Dave Moore on Romo/Garrett relationship

fgoodwin said:

Since Romo moved into the Cowboys starting lineup in October 2006, he's presided over three division titles, landed four Pro Bowl appearances, played hurt and echoed Garrett's message in the locker room. All it took was nine strong weeks and an 8-1 start by rookie Dak Prescott to wipe that away.

Click to expand...

'Nine strong weeks' is a conservative observation on Moore's part in my opinion. It's likely Romo's era ended with Garrett at or before the Green Bay game a month earlier. The team's success probably cemented that decision during that four-week span before Romo's statement.

fgoodwin said:

Romo's comments were universally applauded. But again, he went to Dalrymple, not Garrett. The Cowboys head coach was put in the position of praising a statement he had no idea his quarterback was going to give. The fact that Romo didn't run his comments by Garrett or inform him as a courtesy was a slap to his authority.

Click to expand...

lol. So Jerry Jones isn't the only person capable of secretly running around The Star without the head coach's knowledge.

I bet both Garrett and Jones signed off on Romo giving his speech as a public relations move intended to counter some public and mostly media driven voiced curiosity that had been aired for over a month about what exactly was going on in Romo's head. The yammering wasn't going to go away--even with the late casually voiced acknowledgements during informal media interviews made by Garrett and Jones that Prescott was the permanent starter beforehand.

The presentation of The Statement was another bundled opportunity by the team during a highly favorable year for success. The nonsense could have nipped in the butt during the bye week following the Packers game. A formal press conference held by Garrett alone, with pre-input from Romo for personal thoughts, would have been perfect. The media would have had their field day and the topic dialogue would've died down from that point forward.

I'm still surprised Jones didn't do a formal press conference himself or in conjunction with Romo. It would've been typical Jones if he had. Of course, maybe Jones was thinking about it but Romo beat him to the punch. Perhaps Jones underestimated how sneaky anyone else could be using his facility for prepared statements to the media. Like "I DIDN'T know Romo was going to do THAT!!!" Too funny.

From the start, I've never liked the idea of a clique existing between our HC, owner and QB. It's clearly an unhealthy scenario on any team.

Bullflop said:

From the start, I've never liked the idea of a clique existing between our HC, owner and QB. It's clearly an unhealthy scenario on any team.

Click to expand...

Really isn't uncommon within sports in general (HC, Owner and best player) and football in particular Bullflop. I don't really have an issue with it to be honest.

slick325 said:

Really isn't uncommon within sports in general (HC, Owner and best player) and football in particular Bullflop. I don't really have an issue with it to be honest.

Click to expand...

It also isn't uncommon for the players that aren't privy to being included in that clique to object to the idea that their QB gets special treatment.

Tom Landry was keenly aware of that idea and made certain not to go there throughout his career. I believe he was wise to choose that route.

Bullflop said:

It also isn't uncommon for the players that aren't privy to being included in that clique to object to the idea that their QB gets special treatment.

Click to expand...

I think most football players accept and know that QB's are always treated differently. Starts at the Pop Warner level and lasts until the last day most players put on a uniform. If the QB isn't that good or isn't a decent locker room guy then stars at other positions may grumble and their cliques may agree but for the most part the franchise QB will always be treated differently. Shoot, they wear a different color jersey in practice, that makes them standout in and of itself. The position makes the most money too and is considered the most important position in the sport.

The Owner, HC and franchise QB relationship will always be different than others in the locker room.

DallasEast said:

The Yimyammering wasn't going to go away

Click to expand...

FYP

slick325 said:

I think most football players accept and know that QB's are always treated differently. Starts at the Pop Warner level and lasts until the last day most players put on a uniform. If the QB isn't that good or isn't a decent locker room guy then stars at other positions may grumble and their cliques may agree but for the most part the franchise QB will always be treated differently. Shoot, they wear a different color jersey in practice, that makes them standout in and of itself. The position makes the most money too and is considered the most important position in the sport.

The Owner, HC and franchise QB relationship will always be different than others in the locker room.

Click to expand...

The fact that it exists and isn't openly approached by the players doesn't mean that festering dissatisfaction doesn't exist as well. Players avoid openly complaining about it due to the fact that it also involves those in control as well as their QB. It's best to avoid such scenarios developing.

Bullflop said:

The fact that it exists and isn't openly approached by the players doesn't mean that festering dissatisfaction doesn't exist as well. Players avoid openly complaining about it due to the fact that it also involves those in control as well as their QB. It's best to avoid such scenarios developing.

Click to expand...

Won't argue with you on that Bullflop. It would be tough to take that stance. Ask T.O.

slick325 said:

Won't argue with you on that Bullflop. It would be tough to take that stance. Ask T.O.

Click to expand...

Exactly, although I'm sure T.O. was a rare exception to let his thoughts go public as he did. It was surely as foolish as it was bold.

Bullflop said:

It also isn't uncommon for the players that aren't privy to being included in that clique to object to the idea that their QB gets special treatment.

Tom Landry was keenly aware of that idea and made certain not to go there throughout his career. I believe he was wise to choose that route.

Click to expand...

True, and when both Don Meredith and Roger Staubach talked to Landry post-retirement, hoping he'd ask them to come back, both were disappointed (but not surprised) when he didn't.

fgoodwin said:

True, and when both Don Meredith and Roger Staubach talked to Landry post-retirement, hoping he'd ask them to come back, both were disappointed (but not surprised) when he didn't.

