Monkeypox

I don't have a problem with CONSERVATIVE in that situation, but screens and slants are conservative pass plays that teams widely use. Even a play-action rollout to the TE/FB (I know our true FB was out) where Romo has the option to run the ball and slide if he must. The problem isn't so much WHAT Garrett does as it is that he's pretty reactionary and it leads to predictability.

Guys, in all likelihood, we still lack a FBS QB on our roster. Look at the teams we're recruiting against for these guys, look at their status out of high school, look at their numbers. It takes more than "being 6'4"" to be a good college QB. DT was pulled bc he wasn't giving us a chance to win, and it's easier to pull the QB than it is the playcaller. The only success EITHER Osborn or McNulty has to show for themselves is in garbage time vs. backups. Note the stark difference in McNulty's play in that situation vs. what he faced as a starter in Tulsa. It's MUCH EASIER. That's why I wouldn't hang my hat on that, or on what Osborn has done in similar situations. It's kinda like a new coach coming in mid-season and giving the team a spark (Chico/Garrett). It's a lot different than taking that team from the start with the responsibility of actually winning. I really don't care what QB we see in the coming weeks, bc our offense is no more creative and somehow less effective than DD's and we're severely lacking in talent outside of Dunbar. It's the same ol' story here at North Texas.

This.

Weird. We're recruiting a bunch of guys at these positions I've never heard of... DT? DE? OL? This must be something new, bc I'm pretty sure there's only 3 positions - QB, WR, and ATH.

And if Dez couldn't jump like he can, and didn't have hands the size of dinner plates, Tony'd have thrown about 8 picks by now on those jump balls. But Megatron IS that tall, and QBs know he can throw jumpballs to those guys and they'll go up and get it. Stafford didn't look shaky. He looked smart. It wasn't like he spent most of the game trying NOT to throw to Johnson. And actually, if one of our 3 DBs decides to cut UNDERNEATH Megatron, then they have an opportunity to make a play. Or, if Stafford didn't have time to get some nachos from the concession stand, finish a sudoku puzzle, and knit a dog sweater before making that throw, it's a different ballgame. But the biggest if in the game was IF WE HAD A SMART QB, we wouldn't have lost that game. Romo isn't the only thing holding this team back, but if, in this world, the Cowboys ever surround him with the talent we all know they need, then he WILL BE THE ONLY THING HOLDING THEM BACK. He's not going to get any better as a QB. He is what he is.

There's WONDERING what's going on (which maybe 3 people have done), and then there's running with crackpot theories or thinking you absolutely know what's going on and can evaluate players based on a few snaps of garbage time (which is the vast majority of people here). I don't view the pick-6s as even the biggest factors in the game, significant though they were. Goalline playcalling/execution, penalties, and complete inability of the defense to tackle made this an unwinnable game, regardless of who was behind center. That Tulsa offense could've scored 60 on us without issue. They called off the dogs and got two pick-6s. Their average drive was like 7 plays and 1:45 or something. Ridiculous.

I gave Romo a pass on week 1, but 2 of those picks yesterday are on him. How the Lions scored off of them isn't terribly relevant to me. You can't make those throws. And there's the rub. We have to win like the Giants won with Eli... a good run game and shut down defense. Because you can't trust Romo. He's a great QB when you're down and you need someone to win you a game. He's an awful QB when you JUST need someone to make smart decisions. As was mentioned, you saw Stafford throw the ball away when plays weren't there. Live to play another day. Romo's never going to do that. He's going to throw it to Barbie Carpenter. He's gonna jump-throw off his back foot on 1st and 10.

