If you had it to do all over with Romo and Dak in 2016

The Romo-Dak thing played out just as it should have, IMHO.

I don't know that the odds would have been any better with Romo, but we didn't win that year, so why wouldn't we try something different if we had a do over?

Dallas beat the Packers in Lambeau that season, 30-16. They lost the playoff rematch 34-31. The Dak-led offense scored 30 and 31 points.

In the playoff, the defense allowed four TD drives of 75 yards or more. That's where the game was lost, but the Romo fantasy lives on.

Jake said:

Dallas beat the Packers in Lambeau that season, 30-16. They lost the playoff rematch 34-31. The Dak-led offense scored 30 and 31 points.

In the playoff, the defense allowed four TD drives of 75 yards or more. That's where the game was lost, but the Romo fantasy lives on.

Click to expand...

I loved Romo and was always pulling for him, but I don't miss the heartbreak. I mean, guys pile on Dak but I don't miss the game/season enders from some of his attempts.

Captain-Crash said:

romo wouldn't listen to Garrett and his stupid offensive plays. "Garretts not much on x's and o's" Why should he? oh, Jason was the next Landry and jerry was holding him back. now Jason is shining in some kids pee wee league now.

Click to expand...

Romo was carrying a *lot* guys, on and off the field.

MarcusRock said:

Or perhaps they remembered that Dak beat Green Bay at Lambeau that very same season. You think they considered that at all? Lol.

By this antiquated "never been done before" logic, of your rookie QB is 17-0 during the season, you better sit him for the playoffs if you have a pretty good veteran on the team because, you know, no rookie's ever gone all the way before.

Gotta love slant.

Click to expand...

Dak beat GB?

Yea, with the help of 191 rushing yards and the benefit of 4 turnovers.

Some might argue that giving the Packers a second chance at the rookie, with 10 more games to study since their first meeting, wasn't the best option.

The Packers finished the season ranked 31st in passing yards given up.

Veteran who has seen it all against a terrible pass defense vs rookie who still wet behind the ears..... It's a no-brainer if winning is the ultimate goal.

Jake said:

Dallas beat the Packers in Lambeau that season, 30-16. They lost the playoff rematch 34-31. The Dak-led offense scored 30 and 31 points.

In the playoff, the defense allowed four TD drives of 75 yards or more. That's where the game was lost, but the Romo fantasy lives on.

Click to expand...

The last strong game Dez had. Was able to dominate physically lesser corners of GB. In that situation, Romo eats the Packers for lunch.

rocyaice said:

For the Cowboys to go back to Romo...that would've been such a Jerry move....and I expected him to do it. Really shocked at the time they didn't go back to Romo.

Click to expand...

No. It would actually be any good coach’s and organizational move, and we didn’t/don’t have either. No classy person and veteran starter who still has the skills to play and put his body on the line during horribly mismanaged years for the team should lose their job to injury. There was never a lose/lose situation here for Dak or the team with Romo in.

Ask BB the question if he would’ve played Romo or Dak based on all the factors required to win a SB and he will never say the latter. BB had the best stat man in the game and he knew the probabilities.

Vtwin said:

Dak beat GB?

Yea, with the help of 191 rushing yards and the benefit of 4 turnovers.

Some might argue that giving the Packers a second chance at the rookie, with 10 more games to study since their first meeting, wasn't the best option.

The Packers finished the season ranked 31st in passing yards given up.

Veteran who has seen it all against a terrible pass defense vs rookie who still wet behind the ears..... It's a no-brainer if winning is the ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

Excuses and strawman aside bro, it was a win. In Lambeau. Do you remember what happened the previous time the team was in Lambeau?

And the Packers were lit up to the tune of 30+ points twice that season. If you score 30 points, you should win, right? Pointswise, what happened the previous time the team was in Lambeau?

Jake said:

Dallas beat the Packers in Lambeau that season, 30-16. They lost the playoff rematch 34-31. The Dak-led offense scored 30 and 31 points.

In the playoff, the defense allowed four TD drives of 75 yards or more. That's where the game was lost, but the Romo fantasy lives on.

Click to expand...

This is the Hugh Jass elephant these piners are seeking to avoid. That year Dallas averaged 26 points per game and 19 points per game given up. In the playoff game Dallas exceeded their scoring average. On defense? Yeah.

MarcusRock said:

Or perhaps they remembered that Dak beat Green Bay at Lambeau that very same season. You think they considered that at all? Lol.

Click to expand...

Bold> Yes. I mentioned:

Perhaps they did know and thought to themselves their rookie quarterback and team was better than all those rookie QBs and their teams mentioned above. After all, they watched the team finish with the second best regular season record in the league and best record in the NFC. The rest of their NFC playoff field featured the:

• Lions, NFC North runner-up, who were beaten 42-21 in Week 16
• Giants, NFC East runner-up, whom they were swept by in Weeks 1 and 14
• Packers, NFC North champions, beaten 30-16 in Week 6
• Falcons, 11-5 NFC South champions
• Seahawks, 10-5-1 NFC West champions

--in my post that you quoted.

