Looking back: Was it a mistake not to go back to Romo

SultanOfSix

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,156
Reaction score
6,857
MarcusRock said:
And this is how it happens. No understanding of the rule or the mechanics of the rule so you go straight to CONSPIRACY! A conspiracy orchestrated by 3 separate parties in cahoots with one another who all called the overturn correct. Even on the broadcast itself, Pereira stated that the call would be overturned live before it was announced. It's easy to see if you care about the truth. But fan glasses only want their way so of course, "We wuz robbed." I get it.

To make a football move, you have to actually execute it. That didn't happen with Dez. You can compare what Dez tried to do to thousands of other classic, demonstrative reaches and if you say Dez' is the same, you're just blind and want to bend reality to get your way.
Click to expand...
No, it's pretty obvious to even a child of at least ten years old let's say who's intellectually developed enough and has watched enough football to see that that Dez was obviously reaching for the goal line with the ball because he wanted to score. He knew he caught it, everyone knows he caught it, everyone knows he was reaching for the goal line, and the only reason it was ruled an incomplete pass was because of an interpretive rule that could rule it a non-catch for stupid reasons. That is "football move" by any standard, even though this term hasn't been rigorously defined by the NFL (this is the type of vagueness that leaves things open for interpretation). If you want to assert that his reach didn't correspond to the "thousands of other classic, demonstrative reaches" (whatever that even means by any standard) then that's your burden.
 
MarcusRock

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,863
Reaction score
16,121
SultanOfSix said:
No, it's pretty obvious to even a child of at least ten years old let's say who's intellectually developed enough and has watched enough football to see that that Dez was obviously reaching for the goal line with the ball because he wanted to score. He knew he caught it, everyone knows he caught it, everyone knows he was reaching for the goal line, and the only reason it was ruled an incomplete pass was because of an interpretive rule that could rule it a non-catch for stupid reasons. That is "football move" by any standard, even though this term hasn't been rigorously defined by the NFL (this is the type of vagueness that leaves things open for interpretation). If you want to assert that his reach didn't correspond to the "thousands of other classic, demonstrative reaches" (whatever that even means by any standard) then that's your burden.
Click to expand...

So in other words, "we wuz robbed." Like I said, I get it.

The going to the ground rule took precedence over all other catch rules unless a player can execute a lunge. All the parties defending the call mentioned the reach for that very reason. Dez just didn't (see below). There are case plays in the rulebook that explained the rule and were there for all teams to agree to before the season started. But again, because you don't know the rule you just deny, deny, deny as if that makes the black and white rules invalid. It doesn't. Are you going to tell me that Dez took 3 steps next? That's usually the progression of catch theorist logic.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

"This is a good illustration of a football move where he gathers himself and now he's gonna lunge. It's clear, it's obvious. He's reaching that ball, extending it, versus just going to the ground with his momentum."​
 
AbeBeta

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,570
Reaction score
12,273
Flamma said:
I don't know, maybe. What I do know is that it is not commonly done under those situations. Jimmy Johnson didn't give Aikman back his job in 1991 in a similar situation.
Click to expand...

Aikman wasn't healthy. That was clear when he played in desperation in the playoffs
 
Aviano90

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
Cowboysfan917 said:
I missed the part where I ever said that it definitely would have be a win. Things are not in a vacuum. There were definitely things that defenses threw at Dak that he would not have seen before. Things that Romo undoubtedly would’ve seen AND beaten before.

No one ever said he would’ve played mistake free... do I think he would’ve played better? Yes, I do. A multiple time pro bowl passer, one of the highest rated to ever play the game, a load of 4th quarter comebacks, 10+ years in the league... give me that over a rookie all day.

You can ride the ‘people don’t respect Dak train’ all day and try to twist it like you’re defending Dak when in reality you just wish to tear down Romo. That’s your choice but the fact is, Romo was a better player in 2016 than Dak was. Romo had a better knowledge and understanding of the game. There is no way to argue that.

Could it have been a loss? Yup, sure could’ve. Favre threw a back breaking pick against the Saints as a Viking and against Giants as a Packer. Romo was a gunslinger like his hero, Favre.
Click to expand...
I don't ride the "people don't respect Dak train". I ride the "people are hypocrites" train, specifically Romo lovers.

If Romo played the exact same game with the exact same result, the same people thinking the play of our QB was the difference between advancing to the NFC Championship game or going home would be bending over backwards trying to shield Romo from any blame. How do I know this? Because it's happened in every other game we lost, even games where Romo played worse than Dak did in the GB playoff game.