Much is being made about what a QB did in limited time in a game in which we were getting blown out. Just finished watching it, since I got too mad the first time. Recap. 1) McNulty's first pass... poorly thrown on 3rd and 5. True Freshman.... possibly his worst throw of the game, including the picks. 2) Tulsa scores with ease... 5 plays, 76 yards, 1:28. Defense is a joke. 3) Next drive, our predictable, and predictably poor run game, runs for 3 yards on 3 plays (not counting McNulty's 1st down scramble). McNulty's in 3rd and 7... pick 6. 4) Next drive. Probably our best in terms of play-calling. We threw it on some 1st downs! This made more 2nd and 3rd and shorts, and we were able to convert them with the run game (using the pass to set up the run). Hamilton on the big pass play. 1st and goal at the 3. Can't run it in. Can't use a mobile QB (isn't this why we have him in?!). Rush rush rush rush... 0 points. 5) We FORCE A PUNT! 6) Good field position after the punt, decent run game, and pass interference get us to 1st and 10 at the 28. Holding penalty puts us out of it... 2nd and 17. Incomplete pass by McNulty. 3rd and 17... short pass... 3rd and 11. Penalty... 52 yard FG. Thank Jeebus. 7) Tulsa has a tough time the next drive... they actually have to convert a 3rd down. Otherwise... pie. A 25-yard TD pass where we missed approximately 125 tackles. 8) Good field position from Chancellor. McNulty completes a 3rd and 9 for a 37-yd pass to Chancellor. 3-for-3 on the drive. 1st and goal at the 6. The worst play McNulty made was taking the sack. But again we can't bang it in from 6 yards out. Fourth-and-23? FG Blocked. Yeahhhh. 9) Tulsa's back. 8 plays, 75 yards, 1:02. Still can't stop them. 28-3 Tulsa. Rout is on at the half. 10) McNulty picked returned 74 yards.... 11) 2 bad rushes make it 3rd and 16 at the 16... McNulty converts. Another bad rush + a penalty and it's 2nd and 28. McNulty gets 16 of it back, gets sacked. Gets new life on a penalty. Another bad rush on 1st down (it's the 3rd quarter... can you see a pattern?) 3rd and ten... punt (penalty on our punt formation?) 12) A couple of plays and Tulsa had another TD. 5 plays, 81 yards, 1:57 off the clock. One pass on the drive for 60 yards. 13) Immediately after, McNulty's first pass is on 3rd and 14. Incomplete. 14) Defense gets a rare stop. McNulty completes a 46 yard pass to set up the TD. 15) NT gets the ball back at their own 1 yard line. 5 runs and a punt. 16) Tulsa puts in backups. I was actually impressed with the true freshman QB. Two pick-6s is bad... really bad. But Tulsa could score any time they wanted to. The difference between Osborn's first TD drive and either of the ones that McNulty got us to 1st and goal? We threw on 1st down and blew their minds. The 2nd one... against backups, with a short field, after Tulsa's backups fumbled away the ball. I don't think Osborn makes a difference in the game here. We were beaten by a superior team in talent and scheme. This board is a really strange one sometimes. A couple of weeks ago, people were wondering why Thompson was in there, because he "couldn't get it done" vs Alabama. Now we're lamenting his loss, and blaming the true freshman QB bc we couldn't run the ball or stop the Tulsa offense or block for a freaking FG. This post has been promoted to an article

Right now, Romo has been responsible for 2 wins that the team had no shot in, and 1 loss (as I stated, there were a number of other problems in week 1 and can't even begin to put that one on Romo). The first pick and the 3rd pick today were signature Romo picks. No reason to throw either ball. The first, right into the LBs arms like he couldn't see him bracketing the receiver. The second one, he's falling back and throws it, jumping, off his back foot. Romo thinks he's Superman. And both of those picks were on 1st down. Absolutely unacceptable. HOWEVER, our defense played well about as long as the offense did. A missed sack on Stafford led to a big play. Every pass completion, with the exception to the jump ball in the end zone, went to WIDE OPEN receivers. Far too much busted coverage, uncovered players. Ryan's defense is only unpredictable in where players are coming from, and not nearly as much in the number of guys coming. NO sacks today and poor coverage on the back end. And as long as Alan Ball is in on defense, the opponents are going to seek him out just like they did Jacques Reeves. And Garrett. You remember what the Cowboys used to do on 3rd and short in the Super Bowl years, late in a game, playing with a lead? They ran it. That's part of the point of getting to 3rd and 2. You have the whole playbook. Granted, it was a good play by the DB and a BAD route by the receiver that led to that pick-6. But we were gouging them with the run, at mid-field, and we were still up big in the 3rd quarter. Run the ball on a 3rd and 2, and you have a shot at another first down, a 4th down play, or pinning the Lions in crappy field position. And 4th down on the goalline, with an O-line that struggles with the power interior run-game blocking... get your HB in space. That's why you have the young, athletic O-line to start with. This team doesn't have the overall talent to go anywhere this year. They really don't. Not with this defensive personnel. Not with the injuries, not with the young offensive line (btw, did you see 1st round pick Tyron Smith get blown the f up on that sack late in the game?). Romo absolutely was the worst part of this game, though. This one's easily on him, despite the other issues. But make no mistake, there are plenty of other issues. The picks by Romo today aren't ones that are going to keep this team from the playoff/Superbowl, bc that just isn't in the cards this year.

