Dak Prescott vs. Tony Romo

NotForLong said:

I love this Narrative . . . We sacrificed Winning a Super Bowl in 2016 because Romo was gonna die.

Click to expand...

That's not the only narrative being sold here.

When your QB throws for 300 yards, 3 TDs, and puts up 31 points he's not the reason you lost. The 2016 Cowboys lost in the playoffs for the same reason they usually lose in the playoffs - defense. It's hardly coincidence that the team has never won a playoff game when conceding 30+ points no matter who played QB - Meredith, Staubach, Aikman, Romo, Dak - none of them have managed it.

But none of that matters. Tony was gonna carry the Cowboys to a SB title in 2016 no matter how many points it took, even though he never did anything like that in the past. That's the narrative, and it can never be proven wrong, so it'll live on for years absent any evidence to support it.

Northern_Cowboy said:

If any of this were even remotely true then what could have been the rational for Jones and Garrett to keep Romo as the backup QB? I mean if Dak got hurt wouldn't they have had to put Romo in the game, thus putting him in a position to hurt his back which would result in the "probable paralysis" you talk about....LOL.

Click to expand...

Good question. It is a question best posed only to those who consistently claim:

a) Jones and Garrett 'knew' Romo was a hit away from permanent paralysis and
b) Romo should have embraced the backup role despite wanting to be the starter again

It's tricky. Not everyone has taken that particular stance involving those two specific criteria. Some have. Others have argued point A and not point B. Still others have argued point B without clarifying whether they believed point A was even valid. More have differing variations on the pre-destined severed spine argument.

My post was not so much about who--namely anyone outside the front office inner circle--thought what. It was more about simply questioning why the decision makers, Jones and Garrett, made the determination, allegedly, to not play Romo, in order to 'save him from being paralyzed', yet followed with a 180 degree reversal from the earlier decision by permitting Romo an opportunity of experiencing a swan song possession despite the unquestionable 'ever present' life debilitating danger.

The two decisions were self-conflicting if injury was the key element of their decision making process. The question is why were the opposing decisions made?

Logic suggests the separate decisions corroborate with each other based on another factor that had little or nothing to do with the neverending self-perpetuating Ironside fallacy. An alternative and logical conclusion is that a general manager and head coach witnessed their franchise quarterback get injured, saw the promise in a drafted fourth round quarterback, watched that fourth round quarterback's promise blossom into a historic defining reality, and gambled that benching the backup quarterback in favor of the previous starting quarterback would ruin all chance of reaching and/or winning Super Bowl LI...

...despite knowing the odds of any rookie quarterback leading any team to any championship game or winning any championship in the National Football League are practically zero.

My own opinion remains unchanged. Jones found his new franchise quarterback. He no longer needed his old franchise quarterback. And, in his mind, discarded old for new, probably as early as mid-October 2016. Garrett was likely even more simple. His offense continued running well with the new quarterback. He has always demonstrated a one-track coaching mindset. Romo would not change his 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' way of thinking.

DallasEast said:

Good question. It is a question best posed only to those who consistently claim:

a) Jones and Garrett 'knew' Romo was a hit away from permanent paralysis and
b) Romo should have embraced the backup role despite wanting to be the starter again

It's tricky. Not everyone has taken that particular stance involving those two specific criteria. Some have. Others have argued point A and not point B. Still others have argued point B without clarifying whether they believed point A was even valid. More have differing variations on the pre-destined severed spine argument.

My post was not so much about who--namely anyone outside the front office inner circle--thought what. It was more about simply questioning why the decision makers, Jones and Garrett, made the determination, allegedly, to not play Romo, in order to 'save him from being paralyzed', yet followed with a 180 degree reversal from the earlier decision by permitting Romo an opportunity of experiencing a swan song possession despite the unquestionable 'ever present' life debilitating danger.

The two decisions were self-conflicting if injury was the key element of their decision making process. The question is why were the opposing decisions made?

Logic suggests the separate decisions corroborate with each other based on another factor that had little or nothing to do with the neverending self-perpetuating Ironside fallacy. An alternative and logical conclusion is that a general manager and head coach witnessed their franchise quarterback get injury, saw the promise in a drafted fourth round quarterback, watched that fourth round quarterback's promise blossom into a historic defining reality, and gambled that benching the backup quarterback for previous starting quarterback would ruin all chance of reaching and/or winning Super Bowl LI...

...despite knowing the odds of any rookie quarterback leading any team to any championship game or winning any championship in the National Football League are practically zero.

