Archer: Cowboys hope Brandon Weeden can pull a Jason Garrett, circa 1998

[Cotton]

Cowboys hope Brandon Weeden can pull a Jason Garrett, circa 1998

Todd Archer, ESPN Staff Writer

IRVING, Texas -- Jason Garrett does not like to reminisce very much about his playing days. Every year at Thanksgiving he is asked about his memorable game against Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers.

As the Dallas Cowboys get ready for life without Tony Romo for the next eight weeks -- give or take one or two -- because of a broken collarbone, Garrett can offer a perspective to Brandon Weeden that few can.

In 1998, Troy Aikman broke his collarbone in a Week 2 loss to the Denver Broncos. Garrett was called in to start and keep the Cowboys’ chances afloat as they waited for Aikman’s return.

Like Romo, Aikman did not have surgery, but his break was more in the middle of the collarbone. Romo’s break is a distal fracture. Aikman was able to return in six weeks.

“Seems like 10 lifetimes ago,” Garrett said Monday afternoon.

Garrett was in his sixth of seven seasons with the Cowboys. He had started only two games before this run and had not started a game in three years.

But Garrett had some excellent recall in remembering that five-week run.

“I remember I was playing, excited about the opportunity. Happened in Denver, if I’m not mistaken, right?” Garrett said. “We played the Giants on the following Monday night. Billy Davis, Deion Sanders, right? Um ... I remember two really bad, disappointing losses where we lost 13-12. Remember a good game against Carolina. Am I right? How am I doing so far? I remember a really good game in Washington. Chris Warren. Was Emmitt (Smith) playing? They both had over 100 yards rushing. Yeah.

“So, I love playing football. We were better with the other guy playing, though. I’ve got to admit it. He’s pretty good.”

The Cowboys beat the Giants, 31-7, highlighted by an 80-yard touchdown pass to Davis. Sanders had a 59-yard punt return for a score. Smith had 28 carries for 120 yards and a touchdown in the 31-10 win against the Redskins. Warren had 104 yards on 14 carries. Garrett threw two touchdowns against the Panthers and Smith had more than 100 yards on the ground.

Garrett’s two losses were 13-12 affairs to the Oakland Raiders and Chicago Bears. He was intercepted twice by the Raiders and once by the Bears, who won on a late field goal.

Garrett’s numbers were not staggering. He completed more than 14 passes in a game just once (18 vs. Oakland). He threw for more than 224 yards just once (287 against the Panthers).

If there is a blueprint for Weeden to follow, it’s what Garrett did in 1998.

“Brandon will not play exactly how Tony plays,” Garrett said. “We don’t want him to play exactly how Tony plays. We want Brandon to play how Brandon plays. We have a system of football that we believe in and we’re confident he can run it for us.”

Garrett did not play the way Aikman played. The Cowboys ran the ball effectively and the defense was stout. That’s something they will need to do without Romo.

Weeden completed all seven of his passes filling in for Romo Sunday against the Eagles, including a 42-yard touchdown to Terrance Williams. He was most impressed, however, with a check-down to Lance Dunbar that did not result in a first down.

“He took advantage of the opportunities to throw it and throw it to the right guy, deliver the ball where it needs to be delivered, did a good job being patient,” Garrett said. “Sometimes you get into a game like that and you start, 'Hey, we got to do something.' Just ran the offense. He ran it with poise and good decisions, good throws, critical throws to keep drives alive and obviously the one for the touchdown was big. He did a nice job."

Nice was good enough for the Cowboys in 1998 with Garrett. He kept them afloat. When Aikman returned, the Cowboys won four straight games, finished 10-6 and won the NFC East in Chan Gailey’s first year but lost in the wild-card round to the Arizona Cardinals.

The ultimate goal wasn’t reached, but Garrett did what he was supposed to do and now hopes Weeden can do what he’s supposed to do.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I was at that game. It was like a Hollywood scripted movie. Second stringer called on to win the big one and pulls it out in the second half with a record setting performance. A turkey day to remember.

 

[Simpleton]

I think in a weird way the Romo injury could help the offense reestablish a run-first identity as long as Weeden can keep us right around .500 with at least a 2-5, hopefully 3-4 record in the presumably 7 games that Romo misses.