MarcusRock said:

By this antiquated "never been done before" logic, of your rookie QB is 17-0 during the season, you better sit him for the playoffs if you have a pretty good veteran on the team because, you know, no rookie's ever gone all the way before.

Gotta love slant.

Click to expand...

Football is always about many variables working together and/or factoring towards a single goal. Gameplan. Every player. Execution. Coaches and their in-game adjustments. Etc. Even weather. How well or poorly all variables work together determine wins, loses or even ties.

Fair or unfair, quarterbacks play the most important position on the field. If Romo had been a variable in the divisional game against Green Bay, he could have performed so poorly that his effort would have helped the Pack rout Dallas. Similarly, Romo may have played near or at the level Prescott did and the team may have still lost the game. Romo might have played well enough to overcome the defense's effort, helped Dallas beat Green Bay, and then suffered defeat in the championship.

All these are what ifs that were never tested and cannot be proven. One certainty is that those possibilities cannot be logically dismissed solely on the recurring fragile counter-argument Romo would have played and suffered paralysis after the first snap. All of these are assumptions numbering more than one.

There are two additional certainties. First, the results of a rookie quarterback-led team in 2016. Second, the 2021 New England Patriots playoff defeat inflated the NFL rookie quarterback-led postseason record of reaching and/or winning the Super Bowl to 0-7. This record will eventually fall, barring the collapse of the NFL (or the world's destruction). All necessary variables will fall into place for that particular team. Sound coaching. Solid defense. Effective execution. Decent special teams play. Offensive proficiency. Etc. It is just a matter of time.

Unfortunately, there was zero reason to believe everything fell into play for Dallas in 2016. That was simply euphoria talking after witnessing a historic performance of a rookie quarterback during the regular season, leading the team to 13 wins. "Don't mess with team chemistry."

Considering the composition of the entire team, its youth, the coaching staff, etc., "Don't mess with team chemistry" equated to no chance of a Super Bowl appearance or possible championship. None. What actually happened in real life DID happen.

Six years later, there has been only a single member of CowboysZone, who admitted they had zero Super Bowl expectations that season and was completely happy with the quarterback change. I understand and fully respect that member's assessment made during (or even perhaps before) the 2016 regular season. They were sick and tired of Romo. The transition remedied that frustration. However, they did not allow themselves to get wrapped up in the illogical euphoria of that season--the widely held self-expectation that particular team would make NFL history.

How did this hypothetical 17-0 rookie quarterback become the starter? Did he beat the pretty good veteran starting quarterback in training camp? Preseason? Did his head coach go with his gut and made a gametime roster decision just before the first game of the season? Was the veteran hurt? Signed to the roster early or late? On suspension? Did the coach check the locker room complaint box for any note saying "I don't like the vet QB anymore?" Was he a fourth rounder draft pick? First rounder? Seventh rounder? Was he bagging groceries at some point before landing on the roster? Was the rest of the team contributing to the unbeaten streak? Were they a top 5 defense? Did the head coach attend Princeton? Did Jones pluck him from the Belichick coaching tree?

Hopefully that last paragraph alone prompts typing the word slant in your reply. My answer? If the 'pretty good veteran' is a Tony Romo? Scratch that. Not good enough. A John Elway? Never mind. Let's go for the gold. A Tom Brady?

Yeah. Romo. Elway. Brady. Fill in the blank for any "pretty good veteran." My slanted opinion would remain unchanged. There has been a single undefeated NFL team that won a Super Bowl. Led by a veteran quarterback. Another team almost pulled off the same feat but lost IN the Super Bowl. That team was led by a veteran quarterback also.

Yep. It would not surprise me if my slant outlives me. Of course, it would be my luck that Jones or one of his DNA kids enact the exact same decision based on zero odds again sometime before I die.



Go Cowboys.

DeathMonkey said:

What surprised me honestly was that after 2016, Romo asked for a QB contest and it was rejected. I think it was a Stephen Jones and Garrett move... I think they convinced Jerry. For salary cap reasons since Romo couldn't stay healthy. As good as Romo was, he was snake bit. Unfortunately, it is looking like Dak might be heading that way but he still has time to fix things.

Click to expand...

I agree. I don’t know how they convinced Jerry ti buy in but I for sure think it was more on JG and Stephen.

DandyDon52 said:

The year prior he played what 2 1/2 games then came back not healed for 1 1/2 games. had no star RB after murray left
if you want to compare dak and romo, compare romo 2014 to dak 2016 , about the same teams same coaches. both good years.

Click to expand...

I don’t believe Romo in 2016 was as good as Romo in 2014.

MarcusRock said:

Or perhaps they remembered that Dak beat Green Bay at Lambeau that very same season. You think they considered that at all? Lol.

By this antiquated "never been done before" logic, of your rookie QB is 17-0 during the season, you better sit him for the playoffs if you have a pretty good veteran on the team because, you know, no rookie's ever gone all the way before.

Gotta love slant.

Click to expand...

Exactly

Vtwin said:

lol

Click to expand...

Truth hurts.