My own opinion remains unchanged. Jones found his new franchise quarterback. He no longer needed his old franchise quarterback. And, in his mind, discarded old for new, probably as early as mid-October 2016. Garrett was likely even more simple. His offense continued running well with the new quarterback. He has always demonstrated a one-track coaching mindset. Romo would not change his 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' way of thinking.

Click to expand...

This is why i have always maintained that the decision was based more on money, cap implications and a way to get out of Romo's deal faster and cheaper, with a QB on a 4th round rookie deal it didn't really change what funds the team was allocating to the position in regards to the cap, having said that it wouldn't have made a difference to the team or cap had they given Romo his starting job back in 2016 and then made the switch to Dak in 2017, unless of course Romo took the team on a very deep run in 2016 and wanted to come back for 2017, which is why i think the decision was made in 2016 and money was the major factor

When your franchise QB has a long history of coming up short and getting injured, it makes sense why any staff would decide to keep a young QB who's playing very well and the team is winning.
Simple as that. None of this "one hit away" crap. When you get handed a gift at QB - you take it.
The money Romo was getting probably played a role being that he's missed significant time in his career.
Prescott did something very few have done, win 13 games as a rookie and that's with a mediocre defense.

It was a pure blast while it lasted, but Romo shouldn't somehow be propelled into the HOF for a ROH career. It's time to move on.

Neither one is a Super Bowl caliber player.

Northern_Cowboy said:

This is why i have always maintained that the decision was based more on money, cap implications and a way to get out of Romo's deal faster and cheaper, with a QB on a 4th round rookie deal it didn't really change what funds the team was allocating to the position in regards to the cap, having said that it wouldn't have made a difference to the team or cap had they given Romo his starting job back in 2016 and then made the switch to Dak in 2017, unless of course Romo took the team on a very deep run in 2016 and wanted to come back for 2017, which is why i think the decision was made in 2016 and money was the major factor

Click to expand...

I understand your opinion. A few have shared it. I do not. Frankly, I never considered Jones as that type of calculating individual. In my opinion, Jones always wants to win. Jones always wants to win his way. Jones always wanted to win his way and Romo had always been his best option to achieve that goal. Suddenly Prescott presented Jones with another option and he dropped Romo like a hot rock.

I believe Jones would have been running the Dallas Cowboys more like a conventional NFL franchise decades ago if he was that mentally invested in salary cap health--even concerning the most salary cap devoted position of quarterback. In fact, I think everyone will witness Jones' own philosophy involving both his team's salary cap and paying his starting quarterback in the short-term future.

Does anyone seriously think Dak would have replaced Romo if he was in his prime? Injuries was the only reason Dak replaced Romo. If Dak goes down you roll the dice but the season's over anyway.

Northern_Cowboy said:

This is why i have always maintained that the decision was based more on money, cap implications and a way to get out of Romo's deal faster and cheaper, with a QB on a 4th round rookie deal it didn't really change what funds the team was allocating to the position in regards to the cap, having said that it wouldn't have made a difference to the team or cap had they given Romo his starting job back in 2016 and then made the switch to Dak in 2017, unless of course Romo took the team on a very deep run in 2016 and wanted to come back for 2017, which is why i think the decision was made in 2016 and money was the major factor

Click to expand...

The problem is that they still had to give Romo money in 2017. If he wasn’t under contract, then you could hardly blame them for moving on. Instead they had a charge on their 2017 salary cap for a player who wasn’t doing anything, and they were getting inferior QB play to boot (Dak’s 2017 was the worst full QB season for the Cowboys since the days of Quincy Carter).
Dak is an inferior dink and dunk QB who won’t even be in the league in a few years. He was making peanuts, so it made little sense to pretend like he had to ascend to the top of the depth chart unless Romo was completely off the books. Dak’s awful 2017 was the just reward for the front office/Garrett’s brainless bumbling.

Section446 said:

Neither one is a Super Bowl caliber player.

Click to expand...

You are one of a few posters who never flip-flopped in your own philosophy about the players when Romo was replaced by Prescott. I do not totally agree but do completely respect your position.

PA Cowboy Fan said:

Does anyone seriously think Dak would have replaced Romo if he was in his prime? Injuries was the only reason Dak replaced Romo. If Dak goes down you roll the dice but the season's over anyway.

Click to expand...

I think you're right, but even Romo in hi prime underachieved using the same excuses that aren't afforded to Prescott.

PA Cowboy Fan said:

Does anyone seriously think Dak would have replaced Romo if he was in his prime? Injuries was the only reason Dak replaced Romo. If Dak goes down you roll the dice but the season's over anyway.

Click to expand...