I didn't like the direction of the offense over the first 1.5 games with Romo, he was constantly changing protections, and presumably play-calls, where guys lined up and he constantly let the play clock run down to about 2 seconds. The offense seemed frantic, out of rhythm, disjointed and had an odd propensity to throw everything within about 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. Last year everything about the offense just seemed much calmer with less pre-snap theatrics and moving around, we'd generally line up and the run the play. I didn't hate the run/pass ratio in the first game, but the final numbers were obviously not balanced and if Romo hadn't been injured I'm guessing he would've thrown it about 40-45 times against the Eagles.

With Weeden we will obviously focus on the run and being more balanced offensively, and if that works, and Weeden can presumably keep our heads above water by pulling out a few games, I think that identity will carry through to when Romo comes back.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I think in a weird way the Romo injury could help the offense reestablish a run-first identity as long as Weeden can keep us right around .500 with at least a 2-5, hopefully 3-4 record in the presumably 7 games that Romo misses.

I didn't like the direction of the offense over the first 1.5 games with Romo, he was constantly changing protections, and presumably play-calls, where guys lined up and he constantly let the play clock run down to about 2 seconds. The offense seemed frantic, out of rhythm, disjointed and had an odd propensity to throw everything within about 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. Last year everything about the offense just seemed much calmer with less pre-snap theatrics and moving around, we'd generally line up and the run the play. I didn't hate the run/pass ratio in the first game, but the final numbers were obviously not balanced and if Romo hadn't been injured I'm guessing he would've thrown it about 40-45 times against the Eagles.

With Weeden we will obviously focus on the run and being more balanced offensively, and if that works, and Weeden can presumably keep our heads above water by pulling out a few games, I think that identity will carry through to when Romo comes back.

Yeah Romo has been running me crazy also this season. He was back in the old mode of tinkering with everything on every play. I understand the need to adjust at times but every snap is ridiculous. It gives the defense the advantage of having the luxury of knowing when to go since the ball will be snapped with 1 or zero seconds on the clock. That is part of what hamstring some of the plays.

 

[ravidubey]

Yeah Romo has been running me crazy also this season. He was back in the old mode of tinkering with everything on every play. I understand the need to adjust at times but every snap is ridiculous. It gives the defense the advantage of having the luxury of knowing when to go since the ball will be snapped with 1 or zero seconds on the clock. That is part of what hamstring some of the plays.

You might be right. At times his adjustments were excellent vs NY, but it's hard to build any rhythm when the clock runs to 00 on almost every play.

The Bengals did this intentionally under Sam Wyche to fatigue the DL stuck in their stance (combined with running from the no-huddle), but it clearly disrupted the offense.

Dallas has been at it's best this year in the 2-minute drill. With no favorite receiving target out there, reducing the time the defense has to prepare makes it even harder for them to guess the play.

 

[NoDak]

It gives the defense the advantage of having the luxury of knowing when to go since the ball will be snapped with 1 or zero seconds on the clock. That is part of what hamstring some of the plays.

This theory has been floated around forever, but it's ridiculous. Think about it... Have you ever seen a defensive lineman watching the play clock prior to the snap? No. They're watching the ball. If they're watching the play clock, they will ALWAYS be late off the ball. It's not very often when the ball is snapped exactly when the clock strikes zero. It's usually snapped at one or two seconds. So if they're watching the clock and waiting for zero... They're now getting blown off the ball.

 

[Smitty]

This theory has been floated around forever, but it's ridiculous. Think about it... Have you ever seen a defensive lineman watching the play clock prior to the snap? No. They're watching the ball. If they're watching the play clock, they will ALWAYS be late off the ball. It's not very often when the ball is snapped exactly when the clock strikes zero. It's usually snapped at one or two seconds. So if they're watching the clock and waiting for zero... They're now getting blown off the ball.

Yeah, I think it matters very little if at all. And it's certainly outweighed by the importance of Romo using that time to read the defense.

 

[Simpleton]

The play clock nearly expiring doesn't bother me because I think it'll give the defense an advantage in terms of rushing the passer, it's more about how disjointed, disorganized, frantic and confused everything is as Romo is making changes while letting the clock nearly run out.

 

[NoDak]

The play clock nearly expiring doesn't bother me because I think it'll give the defense an advantage in terms of rushing the passer, it's more about how disjointed, disorganized, frantic and confused everything is as Romo is making changes while letting the clock nearly run out.

