No rookie has ever won a Super Bowl, so Romo should have been given his job back in the playoffs. Plus seeing Dak lead the Cowboys to a 13-3 record would have motivated Romo.
I truly believe that if Romo was allowed to start in the playoffs, we would have won the SB that year.
It's amazing how Garrett always talked about creating competition, but didn't Dak and Romo compete against one another. Because as they say.... pressure creates diamonds.
Bold was fact before 2016, in 2016, after 2016 and if-and-until a rookie quarterback does help their team achieve the goal.
Injuries do not happen according to timetables. If they did, Prescott would have been able to predict and avoid having his right foot swing around like a wet noodle at the end of his leg two years ago. The injury argument remains faulty:
- Rookie quarterback is the backup quarterback
- Veteran starting quarterback gets injured
- Rookie backup quarterback becomes the starting quarterback
- Rookie backup quarterback performs amazingly well during the first half of the season
- Veteran starting quarterback deemed medical fit to return to active roster
It is now decision time concerning the veteran quarterback. Do you:
a) Risk having your veteran starting quarterback sustain another possible on-the-field injury
or
b) Not risk having your veteran starting quarterback sustain another possible on-the field injury
What actually happened was Jones and Garrett DID assumed the risk of allowing Romo to play against Philadelphia.
"But But But! It was a meaningless game! But But But! He played against scrubs! But But But! He played one series!" Yada yada yada. Injuries occur only in
real games, right? Scrubs never hurt another player, right? Injuries happen according to timetables, right?
In real life, Jones and Garrett did not want upsetting team chemistry because they thought (as others did also) that Prescott was the difference maker in a Super Bowl run. They gambled. They lost. Prescott performed well against the Packers. Personally, I do not fault him. I will always blame the decision makers 100% for taking the gamble of a Super Bowl run headed by a rookie quarterback.
Both could have taken another gamble. Take the chance of Romo not getting hurt. However, injures do happen. Romo had gotten injured before. Did that possibility exclude not starting Romo? Nope. Romo gets hurt. What are your options?
You replace paralyzed Romo with his freaking backup! Let's say Romo was not allowed to return to the active roster until the playoffs. Hypothetically, when would Romo get carried off on a stretcher? The first series? Oh hell! Too bad. Tough break. Better put Prescott back in. He has all game long to help the team beat the Packers. Right?
Second quarter injury? The backup quarterback has an entire half to beat Green Bay. Right?
Third quarter injury? Is the game out of reach already? Did Romo throw three touchdown picks during the first half before becoming a quadriplegic? Crap. Teams never rally from large deficits in the playoffs. They do? Oh. May as well let the backup quarterback salvage the game. Right?
Fourth quarter injury? No time for heroics from the backup quarterback. Right? Game over man. Game over. Man. Things would have turned out differently if Jones and Garrett had only started the rookie quarterback in the first place.
Whatever. Maybe Belichick, perhaps the best head coach in NFL history, can overcome the odds with a rookie quarterback, reach the Super Bowl, and possibly win it. Brady would be so jealous.
Oh wait.
/rant