a read, that TO’s behavior would not impact Romo’s decision process. Do you believe he is super human? Of course TO’s behavior makes a difference, the same way you concede things to your wife in the hope she will stop nagging you. If it didn’t work, why would TO be as vocal as he is and act the way he does. He does it because he knows it gets more plays called for him and passes thrown his way.
Does TO have the team in mind? I have no idea, but I concede he might. He probably does believe the best way for the team to be successful is for him to get as many passes as possible. I disagree. Used correctly, he is one of many offensive assets on the team. He is not the only one.
The difference between winning and losing in the NFL almost always comes down to just a handful of plays in a game. Every week some team(s) win who are clearly less talented. If only 1 more play is called for TO or thrown to him than should have been, it has weakened his team and possibly changed the outcome. On a team as talented as Dallas, there’s no need to put up with jack ass behavior and the media circus that surrounds him. It’s all just distractions from what should be the single focus, winning a SB.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 9:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Forced is a strong word...
It’s not like someone had a gun to his head.
I think it was definitly highly encouraged.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then T.O.
highly encouraged passes to be “Forced” to him.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 17, 2009 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 17, 2009 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't most gifted receivers?
I’m not defending T.O.‘s antics, but don’t most receivers (or playmakers) want the ball? Could you imagine being a QB in an NFL huddle? I imagine after every play you have three guys saying “I was WIDE open.” As a QB, you just have to try and ignore this and follow your reads and progressions. Plenty of blame for T.O. and his nonsense last year, but doesn’t some of this fall on Romo? Even with T.O. gone, you gotta think there are going to be plenty of players lobbying, encouraging, demanding (or any other adjective) the ball as much as possible. Romo can’t be worrying about making people in the huddle happy in terms of distribution, or this is just never going to work.
by Boundforbeach on Mar 17, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the difference is that
the other receivers don’t bitch about it during a PC after games
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 17, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No question...
T.O. went too far. He is the very definition of “high maintenance.” All I’m saying is that players griping for the ball is probably a normal part of life as an NFL QB. All the bitchin won’t stop just because they got rid of T.O. Hopefully, it’ll stay in house.
by Boundforbeach on Mar 17, 2009 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, haven't you ever heard Aikman?
He has said that Irvin was always saying he was open. All great WR’s do it. I believe Peyton Manning has said the same thing and you know Randy Moss has got to be in Brady’s ear
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course you're right BfB
To me it’s a matter of degree. WR’s calling for the ball is common and expected. The level of distraction from TO though is off the charts. Was Irvin constantly looking for a camera or microphone to complain or was he in Aikmen’s ear more privately?
I also think Troy Aikmen was much better equipped to handle that than Tony Romo. Romo. I’m not knocking Romo, he just doesn’t appear to me to be the kind of guy who commands the respect Aikmen did.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed....
it’s more of a maturity/leadership issue. The thing that you knew about Aikman was that he wasn’t going to take garbage off anyone. He was there to win games and nothing better get in his way.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. Aikman and Irvin grew up together as pros.They were equals from the start.
Romos relationship with TO was completely different. Its not as easy as people make it out to be for a young guy to come in and start jumping guys asses. TO would be difficult for the biggest hard ass QBs.
by squidlo97 on Mar 17, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for the record
I am AWESOME! at Where’s Waldo!
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on Mar 17, 2009 9:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha
LIAR!
You are marginal at best!
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
False. Black Bear
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on Mar 17, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
even though I believe our offense
will incorporate more running this season and try to be more balanced, as long as Garrett is the OC, we’re always going to be a passing team and the offense will run through Romo.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 17, 2009 10:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Divisive
I love how the T.O. apologist say T.O. wasn’t divisive..“half of the locker room was on his side”…..LOL…isn’t that the definition of divisive.
I also love that if we had won one more regular season game and lost in the first round of the playoffs, T.O. would like still be a Cowboy and Wade Phillips would have been the guy everyone was screaming to be released.
There is no doubt the Cowboys will miss T.O.‘s production. It will be hard for a single players to make up for the production. Releasing T.O. will not solve the team’s chemistry problems. Winning will do that.
