How great was Romo?

[Diehardblues]

No I don't have any second guessing. I said the moment Romo was going to miss half the 2016 season that the Cowboys should cut him and move onto the next era. That we didn't need to go 1-7 and have Romo come back to ruin draft position. That regardless of what happened in 2016, Romo should definitely be cut after the season. I still stand behind that opinion. The Romo era was over and done with for better or worse. I've said this multiple times already, I don't care if the team went 0-16, it was time to move on from Romo period.

I defintely would agree it was time to draft Romo’s heir apparent which many of us pleaded for in 2016 draft. But to move on without the position solidified wasn’t a decision that was necessary.

But the Winning Wave solidified it for far too many fans and ultimately our front office.

 

[Diehardblues]

No, continuing mediocrity is the worst thing. If we fall flat on our face, we get a top QB in the draft and hope he isn't a bust. Dak sucking now does not mean moving on from Romo was the wrong choice. You disagree and you can't come to terms with the team's decision.

Why should we come to terms with the decision if we didn’t agree with it?

As a matter of fact I’d argue the teams decision has placed us in this vulnerable position.

If we had a better eye for the position we might have looked to bring in a veteran backup or a higher draft pick for insurance but for some reason Jerry doesn’t appear to want a QB controversy or competition. Well, we certainly have a controversy now and have no other choice but to ride this out. Oh boy !!

 

[Aviano90]

Why should we come to terms with the decision if we didn’t agree with it?

As a matter of fact I’d argue the teams decision has placed us in this vulnerable position.

If we had a better eye for the position we might have looked to bring in a veteran backup or a higher draft pick for insurance but for some reason Jerry doesn’t appear to want a QB controversy or competition. Well, we certainly have a controversy now and have no other choice but to ride this out. Oh boy !!

You don't have to, but at least you can acknowledge that's what you're doing instead of definitively stating it was the wrong choice. There was no right or wrong. There is only a preference of what you wanted at the time.

 

[Diehardblues]

You don't have to, but at least you can acknowledge that's what you're doing instead of definitively stating it was the wrong choice. There was no right or wrong. There is only a preference of what you wanted at the time.

If my preference turns out to be the better decision it needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting the decision wasn’t a poor one because you agreed with it going in is laughable. Lol

There’s always a right or wrong decision and accountability . Although our dysfunctional organization rarely is accountable but under normal conditions.

That’s how people get fired and what I’m arguing on another thread that if Garrett was the greater influence going in with Dak he will get fired as a result if Dak is a dud. And should be fired .

 

[DallasEast]

ah. The umpteenth Romo thread on CowboysZone. Did not read the thread but will add my non-unique comments along with all the rest.

Going into 2016, Romo was the starter and Prescott was a backup along with Moore. Romo and Moore were preseason injury casualties. Prescott started and had a historic September and October run for a rookie quarterback. Romo was medically cleared to return as starter beginning November. At this point, the decision-makers (a.k.a. Jones and Garrett) had multiple logical options:

1. Start Romo. Sit Prescott. If Romo's performance sucked, sit Romo. Start Prescott.
2. Start Romo. Sit Prescott. If Romo became a quadriplegic, roll Romo onto a gurney. Start Prescott.

Short list. What actual real-life event happened?

Romo essentially retired mid November because the decision-makers decided two things:

1. The franchise had better odds of winning an NFL title with a rookie quarterback, a feat never accomplished in league history.
2. The franchise would transition to another permanent starting quarterback with a zero backup plan at the position beyond the mid-season mark of 2016.

Question: What is the perpetually unquestionable irony of the entire situation?

Answer: Peers, media members and portions of NFL fanbases completely supported Jones and Garrett's decision-making--the exact same two individuals who are ridiculed incessantly for not making logical decisions for the team.

I'm out.

 

[Aviano90]

If my preference turns out to be the better decision it needs to be acknowledged.

Discounting the decision wasn’t a poor one because you agreed with it going in is laughable. Lol

There’s always a right or wrong decision and accountability . Although our dysfunctional organization rarely is accountable but under normal conditions.

That’s how people get fired and what I’m arguing on another thread that if Garrett was the greater influence going in with Dak he will get fired as a result if Dak is a dud.

The problem, Gregg, is that you don't know how the other decision would have turned out. You have 2 options...either may fail, either may succeed, one may fail and another one succeed. What happens is when one fails it is automatically assumed the other would have succeeded and therefore claims of being right occur. The should've, could've, would've is undefeated according to Jim Harbaugh.

You just love hindsight arguments. Your opinion at the time was you being upset Jerry didn't trade away more of the farm for Paxton Lynch.

 

[aikemirv]

No, continuing mediocrity is the worst thing. If we fall flat on our face, we get a top QB in the draft and hope he isn't a bust. Dak sucking now does not mean moving on from Romo was the wrong choice. You disagree and you can't come to terms with the team's decision.

oh, I can't come to terms, I might cry, or maybe I just think it was the wrong one!

 

[Diehardblues]

The problem, Gregg, is that you don't know how the other decision would have turned out. You have 2 options...either may fail, either may succeed, one may fail and another one succeed. What happens is when one fails it is automatically assumed the other would have succeeded and therefore claims of being right occur. The should've, could've, would've is undefeated according to Jim Harbaugh.

You just love hindsight arguments. Your opinion at the time was you being upset Jerry didn't trade away more of the farm for Paxton Lynch.

I don’t have to know how it would have worked out. The fact remains the current decision hasn’t worked out. Not yet anyway and why the criticism.

And theres a possibility the Lynch pick could have worked out. We’ll never know. I doubt Dak would have worked out at Denver either.

I also lobbied in 2nd round for Christian Hackenburg(sp) because my overall theme was drafting a higher pick and heir apparent for Romo.

But all of that is a separate discussion which you’ve inserted here to deflect or distract from the one at hand which was well after the fact.

 

[Aviano90]

I don’t have to know how it would have worked out. The fact remains the current decision hasn’t worked out. Not yet anyway and why the criticism.

And theres a possibility the Lynch pick could have worked out. We’ll never know. I doubt Dak would have worked out at Denver either.

I also lobbied in 2nd round for Christian Hackenburg(sp) because my overall theme was drafting a higher pick and heir apparent for Romo.

But all of that is a separate discussion which you’ve inserted here to deflect or distract from the one at hand which was well after the fact.

What exactly have I deflected? I can't make it any more clear. Regardless of what happened, I think the team made the best decision to move on from Romo. Dak is the QB, great. If not, go get another QB. Is there a gray area there?

 

[Diehardblues]

oh, I can't come to terms, I might cry, or maybe I just think it was the wrong one!

If I’m on the wrong side of a decision I’d be willing to fess up. But this is a core issue on forums. Members will often even root against their own guys even their team to be right.

But I also believe you should be acknowledged if you turn out to be on the right side of history or st least not on the wrong side

 

[Diehardblues]

What exactly have I deflected? I can't make it any more clear. Regardless of what happened, I think the team made the best decision to move on from Romo. Dak is the QB, great. If not, go get another QB. Is there a gray area there?

Then why would you introduce the draft which had no bearing on the current decision.

You agreed with the decision and sticking with it despite the results . At least you’re willing to move on.

 

[InTheZone]

Romo could not win a playoff game with a Cowboys record 13 pro bowlers in 2007.

Young fans at the time, thought the 2007 13-3 team was better than the 1992 team; until the 2007 team lost their first playoff game.

Many of those were overrated and I said such then. Other than sacks I was not hyped our our pass coverage (including linebackers) or defense in crunch time

 

[Aviano90]

hat’s how people get fired and what I’m arguing on another thread that if Garrett was the greater influence going in with Dak he will get fired as a result if Dak is a dud. And should be fired .

So you are using my argument that you have argued against me on a number of occasions? Well, it only took me 2 years to open your eyes about that.

 

[Diehardblues]

So you are using my argument that you have argued against me on a number of occasions? Well, it only took me 2 years to open your eyes about that.

Im saying that because I don’t think Garrett was the greater influence . But if he was should be fired.

If I recall correctly you’ve been arguing It was Garrett’s decision which I’ve never acknowledged.

 

[Aviano90]

Then why would you introduce the draft which had no bearing on the current decision.

You agreed with the decision and sticking with it despite the results . At least you’re willing to move on.

I'm telling you the reasoning behind my decision. We can't make decisions with the luxury of hindsight. I knew there was a risk Dak would fail. I was fine taking that risk because we needed to move on from Romo. If we failed, we get a draft pick we can use on a QB. If we succeed great, but I didn't need to see results before thinking it was time to move on from a high priced, injury proned player.

You were of the opinion we needed Paxton Lynch. You were playing both sides of the Romo/Dak debate just waiting for hindsight to kick in to blame Jerry. So quit trying to act like you wanted the team to do something and they didn't. You were on the fence playing both sides.

 

[Aviano90]

Im saying that because I don’t think Garrett was the greater influence . But if he was should be fired.

If I recall correctly you’ve been arguing It was Garrett’s decision which I’ve never acknowledged.

I've at least provided information that points to it being Garrett's decision. You have provided absolutely nothing that it wasn't his decision.

 

[Diehardblues]

I'm telling you the reasoning behind my decision. We can't make decisions with the luxury of hindsight. I knew there was a risk Dak would fail. I was fine taking that risk because we needed to move on from Romo. If we failed, we get a draft pick we can use on a QB. If we succeed great, but I didn't need to see results before thinking it was time to move on from a high priced, injury proned player.

You were of the opinion we needed Paxton Lynch. You were playing both sides of the Romo/Dak debate just waiting for hindsight to kick in to blame Jerry. So quit trying to act like you wanted the team to do something and they didn't. You were on the fence playing both sides.

I wanted to reinsert Romo. And if we made the decision to go with Dak still wanted Romo back to compete for position in 2017.

The 2016 draft preludes the discussion we were having. You’ve only introduced to discount or discredit my opinions because it appears I was probably right about Dak but could have been wrong about Lynch.

 

[Diehardblues]

I've at least provided information that points to it being Garrett's decision. You have provided absolutely nothing that it wasn't his decision.

Actually I have provided much that not only was it ultimately Jerry’s decision but why. Do I need to rehash my opinion on Jerry’s PR decision to go with Dak again?

 

[staubach24]

100%. He should be sending 90% of his salary to Tony.

No way 90%. Maybe 85%, but never 90. Hahahaha, you are so right my man.

 

[Aviano90]

I wanted to reinsert Romo. And if we made the decision to go with Dak still wanted Romo back to compete for position in 2017.

The 2016 draft preludes the discussion we were having. You’ve only introduced to discount or discredit my opinions because it appears I was probably right about Dak but could have been wrong about Lynch.

That's certainly not the way I remember it, but it makes no difference. I don't mind admitting I was wrong about Dak. Dak sucks, but I'm still not going to look backwards and wish for Romo who was an injury waiting to happen. Let's get a new QB.