Now that, I'd agree with.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

The play clock nearly expiring doesn't bother me because I think it'll give the defense an advantage in terms of rushing the passer, it's more about how disjointed, disorganized, frantic and confused everything is as Romo is making changes while letting the clock nearly run out.

I think it absolutely screws with the offensive line. Last year we didn't do much of it at all and our offensive line run blocked better then ever before. When an offensive lineman is going to run block what's the last thing you want to do? Have them sit in their stance for 10 seconds while defenders are jumping around all over the place. It's not about fatigue. Its about rhythm and exploding out of your stance. When you watch the guys run 40 times the reason they take off early half the time is because they are trying to stay in that still stance as little as possible. When you ask offensive lineman to do that I think you lose something in their ability to fire off the ball and run block.

It also leads to false starts obviously.

 

[L.T. Fan]

This theory has been floated around forever, but it's ridiculous. Think about it... Have you ever seen a defensive lineman watching the play clock prior to the snap? No. They're watching the ball. If they're watching the play clock, they will ALWAYS be late off the ball. It's not very often when the ball is snapped exactly when the clock strikes zero. It's usually snapped at one or two seconds. So if they're watching the clock and waiting for zero... They're now getting blown off the ball.

Well the other side of the coin then, what do you attribute all the false start penalties to?

 

[L.T. Fan]

This theory has been floated around forever, but it's ridiculous. Think about it... Have you ever seen a defensive lineman watching the play clock prior to the snap? No. They're watching the ball. If they're watching the play clock, they will ALWAYS be late off the ball. It's not very often when the ball is snapped exactly when the clock strikes zero. It's usually snapped at one or two seconds. So if they're watching the clock and waiting for zero... They're now getting blown off the ball.

If you are going to blitz the backers and secondary can see the play clock.

 

[NoDak]

If you are going to blitz the backers and secondary can see the play clock.

Believe whatever you want, man. If you think players are watching the play clock, fine. But they're not. I'm not saying players won't glance up to the clock when the offense comes to the line, but once the Oline sets, they are watching the ball. They are not timing their jump while watching the clock.

If they were, when a delay of game is called, why are there no defensive players coming across the line when the clock hits zero? You're trying to tell us that they're timing their jump with the clock, right? So it stands to reason they'd be on the move when it hits zero. Instead, the whistle blows and everybody relaxes and comes out of their stance.

Also, as was stated last week, there is one ref assigned to watch the play clock. He watches until it hits zero, then looks to see if the ball has moved. If not, delay of game is called. The other refs are NOT watching the clock. The line judge is watching the line, and if the defenders jump across the line before the ball is snapped because they are watching the clock, they've now just earned an encroachment penalty from the line judge.

 

[bbgun]

If you are going to blitz the backers and secondary can see the play clock.

Funny you should mention that. Jets CB Buster Skrine was on WFAN this morning and said he was watching the play clock tick down and timed his blindside blitz (which led to an interception) accordingly. During film review leading up to the game, they noticed that Luck had a habit of using the entire 40 seconds due to all the check-downs, so that allowed him to get a jump on the play.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Funny you should mention that. Jets CB Buster Skrine was on WFAN this morning and said he was watching the play clock tick down and timed his blindside blitz (which led to an interception) accordingly. During film review leading up to the game, they noticed that Luck had a habit of using the entire 40 seconds due to all the check-downs, so that allowed him to get a jump on the play.

Yeah, the QB looks at the play clock before he snaps the ball. You know damn well Romo is. Where they put the clocks on the field it would be rather easy for a defensive blitzer to see it. Maybe not the D-line as much but for everyone else.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Funny you should mention that. Jets CB Buster Skrine was on WFAN this morning and said he was watching the play clock tick down and timed his blindside blitz (which led to an interception) accordingly. During film review leading up to the game, they noticed that Luck had a habit of using the entire 40 seconds due to all the check-downs, so that allowed him to get a jump on the play.

It happens.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Yeah, the QB looks at the play clock before he snaps the ball. You know damn well Romo is. Where they put the clocks on the field it would be rather easy for a defensive blitzer to see it. Maybe not the D-line as much but for everyone else.

It's not that hard to look at the clock, see there's 5 seconds, and count 4... 3... 2... 1...