Just a What If. 2016

baltcowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,820
Reaction score
16,614
Great question.

I know why they rode the hot hand, but I really wanted Tony back in. I also thought it was telling that JG only let him play a series in the Eagles game. I think his experience gave us a chance to go all the way.

I love all the comments that he wouldn't have made it through a game like it was a fact. The offensive line and Zeke would have kept a lot of pressure off of him. Plus no one knows for a fact that he couldn't take a hit. That's just an easy excuse when you don't agree with putting him back in.

But we will never know and it's moot now. Just don't understand the anger when people just want an opinion on the subject.
The offensive line and Zeke played in the preseason game against Seattle. Tony broke his back. The last two games he played in before the Philadelphia game he got hurt. Tony was physically done. Glad he retired a rich and healthy man.
 

DallasEast

Cowboys 24/7/365
Staff member
Messages
58,176
Reaction score
55,589
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
First, I wish to quote myself from two months prior to the 2016 playoffs:
...Anything's possible. A rookie quarterback may some day win the Super Bowl but the odds are stacked sky high against that happening...
Thought I would emphasize what my thoughts are and have always been before anyone judges my comments as hindsight, instead of truthfully as foresight. ;)
In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.

1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?
I believe there would have been various degrees of acceptance among players. Everyone is human. Undoubtedly, Prescott had become a new leader. Leaders are respected, so there would have been some resentment seeing Prescott benched for Romo.

Romo was an old leader. Any resentment would have been tempered by the respect he had already earned.

I think a better question focuses on functional instead of acceptance. Could the team have functioned just as well with a change at the position? In my opinion, the answer is yes. The team was still primarily composed of pre-2016 veterans who already were accustomed to playing with Romo. I doubt there would have been any measurable dysfunction if the change had occurred. Additionally, I am doubtful the rookies would have underperformed either.

Any of my projected worries would have been directed at coaching instead of the roster. The coaches had employed a healthy blended of run and pass with Prescott running the offense. I would hope they would not have gotten too far away from that successful strategy with Romo behind center. They did a fair balancing job in 2014, so my concern would have likely been unfounded.
2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?
I have played scenarios in my head using the Packers game as a template. There was the Paralyzed Romo factor that is often (understatement) argued. I could see Romo starting, getting hurt, Prescott resuming his previous role, and the team rallying from the emotional spark of Romo getting sidelined again. Perhaps the defensive front four would have been a touch more motivated in pressuring Rodgers into a single critical mistake that would have made the difference in the final score.

The "winning one for The Gipper" emotional rally has helped many teams excel. I kind of believe it played somewhat of a factor behind the Eagles Super Bowl run after Wentz's injury.

Another scenario had Romo making several key errors if the rest of the team did not perform as well as it actually did against the Packers. Most of his career shortcomings have been the result of his pressing to offset what he did not think his teammates could accomplish, which led to untimely interceptions and holding the ball way too long. I do not think Prescott could have helped rally the team if the coaches had waited too late before yanking Romo.

The particular scenario I had hoped for was Romo playing solidly. In my opinion, games are often decided on the success or failure of one key drive by the offense OR the defense stymying the opponent. Well, the defense was porous versus Green Bay. If things had played out the same, the final outcome could have been the result of Romo throwing a critical pass that kept a first half or third quarter drive alive--something expected of a veteran quarterback.

What ifs. As I have said many times, the end of the 2016 season still kicks me in the <expletive>. Thanks Jerry Jones. Thanks Jason Garrett.
 

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
I am wanting the opinions of the fans here on this. I know the season is coming, and what if is a stupid game. But I have changed my opinion about a piece of history in 2016 and wish to see if I am alone.

So,

What if:

In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.

1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?

2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?

I was in favor of keeping Dak under center. You don't break a streak.

But upon reflection, I can't help thinking, Tony, knowing this was his swan song, and his ability to recognize the defenses and exploit them, he would have gotten the team - past those butt ugly Packers - to the NFC Championship game and taken the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

I just see this moment in time, where the stars aligned, and Jones and The Red Headed cheerleader made the wrong move.

I think Tony would have handed the Patriots their butt in the first half, and then dissected them in the second to win it all.

Opinions?
It was too late to make the change. Way too late. They should have put him in as soon as he was healthy. There might have been some push back from some of the players, but they would have gotten over it... and Dak was a good soldier about the whole QB thing.
But putting him in at the very end? I don’t think that there is a QB in league history who the coach would have done that for. Like, I don’t think that Bellichick would have put in Tom Brady if say Garoppolo had QB’ed them to a 13-3 record. The 49ers had a very similar situation with Joe Montana in ‘92 where he returned in the final regular season game for the 14-2 49ers... and yes, the 4 time Super Bowl winner and 2 time league MVP winner, did NOT go back in over Young. And that’s Joe Montana we’re talking about...
So yes, Tony is obviously way better than Dak could ever dream of being, but asking him to do that and plus shoulder all of the blame if it didn’t work... and asking the team to play a completely different way than they had been playing for 16 games... I just can’t imagine a scenario where any coach does that.
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,220
Reaction score
8,421
Great question.

I know why they rode the hot hand, but I really wanted Tony back in. I also thought it was telling that JG only let him play a series in the Eagles game. I think his experience gave us a chance to go all the way.

I love all the comments that he wouldn't have made it through a game like it was a fact. The offensive line and Zeke would have kept a lot of pressure off of him. Plus no one knows for a fact that he couldn't take a hit. That's just an easy excuse when you don't agree with putting him back in.

But we will never know and it's moot now. Just don't understand the anger when people just want an opinion on the subject.

I don't think the "team" and coaching was good enough to beat both the Falcons (they were playing well) and the Patriots. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Tony gave the Cowboys a better chance.

