What would have a healthy Romo done in 2016?

MountaineerCowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
61,908
I don't know if we win the Super Bowl, but we would've at least beat Green Bay.

If I remember correctly wasn't Green Bay missing their 2 starting CBs that game?

Romo would have known how to take advantage of that and wouldn't have waited until we're already down 28-13 going into the 4th quarter to do anything.

Dak was being Dak all the way back in year 1. Do nothing for 3 quarters, go down by a few TDs, and then put up empty stats in a losing effort to bring the game closer and give his fangirls something to brag about.
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,216
Reaction score
8,419
Any competent veteran QB has a decided advantage over 99.9% of all rookies.

I too don't think there is any chance we lose to GB. ATL is a tougher call but I would give us the edge.

I doubt we win the SB primarily because of our defensive woes but a healthy Tony to keep the Pats defense honest would give us a shot.
 

Hawkeye0202

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,011
Reaction score
42,494
Had Romo never gotten hurt in 2016, what would have the Cowboys done in 2016? A healthy Romo all season.

Looking back, it's obvious Romo's body was done. He would not have played 16 games. He knew it and the league reminded him if he didn't. No team was willing to trade for him, not one, even a for a 7th-round pick. Only two teams showed mild interest, Texans and Bronco but Elway directly said only as a free agent, no draft picks.
 

MountaineerCowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
61,908
Any competent veteran QB has a decided advantage over 99.9% of all rookies.

I too don't think there is any chance we lose to GB. ATL is a tougher call but I would give us the edge.

I doubt we win the SB primarily because of our defensive woes but a healthy Tony to keep the Pats defense honest would give us a shot.
Atlanta beat the breaks off Green Bay because they had a QB that knew what he was doing and did it from quarter 1.
 

thunderpimp91

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,904
Reaction score
14,897
As long as he avoided the untimely INT the Cowboys may have been superbowl bound. Tony Romo was sooooo good and so much fun to watch until disaster struck.

It was always so much fun to watch Romo run an offense. How well the guy understands the game is really underrated. And to be honest the Cowboys 2016 offense was so simplistic with a rookie Dak. So many empty backfield shotgun formations. Not saying that as a bad thing or a knock on Dak, but the Cowboys were very vanilla and utilized formations that forced defenses to show their hands. It's what you should do with a rookie QB. I'm very curious what a healthy Romo could have done with that unit, especially with a rookie Zeke and one of the best Olines in Cowboys history.
 

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,426
Reaction score
26,192
At that point in his career, it's a fairytale suggesting he would remain healthy. I mean, it's why he lost his job. So it's hard to imagine this particular "what if" game. But other than the injury topic, there's absolutely no reason Romo couldn't have helped win 12 or 13 games. It opens up other possibilities though. Would the team have responded the way it did when Prescott took over? Maybe, but maybe not.
 

fivetwos

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,056
Reaction score
25,881
Had Romo never gotten hurt in 2016, what would have the Cowboys done in 2016? A healthy Romo all season.
My best guess....they go 11-5 or 10-6.

Don't get bye, lose in first round. At best, win that first game and lose in the same round they did anyway.

Zekes high level play and the way Dak was used that year made an average at best defense be pretty effective by keeping them off the field and less exposed.

Everything came together, very unexpectedly.

I couldn't even enjoy that season because I knew a rookie QB wasn't winning it all. I wanted to go back to Romo in December but I see why they didn't at the time.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,207
Reaction score
15,282
I don't know if we win the Super Bowl, but we would've at least beat Green Bay.

If I remember correctly wasn't Green Bay missing their 2 starting CBs that game?

Romo would have known how to take advantage of that and wouldn't have waited until we're already down 28-13 going into the 4th quarter to do anything.

Dak was being Dak all the way back in year 1. Do nothing for 3 quarters, go down by a few TDs, and then put up empty stats in a losing effort to bring the game closer and give his fangirls something to brag about.
agree, I think if they beat GB it was Seattle next, then NE in SB.
they could have gone all the way, and for sure beat GB.
 

Hawkeye0202

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,011
Reaction score
42,494
At that point in his career, it's a fairytale suggesting he would remain healthy. I mean, it's why he lost his job. So it's hard to imagine this particular "what if" game. But other than the injury topic, there's absolutely no reason Romo couldn't have helped win 12 or 13 games. It opens up other possibilities though. Would the team have responded the way it did when Prescott took over? Maybe, but maybe not.

+1 ..I think the real question is how far the team would have gone if he returned as the starter. I have always said, a healthy Romo was better than Dak.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,210
Reaction score
95,767
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I don't know if we win the Super Bowl, but we would've at least beat Green Bay.

If I remember correctly wasn't Green Bay missing their 2 starting CBs that game?

Romo would have known how to take advantage of that and wouldn't have waited until we're already down 28-13 going into the 4th quarter to do anything.

Dak was being Dak all the way back in year 1. Do nothing for 3 quarters, go down by a few TDs, and then put up empty stats in a losing effort to bring the game closer and give his fangirls something to brag about.

I think we would have beaten GB with Tony. Who knows after that. But there were some plays they kept going to with Dak in there, and GB was waiting for them and had a pick that prevented a TD or at least a FG. To me that was the game changer.
That play never would have been repeated with Tony, as many times as it was. Or at least with more experience, Tony would not have thrown the pass.
I am talking about that stupid out pass where the WR catches it and tries to run between defenders.

That year though Dak and the TEAM was on a roll. Dak struggled in the game against Cleveland. I thought then it was time for Tony to come back in after that game. But they decided to stay with Dak.
My friend and I still talk about that scenario. Well he brings it up, but I agree.
 

MountaineerCowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,330
Reaction score
61,908
I think we would have beaten GB with Tony. Who knows after that. But there were some plays they kept going to with Dak in there, and GB was waiting for them and had a pick that prevented a TD or at least a FG. To me that was the game changer.
That play never would have been repeated with Tony, as many times as it was. Or at least with more experience, Tony would not have thrown the pass.
I am talking about that stupid out pass where the WR catches it and tries to run between defenders.

That year though Dak and the TEAM was on a roll. Dak struggled in the game against Cleveland. I thought then it was time for Tony to come back in after that game. But they decided to stay with Dak.
My friend and I still talk about that scenario. Well he brings it up, but I agree.
I'm not mad that they stuck with the hot hand, but a lot of people like to believe that they stuck with Dak because he was better than Romo. He wasn't at all.

They were just trying to keep the hot hand rolling and I didn't have a problem with it.

Looking back I bet they wish they went back to Romo, but oh well, what is done is done.
 
Top