Dak did't actually replace romo. He replaced Romo's backup. Moore took over for Romo and Dak wasn't allowed to sniff the field untill Moore got hurt. That's right no one remembers Dak couldn't even beat out his now coordinator in practice.

Sure Tony talked them into letting him play a series against the Eagles so the league could see he was still able to play and keep his options open . The risk of playing a series vs leading a team through an entire NFL season is 2 different things , but hey some guys here try to compare the risk of playing golf to being slammed to the ground by 300 lb men.

After much thought and deliberation he decided it wasn't worth the risk and retired .

Bench Race it to death but as competitive a man as Tony is he would have been playing if he was NFL healthy . If there was no health issue Tony Romo would have been on the field his skills and ability to read Defenses were at there peak . You can hear from the broadcast booth nobody in football can analyze a game like he can . He was one of the most accurate passers in NFL history .

How anyone cant believe there would have been a big market for a healthy Tony Romo then and now is beyond me . If he could stay on the field he would be on the field PERIOD!!!

charron said:

Dak did't actually replace romo. He replaced Romo's backup. Moore took over for Romo and Dak wasn't allowed to sniff the field untill Moore got hurt. That's right no one remembers Dak couldn't even beat out his now coordinator in practice.

Click to expand...

But we all remember that this coaching staff doesn't know a good thing until it hits them in the face. It took Dak playing lights out to wake them up.

charron said:

Dak did't actually replace romo. He replaced Romo's backup. Moore took over for Romo and Dak wasn't allowed to sniff the field untill Moore got hurt. That's right no one remembers Dak couldn't even beat out his now coordinator in practice.

Click to expand...

Dak did replace Romo. Moore was hurt in early August that year making Dak the back up early on in training camp. Romo was injured in late August, making Dak the starter.

Blackrain said:

Sure Tony talked them into letting him play a series against the Eagles so the league could see he was still able to play and keep his options open . The risk of playing a series vs leading a team through an entire NFL season is 2 different things

Click to expand...

Here is the 'logic'.

#1 - It is extremely probable Romo was medically cleared to play before the first Eagles, Browns, Steelers and Raven games, the second Washington, the Vikings, the second Giants, the Buccaneers and Lions games and was not allowed to play neither a single series nor even a single down during any of those games due to an overwhelming concern that Romo would be paralyzed because the risk was too high as compared to the actual single series he was allowed to play in the second Eagles game.

#2 - The actual possibility of an injury is not dependent on a player being on the field during any given live play. In 'truth', the risk of injury itself is negligible since any given player can be allowed onto the field 'at the right scheduled time'. The latter is not considered the exception of probability but actual quantifiable fact since a real time and place where any injury shall occur can be foreseen beforehand.

#3 - It is maintained Jones and Garrett strong reasoning blocked Romo from playing due to their belief Romo would get tackled and suffer a debilitating life-long injury. They were overly protective of Romo because they feared for his well-being. They literally stonewalled Romo because they did what was best for him. Yet, it is also maintained that Romo sweet talked Jones and Garrett, overcame their grave unflinching concerns for Romo's health, and bowed to Romo's wishes into allowing him to play one last time so he could keep his future NFL goals viable. Not the team's goals. No. Romo's future NFL goals. All of the above 'happened' even though it is highly likely Romo had spoken with Jones and Garrett about his non-football career goals at some time leading up to or on November 15, 2016 when he made his concession/non-distraction speech.



Cannot beat that logic.

Aviano90 said:

Dak did replace Romo. Moore was hurt in early August that year making Dak the back up early on in training camp. Romo was injured in late August, making Dak the starter.

Click to expand...

oops got the years mixed Moore played in 2015. But still Dak only jumped ahead of Moore due to injury not ability as shown in training camp.

charron said:

oops got the years mixed Moore played in 2015. But still Dak only jumped ahead of Moore due to injury not ability as shown in training camp.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the significance of your statement is, except to try and bash Dak. Moore didn't make it through a week of practice. He didn't even make it to the Blue/White scrimmage, let alone preseason games. There was no time for Dak to rise up the QB depth chart by the time Moore was injured.

But, if it is that important to you, you really are correct. By the time Moore got injured very early in training camp, Dak was still behind him on the depth cart.

DallasEast said:

It has been three years and a contradiction remains unacknowledged by those who claim none exists.

Jones and Garrett denied Romo the opportunity to reclaim the starting job as the team headed into the postseason.

Romo's health is repeatedly stated as Jones and Garrett's partial (sometimes said as sole) reasoning for what they did. Both men did what they did to "remove any chance of Romo suffering another injury that would result in highly probable paralysis."