Kills me how people want to talk about disrespect but never want to acknowledge that going into the season Tony was THE FRANCHISE QB and had been for what 9 years. To not give him the opportunity to play (which he clearly wanted) in favor of a rookie going into the playoffs demonstrates this organizations inability to understand the situation & the clear challenges playoff football presents. In short, you don't do that to a guy who has been the face of the franchise. The young guy still has his career ahead of him. You could have done right by both as well as every other player on the team. Winning is the name of the game. You gotta do what gives you the best opportunity to win.

Side note, it didn't have to be an absolute decision. You could have played both. Could have been working Tony in during last few games of regular season to get him sharp. Defenses didn't know Dak back then so rotating them in certain situations wouldn't have been given anything away. Would have given defenses something else to worry about. If Tony realized he couldn't hold up, fine but you let that decision work itself out.
 

JustChip

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,124
Reaction score
5,715
You are just living in a fantasy land. Dak played well against the Packers and Tony would have done no better.
Correct. They lost the playoff game because the defense couldn’t stop Aaron Rodgers and the Packers when it mattered. Had Tony played (and survived for the whole game), it would’ve simply been 2014 all over again.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,861
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Had Dak played poorly in that Packer game, or had the team failed to score many points, I’m sure I would have some of these same thoughts. But that wasn’t the case. The failure was primarily on the defense.
 

Kevinicus

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,410
Reaction score
12,146
Yep, Irving was being put in a choke hold when Rodgers scrabbled left and threw it up. No call all game long
This is not accurate. You were fooled by a still image from a certain angle. The video tells a completely different story. There was no choke hold, there was a big "olé" by the OL there and Irving was not really restricted by it at all. What did effect him was the guard who pancaked him from the side.
There were plenty of missed calls in the game, but this wasn't one of them.
 

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
66,922
Reaction score
84,269
Dallas had to go with Dak. The Dak and Zeke momentum was just too much at that time.

Plus Garrett had never shown a pulse without Romo in the lineup so of course he was probably thrilled to prove he could win some games without Romo.

When Romo would've been better then Dak is the following year when Dak and Linehan had a year of tendencies out there for the NFL to see and they didn't adjust.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I am wanting the opinions of the fans here on this. I know the season is coming, and what if is a stupid game. But I have changed my opinion about a piece of history in 2016 and wish to see if I am alone.

So,

What if:

In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.

1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?

2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?

I was in favor of keeping Dak under center. You don't break a streak.

But upon reflection, I can't help thinking, Tony, knowing this was his swan song, and his ability to recognize the defenses and exploit them, he would have gotten the team - past those butt ugly Packers - to the NFC Championship game and taken the Cowboys to the Super Bowl.

I just see this moment in time, where the stars aligned, and Jones and The Red Headed cheerleader made the wrong move.

I think Tony would have handed the Patriots their butt in the first half, and then dissected them in the second to win it all.

Opinions?
1. The team has no choice in who the QB is and we don't know which they would have preferred except for Bryant and Witten.

2. I imagine a lot of coaches in the league were thinking about that and what they would have done. Landry would have had Romo back in when he was ready but Johnson and Parcells, not so sure. It's not as much how the QB is playing as much as how the team is playing with the QB.

Prescott didn't lose that GB playoff game and did a fine job of bringing them back. Maybe with Romo they don't get down by 18 but the D and DC weren't ready to play football. The GB game was not lost by the players, it was lost by Garrett and Marinelli.
 

JustChip

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,124
Reaction score
5,715
I don’t think that there is a QB in league history who the coach would have done that for.
. I believe Landry did it with Staubach for Morton for an NFCC game against Warshington. Sraubach didn’t play well and the result was a 26-3 drubbing.
 

mrmojo

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,740
Reaction score
9,419
1. The team has no choice in who the QB is and we don't know which they would have preferred except for Bryant and Witten.

2. I imagine a lot of coaches in the league were thinking about that and what they would have done. Landry would have had Romo back in when he was ready but Johnson and Parcells, not so sure. It's not as much how the QB is playing as much as how the team is playing with the QB.

Prescott didn't lose that GB playoff game and did a fine job of bringing them back. Maybe with Romo they don't get down by 18 but the D and DC weren't ready to play football. The GB game was not lost by the players, it was lost by Garrett and Marinelli.
Landry in 1972 didnt bring Roger back until the team was on dire straits against the Niners in the playoffs, his first great comeback. Landry gave Morton every opportunity to finish the season.

The next week Roger started against the Commanders and the rust showed.
 

JustChip

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,124
Reaction score
5,715
Side note, it didn't have to be an absolute decision. You could have played both. Could have been working Tony in during last few games of regular season to get him sharp. Defenses didn't know Dak back then so rotating them in certain situations wouldn't have been given anything away. Would have given defenses something else to worry about. If Tony realized he couldn't hold up, fine but you let that decision work itself out.
Yep, or they could’ve alternated plays or series Like Landry did since it worked sooooo well.
 

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
. I believe Landry did it with Staubach for Morton for an NFCC game against Warshington. Sraubach didn’t play well and the result was a 26-3 drubbing.
Didn’t he relieve Morton in the first playoff game? That’s a little different... I do believe Garrett would have gone to Romo if Dak stunk out the joint.
 

JustChip

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,124
Reaction score
5,715
Didn’t he relieve Morton in the first playoff game? That’s a little different... I do believe Garrett would have gone to Romo if Dak stunk out the joint.
I think you’re right. Was that the SF game that Staubach brought them back with 17 points in the last 5 minutes?

No doubt Landry would’ve inserted Romo back in the moment he was cleared to play. He was a staunch believer in the starter didn’t lose his job due to injury.
 
Top