This team has all the talent and makeup to be a top notch team. What it lacks is leadership..which starts at the top…
by tb0n3 on Mar 17, 2009 10:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it's not divisive when 90% of the team backs you...
it’s the 10% that have a problem…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 18, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
at the very least, losing TO will show us what defeciencies we really have
if we have them; his big plays and attention seeking might of hid under-performers
by AustonianAggie on Mar 17, 2009 10:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
TO IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We all sound like a bunch of pyscho ex girlfriends that can’t get over a relationship gone bad. And when i say “we all” i do mean ALL. I am included.
by TARHEEL PAUL on Mar 17, 2009 11:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Tarheel.....
this is completely off subject but I was watching NC play basketball the other day and a bunch of us starting talking about mascots. What is a “tarheel”? That kinda stumped me.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goes back to
the civil war. North Carolina units were so steadfast, that they reputedly had tar on their heels to keep them in place.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 17, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every Texan
should know that. LOL.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 17, 2009 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL........
My husband and I were talking about unusual mascot names like “Boilermakers” “Crimson Tide” etc. Let me think about it and I’ll give you some others that make you say “what does that mean” as far as a mascot name?
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I spent a year
in Durham NC. That is the only reason I know what “Tar Heel” means. I wasn’t there a week and almost got into a fight because I didn’t know who Dean Smith was. They take their B-Ball serious there.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 17, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU DIDNT KNOW WHO DEAN SMITH WAS??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I kid. But we do take it pretty serious.
by TARHEEL PAUL on Mar 17, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coming from West Texas?
I didn’t have a clue. We played B-Ball because it was off season. I delivered to the Duke Campus for Domino’s. They would camp out for two weeks for season tickets. While I was there I delivered to the Duke Women’s team. They let me shoot free throws at Cameron Indoor Arena. I got to stand at the same foul line as Michael Jordan.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 17, 2009 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forcing and Sullying and Mascots
In regards to forcing the ball to T.O. or feeling forced to throw the ball to him, I agree that there was no physical force used on Romo, nor was there even a suggestion by management that Romo throw the ball to T.O. more than any other receiver.
However, with a strong personality like T.O. who has ‘blown up’ other teams, I believe a guy like Romo would go ‘out of his way’ to try to keep T.O. happy. They had a good year behind them, Tony seems like the kind of guy who wants to please every one, and in T.O.‘s defense, I don’t think he was just being greedy. I think T.O. felt he could carry the team. it worked great one year, and for a number of reasons, it didn’t work as well the following year.
Blame it on Romo, but I do think he felt some pressure to keep T.O. happy.
As far as Glory’s post, I believe he took a position and made excellent points in support of that position. His personal feelings are still his and I appreciate a writer who can divorce himself from his own view and explore another perspective. I hope you all will too.
What exactly is a Nittany Lion?
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Mar 17, 2009 11:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
GD is an excellent writer
I agree with you, being able to write well “for the other side” is a good thing, not bad. It was his comment about humoring others that got my panties in a bunch.
I don’t know what a Nittany Lion is but I’m still trying to figure out how being an Orange would get anyone excited. They’re not even “Orangemen” anymore, just Oranges.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably as exciting as a...
buckeye.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do know what a buckeye is.....
it’s some sort of nut tree.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being originally from Ohio..
.. we always used to say a buckeye is a ‘tough nut’. They are hard, almost the size of a golfball and inedible. As kids we would gather them up in wagons and paper bags, then throw them at each other. Ahh, the child hood memories from SW Ohio.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Mar 17, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where in Ohio?
My husband’s from Cincinnati…..
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Middletown Ohio
Go North on I-75 about 25-30 miles from Cincinnati and you are in Middletown. I’m going to guess your husband has been whacked by a buckeye or two in his younger days.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Mar 17, 2009 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So that's what's wrong with him?Haha
I finally realized it.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
comparably though a buckeye isn’t very intimidating.
I see an alligator charging at me I’m afraid.
I get pegged with a buckeye, I just get irritated.
Haha.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
those suckers hurt...a lot...
more than irritating, at least it was when i was nine. im from cleveland…
by AikmanNailedMySis on Mar 17, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's a Hokie?
That is what you call yourself if you just can’t stand being called a “Gobbler.”
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Mar 17, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
anyone remember when TO got hurt, that Redskins game was awful, hope we dont see that on consistant bases now
by dcfanz on Mar 17, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That redskins game...
Really was hard to judge anyways.
There was absolutely NOTHING to play for in that game.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question Jim.....
I know what a Lion is but Nittany?