DallasEast said:

Bold> Yes. I mentioned:

Perhaps they did know and thought to themselves their rookie quarterback and team was better than all those rookie QBs and their teams mentioned above. After all, they watched the team finish with the second best regular season record in the league and best record in the NFC. The rest of their NFC playoff field featured the:

• Lions, NFC North runner-up, who were beaten 42-21 in Week 16
• Giants, NFC East runner-up, whom they were swept by in Weeks 1 and 14
• Packers, NFC North champions, beaten 30-16 in Week 6
• Falcons, 11-5 NFC South champions
• Seahawks, 10-5-1 NFC West champions

--in my post that you quoted.Football is always about many variables working together and/or factoring towards a single goal. Gameplan. Every player. Execution. Coaches and their in-game adjustments. Etc. Even weather. How well or poorly all variables work together determine wins, loses or even ties.

Fair or unfair, quarterbacks play the most important position on the field. If Romo had been a variable in the divisional game against Green Bay, he could have performed so poorly that his effort would have helped the Pack rout Dallas. Similarly, Romo may have played near or at the level Prescott did and the team may have still lost the game. Romo might have played well enough to overcome the defense's effort, helped Dallas beat Green Bay, and then suffered defeat in the championship.

All these are what ifs that were never tested and cannot be proven. One certainty is that those possibilities cannot be logically dismissed solely on the recurring fragile counter-argument Romo would have played and suffered paralysis after the first snap. All of these are assumptions numbering more than one.

There are two additional certainties. First, the results of a rookie quarterback-led team in 2016. Second, the 2021 New England Patriots playoff defeat inflated the NFL rookie quarterback-led postseason record of reaching and/or winning the Super Bowl to 0-7. This record will eventually fall, barring the collapse of the NFL (or the world's destruction). All necessary variables will fall into place for that particular team. Sound coaching. Solid defense. Effective execution. Decent special teams play. Offensive proficiency. Etc. It is just a matter of time.

Unfortunately, there was zero reason to believe everything fell into play for Dallas in 2016. That was simply euphoria talking after witnessing a historic performance of a rookie quarterback during the regular season, leading the team to 13 wins. "Don't mess with team chemistry."

Considering the composition of the entire team, its youth, the coaching staff, etc., "Don't mess with team chemistry" equated to no chance of a Super Bowl appearance or possible championship. None. What actually happened in real life DID happen.

Six years later, there has been only a single member of CowboysZone, who admitted they had zero Super Bowl expectations that season and was completely happy with the quarterback change. I understand and fully respect that member's assessment made during (or even perhaps before) the 2016 regular season. They were sick and tired of Romo. The transition remedied that frustration. However, they did not allow themselves to get wrapped up in the illogical euphoria of that season--the widely held self-expectation that particular team would make NFL history.

How did this hypothetical 17-0 rookie quarterback become the starter? Did he beat the pretty good veteran starting quarterback in training camp? Preseason? Did his head coach go with his gut and made a gametime roster decision just before the first game of the season? Was the veteran hurt? Signed to the roster early or late? On suspension? Did the coach check the locker room complaint box for any note saying "I don't like the vet QB anymore?" Was he a fourth rounder draft pick? First rounder? Seventh rounder? Was he bagging groceries at some point before landing on the roster? Was the rest of the team contributing to the unbeaten streak? Were they a top 5 defense? Did the head coach attend Princeton? Did Jones pluck him from the Belichick coaching tree?

Hopefully that last paragraph alone prompts typing the word slant in your reply. My answer? If the 'pretty good veteran' is a Tony Romo? Scratch that. Not good enough. A John Elway? Never mind. Let's go for the gold. A Tom Brady?

Yeah. Romo. Elway. Brady. Fill in the blank for any "pretty good veteran." My slanted opinion would remain unchanged. There has been a single undefeated NFL team that won a Super Bowl. Led by a veteran quarterback. Another team almost pulled off the same feat but IN the Super Bowl. That team was led by a veteran quarterback also.

Yep. It would not surprise me if my slant outlives me. Of course, it would be my luck that Jones or one of his DNA kids enact the exact same decision based on zero odds again sometime before I die.



Go Cowboys.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not reading all that. The kid was 13-2 before the glorified preseason finale and had beaten the Pack at Lambeau the very same season. The rook could hang and did. If the defense doesn't give up 34 when their season average was 19, we win.

rocyaice said:

I agree. I don’t know how they convinced Jerry ti buy in but I for sure think it was more on JG and Stephen.

Click to expand...

I doubt no one convinced Jones of anything but Jones. The guy looked like an exuberant, giggling like a little kid, all during games that season. No one had to convince Jones of dumping Romo on the curb as far as I am concerned. The motivation behind the decision was written all over his face.

MarcusRock said:

Yeah, not reading all that.

Click to expand...

Cool.

DallasEast said:

I doubt no one convinced Jones of anything but Jones. The guy looked like an exuberant, giggling like a little kid, all during games that season. No one had to convince Jones of dumping Romo on the curb as far as I am concerned. The motivation behind the decision was written all over his face.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Jerry is loyal to a fault. He just gave Romo that extension…..if it was all on him he would’ve stuck with Romo.

We're really doing this ? Romo had good teams many times, yet failed to get there. The team had already moved on to Dak. Maybe you should too, after six years.