Lose to Aaron Rodgers just like the Cowboys did in the 2016 playoffs.Had Romo never gotten hurt in 2016, what would have the Cowboys done in 2016? A healthy Romo all season.
Had Romo never gotten hurt in 2016, what would have the Cowboys done in 2016? A healthy Romo all season.
Atlanta beat the breaks off Green Bay because they had a QB that knew what he was doing and did it from quarter 1.Any competent veteran QB has a decided advantage over 99.9% of all rookies.
I too don't think there is any chance we lose to GB. ATL is a tougher call but I would give us the edge.
I doubt we win the SB primarily because of our defensive woes but a healthy Tony to keep the Pats defense honest would give us a shot.
My best guess....they go 11-5 or 10-6.Had Romo never gotten hurt in 2016, what would have the Cowboys done in 2016? A healthy Romo all season.
agree, I think if they beat GB it was Seattle next, then NE in SB.I don't know if we win the Super Bowl, but we would've at least beat Green Bay.
If I remember correctly wasn't Green Bay missing their 2 starting CBs that game?
Romo would have known how to take advantage of that and wouldn't have waited until we're already down 28-13 going into the 4th quarter to do anything.
Dak was being Dak all the way back in year 1. Do nothing for 3 quarters, go down by a few TDs, and then put up empty stats in a losing effort to bring the game closer and give his fangirls something to brag about.
At that point in his career, it's a fairytale suggesting he would remain healthy. I mean, it's why he lost his job. So it's hard to imagine this particular "what if" game. But other than the injury topic, there's absolutely no reason Romo couldn't have helped win 12 or 13 games. It opens up other possibilities though. Would the team have responded the way it did when Prescott took over? Maybe, but maybe not.
Atlanta was next.agree, I think if they beat GB it was Seattle next, then NE in SB.
they could have gone all the way, and for sure beat GB.
yeah I was thinking 2014 lolAtlanta was next.
They beat the breaks off Green Bay in the NFC Championship game and then blew a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl.
I don't know if we win the Super Bowl, but we would've at least beat Green Bay.
If I remember correctly wasn't Green Bay missing their 2 starting CBs that game?
Romo would have known how to take advantage of that and wouldn't have waited until we're already down 28-13 going into the 4th quarter to do anything.
Dak was being Dak all the way back in year 1. Do nothing for 3 quarters, go down by a few TDs, and then put up empty stats in a losing effort to bring the game closer and give his fangirls something to brag about.
I'm not mad that they stuck with the hot hand, but a lot of people like to believe that they stuck with Dak because he was better than Romo. He wasn't at all.I think we would have beaten GB with Tony. Who knows after that. But there were some plays they kept going to with Dak in there, and GB was waiting for them and had a pick that prevented a TD or at least a FG. To me that was the game changer.
That play never would have been repeated with Tony, as many times as it was. Or at least with more experience, Tony would not have thrown the pass.
I am talking about that stupid out pass where the WR catches it and tries to run between defenders.
That year though Dak and the TEAM was on a roll. Dak struggled in the game against Cleveland. I thought then it was time for Tony to come back in after that game. But they decided to stay with Dak.
My friend and I still talk about that scenario. Well he brings it up, but I agree.