This stupid hypothetical argument that's gone on for 3+ years now might have some teeth to it if we lost 34-14 and Dak played like crap, but Dak was pretty damn awesome that game. He was the least of our concerns yet the people who spent a decade claiming Romo never had a defense certainly don't want to give Dak the same courtesy of acknowledging they were the main reason the team lost.
 
Whirlwin

Whirlwin

Cowboy , It’s a way of life.
Messages
23,977
Reaction score
16,255
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
J12B said:
I wonder how things would have played out in 2016 if Romo got his job back once he became healthy.

Perhaps he could have taken the team all the way to the Superbowl like he almost did in 2014.

Perhaps Romo could have played one more season and Dak would only have 2018 and 2019 as being a starter for this team. His value would most likely be worth less because 2017 was a down year for Dak.

Perhaps he could've got re-injured and Dak would've stepped back in only further proving Romo's durability issues.

But to this day I still think Garrett and Jones did Romo dirty by not giving him his starting job back.

Jason Garrett.....*shivers*
Click to expand...
NO Prescott was great in 2016. He has the tools. And maybe now he has the coach
 
KJJ

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
56,930
Reaction score
35,043
J12B said:
I wonder how things would have played out in 2016 if Romo got his job back once he became healthy.

Perhaps he could have taken the team all the way to the Superbowl like he almost did in 2014.

Perhaps Romo could have played one more season and Dak would only have 2018 and 2019 as being a starter for this team. His value would most likely be worth less because 2017 was a down year for Dak.

Perhaps he could've got re-injured and Dak would've stepped back in only further proving Romo's durability issues.

But to this day I still think Garrett and Jones did Romo dirty by not giving him his starting job back.

Jason Garrett.....*shivers*
Click to expand...

Romo didn’t come close to taking the team to the Super Bowl in 2014 we lost in the divisional round. Had he got his job back in 2016 we wouldn’t have gotten any further than we did with Dak because of Aaron Rodgers. Our defense cost us that game.
 
CouchCoach

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,901
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
J12B said:
I wonder how things would have played out in 2016 if Romo got his job back once he became healthy.

Perhaps he could have taken the team all the way to the Superbowl like he almost did in 2014.

Perhaps Romo could have played one more season and Dak would only have 2018 and 2019 as being a starter for this team. His value would most likely be worth less because 2017 was a down year for Dak.

Perhaps he could've got re-injured and Dak would've stepped back in only further proving Romo's durability issues.

But to this day I still think Garrett and Jones did Romo dirty by not giving him his starting job back.

Jason Garrett.....*shivers*
Click to expand...
Not only is the answer unknown about how Romo would have performed, it is also unknown as to who actually made the call on staying with Prescott and I don't see any way that decision is left up to Garrett considering the GM of this team.

The only thing about that I feel sure about is that Prescott stood a much better chance of staying healthy and on a roll than coming back in once Romo went down again. As durable as Prescott has been, that's how fragile Romo has been and after seeing his inability to protect himself in that pretend game, he was done in my mind. He looked every bit like a beat up QB in that SEA game before the injury.

Romo could no longer adequately protect himself and that Houdini act had passed. DC's and D's are like a pride of lions seeking the weakest in the herd and they would have brought him down.

And here's the kicker to me, being the competitor that he is, he would have taken chances because he didn't want a rookie QB to take his job.

There is one known to me. Neither of these two QB's has proven themselves to be playoff QB's so I don't think it really matters.
 
Flamma

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,022
Reaction score
18,826
AbeBeta said:
Aikman wasn't healthy. That was clear when he played in desperation in the playoffs
Click to expand...

From what I remember, and this is back before social media, but I had the impression Aikman was ready against Chicago. It's just that Jimmy didn't want to replace a QB that hasn't lost. Understandable.
 
CouchCoach

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,901
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Hardline said:
A heathy Tony Romo(which he was) would certainly be more effective than a rookie. It's really not debatable.
The passing game would've been more respected by defenses and Zeke would've been more effective in the running game.
Click to expand...
I would debate his level of health and ability to adequately protect himself. When he got injured in that pretend game in SEA, did you see the old Houdini Romo before that? I didn't. He looked like a wounded gnu trying to escape a lioness.

There are just so many injuries these players can stand before the body begins to rebel. And I can speak from personal experience, the back is as wonky as it gets. It inhibits flexibility and restricts movement and he was an easy target in that game and I feel if it hadn't happened there, it would have happened in the next couple of games.

These DC's are excellent at reading film on players for weaknesses or abnormalities from their regular game. I think Romo was an injury waiting to happen and that only increased when he "recovered" during the season.

