The difference is Dak still has time to change the narrative while Romo's is set in stone as the guy that could just never get over that hump.
I don't mind it one bit actually.
Tanks deal was bad from the outset and continues to be a bad deal. At least Elliott was a top performer at the time of signing. That one may turn out to be good or bad long term, but I think the jury is still out on Elliotts deal.
He's had 2 years of double digit sacks and one of those years was barely 10. People chose to make him something he's not. I get he had the 14 sacks one year.....its like Anthony Spencer. People always wanted to make him out to be this 10 sack a season guy and judged him based on it. He wasn't.
I get why they signed Jaylon, Zeke and Lawrence....but they are all equally bad deals. Well i'll say this about Zeke....he had a history of performing well but it was just the position he plays......and the fact not only is this league getting away from running the football but it seems this team is as well. So knowing what this league is and where its going you could argue all 3 deals probably shouldn't have been offered. But I also understand the Cowboys thought they were contending when they signed them.
Exactly. I hate when guys say the "oh so criticism is hating now" line when they know damn well there's a difference between "hating" and criticizing someone. Its one thing to criticize someone based on facts and support it with facts. But these one sentence post don't contain that at all. And why would they? They aren't interested in having a debate or actually criticizing someone. Its all about flooding the board with their unwanted opinion.
When it comes to my favorite team I can never lower my expectations. I thought Romo was good, but he was never good enough. I feel the same way about Dak right now. Good, but not good enough YET.
The problem with our FO is they don't make deals based on what's best for the team. They make deals based on what's best for the player.