We don't have a chance in either of the first two games this season without Romo at the helm. This team has absolutely ZERO at the run game and our secondary is currently comprised of Jenkins (on an oxygen tank), my dad, a night duty cleaning lady from the Arlington La Quinta, and Alan Ball (who is on the depth chart right after the cleaning lady). Oh, and we're matching up Spencer, Brooking, and James with HBs/FBs/TEs and they're getting torched. The combination of the craptastic secondary and lack of athleticism at LB has done a pretty good job of making slugs like Sanchez and Alex Smith look like half-decent QBs. So right now I've got: 1) No secondary 2) No run game 3) Slow linebackers I'm going to go ahead and add 4) No depth at WR 5) Jason Garrett playcalling (particularly in the red zone) These are the 5 things I fix before I worry about Tony Romo. And there's plenty I don't like about Romo. I can take the interceptions where you get fooled by the defense and a linebacker slips underneath into coverage and picks you off, or the ones where the line and backs don't pick up the blitz and you make a desperate throw and get picked. But too many of Tony's are just "WTF" throws, where you can't figure any rhyme or reason to it (like the one in the Jets game). But he's a gunslinger, so I think there's always going to be some of that. He's capable of putting a team on his back and winning. He's a guy who CAN win you games. He's not a bus driver, though, and he's not that next level - Aikman or Staubach. He's more Danny White or Dandy Don. He CAN also lose you games. But he's also not Drewy Testabledsoe, Hutchinson, Quincy Carter, or any number of sh*tbirds we've had manning the position since Aikman. I think if you have enough help for him, his decision-making in crunch time is not nearly the issue that it is now.

The differentiation is on how you are tried and sentenced as a minor, not on the crime you committed. A felony is a felony.

Baylor? Seriously? I know they beat TCU and all but... really? Baylor?

Holy ****! Tech added a tramp stamp! That's hilarious. "Guns Up, Boys! Yee-haw!"

And a driver's license is unnecessary unless you are operating a motor vehicle, in which case, you need liability insurance.

in his stool.

Think of them as helmet stickers.

I just love that I've got a single site on the internet for all the WAC, UT, UTSA, SMU, TCU, Houston, Texas State, UTA, McNeese State talk I can handle.

Seriously, that Southern Miss helmet is terrible. It's even worse when you learn they didn't get it second hand from a flight school in 1979. Someone intentionally came up with that. If you want to spell something out, spell out Mean Green. We already have it in the same font as North Texas, and at least it's unique. Or have NT on there in some configuration, as long as it doesn't look like EVERY OTHER LOGO out there. I'm averse to UNT only because it's too easy to mar into offensive slang. I'm not offended by the term, but by the number of rivals out there taking the easy joke.

To be fair, North Carolina hasn't ever had the Ram logo on its helmet. Nor has Alabama that I know of, since they've kept their helmets old school forever. And there's solid reasoning not to have an eagle plastered all over when building the brand as Mean Green. So I think the SOW works best as a secondary logo. Put it on the field, some other small location on the uniform, use the wings somewhere, etc. But I agree that I don't think it's confusing to have a nickname (Tarheels, Crimson Tide, Mean Green) that differs from the mascot (Ram, Elephant, Eagle). I just think you have to be careful where you use a mascot as a logo when it's not the official nickname.

The alumni logo is weak-sauce. It's a hundred other college/high school logos with a star over it. It would be one thing if it existed as the school's logo for a hundred years, but it hasn't. And I'm no fan of the current eagle logos, either, but I'll take them 100 times over the interlocked-N/T/star. Blech. Thanks to this thread, I now know that the reason fans from other schools make fun of us is NOT because we historically stink at football and that they've barely heard of us. It's because we don't do a proper eagle claw.

I like that the excuse is that "Kids will listen to him. He's an athlete they look up to", ignoring that that is precisely the problem. I remember these sorts of speeches as a kid, and I used to make fun of them, especially when they came from people who still enjoyed success. Motivational speakers fail. Why? If they aren't successful, why would you listen to them? If they ARE successful, then their evils haven't cost them dearly. The only message children will ever get from Michael Vick is that ultimately, his crimes had no significant downside. If you're a famous athlete, you can get what you want. Vick lost some time to prison (which is no small thing), but nobody spent two years worth of Sundays watching Vick in prison, and even if they did, they wouldn't remember it now. He's a millionaire playing a kid's game for a living. Crime pays. This is the message furthered by anyone who attempts to prop him up. There are people in Dallas working every day making the city a better place for kids and adults. If fame is required, there are a number of Cowboys who do this, either as part of their NFL charity work or separately. Many former players call the area their home and still do the work, for very little personal benefit. There are also numerous teammates of Michael Vick who are not ex-cons (and possibly never murdered, tortured, or mutilated anything or anyone), and would gladly accept an invitation. I just don't get it. But what's frightening to me is that the jackwagon who gave him is clueless. It would be one thing to realize afterward that he'd made a mistake. But he continues to defend this stupidity. I do like that they're saying it's not a REAL key to the city, as if the one the mayor hands out unlocks every door in town.

What bigger penalty could there be than having to play in the WAC?

Am I the only one who's actually BEEN to San Antonio in the last 10 years? All this mention of no local competition when UT Austin owns that market.

SWEET!