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Back on Subject - Sharing the Ball on Offense in 2009
In 2008 Romo completed 276 passes:
Distribution -
5 Different WRs: Owens, Crayton, RW, Austin, and Stanback
142 rec or % 51.4
3 Different TEs: Witten, Bennett, and Curtis
109 rec or % 39.4
4 Different RBs/FBs: Barber, Choice, Jones, and Anderson
77 rec or % 27.8
As already mentioned by others, TO caught 69 balls or % 25
Where will those 69 rec go in 2009? Will they ALL go to RW, his replacement? I don’t think so. Even if RW catches 50 balls this year, there are plenty of other rec to go around.
I would suspect that Witten catches about the same (80-85).
TE Bennett should catch more than his 20 last year.
WR Crayton should catch at least the same as last year (39).
WR Austin will definately catch more than his 13 from a year ago.
WR Stanback should catch more than his 2 from 2008.
RB Barber’s numbers may drop a little (from 52 rec) in order to give Jones more
RB Choice had 21 rec, I’d guess that number to climb a little, maybe to 30
RB Jones ONLY caught 2 balls last year. 1 for 7 yards and 1 for 3 yards – a TRAVESTY
I’m stunned by the fact that Felix Jones only caught 2 balls all last year!!!!
In the redistribution of rec in 2009; I’m hoping he gets no less than 25 of them.
by BishopWest on Mar 17, 2009 12:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...
He also missed over half the season.
He probably would have had closer to 8-10 catches… which is still pretty low.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Felix
That is.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 17, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he played the whole season he would have taken MBIII 54 catches away from him,....at least 30-40 of them./..
I expect Felix to get 50 balls next year…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 18, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry to have gotten everything off subject.....
but sometimes it’s good to just relax a little and share a laugh
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okie Dokie Hokie-LOL
sorry couldn’t resist
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please clarify BishopWest
You say Romo completed 276 passes, but listed catches totallying 328 at 118.6%. Something seems wrong there.
by T Zig on Mar 17, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Catches when Romo was hurt?
Did Brad have that many completions?
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Romo did have 276 passes complete
I should have also listed:
Brad Johnson had 41 completed passes
Bollinger had 10 completed passes
There is 1 other completed pass not accounted for (did a RB or WR attempt a pass?)
All other stats are correct.
by BishopWest on Mar 17, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Witten
To T.O. in the Eagles game
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Mar 17, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The following players will have more catches in 09 vs 08
RW
Sam Hurd
Austin
Felix Jones
Choice
Bennett
Stanback (or his replacement)
That’s 7 guys and all of them could easily have 10 more catches, most a lot more.
by StillHateTheGiants on Mar 17, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully Roy Williams isn't another problem
Yes, we did get rid of one beast feeding but didn’t we add another? Roy Williams was complaining all the time in Detroit about not getting the ball enough. Hopefully Roy isn’t as big a divider as T.O. was but he did go to the coaches last year. I for one hope that Roy can keep his mouth shut and help this team.
by torchindefenses on Mar 17, 2009 12:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't over-react on Roy.......
before he got to Dallas, he was known as a pretty good team guy plus he played for the pathetic Lions. One thing that keeps getting twisted though, is Jason Garrett went to the receivers-not the receivers going to Jason Garrett. Garrett called the meeting which is way different.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only concern with Roy is if he's gotten too big to be fast
by AustonianAggie on Mar 17, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, before his Senior Yr.
he started working out with weights to get bigger. I don’t remember the reasoning behind it.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is all connected with winning
When we’re losing, the bitching starts up; keep winning games and everybody is usually happy.
by BishopWest on Mar 17, 2009 12:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Texstar.. I heard differently about Roy
I repeatedly read that he was acting like a pre-maddona about not getting the ball in Detroit. All receivers want the damn ball but getting rid of one ball hog WR is great right? So Tony can spread the ball around more and get it to the open man, right? We’ll Roy better not pull the same crap here.
by torchindefenses on Mar 17, 2009 2:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I agree that he needs to shut-up......
don’t get me wrong. I’m just “hoping” that he’s learned his lesson that Dallas is very different that Detroit. You can’t get away with mouthing off in Dallas like you can in Detroit. I’m not defending him but I’m hoping that he finally gets it.
by texstar on Mar 17, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
texstar
Here, here. Hopefully Jerry Jones gets it too and lets him know that it will not be tolerated. There’s the door if you can’t be a good teammate. We’ll see..
by torchindefenses on Mar 17, 2009 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
Related FanShots 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.