Yet

The team's head coach and highly invasively influential general manager, two men who effectively ended Romo's career in Dallas with their decision, allowed Romo to take the field against the Eagles afterwards.

In a regular season game.

In a National Football League game.

Against an opponent who not only had some degree of animosity towards the Cowboys franchise but also did not share any degree of compassion for Prescott's long-time predecessor. Neither Jones nor Garrett could be manhandled by Romo's desire to play one last time (that much cannot be argued by anyone), especially if their greatest concern was keeping Romo from becoming a quadriplegic.

Regardless, Romo "talked" Jones and Garrett into letting him play--the exact same two men he could not talk into letting him play.

Maybe both men made some non public agreement with the Eagles to not lay a finger on Romo. Perhaps they foresaw all the Eagles' defensive backups' hearts swell with empathy and knew without any doubt none would want to crack Romo's severely degenerative back (his medical records were blasted throughout the internet/everybody knew his physical condition/still do) like an egg. They were 100% positive Romo would live to see Candice and the kids while standing on his own two feet later that day and not from an intensive care unit bed unable to wiggle his toes.

Yes. The logical rationalization is two men, who cared for Romo more than a son or brother, allowed him to step on the field one last time, to play a possession in one of the most physically demanding professional team sports in the world, against a franchise whose fans infamously laughed like adolescents as Irvin laid sprawled hurt on the field, where tens of thousands of injuries have occurred over the course of NFL history in the blink of an eye.

Makes perfect sense. To some.

Go Cowboys.

Click to expand...

I could buy that, I would see Garret and Jerry in a very positive way if that were the case.
Saying that, it doesn`t make sense, why would Romo `s and Garrett`s relationship end because of what happened that year, it was my understandong that Garrett simply didn`t give Romo a chance to compete because they were having a good season with Dak.
I just don`t understand why would Romo turn on Garrett if all he was doing was watching his back, doesn`t make sense.

Coy said:

I could buy that, I would see Garret and Jerry in a very positive way if that were the case.
Saying that, it doesn`t make sense, why would Romo `s and Garrett`s relationship end because of what happened that year, it was my understandong that Garrett simply didn`t give Romo a chance to compete because they were having a good season with Dak.
I just don`t understand why would Romo turn on Garrett if all he was doing was watching his back, doesn`t make sense.

Click to expand...

I did not dive deeply into any information that was made public about any rift that may have developed between Romo and Garrett. However, I will offer speculation dealing with a wedge developing between both men based on my opinion of what happened that season hypothetically from Romo's point-of-view.

Hypothesis: Romo judged himself as physically healthy enough to play. He viewed the physicians' determination of his physical condition as convincing enough for anyone, including the head coach. He believed his skills were equal to Prescott's. He had a long time to evaluate how well the offense was performing, likely as well or better than it performed two seasons before. He assumed he could be the final piece in getting the team where everyone associated with the Cowboys wanted it to be after so long--in Super Bowl LI.

Romo asked when would Garrett put him back in as starter. At some point, Garrett told Romo he would stick with Prescott. [Now comes the hazy part which I will guess based on the alleged phobic concerns of his back]. Romo asked Garrett why he would not reinstate him. Garrett stated he would not put Romo back in because he thought another tackle would cripple him. Romo argued that would not happen and the doctor's diagnosis supported that Garrett's fear was unwarranted. Garrett re-emphasized that he did not want to risk Romo's health for him or his family. Romo self-evaluated the conversation, came to the conclusion Garrett would not be swayed, vehemently disagreed with Garrett's decision, and lost respect for Garrett because of the disagreement.

----------------------

I do not totally agree with my own hypothesis. While I do agree both men spoke about the condition of Romo's back, I also believe his back was a minor discussion point. In my opinion, the bulk of his conversation with Garrett (and likely Jones as well) dealt with their full confidence in Prescott's ability to lead the team and orchestrate wins, just as he had already demonstrated halfway through his rookie season. It would not surprise me one bit if his conversation with Garrett, and additional conversation with Jones, were inspirational in his famously describing how the events fell into place as a meritocracy.

Aviano90 said:

Not sure what the significance of your statement is, except to try and bash Dak. Moore didn't make it through a week of practice. He didn't even make it to the Blue/White scrimmage, let alone preseason games. There was no time for Dak to rise up the QB depth chart by the time Moore was injured.

But, if it is that important to you, you really are correct. By the time Moore got injured very early in training camp, Dak was still behind him on the depth cart.

Click to expand...

Reports were out that we might not even keep a 3rd QB. Dak was terrible in practice. Obviously things looked better when it mattered.