And I would not underestimate the ones making that decision to take that into account. Romo had been a warrior, even the Rooters agreed with that, and management might have felt they needed to protect one they knew would not protect himself.
 
Xeven

Xeven

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,237
Reaction score
3,275
Nothing was going to get better with Garret at the helm.
 
MarcusRock

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,863
Reaction score
16,121
Doomsday101 said:
Click to expand...


Jimmy's point is my point as well. People are thinking of 2014 Romo when they say he'd have been better than Dak. And with Zeke in the backfield I'd agree. Thing was you didn't know what you were going to get with Romo coming back in 2016. If he came back during the season and struggled, what do you do then during a playoff push? It would have been more embarrassing to bring him back and then potentially yank him for the playoffs (or during the playoffs). I wouldn't have cared about feelings though. That's CowboysZone's job, lol.
 
Vtwin

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
11,026
Arguably the biggest mistake in franchise history.

Hmmmm.... veteran QB at the top of his game or raw rookie. Hmmmmm....... tough call.
 
Doomsday101

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
Vtwin said:
Arguably the biggest mistake in franchise history.

Hmmmm.... veteran QB at the top of his game or raw rookie. Hmmmmm....... tough call.
Click to expand...

Top of his game or end or his career? Tony did not seek a QB job the following year. Dallas saw Romo as the past and Dak as the future and after the season he put up they were not nor would many replace a QB who got you to the 13-3 record.
 
cowboygo

cowboygo

Well-Known Member
Messages
852
Reaction score
1,063
There's a reason why Romo did not play in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The same reason he isn't on a team for 2020 either. He is and was done. His body was done.

Also, it wasn't like a Brock Osweiler-Peyton Manning 2015 situation where we didn't have to count on the QB to win us games. We absolutely needed Dak to be part of the gameplan since the start of the week. If Romo went down in-game and got all starting reps for a playoff game, we'd be in a difficult spot. We had to roll with the young kid, who was outperforming all expectations.
 
JD_KaPow

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
J12B said:
I wonder how things would have played out in 2016 if Romo got his job back once he became healthy.

Perhaps he could have taken the team all the way to the Superbowl like he almost did in 2014.

Perhaps Romo could have played one more season and Dak would only have 2018 and 2019 as being a starter for this team. His value would most likely be worth less because 2017 was a down year for Dak.

Perhaps he could've got re-injured and Dak would've stepped back in only further proving Romo's durability issues.

But to this day I still think Garrett and Jones did Romo dirty by not giving him his starting job back.

Jason Garrett.....*shivers*
Click to expand...
Romo sustained multiweek injuries in three of his last five games. I think they made the right decision.
 

NotForLong

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,577
Reaction score
9,605
Cowboysfan917 said:
I always thought it was a mistake. You put your best players on the field. Romo was the best QB on the team. He should’ve been eased back in for a playoff run.
He should’ve come back in on a Thursday game(week after thanksgiving I believe they had another Thursday game) so he would’ve had 10 days rest afterwards.
It was a mistake and a slap in the face to a franchise player by the powers that were.
No telling what he could’ve done with that run game.

It also would’ve allowed Dak to sit and watch probably another year or two. I’m a big believer in QBs riding the pine and learning to be pros. I feel you have fewer growing pains that way usually.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the bad habits that develop out of necesity, the ones that never seam to go away
 
wrongway

wrongway

Well-Known Member
Messages
793
Reaction score
961
We will NEVER know. He might have gone on to lead the team to glory or 3 picks and a fumble one and done.
 
Vtwin

Vtwin

Safety third
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
11,026
Doomsday101 said:
Top of his game or end or his career? Tony did not seek a QB job the following year. Dallas saw Romo as the past and Dak as the future and after the season he put up they were not nor would many replace a QB who got you to the 13-3 record.
Click to expand...
Romo was at the peak of his overall ability. His understanding of the defenses he was facing, decision making, building on what was his best overall season in 2014. It was best case scenario for everyone involved. Romo, Prescott, the team and the fans.

In that moment the experienced vet gave the team the best chance to win. No rookie had ever lead a team to a SB. The offense as a whole was playing at a very high level. More experience and more options at and from the QB position only makes the offense even better. The Cowboys had no chance to win the SB with the rookie. They at least had a chance with the experienced vet. Worst case, Romo is injured and the rook takes over.

Holding a clipboard and watching the vet run the offense at its full potential could have paid off for Dak and the team in the long run. Dak did appear to be the future but Romo was the present and in that time and place it was criminally foolish to not put the best option on the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top