Click to expand...

Tom was also fanatical about the idea that his system was more important than the players and according to Roger, it has much to do with his willingness to let both of them go as he did. I think both of them were also at a point where their best days were behind them. They were still two of my favorite Dalas QBs, nevertheless.

kevm3 said:

Defense lost Green Bay, not the offense. We would have gotten lit up by Atlanta, New England, if we even got past Green Bay with Romo.

Click to expand...

It's amazing the amount of posters that really believe Dallas would have beaten Atlanta and New England, had Romo started instead of Dak. The Dallas defense would have been torched by either one of those teams. I don't care if Joe Montana in his prime had started for Dallas, that defense was not stopping Atlanta or New England.

slick325 said:

Really isn't uncommon within sports in general (HC, Owner and best player) and football in particular Bullflop. I don't really have an issue with it to be honest.

Click to expand...

If the clique results in World Championships then I don't think to many of us would have a problem with it. When it doesn't lead to any team accomplishments, then expect criticism.

Here's a juicy thought -- perhaps Garrett has wanted a new QB for some time, and was just working with what he had because Romo was pretty good after all.

Bullflop said:

Tom was also fanatical about the idea that his system was more important than the players and according to Roger, it has much to do with his willingness to let both of them go as he did. I think both of them were also at a point where their best days were behind them. They were still two of my favorite Dalas QBs, nevertheless.

Click to expand...

Landry was a pure football guy and had rare insight into the game and was right about system over players. He certainly forced Roger out and replaced him with Danny because Danny suited his style. I agree that it was time for change and also was very fond of all the old Cowboys QB's.

haleyrules said:

You could look at it another way also...Tony lost his job to the performance of Prescott. It is a very similiar concept. I was very surprised that Jerry didn't force Tony back in last season when he was supposedly healthy. The club seemed ready to move on for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

Exactly..............I am still very surprised that after what, 14 years or so, that the team basically washed their hands of Romo after an 8 game winning streak by a rookie. And this is not taking a shot at Dak, he played extremely well, I am just saying that I am surprised that 8 games by a rookie wipes out 14 years, that's all.

I still am of the belief that a player does not lose his job to injury, it just creates a bad vibe with the team. It encourages players to either hide injuries or play with injuries they really shouldn't be playing with. It also sends a message to the players that they are replaceable at any time so they better get the $$$ while they can.

With the exception of Twill, I didn't see any of our starters who walked out the door giving us any type of hometown discount. Not saying the Romo thing had anything to do with it, just saying that when the team sends the message that you can be replaced at any time for any reason, including injury, why would a player not go chase the $$$ while he can? This is a business after all, correct?

Beast_from_East said:

Exactly..............I am still very surprised that after what, 14 years or so, that the team basically washed their hands of Romo after an 8 game winning streak by a rookie. And this is not taking a shot at Dak, he played extremely well, I am just saying that I am surprised that 8 games by a rookie wipes out 14 years, that's all.

I still am of the belief that a player does not lose his job to injury, it just creates a bad vibe with the team. It encourages players to either hide injuries or play with injuries they really shouldn't be playing with. It also sends a message to the players that they are replaceable at any time so they better get the $$$ while they can.

With the exception of Twill, I didn't see any of our starters who walked out the door giving us any type of hometown discount. Not saying the Romo thing had anything to do with it, just saying that when the team sends the message that you can be replaced at any time for any reason, including injury, why would a player not go chase the $$$ while he can? This is a business after all, correct?

Click to expand...

I remember when this forum complained about entitled players who were guaranteed roster spots and starting spots.

Beast_from_East said:

Exactly..............I am still very surprised that after what, 14 years or so, that the team basically washed their hands of Romo after an 8 game winning streak by a rookie. And this is not taking a shot at Dak, he played extremely well, I am just saying that I am surprised that 8 games by a rookie wipes out 14 years, that's all.

I still am of the belief that a player does not lose his job to injury, it just creates a bad vibe with the team. It encourages players to either hide injuries or play with injuries they really shouldn't be playing with. It also sends a message to the players that they are replaceable at any time so they better get the $$$ while they can.

With the exception of Twill, I didn't see any of our starters who walked out the door giving us any type of hometown discount. Not saying the Romo thing had anything to do with it, just saying that when the team sends the message that you can be replaced at any time for any reason, including injury, why would a player not go chase the $$$ while he can? This is a business after all, correct?

Click to expand...

Of course. I am curious to know exactly why the Club didn't go back to Romo. It really didn't make logical sense to me at the time. There has to be more to this story than Prescott playing so well. Romo lost the confidence of the FO? Was it only money driven...did Tony lose the team. Are his injuries far more serious than the public knows...there is something more to this story.

TwoDeep3 said:

I am not a Garrett fan, but have made peace with him being here. I hold out hope i am wrong and this guy becomes somewhat close to Tom Landry. I also am holding out hope Jennifer Lawrence gives up Hollywood and seeks me out as her older man while lavishing her millions on me.

However, I find it interesting that both Murray, and now Romo were ditched by Garrett and soon will complete the transition of the latter being gone. No conspiracy theory, simply one of life's little conundrums.

Click to expand...

Garrett ever being somewhat close to Landry............BAAAAAAAAAWAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAA